HomeMy Public PortalAboutPC Minutes 08-08-17 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday August 8, 2017
1. Call to Order: Chairperson White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Dino DesLauriers, Kerby Nester, Robin Reid, and Janet
White.
Absent: Planning Commissioner Todd Albers, Aaron Amic and Kim Murrin.
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and City Planning Consultant Nate Sparks.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
No comments made.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
Anderson reported that the Council met the previous week to consider the Conditional Use
Permit from Kim and Buddy Snow. He stated that the Council unanimously approved the
request, just as the Planning Commission had recommended.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
5. Public Hearing – Excelsior Group LLC – 2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road –
PUD Concept Plan with Staging Plan Flexibility
Finke presented a PUD Concept Plan from the Excelsior Group at 2120 and 2212 Chippewa
Road. He noted that this is an informal review at which the Planning Commission, Park
Commission and City Council provide feedback before the applicant brings forth a formal
application. He stated that this would be a 68-lot subdivision on 38 acres, 36 of which are
buildable. He stated that the City has been working on the draft Comprehensive Plan for the
2020-2040 time period, which is anticipated to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council at
the end of the year. He noted that the draft plan would delay the staging for the low density
residential property. He stated that the City is still working under the existing
Comprehensive Plan until the new plan is adopted. He noted that the City has considered two
previous Concept Plans for this property in the previous year. He identified the subject site
and adjacent uses as well as current guiding and proposed guiding under the draft
Comprehensive Plan. He identified the proposed access for the site, which would have 68
lots, noting that 20 of the lots would be villa style, while the remaining 48 lots would meet
the requirements of the R-1 district. He noted that a 1.5-acre park parcel would be proposed
for the center of the development. He noted that a PUD would be required to obtain the
staging flexibility desired. He stated that the requests should be reviewed against the draft
Comprehensive Plan as if something contradictory is approved that would conflict with the
approval of the draft plan. He stated that the property is similarly guided in both plans, but
the staging differs. He reviewed staff recommendations to buffer against neighboring rural
residential properties and from wetlands. He stated that there is limited access at Mohawk
2
and Highway 55, which means that eastbound traffic would need to utilize Chippewa to
Willow. He stated that the Park Commission had done a previous park study and would be
looking for as much parkland in this area for the first development that comes through to
provide a park to those residents. He noted that the property would be split between two
school districts. He stated that in order to continue through, the applicant would need
flexibility to the staging plan, and he then reviewed the elements under the current
Comprehensive Plan. He noted that something similar would most likely come into play
under the draft plan as well. He reviewed the elements that must be considered for staging
flexibility. He stated that this property is served by a single-loop watermain. He noted that
the City used a lot of City resources this year to repair a watermain break. He noted that the
watermain connection is identified as a need in order to support future development. He
advised that a future traffic connection would also be needed in the future to support
development. He noted that these two elements are important to consider and a provision
should be made to ensure that these elements are addressed prior to the development being up
and running, should this move forward. He noted that the provisions regarding a park would
also need to be addressed to consider flexibility in staging. He stated that if those crucial
factors are addressed, the applicant would then need to meet 50 points to qualify for the jump
ahead staging.
Reid asked for information on the difference in size specified by the applicant and staff.
Finke explained that the applicant included the wetlands in their calculation.
DesLauriers asked for more information on the traffic connection.
Finke provided additional details.
DesLauriers asked for more information on how the points system is setup, should the crucial
factors be met.
Finke explained that the Planning Commission would provide input to the City Council.
Ben Schmidt, Excelsior Group, stated that Finke did a good job presenting the information.
He stated that they were here in 2016 with two Concept Plans and at that time the idea of the
draft Comprehensive Plan was in the beginning stages and they were told to begin with the
Steering Committee. He stated that they attended some of the Steering Committee meetings
and at that time the discussion was for the properties to remain as rural residential and not
low density residential. He stated that the Steering Committee agreed that the parcels should
be guided as low density residential rather than rural residential, which suits this request. He
stated that the staging did not turn out as they had desired under the draft plan, as the staging
states 2025 under that plan. He stated that based on the rationale that was heard through the
Steering Committee and City Council, they believed that these parcels would be developed in
a similar staging to the Wealshire and Lunski properties rather than leaving the parcel
orphaned. He stated that if it makes sense, he did not see anything that would change in the
few years of difference in staging and that is why they are present tonight, to gauge the
temperate of the City. He stated that the plan was always to split the property into two
products, single-family lots and villa style lots to provide products to empty nesters as well.
He noted that the villa products would not back-up to rural residential properties. He stated
that a big reason for the villa product would support the current needs of the market and the
neighboring Wealshire and Lunski developments. He noted that the villas would be a great
feeder into the neighboring senior developments as those residents age and would also be a
great fit for family members of Wealshire and Lunski residents. He stated that in terms of
points for the jump ahead, they feel comfortable that the site can be served by gravity sewer.
3
He stated that he understands the need for the City to extend Chippewa Road, but did not feel
that the extension to the east would benefit this development. He noted that it would only be
a short length that residents would need to travel west to Willow in order to head east on
Highway 55. He stated that this would become the loop that would loop the watermain
together and therefore this would be part of the solution rather than the problem. He stated
that they are willing to listen to the desire for a park, as they would like the park to be used
not only by residents of this development, but other residents in the area. He stated that there
is a significant amount of open space proposed and perhaps that is lessened to add to the park.
He stated that they would also be open to losing a few lots in order to accommodate
additional park space. He stated that they are open to suggestion where the wetland is located
as well, in order to minimize impacts. He stated that they feel like they would have the 50
points necessary to jump ahead and the crucial factor test could also be met. He stated that as
you travel north and west there would not be any other development in the draft
Comprehensive Plan and therefore they feel that the timing now would be a good fit. He
stated that they believe that this development would solve some problems, such as the
watermain issue, and would also provide a desired product that would fit well with the senior
developments surrounding the site.
Reid asked if the villas would be single story.
Schmidt stated that would be the intent, but noted that villas are often unpredictable as some
could have a loft. He noted that the intent would be for empty nesters.
Reid asked the price point.
Schmidt estimated high $300,000s to mid $400,000s. He noted that the villas would be
association maintained and some could support a three-car garage. He noted that 25 percent
of their villa sales have three-car garages to support the desires of the buyers to store
additional items such as vehicles and golf carts.
White stated that some of the villa’s lots would not meet the zoning standards for the lot size
and asked if the homes built on the smaller lots would be smaller as well. She stated that it
does not appear that the setback variances would be needed if that is the intent.
Schmidt stated that the variances would provide the building pad they think they need. He
acknowledged that there would be less space between the homes on those smaller lots. He
stated that people are asking for a smaller lot with less yard for those products. He provided
the average square footage of a villa at 1,400 to 1,500 square feet on one level.
White opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Corey Wiskow, VP of Wealshire Bloomington, expressed full-support for the project as he
believes that it would blend well with the surrounding development.
Jeff Pederson spoke of the pressure that is being put onto Mohawk Drive. He stated that they
do not know how much traffic the Wealshire project will bring to the community. He stated
that the developments to the west have already paid for the Willow stoplight, which would
have additional pressure. He referenced the watermain break that occurred and noted that if
that occurred in the winter, the road would have needed to be shut down. He believed that
the staging time should not be reduced in order to allow the City to get the plan in place for
the road. He stated that the neighbors to the north and west would need to be screened
appropriately as they are zoned rural residential. He hoped that the City would not ask for a
4
Comprehensive Plan amendment, as the Steering Committee and Council have worked hard
on the draft plan which is currently out for jurisdictional review.
Finke submitted a written comment from Brian Stephenson that will become a part of the
record and has been provided to the Commission.
White closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.
Reid stated that there would be two requests for the PUD and jump ahead. She did not
believe that the criteria for the PUD would be met as she did not feel this would be an
innovative development and the site plan is fairly ordinary. She stated that the wetland
protection, tree planting, and stormwater reuses are already required. She did not believe this
is a creative use of land or is efficient. She stated that the main goal seems to be approval for
the smaller lots and she does not feel that is an adequate use of a PUD. She stated that the
PUD and jump ahead are meant for special development with special criteria to be met. She
did not feel that the criteria were met as the development only meets the minimum
requirements and does not go above and beyond. She stated that there would be an impact on
City infrastructure and roads. She did not feel that the project meets the requirements for the
PUD or jump ahead.
DesLauriers stated that his concerns were regarding the crucial factors that must be met. He
stated that the draft plan identifies the staging as such because of the crucial factors that need
to be addressed. He asked for clarification on when construction could begin.
Finke stated that there is a grey area on when construction can begin and occupation can
occur. He stated that it is not unprecedented for the review and construction process to begin
prior to the staging period year.
Nester noted that it is unprecedented to begin three years before the staging.
Finke stated that the other commercial case that he was speaking of began construction the
summer before the staging year.
White stated that the jump ahead would not serve the City, as the infrastructure is not in
place. She stated that the City has not yet been able to determine the impact that Wealshire
and perhaps Lunski would place on the roadways. She noted that the watermain is also an
issue. She believed that the identified staging for the property would be appropriate in order
to allow the infrastructure time to develop.
Finke stated that if there are provisions for the infrastructure improvements, the staging jump
ahead could make sense. He explained that if a developer provides for the infrastructure
improvements, a jump ahead would be an option.
White stated that she appreciates the thought and effort, but agrees that the project is not
unique and would not meet the objectives for the jump ahead. She appreciated the different
housing products, but noted that the property does not have unique features to preserve,
which makes it difficult to achieve those objectives.
DesLauriers stated that the developer commented that the road would be adequate and the
watermain would not be an issue. He asked if a traffic study has been done.
5
Finke stated that ultimately a traffic study would not take into effect that this would not be the
transportation network that the City has identified. He stated that it is a bigger study than
simply being a capacity issue.
Nester agreed with the comments of Reid.
Finke noted that the Park Commission will tentatively review this on August 16th and the City
Council will tentatively review this request on September 5th or 19th.
6. Public Hearing – Arrowhead Holdings LLC – 4101 Arrowhead Drive – Preliminary and
Final Plat for Subdivision and Lot Combination
Finke stated that the applicant is seeking to shift the boundary between the OSI property and
neighboring lot. He noted that the applicant is seeking to do this through a two-step process
of a subdivision and then lot combination. He stated that the purpose of the lot line
rearrangement would accommodate extra parking for the OSI property. He reviewed the
zoning of the subject properties and adjacent properties. He identified the portion of the
property that would be combined with the OSI property and the outlot that would be created.
He stated that the new lot and outlot would need to meet relevant standards and then the lot
combination would be considered. He noted that the required standards would be met
through the proposed request. He stated that the park dedication was deferred in 2009 and
therefore one of the conditions was that any subsequent development would trigger that
deferred dedication. He stated that the 2009 fee specified was $5,893 and staff would support
using that fee as the use of the property would not be intensified. He stated that potential
findings for the subdivision request were included in the packet, noting that staff supports the
two requests subject to the conditions noted and the addition of the park dedication.
Reid asked if OSI already owns this property.
Finke reported that the City of Minneapolis owns the OSI property, as it was created through
economic development and Arrowhead Holdings is the technical property owner.
Nester asked if the parking lot was undersized to begin with.
Finke replied that the company has been growing and filling the space more than the zoning
code would have anticipated.
Nester asked if this would solve the under parked situation.
The applicant stated that the sizing would meet the capacity of the building. He stated that
there are plans to expand to the north in the future. He stated that this last piece of parking
would ensure that the occupancy of the building is addressed. He stated that this would be
118 additional stalls. He stated that often the number of stalls are correlated to the number of
employees, but noted that there are a lot of clients that come into the building for months at a
time and also remote employees and interns that come in for months at a time.
White opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
No comments made.
White closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
6
Motion by Reid, seconded by DesLauriers, to recommend approval of the Cavanaughs
Meadowwoods Park Second Addition and the subsequent lot combination, subject to the
conditions noted in the staff report, with the additional condition that the deferred park
dedication be paid. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers, Amic and Murrin)
7. McDonalds – 822 Highway 55 – Variance from Required Setback Adjacent to Right-of-
Way to Replace Trash Enclosure
Finke stated that the City Council sits as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and therefore
will hold a public hearing on this request. He presented the request from McDonald’s to
reduce the setback for the existing trash enclosure which has already been removed in
conjunction with the CR116 and Clydesdale Trail project. He stated that the propose
variance would locate the trash enclosure 1.5 feet from the Hennepin County right-of-way.
He noted that the location would meet the setback request, but for the County right-of-way.
He highlighted the proposed location for the trash enclosure compared to the previous
location. He reviewed the variance criteria that must be met in order to approve a variance.
He noted that staff has provided potential findings in the staff report in response to the
criteria. He stated that the existing facility has been demolished in connection with the street
project, is not caused by the property owner and is fairly unique. He stated that staff
suggested potential landscaping to ensure that the essential character is not impacted. He
stated that the long-term expectation is that the road would be expanded to the west and the
right-of-way could be vacated in the future; therefore the structure could come back into
compliance.
The applicant noted that he was present to answer any questions.
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to recommend approval of the McDonald’s
request for a variance from the required setback adjacent to the right-of-way to replace the
trash enclosure. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers, Amic and Murrin)
Finke noted that the City Council will consider this item on September 5, 2017.
8. Continued Public Hearing – Dean Lunski – North of Highway 55, South Chippewa
Road and West of Mohawk Drive – Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and Site Plan Review
White asked and received confirmation that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the rezoning request at the last meeting.
Sparks stated that this is a continued public hearing as the Planning Commission thoroughly
reviewed this request at their last meeting. He provided an update on what has been done
since the last review. He stated that this project would include a senior living and medical
office space within one development. He stated that the applicant has addressed some issues
while some issues remain. He stated that the tree preservation issue has been resolved with
the plan for offsite replacement. He stated that the plan will be revised again to provide
additional trees onsite. He stated that the landscaping plan was revised to be consistent
throughout all plans. He stated that the lighting plan was adjusted to include signage lighting.
He noted that the private street would still need to be placed within the outlot. He stated that
a larger drainage and utility easement has been provided for the adjacent lots to support the
off-center alignment. He stated that the Park Commission reviewed the request and
recommend cash in lieu of land dedication for this request. He stated that the setback has
been adjusted to meet the required setback. He stated that the proposed siding would be
cement fiberboard lap siding and therefore would meet the architectural standards. He stated
that the revised plan adjusted the parking lot location to ensure that it does not fall within a
7
setback. He stated that sign locations have also been changed to ensure that setbacks are met.
He stated that a fire truck turnaround has been provided and reviewed by the Fire Marshall
and has been found to be acceptable. He noted that a parking stall has also been removed to
provide a turnaround for vehicles. He stated that there are still issues with wetland setbacks
and buffers. He stated that the eastern side of the building setback was measured to the base
of the building, but has a large bump-out encroachment. He stated that the ordinance only
allows two feet of encroachment for those bump-outs. He stated that the northwest corner
proposes to fill the wetland in order to meet the buffer setback. He stated that the watershed
is going to further review the request, as typically you do not fill a wetland just to meet a
buffer. He noted that the issue on the eastern side would be an easy fix, but the western side
would not be as easily solved. He stated that the item was continued at the last meeting and
the Commission could either take action tonight or table the item to determine the outcome
from the watershed. He stated that the watershed was not looking favorably at the filling of
the wetland. He noted that approval could also be given contingent upon meeting the upland
wetland buffers. He noted that proposed trails and gazebos have been removed from the
upland buffer areas.
Reid stated that the white skyway has not been updated either. She stated that the white
skyway would not be appropriate with Medina and is disappointed that it has not been
changed. She noted that it could be a first level breezeway instead to be less conspicuous.
DesLauriers asked the intent of the skyway.
Reid stated that the skyway is going to be used to move residents from the building to the
medical offices.
DesLauriers stated that the skyway would be needed to accommodate parking underneath.
He agreed that the color change could be done.
Reid stated that she would like the color change to be a condition of approval to ensure that is
addressed.
White reopened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.
Jeff Pederson noted that this is another example of how the Chippewa Drive extension to the
east will be needed, as well as the loop for the watermain that will be necessary.
White closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.
Reid asked if staff is satisfied that the road and wetland buffer issue would be solved.
White noted that could be part of the conditions of approval.
Sparks stated that staff has been attempting to get that addressed for a while, but it is still not.
Reid stated that the Commission gave the applicant one month to address the concerns of
staff. She asked if the applicant has expressed a willingness to address the problems.
DesLauriers stated that at the last review there were a number of comments that needed to be
addressed before it would be appropriate to move it forward to the Council. He asked if most
of the concerns had been addressed and whether the significant issues have been addressed.
8
Sparks stated that the wetland buffer issue is a significant item that a lot of the comments
resolve around. He stated that resolution could be easy if the applicant is willing to follow
the necessary steps to resolve it, or could be difficult if the applicant chooses another path.
Finke stated that if the item does not receive approval from the watershed, the item would not
move forward for consideration from the City Council. He stated that the Commission can
provide input on the wetland issue as that is still being considered by the watershed.
Reid asked when the City would expect to hear back from the watershed.
Finke provided a timeline, noting that the response would have to be received before the
Council would consider the request.
Reid stated that it is not the fault of the City that the necessary questions have not been
answered.
White asked if the Commission moved the application forward to the Council and the
applicant updates plans to reduce wetland impacts, would it be presented again to the
Commission.
Finke stated that would depend on the type of changes that were made. He noted that the
building and the parking lot could be made smaller to provide that additional space, and
therefore that would not need to come back before the Commission.
White stated that the applicant did a lot of what the Commission asked for, although they did
not address everything. She stated that the wetland buffer item could be a stumbling block.
She believed that the Commission could recommend approval with the condition that the
wetland buffer criteria be met, as well as the additional conditions.
Reid noted that she would like to add a condition that the skyway be redesigned to diminish
visual impact and blend into the building architecture.
Finke asked if there is a preference of the Commission as to whether the wetland is filled or
setback is met.
It was the consensus of the Commission that there was no preference.
Motion by Reid, seconded by DesLauriers, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat,
rezoning, and Site Plan review for Lunski project, subject to the conditions noted in the staff
report, with the additional conditions as detailed tonight. Motion carries unanimously.
(Absent: Albers, Amic and Murrin)
9. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning – Closed Landfill/Restricted
District and Closed Landfill/Area of Concern Overlay District
Finke stated that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) operates the Woodlake
Landfill in Medina. He stated that the MPCA developed the Minnesota Closed Landfill
Program and the City is required by statute to adopt an ordinance therein. He stated that the
closed land use plan also extends to nearby properties in regard to the groundwater and
methane gas areas of concern. He stated that the draft ordinance attempts to achieve the two
items required by statute. He stated that the historical regulations will be deleted, as the
landfill is no longer operating and the regulations will be replaced with the closed landfill
regulations. He stated that the overlay district would extend over the properties where
9
groundwater and methane areas of concern lie within. He noted that a setback is also
proposed within the MPCA plan which would apply to methane areas of concern. He stated
that potential language is included in the ordinance for the discussion of the Commission,
noting that while the requirement is not specified under statute, it is recommended by the
MPCA. He highlighted the areas of concern as mapped by staff for potential inclusion within
the overlay district. He noted that the areas of concern can change over time and by being
more inclusive, would avoid the City from constantly amending the map. He stated that some
residents have stated they would like the areas of concern mapped as designated by the
MPCA and not be more inclusive at this time. He stated that the groundwater area of concern
is broader and covers more areas than the methane gas area of concern. He stated that the
closed landfill/restricted would outline two permitted uses, including management of the
closed landfill and solar. He noted that solar equipment would be a permitted use within the
district. He stated that in regard to the overlay district for the areas of concern, the draft
ordinance is more extensive than it would need to be by law. He explained that it would be
easier to remove items the City desires, rather than attempt to add needed items. He stated
that the setback for the methane gas area of concern has been included as recommended by
the MPCA for discussion purposes. He stated that there are only two smaller areas of the site
that would encompass the methane area of concern and therefore that setback can apply only
to those areas. He noted that another option would be not to include the setback in the
ordinance and simply provide notification. He reviewed the groundwater areas of concern
and the options for identifying those boundaries, to be more restrictive or less restrictive. He
noted that the request would include three different actions.
Reid asked why this is coming up now, as the landfill has been there for years.
Finke replied that the City met with the MPCA when the closed land use plan was put out in
2013 and the City is therefore requested to adopt the regulations in order to be consistent,
noting that the City simply had not done so yet.
White opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m.
Mr. Chamberlain spoke as legal counsel for Richard Burk, stating that he prepared a letter
which was sent ahead of time. He stated that his concern would be expanding the area of
concern to his client’s property east of the landfill. He stated that the property is 200 acres in
size and has an assessed value of over $11,000,000 and his concern would be that identifying
the area as an area of concern for groundwater or methane gas would impact the value. He
stated that the landfill closed in 1993 and the MPCA has taken over management as of 2000.
He stated that there is not a situation where there has been a history of methane gas or
groundwater contamination on his client’s property. He stated that obviously everyone
supports the regulations on the landfill area, but they should not negatively impact the
neighboring property owners. He stated that there are already regulations on where wells can
be dug to ensure clean well water. He noted that when his client purchased his property there
was a phase one and phase two environmental assessment done to ensure there was not
groundwater contamination. He did not want his client’s property designated with a problem
that it does not have. He stated that there is no harm to limit the restrictions to the landfill
area itself, but there would be damage to the overlay areas on the adjoining properties.
Kevin O’Connor, 3712 Hamel Road, stated that he is concerned with property values. He
stated that the City would be saying his property has a potential for a problem, even though
the overlay area only extends five to ten feet on the northwest boundary. He stated that he
already has concerns with property values because of the lack of broadband services and now
the City would be designating the property as impaired when it is not. He stated that the
homeowners have been paying property taxes on an assessed value and if the property is
10
labeled as impaired, the value should have been less for the past four years that the City has
delayed action on this adoption. He stated that the area of concern should be limited to the
actual areas and not extended past.
Mr. Leuer stated that he lives immediately north of the landfill. He asked the Commission to
remember that throughout history land has been forfeited by encroachment followed by
insurption. He viewed this overlay as an encroachment. He stated that he has several
questions to the MPCA representative present. He asked the number of closed landfills
within Hennepin County.
Shawn Ruotsinoja, MPCA, stated that there are three.
Mr. Leuer asked how the other landfills have dealt with the areas of concern for groundwater
and methane gas.
Ruotsinoja replied that the other municipalities have adopted the regulations, but did not
believe that the other municipalities have adopted an overlay district thus far. He noted that
there are areas of concern in the other landfills as well.
Mr. Leuer stated that the closed landfill has extensive monitoring equipment. He asked and it
was confirmed that routine chemical monitoring has occurred.
Ruotsinoja stated that the results are public information and it was explained how that
information can be accessed.
Mr. Leuer asked the last time the surrounding private wells were monitored.
Ruotsinoja replied that the last time would have been around 2006 or 2007.
Mr. Leuer asked why repeat sampling of private wells is not being done with the overlay
request.
Ruotsinoja explained that the overlay is not really a requirement of the MPCA and the areas
of concern are provided to the health department. He noted that the department of health
establishes a special well construction area (SWCA) and if someone wants to create a well
that would trigger notification, a special review would be made to determine if a well could
be drilled in that area. He stated that there are two chemicals of concern that have been
identified in the past few years and provided additional details. He stated that this happens
from time to time when new methodology is developed, new information arises and different
things are detected.
Mr. Leuer asked what they would need to do in order to get the private wells sampled.
Ruotsinoja explained that the hydrologist would look at the well locations and determine
which wells should be sampled. He stated that if someone has a well that they would like
sampled which is in close proximity to the landfill, that could be requested from the
hydrologist.
Mr. Leuer stated that there is a history of regularly sampling the groundwater wells in the
perimeter when the landfill was operating, and then once it closed that did not continue.
Ruotsinoja stated that there is still sampling within the landfill wells and noted that the
hydrologist can expand that sampling area.
11
White asked the resident to limit his questions to the Planning Commission that would be
relevant to the request tonight and noted that he could speak with the representative from the
MPCA later in a one on one setting.
Mr. Leuer stated that he would like sampling to occur on the ring of wells outside the landfill.
He asked how the area of concern was determined, noting that the boundary to the west is
significantly less and the southeasterly boundary jogs. He stated that it seemed like jury lines
were arbitrarily laid down based on property owners.
Ruotsinoja stated that he is not the person that drew the boundary. He stated that the
boundary to the west is less because groundwater flowage generally goes to the north and
east. He agreed that the boundary is somewhat arbitrary. He stated that the hatched line
identifies contamination and the area of concern extends to areas that could have concern
depending on the use or pattern of flow. He noted that the hydrologist would have additional
information on the boundaries.
Mr. Leuer stated that the closed landfill is 194 acres and the area of concern is 517 acres,
meaning that the area of concern would be over twice the size of the landfill. He stated that
this is a significant increase in the stigma of the landfill. He noted that of the eight private
landowners in the overlay district, four of them have wells. He stated that some of the
property owners have paid special assessments and were credited for the overlay and setback
areas that would result in unbuildable lots. He stated that people have been taxed based on
future use that the City would then restrict. He stated that the City of Medina collected a
tipping fee from 1985 to 1993, which was one of the City’s biggest revenue resources. He
stated that the value of the properties in the overlay district would be impacted by the stigma
of the land use and would carry additional restrictions; therefore the County assessor should
be made aware of the values. He recommended the Planning Commission table this and
instead suggest a joint meeting with the Commission, City Council and overlay landowners to
discuss land subdivisions financed by the City. He did not believe that the burden of the
overlay district should become the burden of the overlay landowners.
Ralph Miller, 3622 Hamel Road, stated that he owns the property south of the landfill and the
overlay would impact 30 percent of his property.
White closed the public hearing at 9:18 p.m.
Reid stated that she was bothered by the fact that within the staff report or MPCA document
there is no talk of the impact on the value of these properties, as this overlay would impact
the property values. She stated that it makes it look like there is a problem before they know
there is a problem and would take dollars out of the pockets of landowners, particularly when
there has not been a problem identified. She stated that the overlay seems to be taking a
hammer to a tack and would be too impactful.
DesLauriers stated that the overlay is just one option.
Reid stated that she would support the least restrictive option.
DesLauriers referenced a statement from Mr. Chamberlain’s letter which states that the City
would need to compensate property owners for loss of property value in response to the
closed landfill program.
Finke noted that the City Attorney has not had a chance to respond to the letter, as it was
received after 4:00 p.m. today.
12
Nester asked what the overlay would accomplish.
Finke replied that it would depend on if there are restrictions in the overlay. He stated that, as
recommended, it would simply act as a notification area if the setback is removed. He stated
that ultimately the overlay would provide notification and would not include restrictions.
Nester stated that is seems then that the area of concern is something set by the MPCA.
Reid stated that the overlay is not required though. She asked if the notification would be
given to property owners when they come in for permits.
Finke stated that he knows the information and the requirement is to provide the information
to the specific property owners. He stated that this action would formalize the map which
identifies the properties within the areas of concern.
Reid asked if the property owner would be required to disclose this information for potential
buyers.
Finke stated that he is unsure if that is a requirement.
Reid asked if this could be added as a review item for permit reviews and staff would be
reminded to notify property owners in that manner.
Finke stated that it could be formalized in other ways. He stated that the requirement is to
notify the property owners upon receipt from the MPCA.
Mr. Leuer stated that there is already a restriction that is not on any other property in the same
underlying classification, because there is a 300 foot well setback. He stated that therefore
the encroachment exists, but is not formalized. He believed that this method would bring the
whole lot into the encroachment.
Tammy O’Connor, 3712 Hamel Road, stated that residents have been paying on a higher
property tax value and the impacted property owners should have then been paying a lesser
property value if their property is identified as contaminated. She stated that the City has
known about this for years and simply has not taken action until now.
White asked if there is a timeline for this.
Finke stated that there is no timeline requiring the City to come into compliance within a
specific timeframe and therefore action does not need to be taken tonight.
White stated that she feels that she does not have a good enough understanding to have an
opinion. She acknowledged that there are statutes that the City needs to take action on, but
other items that could be adjusted. She stated that the map would not be changed, because
the areas of concern are identified by the MPCA. She stated that it seems the size of the
setbacks could be lowered or removed. She stated that she would support not having the
setback. She stated that still would not change anything for the property owners and their
respective property values. She was unsure what the resolve would be for that concern.
Finke provided another tool recommended by the MPCA within the closed land use plan that
would accomplish the need to notify property owners without adopting an overlay district.
He stated that he would need further details from the City Attorney.
13
Reid stated that there seems to be a more practical way to provide notification without adding
the additional items that would impact property values. She asked for more analysis on how
property values would be least burdened, but still accomplish the required notification.
DesLauriers agreed that this is not ready to move forward. He stated that perhaps a work
session would be a good setting.
Finke stated that he did provide alternate methods of providing that notification that can be
discussed at the next meeting. He noted that essentially every decision the Commission
makes can impact property values.
Finke stated that he would talk to the City Assessor in an attempt to gather additional
information.
Reid stated that she believes the notification can be part of the building permit process,
similar to floodplain designation.
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to table the request to the September 12, 2017
meeting, and direct staff to develop alternatives to the overlay. Motion carries unanimously.
(Absent: Albers, Amic and Murrin)
10. Approval of the July 11, 2017 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to approve the July 11, 2017, Planning
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers, Amic and
Murrin)
11. Council Meeting Schedule
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Reid volunteered
to attend in representation of the Commission.
12. Adjourn
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Nester, to adjourn the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.