HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-10-15 PC Minutes 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday February 10, 2015
1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Victoria Reid,
and Kent Williams.
Absent: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan and Janet White.
Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks and City Planner Dusty Finke.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
There were none.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
Councilmember Anderson reported that the Council considered the variance and site plan
review for the property owned by John Day, which was previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission as well. He advised that the variance was approved with the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
5. Approval of the January 13, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to approve the January 13, 2015 Planning
Commission minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent:
Nolan and White)
6. Public Hearing – Property Resources Development Corporation – PUD
Concept Plan for a Conservation Design Subdivision of 42 lots on 170 Gross
Acres Located East of Homestead Trail and West of Deerhill Road
Sparks provided additional information on the process for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Concept Plan as well as conservation design subdivisions. He identified the subject
site, which is approximately 170 acres in size and is primarily farmland and wetlands. He
stated that the property is currently zoned rural residential, which would allow one unit per
ten acres. He explained that the conservation design district would allow for density bonuses
if the criteria can be met. He provided additional information on the septic system proposed
for the development by the applicant and advised that the tree preservation plan would be
addressed during the Preliminary Plat phase of the review. He stated that the Commission
should review the request to determine if it meets the criteria of a conservation design
subdivision.
Williams referenced the conservation easement objectives and questioned which aspect
specifically would apply to this parcel that would be protected.
2
Sparks advised that there are significant wetlands, including one identified as a Tamarack
Swamp.
Williams inquired if the base density allowed under this situation would be 22 homes, prior to
density bonuses. He questioned how many homes would be allowed for development if the
developer would have just wanted to develop the land outside of this type of request.
Sparks confirmed that a different calculation would be used to determine the allowable
number of homes outside of this type of request.
Williams reference the multi-flo septic system proposed and asked for additional information
regarding the performance of the system.
Finke stated that there are a number of this type of system installed throughout the City. He
advised that the system is on the list of allowable technologies. He did not know of any
concerns with systems that have been installed in Medina. He explained that the active parts
of the treatment plant need to be maintained in order to ensure operations.
Sparks confirmed that the maintenance is handled by the homeowners but noted that
additional information in that aspect would come forward further in the review process.
Reid referenced tree preservation and confirmed that aspect would not be discussed until the
Preliminary Plat review phase of the process.
Murrin referenced the access points proposed and questioned if Orono has been approached
to determine if they would approve of that access. She also questioned if Deerhill Road
would need to be expanded.
Finke advised that this is simply the review of the Concept Plan and those aspects would be
discussed further along the process.
Jennifer Haskamp, SHC, introduced those present to represent the applicant tonight. She
stated that they have been working on this plan for the past few months in order to create a
plan that would meet the criteria of the conservation design ordinance. She stated that there
are approximately 40 acres of buildable area proposed to be located in the conservation
easement noting that the plan integrates open spaces with the lots and also provides buffers
between the properties to preserve the character of the neighborhood. She also identified a
trail corridor included in the plans to coincide with the desires of the City. She stated that
they have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Watershed in order to take a
proactive approach to providing the best function of the areas proposed to be protected. She
stated that they have really tried to develop a functional plan that respects the land and the
concerns that have been voiced by neighboring property owners.
Williams referenced the map, which identifies the wetlands and asked if there is another map
that identifies conservation areas that are not already protected. He questioned which land
the City is gaining into a conservation easement that would not already be protected.
Haskamp referenced that map and identified the color used to highlight that area, noting that
is approximately 40 acres of land in addition to the wetland and wetland buffer areas.
Williams questioned which ecological resources would be protected by this proposal in
addition to the Tamarack Swamp.
3
Haskamp stated that there are different methods to achieve the objectives. She stated that
there is an inherent value to the Tamarack Swamp. She stated that there are pocket wetlands
and they are proposing to improve the quality of those wetlands to benefit not only this
property but also the surrounding region.
Williams questioned what resources exist within the areas identified with the dark green color
that are not wetland but proposed to be conserved.
Haskamp explained that the areas are currently being farmed and this project would provide
an opportunity to protect the wetland boundaries existing and actually improve those
wetlands. She stated that although those wetlands exist, the function is not as high as it could
be. She referenced an area to the east where there are not only wetlands but also trees that
would be preserved. She stated that the City plan identifies this parcel as having high natural
resource value and therefore they have identified the corridor and open space area to match
the Comprehensive Plan of the City. She advised that the required land stewardship plan
would be developed in the next phase of this process.
Foote referenced a large wetland that he believed is located on the Orono portion of the
property and stated that it appears three lots will go directly over that wetland.
Haskamp stated that the Concept Plan excludes the Orono site. She stated that they will make
every effort possible to provide a primary septic system on each site but stated that there may
be an area or two where a community system would be needed.
Reid questioned how the number of homes was determined.
Haskamp stated that they used the base calculation for the ordinance and then determined
what they felt would be accomplished, in addition to maintaining consistency with the
settlement.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
Finke advised of written items that will become part of the record.
Stuart Alger, Attorney for resident residing at 2725 Deerhill Road, stated that his comments
relate specifically to Deerhill Road. He stated that the residents along Deerhill Road are
concerned that this project threatens the unique condition of Deerhill Road, specifically the
tree canopy. He stated that the Concept Plan is an improvement from past plans for
development. He stated that the Concept Plan does not identify plans for Deerhill Road but
noted that the residents are concerned that there would be pressure to widen Deerhill Road,
which they are opposed to. He stated that two possible options were included in his written
comments including making Deerhill Road a private road, which staff has stated they could
possibly support. He advised that the other would be that the main access road would remain
public but that the connection to Deerhill Road would be for maintenance or emergency use
only, noting that a gate would then be installed in that location. He stated that staff has stated
that they would not support the second option but advised that is the option that the residents
would prefer.
Williams asked for input from staff regarding the gate option.
Finke explained that there would be two cul-de-sacs that would need to be maintained and
advised of the other burdens the gate option would place on the City and City staff. He
explained that if the roadway is to be a public street, full access would be needed.
4
Reid questioned if there is any possibility that Deerhill Road could remain narrow with this
development.
Finke explained that as part of a development review staff also needs to review the
surrounding infrastructure to determine if those aspects can support the development. He
stated that on the previous development proposed Deerhill Road had been the primary access
point for the development and noted that in this plan the primary access point would be
Homestead Trail so that would be a difference. He advised that the impact to existing
infrastructure would be reviewed further into this process to determine if improvements
would be needed.
Foote confirmed that the existing Deerhill Road does not meet the minimum road standards.
Murrin questioned who owns the land that would be needed should the road need to be
expanded.
Finke explained that acquisition of right-of-way would be a part of a public improvement
process if that step is needed.
Steve Pflaum, 2725 Deerhill Road, stated that he believes the Concept Plan proposed is a
large improvement over what had originally been proposed. He stated that the density would
be mitigated by the large open space areas. He stated that this is a significant proposal for the
City. He referenced the presentation of the applicant, which includes preservation of a
wooded area and noted one lot that would not preserve that area. He stated that it appears the
City would like to widen Deerhill Road as a part of this project and was strongly opposed to
that option. He noted that would require a significant amount of trees to be cut down and
believed that there are better alternatives. He recognized that is not part of the Concept Plan
review tonight but wanted to ensure that the concerns of the homeowners are addressed.
Nancy Lindlee, 1588 Homestead Trail, commented that it seems that this proposal includes
too many homes for a rural residential area. She referenced the septic issue and was
concerned that 42 septic tanks could leak into the drinking water area for the City. She did
not believe that this was the right type of development for this space.
Tom Rassieur, 1845 Willow Drive, echoed the concern regarding the septic system. He also
has concerns regarding the water table as the homes would be pumping water to irrigate their
lawns. He was also concerned with the long-term maintenance of the septic system and what
would occur if the homeowner chooses not to maintain the septic system. He questioned if
there would be environmental effects that are not recognized at this time. He found it odd
that the proposal is completed in corporate names and wanted to know more specific
information on the people included in this development and their track record.
Amy Alworth, 1602 Homestead Trail, asked the Commission to preserve the rural quality of
Homestead Trail and asked the Commission to maintain consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Reid commended the members of the public in attendance for their participation and
summarized the concerns brought forward by the public.
Williams confirmed that no decisions would be made tonight and explained that this is simply
a format in which to provide comments to the applicant.
5
Albers stated that he has concerns with the number of lots proposed for the rural residential
area as well as the comments made regarding the forest area.
Foote appreciated the intent to create open space but did have concern with the number of
lots proposed.
Murrin stated that she would be concerned with Deerhill Road and would want more
information on that situation. She referenced the issue of sewer and questioned if there
would be an option to connect to City sewer.
Reid stated that there would not be an option for City sewer.
Murrin stated that she would like to see additional information on the septic system proposed.
Foote stated that while most people would utilize Homestead Trail, he believed that Deerhill
Road would also need to remain as a connection.
Williams stated that there are not many conservation easement developments and questioned
if there are, or will be, others in the City. He stated that his approach would be to determine
what the City is gaining through the proposal that would warrant an increase in density. He
stated that the applicant is requesting about 190 percent in density bonuses but did not feel
that there were significant ecological resources that would be protected, as the wetlands
would already be protected. He stated that the previous resource inventory was done
approximately ten years ago and would like to see more information. He stated that he would
be viewing the request in terms of what the City is gaining compared to what the City would
be giving in bonuses. He stated that while the decision regarding Deerhill Road would not
need to be made at this point that issue would need to be considered because the more homes
in the area, the more pressure that would be placed on the roadway. He stated that this
proposal is an improvement but believed the density proposed is too high as the density bonus
should be in line with what is actually being conserved.
Reid echoed the comments from Williams in regard to the excess bonus being requested by
the applicant. She referenced the issue of the septic system and believed the Home Owners
Association (HOA) would need to be involved with the ongoing maintenance. She stated that
she would like to see Deerhill Road preserved in its current state. She thanked everyone for
their participation.
Reid briefly recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Reid reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
7. Public Hearing – Wealshire of Bloomington, LLC – Rezoning from Rural Residential-
Urban Reserve to Business Park, Interim Use Permit for Continued Agricultural Use on
a Portion of the Site, and Site Plan Review for an 150 Unit Memory Care Facility at the
NW Corner of Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road
Finke stated that there are a number of land use requests tonight related to a memory care
facility at the northwest corner of Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road. He stated that the
plan within the report includes both phase one and phase two. He stated that although the
applicant is requesting to move forward with phase one this year, staff is proposing to allow
the approval process to stand for both phases, as long as the plans do not change and both
phases occur within a specific time. He reviewed the three requests, which are before the
Commission including a rezoning, Site Plan Review and Interim Use Permit for the southern
6
portion of the site. He explained that the City did submit an amendment request to the
Metropolitan Council to change the land use of the parcel and advised that approval has been
granted but a formal approval from the City Council would still be needed. He reviewed the
existing land use designations and future guiding for the adjacent properties. He displayed an
aerial photograph of the site. He provided additional information regarding the rezoning of
the property, noting that business park would be a less intensive option. He stated that staff
believes that the rezoning is consistent with the recent changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
He moved on to the Site Plan review, noting that a memory care facility would be an
acceptable use within the zoning district. He briefly highlighted the aspects of the Site Plan
including building materials and modulation, landscaping, and possible public improvements
associated with Chippewa Road and Mohawk Drive. He referenced the Interim Use Permit
(IUP) requested for the southern portion of the parcel, which would allow agricultural
activities to continue. He stated that staff does not oppose the IUP for the agricultural use of
the southern portion of the property. He stated that staff does recommend approval of the
three requests subject to the conditions included in the staff report.
Williams questioned if a time limit would be put on the IUP.
Finke stated that option was discussed but noted that staff did not see a reason to do so.
The applicant had nothing further to add.
Reid opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m.
Finke stated that he had one written correspondence that will be added into the record.
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m.
Finke provided additional information on the calculations used to determine the necessary
amount of parking.
Williams questioned if the Commission should place a length of time for the IUP to continue.
Reid stated that the property is next to other agricultural land and did not see a problem with
that activity continuing.
Finke stated that if the property were to be subdivided, agricultural activity would be allowed
within the zoning district for the remaining property.
The applicant referenced the parking calculations. He explained that the same calculations
cannot be used for a memory care facility as is used for a hospital. He explained that
dementia patients are not driving vehicles and therefore do not require parking stalls. He
stated that he would like to see a different ratio used other than one stall to two tenants. He
provided comparison information for their site in Bloomington, which has 175 tenants and 75
parking stalls. He believed a ratio of one to three for parking stalls would be more
appropriate.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the request from
Wealshire of Bloomington, LLC, to rezone property from Rural Residential-Urban Reserve to
Business Park; Site Plan review; and Interim Use Permit for continued agricultural use on a
portion of the site for the property located at the northwest corner of Mohawk Drive and
Chippewa Drive subject to the recommendations of staff. Motion approved unanimously.
(Absent: Nolan and White)
7
8. Continued Public Hearing – Ordinance Related to Solar Equipment
Finke stated that this is a continuation of the discussion the Commission had the previous
month regarding solar equipment and regulations. He reviewed the currently allowance for
solar equipment and the direction of the Council to investigate ground mounted equipment.
He stated that the Commission did discuss and generally supported ground mounted
equipment within the business district. He stated that staff also recommends allowing that
use within the industrial district. He summarized the comments and discussion of the
Commission at the previous meeting and stated that staff used those comments to draft the
ordinance as proposed.
Foote believed that the Commission had also discussed the industrial zoning district. He
confirmed that staff is recommending to allow the equipment in that district as well.
Reid continued the public hearing at 9:12 p.m.
Chris Pederson, Bloomington resident, stated that he has grown up in this area and has an
interest in renewable energy. He commended the Commission for considering allowing
ground mounted solar equipment but asked that the equipment be allowed in residential
districts as well. He stated that there are homeowners that would like solar equipment but are
unable to utilize roof-mounted equipment because of the direction their roof faces. He
believed that homeowners should be given the opportunity to include renewable energy
equipment on their property. He believed that solar panels are beautiful and add to a
community but stated that perhaps additional conditions could be placed on residential
districts. He stated that solar gardens are a great amenity but noted that it is more efficient for
homeowners to place equipment near their home. He stated that he believes that renewable
energy is too valuable to limit the use in residential districts. He asked that the Commission
allow residents to benefit in the same manner than businesses will be able to do.
Williams questioned the amount of loss that occurs in a solar garden compared to equipment
located on a resident’s property.
Pederson stated that is hard to determine the actual amount of loss that occurs. He explained
that the more distance that is traveled from the source, the more efficiency that is lost. He
advised that the investment in equipment would be faster for a homeowner than it would be a
solar garden.
Reid questioned how many panels a resident would need to have on their property to supply
their home with energy.
Pederson stated that it would be hard to determine but estimated 15 to 20 solar panels to
power a home. He stated that allowing one to two solar panels would be a vanity project and
would not accomplish the goal of renewable energy.
Mouli Vaidyanathan, Solar Pod, provided additional information regarding the size of solar
panels and the payback timeframe for residential equipment.
Reid closed the public hearing at 9:27 p.m.
Murrin questioned if residents are requesting to install solar equipment and being denied at
this time.
Finke was not aware of any requests from residents.
8
Williams stated that he would be open to allowing ground-mounted equipment within a rural
residential parcel as well.
Foote stated that he would not be opposed to rural residential but believed that the equipment
should be limited to powering one’s house and not creating surplus energy.
Murrin stated that no one has asked for this in the rural residential district at this point and
believed that perhaps that aspect should be discussed separately when residents could voice
their opinion. She stated that it sounds like a great idea but believed that the residents should
be given a chance to provide input.
Albers questioned the number of lots within the rural residential district that would qualify
under these standards.
Reid noted that there would not be any lots that would qualify with the 500-foot setback.
Finke stated that he can use every avenue available to continue this discussion with residents.
Williams stated that perhaps the item could be included in the newsletter.
Finke confirmed that the idea of expanded residential equipment could be discussed at a
future meeting.
Reid confirmed that the Commission would allow ground mounted units in the business and
industrial zoning districts and the other conditions decided upon by the Commission and
staff.
Williams stated that he would be open to allowing the units in the rural residential district but
noted that the item could be advertised in the newsletter to gauge interest.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the amended
ordinance regarding solar equipment as proposed with the addition of the industrial park
zoning district. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and White)
9. Council Meeting Schedule
Albers introduced and provided additional information about himself.
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting Tuesday, February 17th.
Reid volunteered to represent the Commission at the meeting.
10. Adjourn
Motion by Foote, seconded by Murrin, to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.