Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-14-2015 PC Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday July 14, 2015 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Kim Murrin, Charles Nolan, Victoria Reid, Janet White, and Kent Williams. Absent: Planning Commissioner Randy Foote. Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, City Planner Dusty Finke, and City Council member John Anderson. 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda No comments made. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Anderson provided an updated on the three activities the Council considered at their last meeting including the request from the Goddard School, which was approved; an update on the progress of the consolidation of the Loretto and Hamel Fire Departments; and updates to the liquor licensing in order to be compliant with the legislative changes. He noted that concern was also expressed from a resident living north of Highway 55, specifically in a senior citizen building, regarding the recent power outages. 4. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. 5. Approval of the June 9, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Williams, seconded by Reid, to approve the June 9, 2015, Planning Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Foote) 6. Public Hearing – Property Resources Development Corporation – East of Homestead Trail, West of Deerhill Road – Planned Unit Development General Plan and Preliminary Plat for a Proposed Conservation Design Subdivision to Include 42 Single Family Home Lots Sparks provided additional explanation on the definition of a conservation design subdivision, noting that there are specific criteria to review such requests against, similar to a planned unit development request. He stated that the subject site is approximately 170 acres in size and is predominately farmland and wetland with some sloping. He noted that both Morningside and Deerhill Road terminate into the property on the east and Homestead Trail is also adjacent the property. He stated that the concept plan was reviewed at the February meeting of the Planning Commission. He reviewed the base density for the subject site and stated 42 units would be 190 percent of the base density. The CD-PUD district permits flexibility up to a maximum of 200 percent of the base density. He stated that the City Engineer had reviewed the proposed access to Deerhill Road and had found it to be 2 acceptable. He noted that the access into the property would be through Orono, noting that the property owner also owns the adjacent parcel in Orono. He described the circulation and its connection to Deerhill Road. He noted that the two cul-de-sacs would be private roads. He stated that following the concept plan review the applicant had reduced the right-of-way and street width in order to be more in line with low impact development and to reflect comments made regarding Deerhill Road. He said staff recommended the roads be built to City standards for safety purposes rather than the proposed narrower streets. He stated that additional details would be needed regarding the shared driveway and the maintenance plans for the cul-de-sacs. He provided additional details on the proposed trail alignment and stated that staff believes there are a number of ways to achieve the goals of the trail plans and therefore perhaps a connection to the park should be provided. He stated that primary and secondary septic sites are provided on each lot with the exception of one lot which has a secondary site proposed in the conservation area. The application also requests the flexibility to shift up to nine other secondary septic sites into the conservation area. He advised that three lots do not meet the City standards for septic setback to a wetland. He noted that the City’s drinking water area runs through the middle of the property and therefore the City would need to be alerted to well placement. He stated that the grading will be custom and done on a lot-by-lot basis rather than grading the entire site at once. He stated that there will be minimal tree removal, he believed only one tree will be removed due to road placement. He stated that the final wetland delineation had not been provided but would be provided prior to the final review, noting that if there are major changes needed to lot placement the application would need to come back before the Planning Commission. He stated that 30 percent of the buildable area would need to be placed in a conservation area under the regulations and noted that the request proposes 30.3 percent, which meets that requirement. He noted that potential conditions for approval were included in the packet should the Commission recommend approval. Reid appreciated seeing the details of the settlement agreement and asked for clarification on the Commission’s role in review and whether the Commission would still need to determine whether this application meets the requirements of a conservation design subdivision. Sparks stated that the Commission should still do what they are tasked to do as the Commission and review the application under the regulations of a conservation design subdivision. Finke stated that every aspect of the application is up for discussion. He provided additional explanation regarding the potential settlement. Reid stated that she felt input was given at the review of the concept plan and yet this is still the same plan coming forward. She referenced the width of the roads and confirmed that the City would like the roads to be 24 feet in width. She questioned if the City has an opinion on the filling of wetlands. Sparks stated that the comments provided in the concept review were to limit the fill of wetlands but noted that there are procedures you can follow to mitigate wetlands. Finke stated that on a farm property it is not uncommon to see pocket wetlands that are eventually filled when developed. Reid questioned the date of the settlement agreement and it was confirmed to be December of 2014. Albers questioned the quality of the wetlands proposed to be filled. 3 Sparks noted that the full wetland report has not yet been provided so that is not known. Williams stated it is his understanding that under the conservation design regulations, conservation objectives should be identified and prioritized. He questioned the primary conservation objective for this application. Sparks stated that the applicant can provide additional details but believed that the applicant would be restoring an area that was farmland and on the northern portion of the site, the large wetland is a Tamarack swamp and would be protected. Williams questioned the high quality resources that would be protected within the conservation area, other than the Tamarack swamp. Sparks stated that area would be restored. Williams questioned the acreage of the conservation area that was actually buildable. He stated that it is his understanding that the Commission is supposed to compare the yield plan to this plan to determine if the benefits provided justify the density bonus requested. Finke confirmed that a substantial wetland is within the conservation easement. Williams stated that under regular development, it appears that no more than 22 homes could be built and he is simply trying to determine if the benefit provided would justify the density requested. He stated that when he reviewed the Comprehensive Plan maps a large portion of this site was considered unbuildable and that area matches with part of the area within the proposed conservation easement. He questioned if the density limitation within the long term sewer service area were relevant to the project. Sparks stated that this area is identified in the long-term sewer service area. He stated that this development could make it very unlikely that any other property in that area could connect. Williams stated that he found the language in the Comprehensive Plan to be vague in regard to whether the density limitations within the long-term sewer service area apply to each parcel or to the LTSSA in aggregate. Sparks provided additional information on the interpretation of the language, saying that the City could interpret it to apply to the whole LTSSA. Williams referenced Deerhill Road and the traffic study, which was cited by the applicant. He noted that the applicant claims that Deerhill Road would not need to be widened or improved. He questioned if the City had done an assessment on the condition of the roadway as it is today. Finke stated that the expectation is that this would cause more trips as the traffic would be doubled and the City would need to determine if the past maintenance of Deerhill Road could be continued or whether that would need to be adjusted. Reid stated that this property is within the rural residential zoning district and questioned if there is anything other than the size of the lots that is specific to that district. 4 Sparks stated that the main concern specific to rural residential as a land use under the Comprehensive Plan would be density. Finke stated that almost explicitly the conservation design subdivision ordinance language allows an alternate to what is provided under the zoning in order to provide additional benefit. He stated that the rural residential regulations would apply with some flexibility as allowed by the City. Nolan referenced the septic sites, specifically the ten sites that could encroach on the conservation area and the three additional sites that would encroach on the wetland setback area. Finke stated that the applicant is requesting a maximum of ten secondary sites in the conservation area. If these three sites were shifted into the conservation area, they would count towards the ten total. Nolan questioned what would happen if there are no alternate sites for those three that would encroach on the wetland setback area. Sparks stated that there is a potential condition that could require those lots to somehow be amended to meet that setback. Williams noted that this area was previously under a conservation preserve area and questioned what happened to the plantings that were done during that time. Finke stated that the area was converted back to agricultural uses. Albers questioned if each home would have a well and whether there is concern with the number of wells and the placement to the septic. Sparks stated that there are regulations for well and septic placement. He stated that 12 wells would be within the area from which the City draws its drinking water but noted that proper monitoring of well placement could prevent issues from arising. White referenced the pool area and asked for details. Sparks stated that the pool would be within a separate outlot that would be owned by the homeowners association and would have a well and septic. He advised that there were no plans for the septic provided but noted that a holding tank could be an option. Jennifer Haskamp, SHC, stated that she has been working on this project with the property owner and developer for the past three years. She introduced the members of the team who were present at the meeting. She stated that there is a contingent settlement agreement associated with this property, which was reached after two years of negotiations, which included the concept plan, which is very similar to this plan. She stated that they are attempting to develop a plan consistent to the concept plan, which was attached to the contingent settlement and reviewed the similarities of those plans. She stated that they have also tried to listen to the comments received from the Park and Planning Commissions, staff and the City Council. She stated that approximately 90 acres of the site will be placed into conservation easement, which is about half of the site. She provided additional information on the roadways and the proposed connection to Deerhill Road and stated that they are attempting to limit their impact on the rural roadway. She stated that they are proposing a width of 22 feet for the roads in order to limit the impervious surface and improve infiltration. 5 She referenced septic systems and stated that as drawn today 41 out of 42 lots have their primary and secondary sites on their lots, which was done in order to address the concerns expressed during the concept plan review. She stated that they are requesting the flexibility of nine more of secondary sites to be relocated into the conservation area because some of the lots are challenging. She noted that only the secondary sites would possibly be located within the conservation easement, and that all primary site would be within the lots. She stated that the likelihood of a secondary site being used is very small and if it were placed within the conservation easement, prairie grass would be planted and you would not be able to distinguish the septic site by eye. She stated that a septic system has not been identified for the pool lot as the system would need to be sized to the use and demand. She explained that the initial recommendation had been to install holding tanks until the usage can be determined and an appropriate sized system would then be installed. She briefly summarized the details of the landscaping plan and amenities. She provided additional details regarding the active restoration plan and the reserve areas. She provided brief details regarding the input of the Watershed on the conservation areas. She stated that they would like to maintain the rural character and would not be interested in creating a suburban character. She stated that over 52 percent of the gross site would be preserved which they feel meets the intent of the conservation design subdivision ordinance and fulfills the requirement of park dedication. She stated that under the contingent settlement agreement they agreed to follow the State rules and explained that under the State rules there are no wetland setbacks. Murrin questioned if the pool area would have a clubhouse or a restroom. Haskamp confirmed that intent would be to have a small restroom facility with a patio area that would perhaps have a refrigerator for residents to put snacks in. Murrin questioned and received confirmation that there would be a homeowners association (HOA). She questioned if the HOA would manage the septic systems. Haskamp stated that the HOA would have specific duties outlined and there would be a list of regulations for homeowners to manage their septic systems. She stated that the HOA would have the power to step in in the event that a homeowner does not maintain their system. Williams referenced a traffic impact report and asked if there was a report requested for the intersection of Homestead Trail and Highway 6. Haskamp stated that they did not prepare the report and have been in communication with Hennepin County. She stated that the County’s concern was regarding the access point in general and in proximity to the intersection but not with the number of trips generated. Williams stated that traffic does get backed up at that intersection, especially during the school year, and questioned the impact that stacking would have on the ability to get in and out of the development. He stated that the impact report for Deerhill estimated that 25 percent of the traffic would use that access but questioned the impact that stacking could have on traffic choosing instead to use Deerhill if there is stacking at the other access point. Haskamp stated that when the traffic engineer looked at the situation he made a judgement based on the layout of the development to determine roughly the percentage of traffic that would use either access point. Albers stated that Highway 6 is very busy when he drives his children to school, and believed that the number of trips that will utilize Deerhill Road was grossly underestimated. He 6 believed that the percentages would be reversed with 75 percent using Deerhill and only 25 percent using the other access point. Haskamp stated that the traffic engineer that they used is very familiar with this area and she is confident with the information he provided. Albers referenced the creek bed, which is dry, and questioned if that would be grass or another material such as stone or rubble. Haskamp stated the idea is that it would be architecturally designed with boulders and outcroppings and would convey some of the excess water in a 100-year storm event. Albers referenced lot four and questioned if there is concern with the septic locations as the two identified back up to the creek bed. Haskamp provided additional information regarding the orientation of the septic systems and noted that in that case there is sufficient space to place a retaining wall as well. Reid stated that there was a reference to private trails and public trails and stated that it appears that most of the trails proposed will be private trails. Haskamp stated that the proposed trails would be public and are consistent with the 2014 Park Trails Master Plan. Reid asked whether the recreation area would be public or private. Haskamp replied that the area would be private and would be managed by the HOA. She noted that would be a passive recreation area with no structures or equipment. Murrin questioned if the passive recreation area is included in the 30 percent that would be placed in the conservation easement. Haskamp confirmed that is correct and explained that the City’s regulations provide a list of acceptable activities within the conservation easement, such as recreation. Nolan stated that he was not present at the concept review and recognizes that there is a contingent settlement agreement but explained that as a Commissioner he is tasked to use the conservation design district rules to apply evenly to all applications. He stated that the applicant is asking for close to the highest density allowed under the conservation rules, at 190 percent out of 200 percent; providing a trail, which is also provided under normal development, and providing an additional trail; restoring prairie grass that had been prairie grass six to seven years ago; and the area that will be conserved is 30.3 percent, noting that the minimum amount that must be conserved under the rules is 30 percent. He asked why the Commission should be considering a near maximum density request when the conservation efforts appear to be near the minimum. Haskamp referenced a table on page nine of the submittal, which shows that of the 170-acre parcel, 38.47 acres of upland buildable land would be in the conservation easement. She stated that in a normal development, the wetland and wetland buffers become privatized and the quality can be degraded. She stated that wetland buffers are buildable and therefore nearly eight acres of wetland buffer area will also be conserved that is not necessarily required in additional to the 38.47 acres. She stated that the contiguous area of open space makes prairie grass successful and that would be uniquely provided in this parcel. She stated 7 that it is a labor of love to install a prairie and make it successful and viable in the long-term. She stated that the conservation design ordinance specifies both public and private trails and noted that they worked together with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed to design private turf trails in a design which will assist in making the prairie restoration successful and improving the wetlands and water quality. Nolan referenced property in the northwest corner that would not front on a road and noted that it appeared to be an effort to pack in additional lots. He asked for additional information on how that would be an aspect of conservation design. Haskamp stated that originally, there had been cul-de-sacs and when working with staff it had been suggested to shorten the cul-de-sacs lengths to reduce the impervious surface. She explained that shortening the cul-de-sacs changed the design to have a shared driveway for the one lot. Reid stated that the contingent settlement references a main arterial road and questioned if that is the serpentine road that starts at Homestead Trail and continues through to Deerhill Road. Haskamp confirmed that is correct. Williams questioned why the prairie grass was plowed to begin with. Haskamp stated that the property had been under the CRP program and once the ten-year period expires the property owner may use the land for economic purposes and that is why the land was used for agricultural purposes. Williams questioned if there is a map that highlights the buildable land and the definition of five contiguous acres of suitable soils. Haskamp stated that information is provided on a map and confirmed that information identifies the 22 lots that would be available under normal development standards. Williams referenced the yield plan and stated that the map provided does not appear to identify the buildable area on it. Haskamp provided additional information on the coloring and marking of the map. Nolan opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Nolan referenced a letter received by the City Planner dated July 10th from Stuart Alger, an attorney for Steven Pflaum, which will be a part of the public record. Steven Pflaum, 2725 Deerhill Road, stated that his property abuts the subject property and he generally supports the development. He referenced the eastern buffer woods that will be preserved and would not normally be preserved under normal development. He stated that he also supports restricting the width of the road through the subdivision, which he believed would be a better fit to the existing Deerhill Road, which is a historic road. He stated that his main concern is preserving the current character and configuration of Deerhill Road as a historic farm road. He noted that there has been a petition signed by those that do not support the upgrading or changing the configuration of Deerhill Road. 8 Nolan asked for confirmation that the issue regarding upgrading was the width and that he would not be opposed to the paving of the road. Pflaum confirmed that the residents would not be opposed to the upgrading of the surface of the road. Stuart Alger, who in representation of the Pflaums, stated that the Pflaums do support the development but do not want the road widened in conjunction with the project. He stated that they would like to keep the right-of-way width at 50 feet with a road width of 22 feet paved. He stated that the City ordinance provides discretion to approve road widths less than the standard if traffic conditions permit. He stated that the Pflaums have met with Stonegate and appreciate their willingness to work together and preserve the wooded forest area. Kylie Schefers, who spoke in representation of Barb Burkstrand who lives adjacent to the proposed project north of the Pflaums, stated that the property owner had concerns with erosion control and how that would be handled towards her property. She stated that she has concern with the septic areas and how that would be cleaned up if it does go into the secondary sites. She stated that the property owner generally supports the request but also had concern with construction equipment that could possibly be traveling on Deerhill Road. Nolan referenced the north side of the property that appears to be within the conservation area and questioned if that would be prairie grass. Haskamp stated that all the areas within the restoration area would be prairie grasses and the existing hardwood areas would be protected and would not be touched. Nolan asked for additional information on the staged grading and how the equipment would access and exit the site. Haskamp replied that the roadway would be constructed at one time. She stated that the individual sites would be graded carefully as they are constructed because of the septic sites. She stated that the lots are still fairly large and there is plenty of space on the rear of most of the lots for proper grading and water handling. Nolan asked for clarification on what would happen under the HOA or development agreement once the lot is sold. Haskamp stated that there are certain sites that have aspects that need to be protected and noted that additional measures, such as deed restrictions would apply. John Septer, who spoke in representation of Jude and Hannah Buckley, stated that the presentation referenced that the project has been worked on for years. He asked that the Commission and applicant consider additional details tied into the conservation elements in regard to the subdivision, specifically as it applies to the neighboring properties. He referenced an open area near where the new Deerhill would be constructed and stated that there are homes in that area. He expressed concern with headlights shining into homes and traffic noise. He stated that the rural character is important to this area and under conservation design and believed that a vegetative landscaping screen should be installed. He stated that the road speeds should also be managed to reduce emissions and road noise. He suggested placing speed bumps and limiting that section of Deerhill Road to 15 miles per hour. He echoed the comments of Pflaum applauding the developer for wanting to preserve and maintain the rural elements. 9 Linda McGinty stated that she lives in Morningside, which is denser than what is proposed for this development. She questioned who would be plowing this neighborhood and received the response that the public roads would be the responsibility of the City while the private cul-de-sacs would not be the responsibility of the City. She questioned if the Watershed provided rate control and infiltration assessments and received confirmation that had been done. She questioned who would be responsible for checking the septic systems and received the response that the HOA would take an active role and the City would also require proof that the system had been cleaned once every two years. Finke noted that the system proposed actually had more stringent maintenance and monitoring requirements. McGinty questioned if the City would require a development agreement with escrow and warranties and received confirmation that would be required as well. She also confirmed that the prairie restoration would be covered in the development agreement. She received confirmation that homeowners would be allowed to have swimming pools. She questioned if busses will travel into the development and whether routes had been examined. Nolan stated that would be the decision of the School District and noted that would be a public road. McGinty stated that quality of life is not something that can be put into a concept plan or development agreement but is something that is important to the residents of Medina. She stated that preserving rural character is important to the community and the only way to do that is to limit growth. She stated that people live here because of the rural character and the good school district. She hoped that idea is kept at the forefront of the Commission’s mind. Nolan stated that he believes that everyone cares about the quality of life and that is why they live here but noted that they work under the planning and zoning rules as people have the right to develop their property. Chad Grochowski, 1265 Maplewood Drive, stated that he lives adjacent to the far southeastern corner of the property, which is the one property with a proposed alternate septic system and asked for additional information on the alternative septic system. He stated that his well is on his far western border, which is near that area of the conservation area. He questioned if it is the preference of the homeowner to use an alternate septic system noting that area is within a treed area and believed the applicant stated that the wooded areas will be preserved. He questioned if the septic site could be nearest to the home being constructed rather than closest to his home. He noted that there are additional lots that are along his western border and questioned if those lots would be part of the alternative septic system as he was concerned with septic systems near his well. Haskamp stated that the development agreement can specify that no more than a set number of septic sites could be within the conservation easement. She stated that would not be an alternative septic system but would be a secondary septic site, which is to be used only in the event that the primary site fails, or cannot be used. She stated that none of the secondary sites would be constructed when the primary site is. She explained that the secondary sites would be planted with the prairie grass and would simply be protected in the case a primary site fails. She stated that the preference is to keep the primary and secondary septic sites on the lot, if at all possible. She referenced the site the resident referenced and noted that they would look at the placement of his well as required under State law to ensure that the septic is placed the sufficient distance from the well. She believed the marked area is within the planted trees and not the hardwood forest. 10 Murrin referenced the septic location on lot five and stated that it appears to be outside of a suitable soils area and questioned if that affected buildability. The applicant noted that the soils map is based on county-wide data, and that it may be possible that circumstances on an individual lot may differ and in not reliable Clarkson Lindley, 1588 Homestead Trail, spoke in representation of his family and stated that his concern is with the overall density and the number of septic and well systems and the affect that would have on the groundwater. He stated that many of the drain fields are adjacent to another lot line or a conservation easement, which he did not feel met the purpose of a conservation easement. He stated that he has concern with a possible drawdown of the groundwater, which would affect his well. Nolan stated that there are State guidelines as to how close wells can be placed to another well or septic system and confirmed that the applicant would follow those rules. Amy Alworth, 1602 Homestead Trail, echoed the comments of Linda McGinty and stated she also believed that it is important to preserve the rural characteristic of Homestead Trail. She was also concerned with the traffic as Highway 6 already backs up from the school. She stated that she would prefer the 22 homes allowed under the Comprehensive Plan and would not want to see this high density. Kristin Chapman, 1910 Iroquois Drive, stated that she is not directly affected as her home is not adjacent to the property. She stated that residents that are not next to the development are still affected as this would increase traffic on Willow Drive and other roads as well. She referenced the rural character of the City and stated that at these density volumes there would be additional traffic lights and four way stops at several intersections. She did not believe that only 25 percent of the development traffic would utilize Deerhill Road and believed that the traffic backup on Highway 6 would cause residents of that development to instead use Deerhill Road. She stated that as the City has grown over the past 20 years she has seen the enforcement of City rules to be very poor and would like to see that when the development is ultimately approved there are enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the terms are agreed upon regarding septic systems, restoration of the prairie, and long-term trail maintenance. Cindy Piper, 2905 Willow Wood Farm Road, stated that she can guarantee that the trails as delineated on the plan would cause complaints from homeowners about horse poop on the roads. She stated that there are other ways to route the trails. She referenced the HOA and stated that once the developers leave the homeowners would be required to take over and would be tasked to do the work that the developers hope they would. She asked that the City review the terms of the HOA and questioned when the HOA would take over, whether that would be when the development is 50 percent complete or 80 percent complete. She asked that the City carefully review the HOA. Nolan questioned the role of the City in creating and/or managing an HOA. Finke stated that the City reviews HOA covenants pretty closely to determine how they compare to the City regulations and stated that they would be looking closely in regard to the long-term maintenance of the conservation areas. He stated that if tied to a condition the terms of the HOA cannot be changed without approval of the City. Reid questioned if there is enforcement if the items are not followed through on. Finke confirmed that would be enforceable. 11 Danny Nadeau, 2632 Deerhill Road, stated that he is present in representation of his parents Bud and Pauline. He agreed with the comments of Pflaum regarding the rural characteristics of Deerhill Road, noting that the road functions well for the people that it currently serves. He stated that if the roadway is opened up there would be major changes needed. He stated that his mother recommends that the City study and look at the possibility of having an entrance to Old Crystal Bay, rather than Deerhill, which would solve a number of issues. He stated that his mother also had an issue with the trail construction that is planned along Deerhill and questioned if there would be a plan to make that connection all the way down Deerhill. He stated that the conservation easement is really nice but a trail along Deerhill might be difficult to accomplish. Finke stated that the Park and Recreation Commission will consider the issue of trails at their meeting the following night. Nolan closed the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Reid questioned what the applicant would do if the City does not approve the additional flexibility for the secondary septic sites. Haskamp stated that they would ask why the City would take that position, since the conservation design ordinance permits secondary sites. She stated that they would bring the request to the City Council in hopes for a different answer. Nolan questioned if there are alternatives that have not yet been explored if the alternate secondary sites are not allowed within the conservation easement. Haskamps stated that they have demonstrated that on 41 of 42 lots a primary and secondary septic location can be placed within the lots. She stated that on the last lot the alternative may be to relocate the lot where it was on the concept plan near the Pflaum property as the lot would have a primary and secondary septic location within the lot lines. Nolan asked why the applicant is asking for the flexibility when 41 out of 42 lots have already been identified within the lots and questioned why then the flexibility is needed. Susan Seeland, applicant, stated that they would use that as a backup plan because things happen during development and the best laid plans do not always work as planned. She stated that the odds of ever having to use a secondary site with a multi-flow system is very low. She stated that they are doing the best that they can and simply want to ensure that if there is a problem there is an alternative. Murrin referenced lot five and questioned if she understood correctly that if the secondary site is needed for that lot the lot lines would be reconfigured if the additional flexibility is not provided. Haskamp stated that is not correct and explained that lot number five does not have a primary and secondary location within the lot lines and therefore if the flexibility is not given, the lot would be relocated to its original location on the concept plan adjacent to the Pflaum property. Murrin received confirmation that if relocated lot five would then be in the area marked as a conservation easement and questioned if that would then decrease the 30.3 percent marked as conservation easement. 12 Haskamp stated that the percentage would not be decreased as the existing location of lot five would then be added to the conservation easement. Reid referenced the cost of monitoring the well location to ensure that other water supplies are not affected. She stated that there is concern regarding the additional stress that would place on the water supply in addition to the number of septic systems that would be added in proximity to wells. Albers stated that he has concern regarding the exit to Deerhill Road as the traffic level will be highly increased on that roadway. He stated that he drove down Deerhill Road recently and it reminds him of being up north because of the rural characteristics and would hate to lose that because of this development. Williams stated that he tends to review the issue from a larger perspective and stated that from a conservation design standpoint priority resources need to be identified that are being preserved, which has been identified as the Tamarack swamp and forest. He noted that under the plans for what could be developed under regular development there would be eight homes placed in that high quality resource area. He stated that when comparing the proposed conservation plans to the plans that would be allowed under regular development there are 15 homes in the high quality resource area under the conservation design. He did not understand how doubling the number of homes within that area marked as a high quality resource would advance any conservation objective. He stated that he walked the site and there are significant slopes that would direct runoff into the Tamarack swamp. He noted that there are buffers proposed that would not be provided through regular development. He questioned the tradeoff that would be received for the extra buffers, noting that there would simply be area preserved to the south that is currently crops. He stated that the applicant already dug up the established prairie once and questioned what would stop the applicant from doing that again in the future. He stated that he did not see the application meeting a number of objectives of the conservation design ordinance. He stated that the density requested far exceeds the benefit the City would be receiving. He was also concerned with the added traffic this would add to the Homestead and Highway 6 intersection and also believed that the added traffic would require Deerhill Road to be upgraded to handle that traffic. Murrin believed that if this moves forward an importance should be placed on the HOA covenants and the enforcement of that, specifically regarding the septic systems. She stated that it seems to make sense that the neighborhood would need an additional access point but did not believe that Deerhill Road could handle that extra traffic. She stated that although the City would be gaining a conservation easement she did not see that the minimum allowed conservation easement would equal the maximum density allowed. White stated that she did not feel that the maximum density would be justified by what the City would be receiving in return. She stated that the viewshed from Homestead Trail is important and had concern. She also had concern with the added stress this would place on Deerhill Road. She stated that she did not feel that this application meets all of the objectives for a conservation design subdivision. Murrin stated that if there were only 22 homes exiting onto Deerhill Road that would place a significantly less amount of stress on the roadway. Nolan echoed the comments that he did not see that the primary benefits would justify the maximum allowed density. He stated that this process has to be give and take and acknowledged that 38 acres is a lot of land and the size of this parcel allows something more 13 meaningful to be done. He stated that he sees a lot of property that does not have street frontage and in the spirit of conservation it seems that the applicant is attempting to fit in extra lots. He stated that the applicant is also asking for additional flexibility with the septic sites. He stated that if this site is so tight that additional leeway must be given to allow septic sites within the conservation easement perhaps that is not the best application of the conservation design ordinance. He stated that another property owner is present tonight listening to this discussion because he has brought forward similar conservation design plans. He stated that his message must be consistent in that this is an incentive program and the more the applicant gives to the City, the more the City can give to the applicant. He stated that even 20 houses would change the character of Deerhill Road. He stated that when looking at the proportionality of what is being asked for must be considered and more must be given in return for requesting the maximum density allowed. He stated that when talking about conservation he would like to see that conservation is not lost in translation. He stated that Medina is rural and there is a method for this to work, but it must be equal on both sides. He stated that perhaps this plan could work if a few amendments were made to reduce the density. Murrin questioned if the development could be planned to not access Deerhill Road. It was confirmed that could not be done. Nolan stated that as nice as Deerhill Road is that would not be the first road in Medina that needs to be updated. Motion by Williams, seconded by Albers, to recommend denial of the Conservation Design-Planned Unit Development General Plan, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning subject to the findings that were provided during the discussion, that the objectives of the conservation design ordinance are not met through the application. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Foote) Finke stated that the City Council will review this item at their meeting on Wednesday, August 5th. Nolan briefly recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Nolan reconvened the meeting at 10:03 p.m. 7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Solar Equipment Finke stated that the Commission discussed solar equipment in regard to the business park and industrial zoning districts in February and the Code was amended at that time to allow ground mounted solar equipment. He stated that the solar equipment attached to structures is allowed within every zoning district in the City while ground mounted equipment is only allowed in the industrial and business park zoning districts. He stated that there were comments from residents at that time desiring the ability to install ground-mounted equipment within the rural residential zoning district. He stated that the draft ordinance was provided for context and highlighted the different rural residential districts that could in essence allow ground mounted equipment. He stated that the draft ordinance also includes stipulations for properties, such as the property must be at least five acres in size. He stated that staff estimates that there are about 580 properties that would be eligible under this draft ordinance. He noted that if the ten-acre lot size is desired that would cut the eligible lots in half. He stated that the staff proposed a 100-foot setback, which is twice the general setback for properties within the rural residential district, noting that animal structures require a 14 setback of 150 feet for comparison purposes. He reviewed the proposed regulations on height, site lines, visibility and screening. He stated that staff recommends using a conditional use permit (CUP) for those that would desire a ground mounted solar array. White questioned if it would be necessary to state that the installed panels would be only for the primary resident of the property. Finke stated that he believes that the ability to sell back energy is a benefit that the State sets up to economically incentivize homeowners. Nolan stated that he had the same concern. He stated that he likes the idea of allowing solar power for residents but is not sure he wants to make it a commercially viable option. Williams explained that homeowners would still have a Wright Hennepin Electric bill and there would be a credit on the bill. Reid explained there are some days that too much solar energy is generated to use and that is where a credit is earned through the electric company to offset days when it is cloudy and no energy is gained. Finke noted that the credit also helps to offset the cost of installation for the homeowner. He explained that the CUP would allow public input through a public hearing rather than an administrative approval. Nolan stated that he would tend to ease into this more conservatively as it could be a nuisance to a neighbor. He liked the idea of using the CUP and only allowing within the rural residential district. Nolan opened the public hearing at 10:18 p.m. Mindy Rechelbecher, 1242 Hunter Drive, stated that she and her husband purchased raw land on Homestead Trail with the intent of building their dream home on that parcel. She stated that they would like to have ground mounted solar energy on their new parcel and she was disappointed to find out that would not be allowed. She stated that there are difficulties to the roof mounted solar panels as holes would need to be drilled into the house, maintenance is more difficult, it is difficult to clear the snow in the winter, and the panels cannot move with the sun. She stated that ground mounted equipment can move with the sun during the day to collect the most amount of sun possible. She stated that ground mounted equipment is also easier to clean off and repair as they are easily accessible. Chris Peterson, Bloomington resident that is moving to Medina in November, stated that he will not be within the rural residential zoning district so he will not be able to utilize the ground-mounted equipment. He referenced the 100-foot setback noting that in theory that sounds good but in practice that would only allow about 1.5 acres of usable space including the home that is on the lot and other features such as trees. He noted that with that setback the amount of homes that could use the feature would be further limited. He stated that a 50- foot setback would be sufficient. He noted that Tesla is about to release a power wall which is a battery that would attach to a home and would store the solar energy for later use. He stated that it would be difficult to sell solar energy to a neighbor as there is a lot of regulation by the utility company and the State. He stated that the more people get behind solar energy, the more energy costs will go down. He stated that it is very difficult to generate your entire energy supply from solar in Minnesota. 15 Nolan closed the public hearing at 10:28 p.m. Reid stated that she was considering more than a 100-foot setback as sometimes once solar equipment is installed a neighbor wants to construct something that may block the equipment. White echoed the comments of Reid noting that she was thinking of a 150-foot setback similar to animal setbacks. Williams stated that would be comparing apples and oranges explaining that a larger animal structure buffers that use from neighbors and allows additional space if the animals get out before they would reach the neighbor’s property. He stated that he would actually be more in favor of a 50-foot setback. Murrin stated that she would support a minimum lot size, noting that five acres would be the minimum that she would support at this time and stated that the restriction could be reduced in the future if everything works well. White stated that if this was adopted with a 100-foot setback could a homeowner then request a variance from the setback. Finke confirmed a variance could be requested but noted that a hardship would need to be proven. Nolan stated that he supports the ordinance as proposed. Williams questioned if the Commission could support a 75-foot setback. Reid stated that she would support 100 feet and Nolan and Albers also supported a 100-foot setback. Motion by Albers, seconded by White, to recommend approval of an Ordinance amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code related to solar equipment. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Foote) 8. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Setbacks from Upland Wetland Buffers Finke provided background information explaining that in a new development situation current City regulations trigger the establishment of vegetative buffers upland from wetlands, which range in width from 20 to 50 feet. He stated that there is also a setback from structures based on the type of structure. He noted that accessory structures have a five-foot setback from buffers. He explained that the purpose of the setback from the buffer is to protect the buffer, which protects the wetland. He stated that in the Enclave neighborhood there are a number of properties that have limited depth to construct decks because of the way the homes were built on the lot and the wetland buffer setbacks. He noted that staff has received about half a dozen requests from homeowners in the Enclave that would like to build decks but are not allowed because of the setback. He stated that one homeowner requested a text amendment, which would decrease the setback from 15 feet to five feet for uncovered decks. He noted that the resident approached the City Council to request action and the Council requested that the matter move forward in this manner. He noted that there are letters of support from residents within the Enclave, noting that there are additional homeowners that would be interested in decks that simply have not yet applied. He noted that the wetland 16 buffers are providing the water quality protection necessary. He noted that as drafted this would prevent a three or four season porch and would only allow uncovered decks. Albers confirmed that a deck could include a combination of covered and uncovered if the covered portion meets the necessary setback requirement. Williams questioned the purpose of allowing only uncovered decks. He stated that he does not see the purpose of distinguishing. Nolan questioned if a variance could be provided. Reid stated that the Commission did discuss the issue with Lennar when reviewing the Enclave development plans, as they could see that there would not be room for decks. Murrin stated that if there is more buildable space on a lot that would be used and that would encourage larger houses on smaller lots. Nolan opened the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. Kyle Abell, resident of Enclave neighborhood, stated that Lennar did tell them about the setback before they purchased the property but noted that he does want to build a deck. He stated that they would be okay with an uncovered deck. Reid questioned how many feet the home is from the structure. Abell stated that only one corner of his deck would encroach into the setback area. Albers questioned if that is the case in that development that only a small portion of the deck would fall into the setback area. Finke stated that it is common that the full back of the deck would encroach in that development. White questioned if the setback were reduced from 15 feet to 10 feet would that be enough. Abell stated that would be enough for his property but did not know if that would be enough for other property owners. Murrin questioned where the rest of the homeowners were tonight and confirmed that they were notified as well. Abell stated that they were notified and had sent him to speak, noting that an email had been sent as well. He stated that Charlie Morse had sent an email to residents within the Enclave and believed there were about 40 to 50 responses. Nolan closed the public hearing at 10:50 p.m. Finke stated that developers do consider some reasonable decks when laying out the lots. He agreed that reducing the setback would push that building envelope for developers. Nolan stated that he would be surprised if there was a lesser price for the lots with the smaller backyards. He stated that if the setback is reduced a developer will come in with homes closer to the wetland buffer. He stated that while he is sympathetic to the homeowners that 17 want decks, the ordinance cannot be set based on those six homeowners. He noted that is why he would support a variance rather than changing the setback. Williams stated that the homeowners purchased the lots knowing that the decks could not be built. White agreed that while she is sympathetic to the homeowners they were told, or should have been told about the setback. Motion by White, seconded by Albers, to recommend denial of an Ordinance amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code related to setbacks from upland wetland buffers. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Foote) Nolan noted that the residents can still attend the Council meeting to voice their concern. Finke stated that he would contact the resident to advise him of when this would go before the City Council. 9. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to the Site Plan Review Process Finke stated that the Commission reviewed this item briefly the previous month. He stated that there had been concern from business owners regarding the approval process for smaller items and the Commission reviewed some items that could possibly be reviewed administratively. He noted that there was concern regarding parking lot expansions and whether the process as it stands currently is a disincentive for businesses to create additional parking. He noted that the City does not have a maximum allowed for parking. He stated that the ordinance as drafted would allow administrative review and approval for certain items and reviewed those items that are proposed to be allowed. Murrin referenced the construction of an accessory structure of 5,000 square feet and questioned if the golf course building would have been allowed under administrative review. Finke stated that the golf course property is under a PUD and therefore still would have been required to go through the process. Murrin stated that additional trees were required to be planted and noted that would not have been added if that had been done under administrative review and suggested that size be lowered. Reid noted that change of use could have additional parking requirements. Finke stated that there would still be administrative review and if the request meets the Code it could be approved, rather than requiring a 75-day process. Nolan stated that perhaps parking expansions could be capped at 20 to 25 percent. Finke stated that he finds it hard to write a report for the Commission to review for parking lot expansions as those are simply calculations and is pretty cut and dry. He stated that there are ways to avoid the process, noting that businesses can do the expansion in sections to avoid the process. 18 Nolan opened the public hearing at 11:03 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 11:03 p.m. as there were no comments. Finke agreed with the comments on the accessory buildings noting that item could be removed from the administrative review process. Nolan stated that he would support a 1,000 square feet accessory structure under administrative review and confirmed the consensus of the Commission. Reid stated that perhaps a maximum parking expansion be set over a period of years. Williams stated that the parking lot expansion could be allowed setting the limitation that the property owner has not expanded their parking lot by more than 25 percent in the last two years. Reid suggested extending that to three years. Williams asked if that limitation would solve anything. Nolan asked for input from Finke. Finke stated that he would not like to see a limit. Motion by Williams, seconded by Reid, to recommend approval of an Ordinance amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code related to the Site Plan review process, amending the language number four on page three to read “expansion of an existing parking lot, providing that the applicant has not expanded the parking lot by more than 25 percent over the past two years” and also amending number eight to reduce the size of the accessory structure allowed under administrative review from 5,000 square feet to 1,000 square feet. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Foote) 10. Council Meeting Schedule Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday at which time the deck and administrative review will be discussed. He noted that an update would be given on Stonegate but that item will not be on the agenda. White volunteered to attend the meeting. 11. Adjourn Motion by Reid, seconded by Williams, to adjourn the meeting at 11:09 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.