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.