Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-12-1999PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1999 PRESENT: FRANK MIGNONE, BRUCE WORKMAN, CAROLYN SMITH, SUSIE MACKAY, LENNY LEUER, ELIZABETH WEIR AND JERRY BROST. ALSO PRESENT WERE COUNCILMEMBER PHIL ZIETLOW AND PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LOREN KOHNEN. ABSENT: KATHY COOK Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 1. C.C. & M. PARTNERSHIP - 300 HIGHWAY #55 - SUBDIVISION OF 1 - 1 ACRE LOT PLUS 1 OUTLOT OF APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES - PUBLIC HEARING Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission and put up overheads of the area. Lenny Leuer said that this parcel had been discussed in the comprehensive plan discussions and here we have less than 1/4 of it that is coming into the first lot subdivision. Is it appropriate to ask about an overlay of this parcel. L. Kohnen asked the applicant this and Mr. Cates said they had no idea how the rest of it would be sold or split up. Probably what he would show you is all one acre lots. Frank Mignone said but he is prepared to put the road in for this one lot. L. Kohnen said yes up to here - pointing it out on the overhead. Susie Mackay wanted to know if the property extended all the way down to Hwy 55 and Loren said no - pointing out the property lines on the overhead. L. Leuer asked if there will be a NURP pond. L. Kohnen said they will have to build a NURP pond unless it can use Holiday's. Jerry Brost asked if he could have one acre lots. L. Kohnen said yes that is permitted - he meets the ordinance completely. L. Leuer asked Loren if he could see a hardship at all for creating this one lot for when he wants to do something else. L. Kohnen said no - most of his lot slopes down and this is a good stand alone lot. L. Leuer said because of the topography of this lot and knowing how much excavation went on for the Holiday, is this improvement on the lot going to force some kind of 1 hardship because they have the existing lot and the topography isn't going to allow them to build someplace else - how much excavation do you think they will be asking for this. L. Kohnen said not very much and pointed out on the overhead where they would take some off. This isn't like the Holiday site. L. Leuer said it is topographly higher than the Holiday station and Loren said that is correct. Lenny reiterated that we are not being asked about a business now, just the lot division and Loren said right. There was discussion of what business would be coming in for a conditional use permit. Loren mentioned that it would probably be coming to the planning commission in March or April and was a Valvoline oil change business - the back looks much like the front and excavation will not be a problem. L. Leuer said in looking at the right-of-way for Highway 55, he is looking at the SW corner where this lot jogs exceedingly close. Should we be asking for more ROW. L. Kohnen said that is why they have to talk to MnDOT. Before they come before the city council with their final plat, they will need a letter from MnDOT with their requirements. Loren said he did not think there would be anything required. L. Leuer asked Loren about his recommendation for an overlay or did you think it would just come back with a long skinny 1 acre lots leading off - - L. Kohnen said he thought that is all that would happen - he said that the applicant said he would have no idea until he know who was going to purchase the property. Jerry Brost asked if Clydesdale would extend to County Road 116. L. Kohnen said that at this time it will only go so far and he pointed it out on the overhead. He reiterated that the applicant would be responsible for building this to meet city standards. MOVED BY SUSIE MACKAY AND SECONDED BY BRUCE WORKMAN TO RECOMMEND THE SUBDIVISION OF A 1 ACRE LOT AND 1 OUTLOT FOR C.C. M. PARTNERSHIP WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans to be reviewed by Elm Creek Watershed District and MnDOT. 2. Clydesdale Trail and cul-de-sac to be built to meet city specs. 3. The old driveway to the southwest to be permanently closed. 4. Access to both properties will be by way of Clydesdale Trail 5. The old theater sign at the southwest entrance to completely removed. MOTION PASSED. 2 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS Loren Kohnen said that PCA has a requirement that Medina has it's own ordinance that adopts 7080. If we do not do that then the county would have to enforce the septic ordinances in our city. This is a model ordinance and I have talked to other cities and this is basically what they have done. Medina is more restrictive than the state ordinance in some respects. He went over parts of the ordinance, especially those parts where we were more restrictive like requiring more tanks than 7080 does, which is helpful when there is a problem. One of the other things is talking about additional soil requirements, having two septic sites, a primary and an alternate. Bruce Workman asked if that wouldn't make some sites that are out there non- conforming. L. Kohnen said it could, but stated that is our requirement now for existing lots, they have to be a certain size and you have to show that there are two septic sites. B. Workman wanted to know what happens when a septic system fails and there is no second site on an existing parcel. L. Kohnen said they have to go with an experimental system. He said that is in the ordinance that the only times an experimental system may be used is when there is not an alternate site. He said there are many problems with the experimental systems - people and bankers are afraid of them. Susie Mackay said in our previous discussion we talked about size of pipes and manholes. L. Kohnen said that is all covered in 7080. It talks about exactly where the manholes have to be, etc. S. Mackay asked how will systems in Medina be upgraded to meet 7080. L. Kohnen said it will be on a case to case basis as needed. We are trying to change in the legislature, the term `failing' systems to `non -conforming' systems. He said we do have an ordinance that talks about maintenance using a card system, but PCA wants us to have all non -conforming systems replaced, but we are trying to help people keep what they have for ten years, unless you can have it inspected and have an inspection program then it can continue on forever until it is found to be an imminent health hazard. S. Mackay asked where this was in the ordinance - Loren pointed it out. The ordinance we are reading is not in the final wording? 3 L. Kohnen said the terminology is being changed - There is a whole list of what we would like changed in the terminology - failing means failing to meet standards. . S. Mackay asked if whatever we put in, will it mimic state law. L. Kohnen said yes - wording will be non -conforming. We are trying to make it so people understand the wording - S. Mackay will cards be sent out reminding people to have it inspected or pumped as per ordinance and signed. L. Kohnen said it was up to the city council. Carolyn Smith asked if it was already in our ordinance, why is it not being implemented now. L. Kohnen said it is a decision that someone else has to make, not the planning commission it is up to the city council. C. Smith asked if the council has chosen not to implement it - if it is in our ordinance - - L. Kohnen said maybe Phil remembers this - when we had the go around with the Met council last time - they said you WILL have it in your ordinance and at that time we decided to put it in the ordinance, but it did not mean we were necessarily going to enforce it. Phil Zietlow said that the Met Council is in our face and the Medina city council does not want to be in the face' of the residents. L. Kohnen said that we were not having that many failing systems in the city - we have some, every city has some, but Medina for some reason does not have as many as say Corcoran does. Scott Turner, 1285 Maplewood Drive, asked about changes of ownership and septic systems and what happens. L. Kohnen if a bank wants the system inspected - if we did not do anything - an older system would probably have to be replaced when there is a sale - most of it is required because in older systems there is not the proper separation. Jerry Brost asked how is the city aware of failing or non -conforming systems. L. Kohnen said the ones that come to the surface, they are imminent health hazard. J. Brost said I mean less than that, you just have a `technically' failed system. 4 L. Kohnen that when a house is sold, the seller would tell the new owner that the system is an older system - we do not have a point of sale that says it has to be upgraded. S. Mackay shouldn't we be doing that to watch out for the interest of the citizens - B. Workman said that lenders ask for inspections. C. Smith said that disclosure forms also ask for inspections. L. Kohnen said that when a property is split, it has to be shown that an existing system is compliant (working) - there are a lot of people who do not have compliant systems. B. Workman said that makes sense - you have to have septic systems that work J. Brost - is a non -conforming system polluting the environment or is it just a technical problem and would replacing just one component require a new system. L. Kohnen said that is normal repair and that is o.k. and a non -conforming system would not necessarily be a health hazard or polluting. J. Brost asked if the repairs are between the house and 1 tank, is that a failed system even if it is just a clogged pipe - that technically you are in a position to bring your entire system up - L. Kohnen said that would not be considered failing - you would just have to repair what needs repairing - if you do need a new system, it has to be up to code. J. Brost - if I need a new system, would I need a mound system? L. Kohnen said that would depend on the soils and the water table. There was further discussion of how and when a system has to be replaced and what kind of system. P. Zietlow said that in Orono everything has be up to code. J. Brost asked if there was anyway we can clarify for our residents what Medina's requirements are and know some basic information and know where to get information to that when they are told something they know if it is or is not correct. C. Smith said that we have to start protecting septic systems if we want to stay rural. Part of that is education. L. Kohnen said if you want to go to a card system you will have to educate the public with public hearings for the residents. 5 J. Brost said if I am understanding this language correctly, this is buying the residents more time as long as they do not have a system that is a health hazard. There was further discussion of who requires what - C. Smith said we are saving residents from the more aggressive costly requirements of the state of having to put in a new system. F. Mignone asked if pumpers needed a state license. L. Kohnen said yes, to do any kind of work on a septic system, a state license is needed. L. Leuer said yes and then asked if licensing ruled out do-it-yourself owners and Loren said no, but that the homeowner still needs a permit to do the work. There was further discussion of licensing, permits, inspections, etc. F. Mignone asked when we needed something on the books. L. Kohnen said January 1st, but he has talked with Mike Martindale with the PCA and he asked me to send him a copy of this draft and I have also explained some of what we have been doing. F. Mignone said this ordinance puts Medina more in control of septic systems instead of the county? L. Kohnen said yes, we can be more restrictive than the county in some cases. He said when you go on a maintenance program, you have to write a new ordinance. C. Smith said she would like to see a copy of 7080 of the state requirements. She said we also talked about having some definitions in this ordinance like `failing' or `non- conforming'. She said she did not want to adopt something that talks about failing when we mean non -conforming. B. Workman said he would suggest we adopt this ordinance and change it later on if we want to deal with some of the definitions. L. Kohnen said that we do have to adopt this soon and update it later if it needs to be. C. Smith said that we cannot change the wording at all? And Loren said no, not according to 7080 you can't. She asked if you could define it. L. Kohnen said you could put down failing is failing to meet the standards of 7080 - that would be the explanation. 6 F. Mignone said it is not mechanically failing and Loren said right. S. Mackay where in this does failing come in, just on page 2. L. Kohnen said correct. Susie said is there a reason we can't say `systems that are failing to comply'? B. Workman wanted to know what is wrong with what it says - `failing' S. Mackay said because it is confusing - it could be construed to mean not working. B. Workman said it is failing to meet all the requirements of a new system, so it J. Brost said a lay person is going to thing that a failing system is one that is not working. B. Workman said but it also allows them ten years to get it fixed. C. Smith said Loren just said not to use the work failing. L. Kohnen said they are going to change the wording - it doesn't pay to put an explanation. S. Mackay said why can't you just say `failing -non -conforming'. L. Kohnen said it says failing, those that are not compliant, so it almost does say that. He said when a compliant check is done, it is explained to people what failing means and most real estate people now understand it. J. Brost asked if a mound system is now considered a standard treatment system and Loren said yes. C. Smith asked if we can make changes - there is a typo - under general provisions on the first page there is a ; when there should be a . - 2nd line where they are talking about the rules - under General Provisions - rules - L. Leuer said there are some o's that should be O's in the numbers - he asked if there was any significance of the numbers in () vs. Brackets - bookends - Loren said no MOVED BY BRUCE WORKMAN AND SECONDED BY JERRY BROST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT OF THIS NEW ORDINANCE WITH TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS CORRECTED. MOTION PASSED. 7 3. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ON REQUIRED SOILS AND ACREAGE FOR LOTS IN THE RURAL AREAS OF MEDINA Loren Kohnen read his memo to the planning commission - the proposed change would be 2 1/2 acres of good soils with a minimum lot size of 8 acres and 5 acres of good soils could have a 5 acre lot. With this change of 2 1/2 acres of good soils with a minimum of 8 acres it would add approximately 160 more homes on lots then what would currently be permitted. About 1 1/2 years ago the ordinance was changed not permitting 2 acre soils to be used and all good soils would be 5 acres. This was to start July 1, 1999. Bruce Workman said 2 1/2 acres of good soils is more than adequate. Carolyn Smith asked what is the state regulations - is this more stringent than the state - what does the state say for septic systems. L. Kohnen said they do not say anything. B. Workman said the state does not have acreage requirements. L. Kohnen said that is how we control the density of the city. C. Smith asked what this does to the goal in our present comp. plan of 1 per 10. L. Kohnen said 10-11 is our average lot size now. L. Leuer said that Phil had called him about the change and alerted him to come prepared. Susie Mackay wanted to know what 2-5 acre soils mean. L. Kohnen said they are types of soils - there are about 30 different types of soils. Phil Zietlow said that he needed to explain. He said his wife said that for 20 years he has been for low growth and now you're changing. He said fairness overrides this though. In 1977 I had a failing septic system and only had 1 acre of land. I learned all about mound systems - the neighbors had systems going down into the swamps - there were no mounds then. Three years later Groves came to the city and wanted to subdivide (Meadowwoods). The rule was 2 acres of high/dry soils - that is how we ran the city. I got on the planning commission and the 1st comprehensive plan in 1980 our goal was to protect the environment and control density. If you had 2 acres of good soils you could put in a trench system - when you look at the soils map most of it is intermediate stuff - I thing a mound system would work on 5 acres of innovative soils - that is most of Medina. In Meadowwoods, 7 of the 14 lots had innovative soils. In the mid 1980's a change was made - added good soils, had to go down 5 feet with no mottled soils - the ordinance was changed - there has not been a 2 acre subdivision in Medina since. Our 2 acre subdivision went away with that change. In 1997 all has to 8 be 5 acre soils - had a grace period for 2 years and there were no applications. My neighbor, Tom Turnham has a 16 acre piece and a 20 acre piece. He wants to split off 1/2 of the 16 acre piece and it should not be a problem. "I can't subdivide because of soils" he told me. I didn't think change would mean many more houses - change 2 1/2 acre soils, would make 165 new lots in the rural residential area. We have about 1250 homes today in Medina with about 660 in the rural area (with septic systems) - there are about 195 existing lots that are not built on. If we did nothing, 165 lots that could be subdivided. Bruce Workman - are these numbers the maximum. P. Zietlow 1020 homes possible in the Medina rural area with septic systems - how many acres per home in rural area - 13,800 acres in the rural area which includes 3,300 acres in parks; 1020 divided in 13,000 = 13 acres per home (more figures) Carolyn Smith what we are talking about is 165 more lots or 320 some lots. B. Workman said the impact is pretty major to the comprehensive plan. P. Zietlow said it is not going to happen in 10 years - don't know when it will get developed. S. Mackay said that a year ago we had meetings with citizens from Medina and talked about how to make the comp plan reflect the wishes of the community. What is our obligation as a body? Is it our business to make sure each citizen can make money on their land or it is to the community as a whole? B. Workman said that it is hard to meet everyone's wishes. C. Smith said that we are being asked to make a change based on pulling a number out of the air "to suit" an individual. Maybe we need to go back to 2 acre soils - why the 8 acre lot size? P. Zietlow said it will protect the environment. C. Smith said that the council told us "don't mess with the center of the city - can develop along 55, grow some in the "Elwell" property. B. Workman said he is not prepared to do this. It makes too big an impact in the city. Jack Wahlfors, 1525 Deerhill Road, said he has sat where you are sitting. We weren't picking sizes out of the air. If we want to be rural, we had to be careful. When mound systems came along, it made certain pieces of land suitable for development. Everyone on that board never put our own interests first. Have to have certain number fairly large. Village of Medina had fewest number of septic systems failed. We do look at 9 individuals. Some dumb decisions I made will not allow some kid to raise chickens. Small changes we have to do. Lot of big tracts there, because of the way the land is. B. Workman said we need to know how it is going to effect the long range impact of this on the city. C. Smith said we have a lot of pressure for growth - look at Plymouth - the Elm Creek Interceptor is coming, but I think it needs some more thought. B. Workman said he agrees. I'd like to see more flexibility. Making it fit into grid we have rather than making all fit one rule. S. Mackay said it is hard to administer that. C. Smith (speaking to the Turnhams) - why can't you divide your land now if you have 2 acre soils? Tom Turnham, 1512 Deer Hill Road, said it is the mottling that stops at 36", which is not suitable for a conventional (trench) system. S. Mackay asked if we could change the mottled soil requirement. P. Zietlow said the present requirement is 5 feet. L. Kohnen said it gets worse as you get deeper. The PCA requires 3 feet of separation. Under a mound, you can't have more than 1 foot of mottled soils. B. Workman said that mound systems have allowed development. P. Zietlow said the Turnhams have an old septic system, a trench system L. Kohnen said we subdivide by soil type, characteristics and area. B. Workman said there is plenty of innovative soils that you can build mound systems on - it is done for the environment and density. C. Smith - why change? P. Zietlow said the present system is too restrictive. Jerry Brost - are we talking 160 new homes on land that will not be able to be built upon? You'll still end up with rather large lot sizes. S. Mackay - in clustered developments, houses are closer together that share septic systems and have worked well in other parts of the country. It is a compromise we could use to keep us rural 10 P. Zietlow - would that allow more homes? S. Mackay it allows more houses, what some people want, but it also allows and maintains natural open space which is also important to most people who live in the city. Might allow us to come up with a compromise. B. Workman said you are talking more of a developer issue. This tonight concerns individual properties, back to that argument we have heard before and that is the density of the city - driven by the sewer and septic systems - what is wrong with the ordinance saying the minimum lot size is 2 '/2 or 5 acres and you need a conforming septic system - you could take out all soils stuff and throw it out - that is not necessary to be in there - a lot has to have a conforming system with 2 sites and that would answer without getting into the argument that we are having now. F. Mignone said you could have a 40 acre site S. Mackay if we have functioning system and acreage. P. Zietlow said you would have more homes than 160 if you did that. B. Workman does it have to be city wide - could we say smaller lots here and larger lots someplace else. L. Kohnen - on the Sipe property could get more houses (112 acres - would increase by 7 lots) P. Zietlow said the highest concentration of sites is in the middle of the city. What data would you need to move ahead? David Weetman, 2475 Morningside Road, said we need a conceptual plan. B. Workman said he wants to control density, but I want not to be to arbitrary with soil types. L. Leuer said he hears increased density. I think we've got more than enough density. B. Workman said he believes the ordinance is discriminatory. L. Leuer said we have been living with this for many years. B. Workman said the value of the land comes from building sites. C. Smith - lots that have been divided - what about if Turnham's have enough room for a mound system - why don't we grandfather that in? - why say they can't do that - lived here a long time - 11 P. Zietlow - is that a variance request B. Workman what is the right size parcel - 3-5 acre is ridiculous, yet too big for a homesite - what people want is to see green space - it is in the eyes of what people want. F. Mignone - will this change our comp plan. L. Leuer said it changes the direction that we started out in. L. Kohnen said the old council did a good job of density control. B. Workman said most development is driven by economics. Jack Walfors said due to inflation of property, people like Turnham's son can't buy a property in Medina. How can we be flexible? Betty Turnham, 1512 Deer Hill Road, said they were assessed for 3 lots on one 16 acre piece and Tom Turnham said it was 2 they were assessed for. S. Mackay asked if the 20 acre piece could be divided, Tom Turnham said there is only 1 site there. B. Workman said it shouldn't be driven by soil type. C. Smith (to Phil) - can you get number of lots that are acre up to 2 acres, etc. so we know what's out there. P. Zietlow said the population estimate is a little over 3 people per household - 4884 now - would go to 5375 - add little more than 10 percent of population. - we don't want to do comp plan and then have to do it again. John Turnham (son) - is a variance a possibility? C. Smith what are the ramifications of doing that? B. Workman don't do that - open up to all the world to come in - P. Zietlow - could you think about what information you need. B. Workman - I need to look at it from the development of the city aspect. Jack Wahlfors - you have to look at the soils - people build on wet soils and get wet basements. 12 L. Leuer - one piece of data - what is distribution of number of lots by acreage - how does that change - P. Zietlow - Less than one, less than 5, less than 10, less than 20, above 20. L. Kohnen - it will add the equivalent of two Medina Morningsides. C. Smith - if 500 new people come into the city what does it cost? P. Zietlow - these lots averaging 8-10 acres will bring in more income than it will cost. Back in 1981 we ended up in Meadowwoods - 120 Acres - 14 lots and 7 of them are 2 acre lots. - Does it look crowded? - we have gotten more restrictive. S. Mackay said we must balance type of soils, environment and density. L. Leuer - is what we have broken? - if it ain't broke don't fix it. P. Zietlow - how many people would benefit from this? Betty Turnham - how many people would build? L. Kohnen - let's look at 10 acre minimum - lot size and a rural PUD - then we have some flexibility - could talk about "curved" lots - a form of clustering. Jack Wahlfors said he'd like to see some smaller lots available for those that want smaller lots. B. Workman said he believes everyone should be sewered. P. Zietlow said on -site septic systems are better environmentally. L. Kohnen - let's look into rural PUD. B. Workman - how would it be set up - 40 acre minimum - then end up with clustering type thing? L. Kohnen - Gubbin's property would be ideal for that - then houses wouldn't have to be nearer the highway - B. Workman - have you ever seen a rural PUD ordinance - S. Mackay - I have Marine on St. Croix rural PUD ordinance MOVED BY FRANK MIGNONE AND SECONDED BY CAROLYN SMITH TO ADJOURN. 13 MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Typed from recording and notes Date by Elizabeth Weir 14