HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-12-2012CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
1. Call to Order: Commissioner R. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Robin Reid, V. Reid, Kent Williams, Randy Foote,
and Kathleen Martin.
Absent: Mark Osmanski and Charles Nolan
Also Present: City Councilmember Elizabeth Weir, City Planner Dusty Finke, NAC
Consultant Nate Sparks and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson.
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council proceedings
Weir updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
5. Approval of the January 8, 2013 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to approve the January 8, 2013 minutes
with the changes noted. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Osmanski and Nolan)
6. Public Hearing — Property Resources Development Co. —Preliminary Plat for an
81ot rural Subdivision located west of Willow Dr. /Deer Hill Rd. and east of
Homestead Tr. (PIDs 21-118-23-31-0001, 21-118-23-34-0002, and 21-118-23-34-
0003).
Nate Sparks presented the application. He stated the application was a rural
subdivision. The application consisted of three parcels totaling 80 acres, of which 30
acres were wetland and 50 acres farmland.
Sparks explained that rural residential lots shall have a minimum lot size of 5 acres of
contiguous suitable soils. He explained that applicants can contest the suitable soils
and provide necessary data regarding soils. The proposed application contested the
1
soils and so the City hired Peter Miller of Wenck and Associates as the City's Soils
Scientist to review the plans submitted relating to soils.
Sparks explained the proposed site access at Deer Hill Road and Homestead Trail.
He stated that the City attorney does not believe that the ROW (right-of-way) exists
as described. The City does not feel, as proposed, that adequate access was being
provided.
Sparks explained internal private streets and said that private streets must be built to
24 foot width and be placed within a 60 foot wide outlot which was not proposed.
Sparks explained no significant tree removal was planned. He said the Park Plan
components would be discussed at the next Park Commission meeting and Park
Plans/trail maps were available for the public.
R. Reid clarified the primary concerns of staff: suitable soils; access/premature
subdivision; design/private street; and Lot 7 doesn't meet the minimum setback
requirements for septic systems from wetlands.
V. Reid asked to clarify the roadway. Sparks said the City didn't have the necessary
ROW to develop the road.
Williams said Loren Kohnen, the Building Official, in his staff comments noted seven
of the lots didn't meet the requirements. Finke explained that Kohnen's comments
could be resolved by the applicant to be within code.
Williams asked about the six continuous years of use of the roadway and if it could
precede the dedication. Nate said it would have to precede the dedication. Finke said
the City wouldn't have had to take formal action on it. Williams said he understands
they didn't have six years of continuous use and Finke agreed. Williams asked about
lots 4 and 5 and if they met the 300 width foot requirement. Finke said yes.
R. Reid asked if there was existing ROW to the west. Sparks said the applicant
shows Deer Hill Road as a 33 foot ROW, but only the part that has been used and
maintained by the City qualifies. Staff questions how much, if any, ROW exists.
Finke said the statutory user ROW does expand beyond the driving area, such as the
ditch for snow plowing areas and snow storage areas. He said the road ranges in from
24-33 feet in width. Williams asked if it had to be widened on the east side to meet
City standards. Finke said yes.
R. Reid asked if there was ROW there at all. Sparks said "no". Williams asked what
the best case scenario would be. Sparks said it could have a ROW in it, but statutory
user has to be maintained, and in this case doesn't meet it. Sparks said the applicant
would have to ask the City to condemn land to start purchasing to construct the road.
2
R. Reid asked about financing roadways. Finke said the City did finance Hunter
Drive. Martin asked if it was really a similar example since Hunter Drive had
existing ROW and homes along it, whereas the new application being proposed does
not.
Williams asked whose burden it was to contest suitable soils. Finke said we've had a
number of properties contested which were successful, but they were challenging the
slopes rather than the actual soil types.
Peter Miller, Wenck Associates (City Consultant), explained a site specific survey
can be done with a series of borings on -site, but hadn't been done as of yet. Miller
said he never did visit the site since it was winter time, but rather reviewed the data
submitted. Williams questioned Miller on the data provided. Miller said the data
provided didn't provide evidence that the soil survey should be changed in any way.
Matt Duffy, representing Property Resources Development Company (PRDC),
explained that on August 6, 2012, an application was submitted for a Preliminary Plat
to the City. He said prior to their submittal they met with staff to better understand
what would be necessary for submittal. Duffy reviewed a number of dates stating the
City had plenty of time to have reviewed their application submittal prior to now. He
further explained that they didn't think they were working in a collaborate effort with
Planning staff. He said it is their position that Homestead Trail has a public ROW
and the City would pave the Deer Hill Road area. The preliminary plat shows how it
would be paved and only easements would be needed in order to pave that area. He
said he asked the City what type of consultants they needed to hire, and they then
hired an Engineer and Soils consultant. He said they think they have submitted all
that is necessary for a complete application. He also said the City changed the
regulations relating to subdivisions and they had already applied, which triggered
issues for their project.
R. Reid asked what changed in December 2012. Finke said the City added the
premature subdivision ordinance within the code and changed requirements for
roadway widths. R. Reid asked the applicant if the City wouldn't have made the
changes in December, do they feel they would have met the road requirements.
Jennifer Haskamp, applicant's consultant, said she has been working closely with
their attorney as it relates to the roadway access. In terms of Deer Hill Road she said
they would have been allowed to access it like all of the other 15 property owners
along Deer Hill Road at the time they made their application, but the City stepped in
and changed their Subdivision regulations which defined their application as a
premature subdivision. Williams asked for clarification on the premature subdivision
regulations.
Williams explained to the applicant that our City attorney and staff could not find
evidence of it being used for the six years. Duffy said property records exist and
Williams asked him if he brought the records with him to show evidence. Duffy said
3
he didn't have paperwork. Haskamp said the aerials were their evidence that the road
existed and was in use and therefore they disagree with City staff. She said when you
zoom in on the aerial you can see that the area was used as a road. She said they
would argue that the ROW was in use and that on much of the title work it describes
the full area. She disagrees with staff, since the title work describes the road as 33
feet wide. She sees it as the same parallel distance with the whole ROW. Martin
asked for evidence that the road was maintained for six years. Haskamp suggested
the dedication document that the road was in use for six years was evidence, along
with the aerials. She asked if had been provided to the Commission and Williams
said it was in their packet from staff, though no other documents. Haskamp said it
was a recorded document and in her opinion proof Finke said he believed the
resolution directed the City record the dedication against the properties. The City
attorney's memos state the width of the ROW is not 33 feet. He said they believe
throughout history the roadway has always fallen short of the 33 foot width.
Duffy said statute requires the City to provide access. Susan Seeland commented that
in 2008 the property division took place.
Williams said if the land wasn't split, the land would have access. He asked what the
purpose was for the split and the purpose of filling in the wetland area on lots 4 and 5.
Haskamp said the wetlands were reviewed and approved to be filled, and is a
completed project. She said the reason for doing it was to meet the contiguous
suitable soils and that experts did do some analysis on the soils. Williams asked who
did the soil borings. Haskamp said she was very involved with the requirements to
contest the soils and the City doesn't have standards within the ordinance. She was
directed to hire an engineer or soil scientist which they did. She said they clearly
planned to develop the land so that the soils could support structures.
Public Hearing was opened at 8:09 p.m.
Madeleine Linck, 1762 Morgan Road/Park Commissioner, pointed out that the MN
DNR County Biological survey designated this area as a high priority natural area.
The City's draft trail plan has a trail proposed in this area as a connection between
Wolsfeld SNA ultimately to Baker Park.
David Weigman, 3834 Linden Drive East and representing Buckley property owners,
said he is in opposition of the proposed application. He said he doesn't know where
to begin, since he hasn't been able to remember when he's seen an application such as
this one that didn't respond to staffs comments for revisions and changes prior to
going before the Planning Commission. He said the documents show that Finke had
submitted letters explaining insufficient revised plans repeatedly. He said he has a
title commitment and there isn't an easement to Homestead Trail which has since
been repealed. He said there's no ROW and even if there was, there is a creek and
wetlands. He said he is not quite sure any of this had been addressed. He further
explained the applicant has access to the south and the cart way issue can't exist.
4
Bethe Hattara, 1592 Homestead Trail, said even if a ROW to Homestead Trail did
exist, she asked if anyone had ever driven it. She said the thought of putting a road in
there is dangerous and it doesn't make sense to have any more access at that point.
She said one of the reasons people like Medina is for its breathing room. She said she
thought the subdivision seemed too close together.
Steve Pflaum, 2725 Deer Hill Road, said he was speaking for all the residents on
Deer Hill Road in addition to the packet of information submitted from their attorney.
He said that there had been a number of misstatements and only nine residents lived
on Deer Hill Road. We realize there will be development on that property, but their
concern is Deer Hill Road as explained in the packet of information submitted to the
City by their attorney. From our perspective, every single tree would have to come
down to meet City Standards for a new road. If the tress didn't have to come down or
the road widened, just asphalt added, he thinks the residents on Deer Hill Road would
be satisfied. They are strongly opposed to widening Deer Hill Road and any expense
that would be placed on the current land owners along Deer Hill Road.
Stuart Alger, attorney representing Steve Pflaum of Leonard, Street and Demard, said
he concurred with the City attorney's opinion as to the lack of the City Road, or that a
sufficient road exists to the east. He asked the Commission if they'd received his
written materials and the Commission said yes. He explained that his view was if the
project were to proceed, the City would have to acquire additional ROW for the
project to move forward and probably through condemnation proceedings which
would be quite expensive. Permanent easements, construction easements, and experts
would all have to be hired by the City in order to develop the ROW. The City could
potentially be liable to pay the property owner's attorney fees if it went that route. He
also noted the trees along the roadway were certain to provide aesthetic value to each
of the properties which would impact value.
Alger's said the proposed development could possibility have access through Co. Rd
6 or Homestead Trail, and the burden should not be on the adjacent land owners. He
said the recorded documents of the property in question (survey map, the order,
decree of registration, and filing of the document) doesn't determine the use. Factors
should be taken under consideration in making a decision.
Clarkson Lindley, 1588 Homestead Trail, said the existing curve on Homestead Trail
with additional traffic would be quite problematic. He said there is no evidence of a
previous cart path.
Cindy Piper, 2905 Willowood Farm Road, said that she wanted to make sure the trails
are put on the map and maintained into the future.
Bob Mitchell, 1745 North Willow Drive, said he came into the community and
bought land in 1960 and built in 1980 and the road did not exist at that time. He said
the properties are large enough to develop without having to get an easement or
5
roadway access from existing property owners. He said you can't sell land -locked
property.
Amy Alworth, 1602 Homestead Trail, said she risks her life every day trying to get
mail. She said they moved there because of the rural character and they'd like to
preserve that.
R. Reid said that a decision has to be made, since the application is not willing to
provide an extension. She asked for the opinions of the Commission on the
following:
1. Applicant's request to have City build ROW: The Commission agreed it is an
issue. V. Reid said she feels they have to go with staff and City attorney, as well
as their recommendation. Martin said neighboring property owners did provide
evidence that it wasn't in existence and said it isn't entirely clear. Williams said
he feels it's the applicant's burden to show that it existed and we had three legal
opinions stating it didn't exist, along with testimony that nothing was maintained.
For that reason it seems to fail the test. He felt on both sides access was not being
fulfilled by the applicant. Foote said he agreed with Williams and said he felt the
applicant hadn't provided enough evidence.
2. Suitable Soils: Williams and Martin said the Zoning Administrator makes the
determination and the Zoning Administrator followed the Soil Consultant's
opinion, which they felt was the right thing to do.
3. Proposal to put the private road in an outlot: Williams said the development is
not showing the private road in an outlot and should be shown that way. He said
that if it were shown that way, he thinks they would fall below the eight lots.
4. Flag lots, insufficient road access, and lot widths: Williams explained how the
lots didn't meet requirements.
5. Contiguous suitable soil: Williams raised concern that dumping fill to make it
contiguous doesn't make it contiguous.
6. Change of City Regulations: Williams said the City has the right to modify their
regulations and it is the applicant's responsibility to follow by modifying their
application. In this case, the applicant chose not to modify their application.
Public Hearing was closed at 8:57 p.m.
Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Williams, to recommend denial of the Preliminary
Plat request for an Blot subdivision because: 1) four of the proposed lots don't meet
lot size, 2) the subdivision is premature, 3) the proposed private streets are not within
an outlot, 4) Lot 7 doesn't meet setbacks from wetlands, 5) the proposed subdivision
doesn't account for natural resources, 6) the site doesn't address a trial system to take
advantage of the natural topography, and 7) the application creates an unreasonable
hardship to neighboring properties per Section 820.29. Subd.2.1 of the Medina City
Code. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Osmanski and Nolan).
6
7. Council Meeting Schedule
Williams to attend the Council meeting on February 19th, 2013.
8. Adiourn
Motion by Martin, seconded by V. Reid, to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously. (Absent: Osmanski and Nolan)
7