HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-11-2015 POSTED IN CITY HALL August 7, 2015
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2015
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of July 14, 2015 Draft Planning Commission minutes.
6. Robert Buehler – Preliminary Plat and Variance to divide a single lot
into a lot and an outlot.
7. Brian Etzel – 2942 Lakeshore Avenue – Variance from required 30 foot
setback to expand deck.
8. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code
related to setbacks from upland wetland buffers.
9. Council Meeting Schedule
10. Adjourn
Brian Etzel Page 1 of 4 August 11, 2015
Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debra Peterson, Planning Assistant
DATE: August 6, 2015
MEETING: August 11, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Brian Etzel - Setback Variance – 2942 Lakeshore Avenue
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: July 8, 2015
Review Deadline: September 5, 2015
Overview of Request
Brian Etzel requests a variance to reduce the required setback along Balsam from 30 feet to 12
feet for the construction of a deck that will tie in with an already existing deck along Balsam
Street and Lakeshore Avenue. The deck dimensions are 10’ x 22’ and it would be attached to the
existing 8’ x 12’ deck which faces Balsam Street and Lakeshore Avenue. The proposed deck
would not extend any further towards Balsam Street than the already existing deck.
The subject property and all surrounding properties are zoned UR, Urban Residential. The
zoning district requires 9,000 square foot in size lots and the subject property is .16 acres or
7,167 square feet in area. The subject property does not meet current lot size standards or
required setbacks, except it does meet the 30 foot setback along Lakeshore Avenue (front yard).
The proposed deck does not increase any of these existing nonconformities.
The variance request is for along Balsam Street (north property line) which is the direction the
home faces. The minimum 30-foot side yard street setback makes it impossible to construct a
deck to meet the setback along Balsam since the home is currently only set back 20 feet and the
deck 12 feet from the Balsam property line. The proposed deck would meet the front yard
setback along Lakeshore Avenue, the rear yard setback, and the interior side yard setback.
Urban Residential Requirement Proposed Deck
Min. Front Yard Setback (west) 30 feet 34’-5” feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (east) 30 feet N/A
Min. Street Side Setback (north) 30 feet 12 feet
Min. Side Yard Setback (south) 10 feet 12 feet
Max. Hardcover 25% (shoreland) 57% (existing)
NO INCREASE IN
HARDCOVER WITH DECK
AGENDA ITEM 7
Brian Etzel Page 2 of 4 August 11, 2015
Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting
Impervious Surface/Hardcover
The maximum impervious surface in the shoreland overlay district is 25 percent. The subject
property currently has 57 percent of its lot covered by hardsurface since it is a smaller lot. Staff
recommends the applicant remove areas of hardsurface where possible. Staff recommends as a
condition of approval that the applicant and staff meet on-site to determine where hardsurface
can be removed prior to the issuance of a deck permit.
Right-of-way
The area between the Balsam street side property line to the edge of the street (right-of-way) is
26 feet. The current distance from the edge of the street along Balsam to the existing deck is 38
feet. The proposed deck would not bring it any closer.
An aerial of the property is below:
Brian Etzel Page 3 of 4 August 11, 2015
Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting
Lot Requirements:
Required Existing
Minimum Lot Size: 9,000 SF 7,167 SF
Minimum Lot Width: 60 Feet 38 Feet
Minimum Lot Depth: 100 Feet 138.78 Feet
The existing lot width at the front property line along Lakeshore Avenue is 38 feet (west). The
minimum width for the district is 60 feet. The lot width does gradually increase as it continues
eastward and then ends with a width of 64.79 feet along the rear yard property line (east). The
existing home is only 24 feet in depth which is rather conservative. Adding a deck to the home
is not possible without a Variance.
Visibility
Visibility from Lakeshore Avenue (west) towards the home is limited since it is screened quite
well by trees. Balsam Street also has many trees along the roadway, but the deck would be more
visible since the driveway is along Balsam. The interior property line (south) is screened by a
partial fence.
Analysis
According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45 of the City Code, the City is required to consider the
following criteria when reviewing a variance request:
“Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances.
(a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the ordinance.
(b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations
alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be
established, all of the following criteria shall be met:
(1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In
determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance
requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty
and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are
denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district;
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner; and
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
Findings of Fact
Staff believes that practical difficulties exist as a result of the narrowness of the lot and
that this circumstance does not apply generally to other property in the same zoning
district. A deck would not be allowed to be constructed without a Variance.
Brian Etzel Page 4 of 4 August 11, 2015
Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting
Staff does not believe that granting the variances would give any special privileges that
are denied to owners of other property in the same district.
Staff does not believe the narrowness of the lot was created by the landowner.
Staff believes the literal interpretation of the setback provisions of the City Code would
prevent the applicant from constructing a deck on the subject property, which is a right
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district.
Staff believes that the variance request will not alter the essential character of the area
and that the applicant proposes an average deck size for the home.
The proposed location is surrounded by significant vegetation which should limit impacts
on adjoining property.
The property to the south of the subject property received variances for the construction
of a new home due to the lot being small in the neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request with the findings described above and subject
to the conditions which follow. The City may impose conditions in the granting of a variance to
insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Staff recommends the following
conditions:
1) The applicant shall meet with staff on-site prior to issuance of a deck permit to determine
areas where hardcover could be removed and converted to pervious surface.
2) The applicant shall not remove any of the trees or vegetation surrounding the proposed
deck.
3) The applicant shall utilize the variance within one year of approval, or the variance shall
be considered null and void.
4) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the variance and other relevant documents.
Potential Motion
If the Commission finds that the variance criteria are met, the following motion would be in
order:
Move to recommend approval of the variance based upon the findings noted in the staff report
and subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Site Plan received by the City 7/13/2015
3. Deck Plan received by the City 7/08/2015
Brian Etzel Page 1 of 4 August 11, 2015
Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debra Peterson, Planning Assistant
DATE: August 6, 2015
MEETING: August 11, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Brian Etzel - Setback Variance – 2942 Lakeshore Avenue
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: July 8, 2015
Review Deadline: September 5, 2015
Overview of Request
Brian Etzel requests a variance to reduce the required setback along Balsam from 30 feet to 12
feet for the construction of a deck that will tie in with an already existing deck along Balsam
Street and Lakeshore Avenue. The deck dimensions are 10’ x 22’ and it would be attached to the
existing 8’ x 12’ deck which faces Balsam Street and Lakeshore Avenue. The proposed deck
would not extend any further towards Balsam Street than the already existing deck.
The subject property and all surrounding properties are zoned UR, Urban Residential. The
zoning district requires 9,000 square foot in size lots and the subject property is .16 acres or
7,167 square feet in area. The subject property does not meet current lot size standards or
required setbacks, except it does meet the 30 foot setback along Lakeshore Avenue (front yard).
The proposed deck does not increase any of these existing nonconformities.
The variance request is for along Balsam Street (north property line) which is the direction the
home faces. The minimum 30-foot side yard street setback makes it impossible to construct a
deck to meet the setback along Balsam since the home is currently only set back 20 feet and the
deck 12 feet from the Balsam property line. The proposed deck would meet the front yard
setback along Lakeshore Avenue, the rear yard setback, and the interior side yard setback.
Urban Residential Requirement Proposed Deck
Min. Front Yard Setback (west) 30 feet 34’-5” feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (east) 30 feet N/A
Min. Street Side Setback (north) 30 feet 12 feet
Min. Side Yard Setback (south) 10 feet 12 feet
Max. Hardcover 25% (shoreland) 57% (existing)
NO INCREASE IN
HARDCOVER WITH DECK
AGENDA ITEM 7
Brian Etzel Page 2 of 4 August 11, 2015
Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting
Impervious Surface/Hardcover
The maximum impervious surface in the shoreland overlay district is 25 percent. The subject
property currently has 57 percent of its lot covered by hardsurface since it is a smaller lot. Staff
recommends the applicant remove areas of hardsurface where possible. Staff recommends as a
condition of approval that the applicant and staff meet on-site to determine where hardsurface
can be removed prior to the issuance of a deck permit.
Right-of-way
The area between the Balsam street side property line to the edge of the street (right-of-way) is
26 feet. The current distance from the edge of the street along Balsam to the existing deck is 38
feet. The proposed deck would not bring it any closer.
An aerial of the property is below:
Brian Etzel Page 3 of 4 August 11, 2015
Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting
Lot Requirements:
Required Existing
Minimum Lot Size: 9,000 SF 7,167 SF
Minimum Lot Width: 60 Feet 38 Feet
Minimum Lot Depth: 100 Feet 138.78 Feet
The existing lot width at the front property line along Lakeshore Avenue is 38 feet (west). The
minimum width for the district is 60 feet. The lot width does gradually increase as it continues
eastward and then ends with a width of 64.79 feet along the rear yard property line (east). The
existing home is only 24 feet in depth which is rather conservative. Adding a deck to the home
is not possible without a Variance.
Visibility
Visibility from Lakeshore Avenue (west) towards the home is limited since it is screened quite
well by trees. Balsam Street also has many trees along the roadway, but the deck would be more
visible since the driveway is along Balsam. The interior property line (south) is screened by a
partial fence.
Analysis
According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45 of the City Code, the City is required to consider the
following criteria when reviewing a variance request:
“Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances.
(a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the ordinance.
(b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations
alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be
established, all of the following criteria shall be met:
(1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In
determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance
requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty
and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are
denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district;
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner; and
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
Findings of Fact
• Staff believes that practical difficulties exist as a result of the narrowness of the lot and
that this circumstance does not apply generally to other property in the same zoning
district. A deck would not be allowed to be constructed without a Variance.
Brian Etzel Page 4 of 4 August 11, 2015
Setback Variance Planning Commission Meeting
• Staff does not believe that granting the variances would give any special privileges that
are denied to owners of other property in the same district.
• Staff does not believe the narrowness of the lot was created by the landowner.
• Staff believes the literal interpretation of the setback provisions of the City Code would
prevent the applicant from constructing a deck on the subject property, which is a right
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the district.
• Staff believes that the variance request will not alter the essential character of the area
and that the applicant proposes an average deck size for the home.
• The proposed location is surrounded by significant vegetation which should limit impacts
on adjoining property.
• The property to the south of the subject property received variances for the construction
of a new home due to the lot being small in the neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance request with the findings described above and subject
to the conditions which follow. The City may impose conditions in the granting of a variance to
insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Staff recommends the following
conditions:
1) The applicant shall meet with staff on-site prior to issuance of a deck permit to determine
areas where hardcover could be removed and converted to pervious surface.
2) The applicant shall not remove any of the trees or vegetation surrounding the proposed
deck.
3) The applicant shall utilize the variance within one year of approval, or the variance shall
be considered null and void.
4) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the variance and other relevant documents.
Potential Motion
If the Commission finds that the variance criteria are met, the following motion would be in
order:
Move to recommend approval of the variance based upon the findings noted in the staff report
and subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Site Plan received by the City 7/13/2015
3. Deck Plan received by the City 7/08/2015
Willow Manor Page 1 of 5 August 11, 2015
Preliminary/Final Plat Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: August 6, 2015
MEETING: August 11, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Willow Manor – Preliminary and Final Plat with Variance –
2782 Willow Drive (and property to east) – Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: July 9, 2015
120-day Review Deadline: November 6, 2015
Overview of Request
Robert Buehler has requested to plat an existing parcel into a single buildable parcel and an
outlot. The applicant owns the western portion of the subject site and another party owns the
eastern portion, even though the two portions of the site were created as a single parcel back in
1984. It appears likely that the two portions of the site were given their own PID for tax
purposes back in 1984 because the western portion was taxed by Minnehaha Creek Watershed
and the eastern portion was not. At some point, these two tax PIDs were conveyed to two
separate buyers, despite the fact they were a single legal parcel.
The applicant seeks City approval to plat the portion of the subject site that they own into a
buildable parcel. The eastern portion would be an outlot which would not be buildable on its
own. This eastern portion is owned by the adjacent owner to the south.
The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) and is guided Rural Residential in the
Comprehensive Plan. Surrounding properties are all Rural Residential as well. No buildings are
currently located on the subject property; a home and an accessory structure were previously
demolished on the western portion of the site. A shared driveway is located through the northern
portion of the site, currently serving three homes and a vacant lot. This shared driveway also
previously served the home on the western portion of the subject site. The eastern portion of the
lot is largely occupied by a private road easement on the north, east, and a wetland on the south.
An aerial of the subject site can be found at the top of the following page.
Analysis
As noted above, the property is zoned Rural Residential (RR). The following table summarizes
the dimensional standards of the district and the proposed Lot and Outlot.
Willow Manor Page 2 of 5 August 11, 2015
Preliminary/Final Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Required Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Outlot A
Minimum Lot Area
(suitable soils)
5 acre contiguous
suitable soils
3.52 acre suitable
(~1.1 acre restricted
by easement or drive)
~ 2 acre suitable (~ 1
acre w/in road easement)
Gross Lot Area N/A 4.04 acres 4.91 acres
Minimum Lot Width 300 feet 748 feet 792 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 300 feet 200 feet
Front Yard Setback 50 feet
Rear Yard Setback 40 feet
Side Yard Setback 20 feet
Impervious Surfaces 40% 4.2% 5.6%
PROPOSED
LOT 1
PROPOSED
OUTLOT
Willow Manor Page 3 of 5 August 11, 2015
Preliminary/Final Plat Planning Commission Meeting
As noted above, the proposed lot would contain approximately 3.5 acres of contiguous suitable
soils, less than the 5 acres required in the RR district. The proposed lot is also bisected by a
private road easement (which currently does not contain a private road), a shared driveway
serving property to the southeast, and a private driveway serving property to the east. These
areas restrict the use of approximately 1.1 acres of the suitable soils.
The applicant has requested the subdivision and has requested that the proposed lot be deemed
buildable by the City. Because the proposed lot does not meet current standards, the applicant
has requested a variance. The applicant argues that the requested subdivision would only result
in a single buildable lot in the location where a lot was approved in 1984. It appears that the
proposed lot would have met minimum lot standards on its own back in 1984, when the
requirement was 2 acres of soils for a conventional septic system. The proposed outlot would
not have met minimum lot standards, which is presumably why it was included along with the
western portion.
The applicant also argues that there was a house located on the western portion of the subject
property when they purchased the land and that the City did not inform them that the portion
they owned was part of a larger lot when they applied for a permit to demolish the home. At that
time, the City was not aware of the fact, even when staff had conversations with the applicant
about their desire to construct a new home on the western portion of the subject site.
Staff recognizes that the applicant is in a difficult situation as a result of the actions of a previous
property owner and has had numerous conversations with the applicant about options to move
forward. Staff suggested the possibility of purchasing property to bring the lot into compliance.
The applicant can speak to what extent they investigated such opportunities. Staff also discussed
the subdivision/variance process as an option for the applicant.
Wetlands/Floodplains
There is a large wetland which extends along much of the southern portion of the site. There is
also a small wetland in the central portion of the proposed lot. Staff recommends requiring
upland buffers adjacent to the wetlands on the proposed lot. Staff does not believe it is necessary
to establish buffers along the wetland on the outlot at this time.
FEMA flood maps do not identify floodplains adjacent to wetlands on the site.
Sewer/Water
The proposed lot would be served by a private well and individual septic system. The applicant
has identified a primary and secondary septic site for the proposed lot, which the building official
indicated appeared sufficient. No sites are identified for the outlot since it would not be
considered buildable on its own.
Transportation
A shared driveway currently serves the proposed lot, goes across the proposed outlot and serves
an additional 4 lots. Staff recommends that the proposed lot continue to access the shared drive
rather than having a separate driveway to Willow Drive. The home that was located on this
portion of the lot utilized the shared driveway before it was demolished.
Willow Manor Page 4 of 5 August 11, 2015
Preliminary/Final Plat Planning Commission Meeting
The shared drive does not appear to be located within the easement across the proposed lot. Staff
recommends that an easement be provided under the existing driveway in order to ensure access
for the properties to the east.
The City Engineer does not believe the subdivision causes any transportation concerns.
Stormwater and LID Review
No improvements or hardcover is proposed at this time, and the stormwater management
ordinance would not be triggered. Future construction may potentially require improvements.
Tree Preservation
There are few trees on the subject property. No initial site development is proposed which
would impact any trees.
Park Dedication
The plat does not result in a net increase in the number of buildable lots, so park dedication is not
required.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
Because the proposed lot does not meet minimum lot standards of the RR district, approval of
the plat is contingent upon approval of the requested variance. As a result, staff recommends
that the Planning Commission and City Council consider the variance request first.
The applicant has requested a variance to reduce the minimum lot size of the proposed lot from 5
acres of contiguous suitable soils to 3.5 acres. Section 825.45, Subd. 2 establishes criteria by
which the City reviews variance requests:
(a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent
of the ordinance.
(b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations
alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be
established, all of the following criteria shall be met:
(1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining
if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board
shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum
variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers
upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands,
structures, or buildings in the same district;
(2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner; and
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
A variance may only be approved if it meets all of the criteria noted above. If the Planning
Commission and City Council find that the variance criteria above have been met and that the
variance should be approved, the plat would then be reviewed under the following criteria.
Willow Manor Page 5 of 5 August 11, 2015
Preliminary/Final Plat Planning Commission Meeting
According to Subd. 10 of Section 820.21, the following criteria is to be followed when reviewing
subdivisions. “The City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination
of the following finding are made:
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city,
or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are
such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does
not meet minimum lot size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way.”
Without approval of the variance, the proposed lot would not meet minimum lot size standards,
as described in paragraph (c). As a result, without approval of the variance, the request for
subdivision should be denied. If the City does approve the variance request, staff does not
believe the request would meet the remaining findings.
Staff recognizes the unfortunate situation the applicant is in and does not oppose the requested
variance. If the Planning Commission and City Council find the variance criteria have been
satisfied, staff would recommend approval of the variance and preliminary/final plat subject to
the following conditions:
1) The Applicant shall extinguish the portion of the private roadway easement bisecting
proposed Lot 1, Block 1 and grant an easement to the satisfaction of the City over the
existing driveways on the proposed lot.
2) Access for the proposed lot shall be provided from the existing shared driveway.
3) The Applicant shall establish upland buffers adjacent to the wetland on proposed Lot 1,
Block 1, consistent with the City’s wetland protection ordinance. This shall include
planting of vegetation if necessary, signage, and easements.
4) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the plat and variance.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. City Engineer comments dated 8/3/2015
3. Applicant Narrative
4. Preliminary Plat received by the City 8/4/2015
5. Final Plat
Project: LR‐15‐160 – Buehler/Harmel Plat and variance The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 5/7/2015 5/7/2015 3 Application Y Amended 07‐09‐2015 Fee 5/7/2015 5/7/2015 1 Fee Y $5000 Mailing Labels 6/2/2015 5/15/2015 6 Labels Y Narrative 6/2/2015 N/A 1 Narrative Y Final Plat 5/8/2015 N/A 1 Final Plat Y Survey 5/8/2015 12/11/20141 Survey‐5‐8‐2015 Y Preliminary Plat 6/15/20156/15/2015 1 PrelimPlat‐06‐15‐2015 Y Preliminary Plat‐updated 7/29/20157/14/2015 1 PrelimPlat‐7‐29‐2015 Y Preliminary Plat‐updated 8/4/2015 8/3/2015 1 PrelimPlat‐8‐4‐2015 Y Title Commitment 6/2/2015 5/13/2015 8 TitleCommittment Y Septic tests/borings 7‐9‐2015 7‐6‐2015 15 SepticTests N Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 8/3/2015 1 EngComments – 8/3/2015 Public Comments Document Date # of pages Electronic
1
Dusty Finke
From:Tom Kellogg <TKellogg@wsbeng.com>
Sent:Monday, August 03, 2015 3:01 PM
To:Dusty Finke; Batty, Ronald H. (rbatty@Kennedy-Graven.com)
Cc:Debra Peterson
Subject:RE: Buehler preliminary plat
My comments/questions are noted below:
1. Is there a current wetland delineation for the properties?
2. If there is the appropriate easements should be acquired.
3. It appears they are dedicating 33’ half right‐of‐way for Willow Drive. The City should confirm this is correct.
4. The private roadway easement across Lot 1, Block 1 should be moved to encompass the existing drive. This
appears to have an impact on the possible septic sites.
Thanks,
Tom
Tom Kellogg
Senior Project Manager
d: 612-209-5113 | c: 612-209-5113
WSB & Associates, Inc. | Oddfellows Building
23 2nd Street SW Suite #200 | Rochester, MN 55902
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are
not the addressee, please delete this email from your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly
prohibited. WSB does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result of electronic transmission. If
verification is required, please request a hard copy.
From: Dusty Finke [mailto:Dusty.Finke@ci.medina.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 3:39 PM
To: Tom Kellogg; Batty, Ronald H. (rbatty@Kennedy-Graven.com)
Cc: Debra Peterson
Subject: FW: Buehler preliminary plat
Tom,
We received the attached updated preliminary plat today. Hard copy is in the mail. This is scheduled for August 11
Planning Commission meeting, so I’ll need comments Tuesday (8/4)
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 1 August 11, 2015
Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks Planning Commission
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: August 5, 2015
MEETING: August 11, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment – Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks
Background
At the July 14 meeting, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on a proposed ordinance
amendment to reduce the required setback for decks from upland buffers. A property owner in
the Enclave had requested that the City consider a setback of 5 feet for decks rather than 15 feet
that is currently required for the home (and deck).
The Commission expressed concerns related to the unintended consequences of reducing the
setback for decks. The main concern was the reduction of upland areas and usable green space
on properties adjacent to wetlands and the fact that developers and builders would likely utilize
the extra space to increase the size of homes or decrease the size of lots. Following discussion,
the Planning Commission recommended denial of the ordinance amendment.
The property owner has requested that the City consider a 10 foot setback.
The report from the July 14 meeting is attached for reference.
Attachment
1. Report from July 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting
2. Draft Ordinance
3. Letter from person requesting amendment
4. List of property owners supporting amendment
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 July 14, 2015
Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 8, 2015
MEETING: July 14, 2015 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment – Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks – Public Hearing
Background
The City’s wetland protection ordinance requires that vegetative buffers be established adjacent
to wetlands in new developments. The purpose of these buffers is to “protect the wetland from
erosion and filter sediment, chemicals and other nutrients from the runoff that drains into the
Wetland. An Upland Buffer also provides wildlife habitat and assists in maintaining diversity of
both plant and animal species within the city.”
The wetland protection ordinance also requires that structures be set back an additional distance
beyond the buffer. Principal structures are required to be 15 feet from the buffer, and accessory
structures are required to be 5 feet.
The purpose of the setback is to provide a space outside of the buffer for outdoor activities. This
is meant to reduce the likelihood that a property owner will violate and impact the buffer in order
to allow for typical outdoor activities.
There are a number of homes within the Enclave neighborhood which back onto wetland areas
which had houses constructed which left comparatively little space for construction of decks. A
number of these owners have expressed concerns to staff that they could not construct the deck
that they desired. A number of the owners inquired about variances to allow for the decks. Staff
believes that the circumstance is not unique and is, in fact, fairly common. As a result, staff did
not believe a series of variances was appropriate. Instead, staff suggested that the owners request
that the Planning Commission and City Council review the regulation.
One of the owners formally applied for an amendment to the wetland protection ordinance which
would reduce the required setback for a deck to 5 feet (the same as an accessory structure). The
owner spoke at a City Council meeting. Because so many owners had expressed an interest in
the potential amendment, the Council directed staff to review rather than placing responsibility
of the cost onto the owner.
Analysis
As noted above, staff believes the intent of the setback is to provide a space outside of the buffer
for outdoor activities and to reduce the likelihood of impacts into the buffer.
The purpose is not to limit hardcover adjacent to the buffer, as evidenced by the fact that
accessory structures have a reduced setback of 5 feet and improvements such as a patio would
not require a setback at all.
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 July 14, 2015
Deck Upland Buffer Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting
Allowing a reduced setback for uncovered decks from wetland buffers may result in situations
where a property owner looks to convert or replace the deck with a 3- or 4-season porch, but this
would not be permitted because of the setback. In fact, at least one resident of the Enclave has
already stated that they would be interested in a 3-season porch rather than a deck. Not having
to make a distinction between a deck, 3-season porch, 4-season porch, or a full addition onto the
house is one of the benefits of having a consistent setback requirement.
Despite the argument for consistency, staff feels the more limited amendment for decks would be
preferable to reducing the setback for all structures. Upland buffers have only recently began to
be established and staff does not have information to rely on to determine if larger setbacks
reduce impacts to the buffers.
The amendment, as proposed, would allow certain lots a much larger building envelope for a
deck than would be currently permitted. Staff considered more complicated alternatives which
would only permit a certain area or % of the 15-foot setback to be encroached upon. This would
allow some additional flexibility for decks while maintaining more ground space. Staff could
look into such regulations further, but have some concern about being difficult to administer on a
case-by-case basis across the City.
Attachment
Draft ordinance
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESSES;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 828.43, Subd. 5. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is
amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 828.43. Wetlands Conservation.
Subd. 5. Upland Buffer Zone and Required Buffer Setbacks.
(a) If a new development activity, as defined in subdivision 3(c)(i) of this section, is
proposed, the following Upland Buffer Zone and Buffer Setbacks shall be
required for each Wetland, or portion of Wetland, within the subject property. In
the event that zoning district regulations differ from the following table, the
standards or procedures described within the zoning district regulations shall be
required:
Wetland Classification
Upland Buffer
Zone Average
Width
Minimum
Upland Buffer
Zone Width
Buffer Setback
(Principal
Structure)*
Buffer Setback
(Accessory
Structure)
Preserve (at least partly within or
adjacent to a DNR Mapped Area) 50 feet 30 feet 15 feet 5 feet
All Other Preserve 35 feet 25 feet 15 feet 5 feet
Manage 1 30 feet 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet
Manage 2 25 feet 20 feet 15 feet 5 feet
Manage 3 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 5 feet
* Uncovered decks and uncovered porches attached to the principal structure may extend into the
required setback, but shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the Upland Buffer.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this ____ day of _____________, 2015.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the _____ day of _________, 2015.
May 30, 2015
Medina Planning Commission
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
RE: Subd. 5. Upland Buffer Zone and Required Buffer Setbacks
Dear Madam/ Sir;
I am writing to you for consideration in amending the setback requirements related to upland buffer
zones. My request is to amend the current setback requirement from 15’-0 to 5’-0 for all uncovered
decks and porches attached to a principle structure. This would then allow for decks to extend into the
current wetland setback.
My request is based on the issue that I, and many of my neighbors, am challenged with building a
functional and useful deck for our homes. The current zone requirement for the wetland setback line
exists 15’-0 from the wetland buffer line. This area in my yard, as well as my neighbors, is currently
occupied by grass and other landscaping. The current setback requirements only allow us to build from
the face of our house up to the wetland setback line. This limitation forces us to utilize odd shapes for
deck space, inconvenient locations for stairs and added costs for unique design construction while open
yard space is available to utilize.
Approval of this amendment request would allow for decks to extend or occupy space in the wetland
setback area up to 5’-0 from the wetland buffer line. This amended change would also bring the deck
setback requirements consistent with the current requirements for accessory structures such as sheds
or other manmade structures. (Exhibit A)
In addition to my request, I have also spoke with many neighbors to confirm support for this change. I
have attached a list of owner names and addresses that support this amendment request. (Exhibit B)
I hope the commission will see the value of amending this requirement for homeowners and the added
enjoyment and value it will bring to residents of Medina. If the commission or council needs any
additional details or information, I would be happy to provide or facilitate if needed.
Sincerely,
Charles Morse
3224 Butternut Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Enclave Amendment Support List ‐ 06‐03‐2015
Quantity Name Address City
1 Charlie & Berit Morse 3224 Butternut Drive Medina
2 Angela and Jeff Johnson 3229 Pin Oak Road Medina
3 Kyle and Elizabeth Abell 3126 Butternut Drive Medina
5 Kavitha and Shawn Bernet 3129 Butternut Drive Medina
6 Nick Morrison 3278 Butternut Drive Medina
7 Tom & Merissa Browning 3257 Butternut Drive Medina
8 Michael and Melissa Kremer 3275 Butternut Dr Medina
9G. William McCoy 3153 Magnolia Drive Medina
10 Andy and Wendy Lanik 3224 Magnolia Drive Medina
11 Peter Vlad 3236 Pin Oak Road Medina
12 Rigo & Kacie Brioschi 3136 Wild Flower Trail Medina
13 Geg and Kristen Seremet 3200 Magnolia Drive Medina
14 John and Jennifer Roberts 3232 Magnolia Drive Medina
15 Andrew &Caitlyn Rosendahl 3277 Pin Oak Rd Medina
16 Travis and Cady Mattson 3315 Butternut Drive Medina
17 Colin and Mara Ryan 3196 Butternut Drive Medina
18 Lisa and Aaron Amic 3045 Butternut Drive Medina
19 Jason and Lindsey Vaughan 3154 Wild Flower Trail Medina
20 Mike Bitzer 3121 Wild Flower Tr Medina
21 Justin Reid 3151 Wildflower Tr. Medina
22 Mike and Allison Fetrow 3181 Magnolia Drive Medina
23 John Melsen 3208 Magnolia Drive Medina
24 Julia Roaldson 3405 Butternut Drive. Medina
25 Nikki & Matt cole 3375 Butternut Drive Medina
26 Dan Munsell 3157 Wild Flower Trl. Medina
27 Scott and Molly Prentice 3302 Butternut Drive Medina
28 Aaron and Tracy Norman 3225 Butternut Dr Medina
29 Nathan and Deb Honstad 3374 Butternut Dr Medina
30 Brody & Steph Heinrich 3167 Magnolia Dr Medina
31 Amy Patt 3168 Magnolia Dr Medina
32 Shawn and Kim Holzschuh 3059 Butternut Drive Medina
33 Amna Khalid and Khalid Amin 3225 Magnolia drive Medina
34 Brent and Joy Scheil 3235 Pin Oak Rd Medina
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday July 14, 2015 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Kim Murrin, Charles Nolan, Victoria Reid, 8
Janet White, and Kent Williams. 9
10
Absent: Planning Commissioner Randy Foote. 11
12
Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, City Planner Dusty Finke, and City Council 13
member John Anderson. 14
15
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 16
17
No comments made. 18
19
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 20
21
Anderson provided an updated on the three activities the Council considered at their last 22
meeting including the request from the Goddard School, which was approved; an update on 23
the progress of the consolidation of the Loretto and Hamel Fire Departments; and updates to 24
the liquor licensing in order to be compliant with the legislative changes. He noted that 25
concern was also expressed from a resident living north of Highway 55, specifically in a 26
senior citizen building, regarding the recent power outages. 27
28
4. Planning Department Report 29
30
Finke provided an update. 31
32
5. Approval of the June 9, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 33
34
Motion by Williams, seconded by Reid, to approve the June 9, 2015, Planning Commission 35
minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Foote) 36
37
6. Public Hearing – Property Resources Development Corporation – East of 38
Homestead Trail, West of Deerhill Road – Planned Unit Development 39
General Plan and Preliminary Plat for a Proposed Conservation Design 40
Subdivision to Include 42 Single Family Home Lots 41
42
Sparks provided additional explanation on the definition of a conservation design 43
subdivision, noting that there are specific criteria to review such requests against, similar to a 44
planned unit development request. He stated that the subject site is approximately 170 acres 45
in size and is predominately farmland and wetland with some sloping. He noted that both 46
Morningside and Deerhill Road terminate into the property on the east and Homestead Trail 47
is also adjacent the property. He stated that the concept plan was reviewed at the February 48
meeting of the Planning Commission. He reviewed the base density for the subject site and 49
stated 42 units would be 190 percent of the 200 percent base density allowed by ordinance. 50
He stated that the City Engineer had reviewed the proposed access to Deerhill Road and had 51
found it to be acceptable. He noted that the access into the property would be through Orono, 52
2
noting that the property owner also owns the adjacent parcel in Orono. He described the 53
circulation and its connection to Deerhill Road. He noted that the two cul-de-sacs would be 54
private roads. He stated that following the concept plan review the applicant had reduced the 55
right-of-way and street width in order to be more in line with low impact development and to 56
reflect comments made regarding Deerhill Road. He said staff recommended the roads be 57
built to City standards for safety purposes rather than the proposed narrower streets. He 58
stated that additional details would be needed regarding the shared driveway and the 59
maintenance plans for the cul-de-sacs. He provided additional details on the proposed trail 60
alignment and stated that staff believes there are a number of ways to achieve the goals of the 61
trail plans and therefore perhaps a connection to the park should be provided. He stated that 62
primary and secondary septic sites are provided on each lot with the exception of one lot 63
which has a secondary site proposed in the conservation area. The application also requests 64
the flexibility to shift up to nine other secondary septic sites into the conservation area. He 65
advised that three lots do not meet the City standards for septic setback to a wetland. He 66
noted that the City’s drinking water area runs through the middle of the property and 67
therefore the City would need to be alerted to well placement. He stated that the grading will 68
be custom and done on a lot-by-lot basis rather than grading the entire site at once. He stated 69
that there will be minimal tree removal, he believed only one tree will be removed due to 70
road placement. He stated that the final wetland delineation had not been provided but would 71
be provided prior to the final review, noting that if there are major changes needed to lot 72
placement the application would need to come back before the Planning Commission. He 73
stated that 30 percent of the buildable area would need to be placed in a conservation area 74
under the regulations and noted that the request proposes 30.3 percent, which meets that 75
requirement. He noted that potential conditions for approval were included in the packet 76
should the Commission recommend approval. 77
78
Reid appreciated seeing the details of the settlement agreement but found it confusing that the 79
Commission would still need to determine whether this application meets the requirements of 80
a conservation design subdivision. 81
82
Sparks stated that the Commission should still do what they are tasked to do as the 83
Commission and review the application under the regulations of a conservation design 84
subdivision. 85
86
Finke stated that every aspect of the application is up for discussion. He provided additional 87
explanation regarding the potential settlement. 88
89
Reid stated that she felt input was given at the review of the concept plan and yet this is still 90
the same plan coming forward. She referenced the width of the roads and confirmed that the 91
City would like the roads to be 24 feet in width. She questioned if the City has an opinion on 92
the filling of wetlands. 93
94
Sparks stated that the comments provided in the concept review were to limit the fill of 95
wetlands but noted that there are procedures you can follow to mitigate wetlands. 96
97
Finke stated that on a farm property it is not uncommon to see pocket wetlands that are 98
eventually filled when developed. 99
100
Reid questioned the date of the settlement agreement and it was confirmed to be December of 101
2014. 102
103
Albers questioned the quality of the wetlands proposed to be filled. 104
105
3
Sparks noted that the full wetland report has not yet been provided so that is not known. 106
107
Williams stated it is his understanding that under the conservation design regulations, 108
conservation objectives should be identified and prioritized. He questioned the primary 109
conservation objective for this application. 110
111
Sparks stated that the applicant can provide additional details but believed that the applicant 112
would be restoring an area that was farmland and on the northern portion of the site, the large 113
wetland is a Tamarack swamp and would be protected. 114
115
Williams questioned the high quality resources that would be protected within the 116
conservation area, other than the Tamarack swamp. 117
118
Sparks stated that area would be restored. 119
120
Williams questioned the acreage of the conservation area that was actually buildable. He 121
stated that it is his understanding that the Commission is supposed to compare the yield plan 122
to this plan to determine if the benefits provided is equivalent to the density bonus requested. 123
124
Finke confirmed that a substantial wetland is within the conservation easement. 125
126
Williams stated that under regular development, 22 homes could be built and he is simply 127
trying to determine if the benefit provided would be equal to the density requested. He stated 128
that when he reviewed the Comprehensive Plan maps a large portion of this site was 129
considered unbuildable and that area matches with part of the area within the proposed 130
conservation easement. He questioned if there would be any limitations regarding the sewer 131
service area. 132
133
Sparks stated that this area is identified in the long-term sewer service area. He stated that 134
this development could make it very unlikely that any other property in that area could 135
connect. 136
137
Williams stated that he found the language in the Comprehensive Plan to be confusing in 138
regard to the long-term sewer service area. 139
140
Sparks provided additional information on the interpretation of the language. 141
142
Williams referenced Deerhill Road and the traffic study, which was cited by the applicant. 143
He confirmed that as the applicant proposed, Deerhill Road would not need to be widened or 144
improved. He questioned if the City had done an assessment on the condition of the roadway 145
as it is today. 146
147
Finke stated that the expectation is that this would cause more trips as the traffic would be 148
doubled and the City would need to determine if the past maintenance of Deerhill Road could 149
be continued or whether that would need to be adjusted. 150
151
Reid stated that this property is within the rural residential zoning district and questioned if 152
there is anything other than the size of the lots that is specific to that district. 153
154
Sparks stated that the main concern specific to rural residential as a land use under the 155
Comprehensive Plan would be density. 156
157
4
Finke stated that almost explicitly the conservation design subdivision ordinance language 158
allows an alternate to what is provided under the zoning in order to provide additional 159
benefit. He stated that the rural residential regulations would apply with some flexibility as 160
allowed by the City. 161
162
Nolan referenced the septic sites, specifically the ten sites that could encroach on the 163
conservation area and the three additional sites that would encroach on the wetland setback 164
area. 165
166
Finke stated that the applicant is requesting a maximum of ten secondary sites in the 167
conservation area. If these three sites were shifted into the conservation area, they would 168
count towards the ten total. 169
170
Nolan questioned what would happen if there are no alternate sites for those three that would 171
encroach on the wetland setback area. 172
173
Sparks stated that there is a potential condition that could require those lots to somehow be 174
amended to meet that setback. 175
176
Williams confirmed that this area was under a conservation preserve area and questioned 177
what happened to the plantings that were done. 178
179
Finke stated that the area was converted back to agricultural uses. 180
181
Albers questioned if each home would have a well and whether there is concern with the 182
number of wells and the placement to the septic. 183
184
Sparks stated that there are regulations for well and septic placement. He stated that 12 wells 185
would be within the area from which the City draws its drinking water but noted that proper 186
monitoring of well placement could prevent issues from arising. 187
188
White referenced the pool area and asked for details. 189
190
Sparks stated that the pool would be within a separate outlot that would be owned by the 191
homeowners association and would have a well and septic. He advised that there were no 192
plans for the septic provided but noted that a holding tank could be an option. 193
194
Jennifer Haskamp, SHC, stated that she has been working on this project with the property 195
owner and developer for the past three years. She introduced the members of the team who 196
were present at the meeting. She stated that there is a contingent settlement agreement 197
associated with this property, which was reached after two years of negotiations, which 198
included the concept plan, which is very similar to this plan. She stated that they are 199
attempting to develop a plan consistent to the concept plan, which was attached to the 200
contingent settlement and reviewed the similarities of those plans. She stated that they have 201
also tried to listen to the comments received from the Park and Planning Commissions, staff 202
and the City Council. She stated that approximately 90 acres of the site will be placed into 203
conservation easement, which is about half of the site. She provided additional information 204
on the roadways and the proposed connection to Deerhill Road and stated that they are 205
attempting to limit their impact on the rural roadway. She stated that they are proposing a 206
width of 22 feet for the roads in order to limit the impervious surface and improve infiltration. 207
She referenced septic systems and stated that as drawn today 41 out of 42 lots have their 208
primary and secondary sites on their lots, which was done in order to address the concerns 209
expressed during the concept plan review. She stated that they are requesting the flexibility 210
5
of nine more of secondary sites to be relocated into the conservation area because some of the 211
lots are challenging. She noted that only the secondary sites would possibly be located within 212
the conservation easement, and that all primary site would be within the lots. She stated that 213
the likelihood of a secondary site being used is very small and if it were placed within the 214
conservation easement, prairie grass would be planted and you would not be able to 215
distinguish the septic site by eye. She stated that a septic system has not been identified for 216
the pool lot as the system would need to be sized to the use and demand. She explained that 217
the initial recommendation had been to install holding tanks until the usage can be 218
determined and an appropriate sized system would then be installed. She briefly summarized 219
the details of the landscaping plan and amenities. She provided additional details regarding 220
the active restoration plan and the reserve areas. She provided brief details regarding the 221
input of the Watershed on the conservation areas. She stated that they would like to maintain 222
the rural character and would not be interested in creating a suburban character. She stated 223
that over 52 percent of the gross site would be preserved which they feel meets the intent of 224
the conservation design subdivision ordinance and fulfills the requirement of park dedication. 225
She stated that under the contingent settlement agreement they agreed to follow the State 226
rules and explained that under the State rules there are no wetland setbacks. 227
228
Murrin questioned if the pool area would have a clubhouse or a restroom. 229
230
Haskamp confirmed that intent would be to have a small restroom facility with a patio area 231
that would perhaps have a refrigerator for residents to put snacks in. 232
233
Murrin questioned and received confirmation that there would be a homeowners association 234
(HOA). She questioned if the HOA would manage the septic systems. 235
236
Haskamp stated that the HOA would have specific duties outlined and there would be a list of 237
regulations for homeowners to manage their septic systems. She stated that the HOA would 238
have the power to step in in the event that a homeowner does not maintain their system. 239
240
Williams referenced a traffic impact report and asked if there was a report requested for the 241
intersection of Homestead Trail and Highway 6. 242
243
Haskamp stated that they did not prepare the report and have been in communication with 244
Hennepin County. She stated that the County’s concern was regarding the access point in 245
general and in proximity to the intersection but not with the number of trips generated. 246
247
Williams stated that traffic does get backed up at that intersection, especially during the 248
school year, and questioned the impact that stacking would have on the ability to get in and 249
out of the development. He stated that the impact report for Deerhill estimated that 25 250
percent of the traffic would use that access but questioned the impact that stacking could have 251
on traffic choosing instead to use Deerhill if there is stacking at the other access point. 252
253
Haskamp stated that when the traffic engineer looked at the situation he made a judgement 254
based on the layout of the development to determine roughly the percentage of traffic that 255
would use either access point. 256
257
Albers stated that Highway 6 is very busy when he drives his children to school, and believed 258
that the number of trips that will utilize Deerhill Road was grossly underestimated. He 259
believed that the percentages would be reversed with 75 percent using Deerhill and only 25 260
percent using the other access point. 261
262
6
Haskamp stated that the traffic engineer that they used is very familiar with this area and she 263
is confident with the information he provided. 264
265
Albers referenced the creek bed, which is dry, and questioned if that would be grass or 266
another material such as stone or rubble. 267
268
Haskamp stated the idea is that it would be architecturally designed with boulders and 269
outcroppings and would convey some of the excess water in a 100-year storm event. 270
271
Albers referenced lot four and questioned if there is concern with the septic locations as the 272
two identified back up to the creek bed. 273
274
Haskamp provided additional information regarding the orientation of the septic systems and 275
noted that in that case there is sufficient space to place a retaining wall as well. 276
277
Reid stated that there was a reference to private trails and public trails and stated that it 278
appears that most of the trails proposed will be private trails. 279
280
Haskamp stated that the proposed trails would be public and are consistent with the 2014 281
Park Trails Master Plan. 282
283
Reid asked whether the recreation area would be public or private. 284
285
Haskamp replied that the area would be private and would be managed by the HOA. She 286
noted that would be a passive recreation area with no structures or equipment. 287
288
Murrin questioned if the passive recreation area is included in the 30 percent that would be 289
placed in the conservation easement. 290
291
Haskamp confirmed that is correct and explained that the City’s regulations provide a list of 292
acceptable activities within the conservation easement, such as recreation. 293
294
Nolan stated that he was not present at the concept review and recognizes that there is a 295
contingent settlement agreement but explained that as a Commissioner he is tasked to use the 296
conservation design district rules to apply evenly to all applications. He stated that the 297
applicant is asking for close to the highest density allowed under the conservation rules, at 298
190 percent out of 200 percent; providing a trail, which is also provided under normal 299
development, and providing an additional trail; restoring prairie grass that had been prairie 300
grass six to seven years ago; and the area that will be conserved is 30.3 percent, noting that 301
the minimum amount that must be conserved under the rules is 30 percent. He asked why the 302
Commission should be considering a near maximum density request when the conservation 303
efforts appear to be near the minimum. 304
305
Haskamp referenced a table on page nine of the submittal, which shows that of the 170-acre 306
parcel, 38.47 acres of upland buildable land would be in the conservation easement. She 307
stated that in a normal development, the wetland and wetland buffers become privatized and 308
the quality can be degraded. She stated that wetland buffers are buildable and therefore 309
nearly eight acres of wetland buffer area will also be conserved that is not necessarily 310
required in additional to the 38.47 acres. She stated that the contiguous area of open space 311
makes prairie grass successful and that would be uniquely provided in this parcel. She stated 312
that it is a labor of love to install a prairie and make it successful and viable in the long-term. 313
She stated that the conservation design ordinance specifies both public and private trails and 314
noted that they worked together with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed to design private turf 315
7
trails in a design which will assist in making the prairie restoration successful and improving 316
the wetlands and water quality. 317
318
Nolan referenced property in the northwest corner that would not front on a road and noted 319
that it appeared to be an effort to pack in additional lots. He asked for additional information 320
on how that would be an aspect of conservation design. 321
322
Haskamp stated that originally, there had been cul-de-sacs and when working with staff it had 323
been suggested to shorten the cul-de-sacs lengths to reduce the impervious surface. She 324
explained that shortening the cul-de-sacs changed the design to have a shared driveway for 325
the one lot. 326
327
Reid stated that the contingent settlement references a main arterial road and questioned if 328
that is the serpentine road that starts at Homestead Trail and continues through to Deerhill 329
Road. 330
331
Haskamp confirmed that is correct. 332
333
Williams questioned why the prairie grass was plowed to begin with. 334
335
Haskamp stated that the property had been under the CRP program and once the ten-year 336
period expires the property owner may use the land for economic purposes and that is why 337
the land was used for agricultural purposes. 338
339
Williams questioned if there is a map that highlights the buildable land and the definition of 340
five contiguous acres of suitable soils. 341
342
Haskamp stated that information is provided on a map and confirmed that information 343
identifies the 22 lots that would be available under normal development standards. 344
345
Williams referenced the yield plan and stated that the map provided does not appear to 346
identify the buildable area on it. 347
348
Haskamp provided additional information on the coloring and marking of the map. 349
350
Nolan opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. 351
352
Nolan referenced a letter received by the City Planner dated July 10th from Stuart Alger, an 353
attorney for Steven Pflaum, which will be a part of the public record. 354
355
Steven Pflaum, 2725 Deerhill Road, stated that his property abuts the subject property and he 356
generally supports the development. He referenced the eastern buffer woods that will be 357
preserved and would not normally be preserved under normal development. He stated that he 358
also supports restricting the width of the road through the subdivision, which he believed 359
would be a better fit to the existing Deerhill Road, which is a historic road. He stated that his 360
main concern is preserving the current character and configuration of Deerhill Road as a 361
historic farm road. He noted that there has been a petition signed by those that do not support 362
the upgrading or changing the configuration of Deerhill Road. 363
364
Nolan asked for confirmation that the issue regarding upgrading was the width and that he 365
would not be opposed to the paving of the road. 366
367
8
Pflaum confirmed that the residents would not be opposed to the upgrading of the surface of 368
the road. 369
370
Stuart Alger, who in representation of the Pflaums, stated that the Pflaums do support the 371
development but do not want the road widened in conjunction with the project. He stated that 372
they would like to keep the right-of-way width at 50 feet with a road width of 22 feet paved. 373
He stated that the City ordinance provides discretion to approve road widths less than the 374
standard if traffic conditions permit. He stated that the Pflaums have met with Stonegate and 375
appreciate their willingness to work together and preserve the wooded forest area. 376
377
Kylie Schefers, who spoke in representation of Barb Burkstrand who lives adjacent to the 378
proposed project north of the Pflaums, stated that the property owner had concerns with 379
erosion control and how that would be handled towards her property. She stated that she has 380
concern with the septic areas and how that would be cleaned up if it does go into the 381
secondary sites. She stated that the property owner generally supports the request but also 382
had concern with construction equipment that could possibly be traveling on Deerhill Road. 383
384
Nolan referenced the north side of the property that appears to be within the conservation area 385
and questioned if that would be prairie grass. 386
387
Haskamp stated that all the areas within the restoration area would be prairie grasses and the 388
existing hardwood areas would be protected and would not be touched. 389
390
Nolan asked for additional information on the staged grading and how the equipment would 391
access and exit the site. 392
393
Haskamp replied that the roadway would be constructed at one time. She stated that the 394
individual sites would be graded carefully as they are constructed because of the septic sites. 395
She stated that the lots are still fairly large and there is plenty of space on the rear of most of 396
the lots for proper grading and water handling. 397
398
Nolan asked for clarification on what would happen under the HOA or development 399
agreement once the lot is sold. 400
401
Haskamp stated that there are certain sites that have aspects that need to be protected and 402
noted that additional measures, such as deed restrictions would apply. 403
404
John Septer, who spoke in representation of Judah and Hannah Buckley, stated that the 405
presentation referenced that the project has been worked on for years. He asked that the 406
Commission and applicant consider additional details tied into the conservation elements in 407
regard to the subdivision, specifically as it applies to the neighboring properties. He 408
referenced an open area near where the new Deerhill would be constructed and stated that 409
there are homes in that area. He expressed concern with headlights shining into homes and 410
traffic noise. He stated that the rural character is important to this area and under 411
conservation design and believed that a vegetative landscaping screen should be installed. He 412
stated that the road speeds should also be managed to reduce emissions and road noise. He 413
suggested placing speed bumps and limiting that section of Deerhill Road to 15 miles per 414
hour. He echoed the comments of Pflaum applauding the developer for wanting to preserve 415
and maintain the rural elements. 416
417
Linda McGinty stated that she lives in Morningside, which is denser than what is proposed 418
for this development. She questioned who would be plowing this neighborhood and received 419
the response that the public roads would be the responsibility of the City while the private 420
9
cul-de-sacs would not be the responsibility of the City. She questioned if the Watershed 421
provided rate control and infiltration assessments and received confirmation that had been 422
done. She questioned who would be responsible for checking the septic systems and received 423
the response that the HOA would take an active role and the City would also require proof 424
that the system had been cleaned once every two years. 425
426
Finke noted that the system proposed actually had more stringent maintenance and 427
monitoring requirements. 428
429
McGinty questioned if the City would require a development agreement with escrow and 430
warranties and received confirmation that would be required as well. She also confirmed that 431
the prairie restoration would be covered in the development agreement. She received 432
confirmation that homeowners would be allowed to have swimming pools. She questioned if 433
busses will travel into the development and whether routes had been examined. 434
435
Nolan stated that would be the decision of the School District and noted that would be a 436
public road. 437
438
McGinty stated that quality of life is not something that can be put into a concept plan or 439
development agreement but is something that is important to the residents of Medina. She 440
stated that preserving rural character is important to the community and the only way to do 441
that is to limit growth. She stated that people live here because of the rural character and the 442
good school district. She hoped that idea is kept at the forefront of the Commission’s mind. 443
444
Nolan stated that he believes that everyone cares about the quality of life and that is why they 445
live here but noted that they work under the planning and zoning rules as people have the 446
right to develop their property. 447
448
Chad Grochowski, 1265 Maplewood Drive, stated that he lives adjacent to the far 449
southeastern corner of the property, which is the one property with a proposed alternate septic 450
system and asked for additional information on the alternative septic system. He stated that 451
his well is on his far western border, which is near that area of the conservation area. He 452
questioned if it is the preference of the homeowner to use an alternate septic system noting 453
that area is within a treed area and believed the applicant stated that the wooded areas will be 454
preserved. He questioned if the septic site could be nearest to the home being constructed 455
rather than closest to his home. He noted that there are additional lots that are along his 456
western border and questioned if those lots would be part of the alternative septic system as 457
he was concerned with septic systems near his well. 458
459
Haskamp stated that the development agreement can specify that no more than a set number 460
of septic sites could be within the conservation easement. She stated that would not be an 461
alternative septic system but would be a secondary septic site, which is to be used only in the 462
event that the primary site fails, or cannot be used. She stated that none of the secondary sites 463
would be constructed when the primary site is. She explained that the secondary sites would 464
be planted with the prairie grass and would simply be protected in the case a primary site 465
fails. She stated that the preference is to keep the primary and secondary septic sites on the 466
lot, if at all possible. She referenced the site the resident referenced and noted that they 467
would look at the placement of his well as required under State law to ensure that the septic is 468
placed the sufficient distance from the well. She believed the marked area is within the 469
planted trees and not the hardwood forest. 470
471
10
Murrin referenced the septic location on lot five and stated that it appears to be outside of a 472
suitable soils area. It was noted that the soils map is based on county-wide, and that it may be 473
possible that circumstances on an individual lot may differ slightly. 474
475
Clarkson Lindley, 1588 Homestead Trail, spoke in representation of his family and stated that 476
his concern is with the overall density and the number of septic and well systems and the 477
affect that would have on the groundwater. He stated that many of the drain fields are 478
adjacent to another lot line or a conservation easement, which he did not feel met the purpose 479
of a conservation easement. He stated that he has concern with a possible drawdown of the 480
groundwater, which would affect his well. 481
482
Nolan stated that there are State guidelines as to how close wells can be placed to another 483
well or septic system and confirmed that the applicant would follow those rules. 484
485
Amy Alworth, 1602 Homestead Trail, echoed the comments of Linda McGinty and stated she 486
also believed that it is important to preserve the rural characteristic of Homestead Trail. She 487
was also concerned with the traffic as Highway 6 already backs up from the school. She 488
stated that she would prefer the 22 homes allowed under the Comprehensive Plan and would 489
not want to see this high density. 490
491
Kristin Chapman, 1910 Iroquois Drive, stated that she is not directly affected as her home is 492
not adjacent to the property. She stated that residents that are not next to the development are 493
still affected as this would increase traffic on Willow Drive and other roads as well. She 494
referenced the rural character of the City and stated that at these density volumes there would 495
be additional traffic lights and four way stops at several intersections. She did not believe 496
that only 25 percent of the development traffic would utilize Deerhill Road and believed that 497
the traffic backup on Highway 6 would cause residents of that development to instead use 498
Deerhill Road. She stated that as the City has grown over the past 20 years she has seen the 499
enforcement of City rules to be very poor and would like to see that when the development is 500
ultimately approved there are enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the terms are agreed 501
upon regarding septic systems, restoration of the prairie, and long-term trail maintenance. 502
503
Cindy Piper, 2905 Willow Wood Farm Road, stated that she can guarantee that the trails as 504
delineated on the plan would cause complaints from homeowners about horse poop on the 505
roads. She stated that there are other ways to route the trails. She referenced the HOA and 506
stated that once the developers leave the homeowners would be required to take over and 507
would be tasked to do the work that the developers hope they would. She asked that the City 508
review the terms of the HOA and questioned when the HOA would take over, whether that 509
would be when the development is 50 percent complete or 80 percent complete. She asked 510
that the City carefully review the HOA. 511
512
Nolan questioned the role of the City in creating and/or managing an HOA. 513
514
Finke stated that the City reviews HOA covenants pretty closely to determine how they 515
compare to the City regulations and stated that they would be looking closely in regard to the 516
long-term maintenance of the conservation areas. He stated that if tied to a condition the 517
terms of the HOA cannot be changed without approval of the City. 518
519
Reid questioned if there is enforcement if the items are not followed through on. 520
521
Finke confirmed that would be enforceable. 522
523
11
Danny Nadeau, 2632 Deerhill Road, stated that he is present in representation of his parents 524
Bud and Pauline. He agreed with the comments of Pflaum regarding the rural characteristics 525
of Deerhill Road, noting that the road functions well for the people that it currently serves. 526
He stated that if the roadway is opened up there would be major changes needed. He stated 527
that his mother recommends that the City study and look at the possibility of having an 528
entrance to Old Crystal Bay, rather than Deerhill, which would solve a number of issues. He 529
stated that his mother also had an issue with the trail construction that is planned along 530
Deerhill and questioned if there would be a plan to make that connection all the way down 531
Deerhill. He stated that the conservation easement is really nice but a trail along Deerhill 532
might be difficult to accomplish. 533
534
Finke stated that the Park and Recreation Commission will consider the issue of trails at their 535
meeting the following night. 536
537
Nolan closed the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. 538
539
Reid questioned what the applicant would do if the City does not approve the additional 540
flexibility for the secondary septic sites. 541
542
Haskamp stated that they would ask why the City would take that position, since the 543
conservation design ordinance permits secondary sites. She stated that they would bring the 544
request to the City Council in hopes for a different answer. 545
546
Nolan questioned if there are alternatives that have not yet been explored if the alternate 547
secondary sites are not allowed within the conservation easement. 548
549
Haskamps stated that they have demonstrated that on 41 of 42 lots a primary and secondary 550
septic location can be placed within the lots. She stated that on the last lot the alternative may 551
be to relocate the lot where it was on the concept plan near the Pflaum property as the lot 552
would have a primary and secondary septic location within the lot lines. 553
554
Nolan asked why the applicant is asking for the flexibility when 41 out of 42 lots have 555
already been identified within the lots and questioned why then the flexibility is needed. 556
557
Susan Seeland, applicant, stated that they would use that as a backup plan because things 558
happen during development and the best laid plans do not always work as planned. She 559
stated that the odds of ever having to use a secondary site with a multi-flow system is very 560
low. She stated that they are doing the best that they can and simply want to ensure that if 561
there is a problem there is an alternative. 562
563
Murrin referenced lot five and questioned if she understood correctly that if the secondary 564
site is needed for that lot the lot lines would be reconfigured if the additional flexibility is not 565
provided. 566
567
Haskamp stated that is not correct and explained that lot number five does not have a primary 568
and secondary location within the lot lines and therefore if the flexibility is not given, the lot 569
would be relocated to its original location on the concept plan adjacent to the Pflaum 570
property. 571
572
Murrin received confirmation that if relocated lot five would then be in the area marked as a 573
conservation easement and questioned if that would then decrease the 30.3 percent marked as 574
conservation easement. 575
576
12
Haskamp stated that the percentage would not be decreased as the existing location of lot five 577
would then be added to the conservation easement. 578
579
Reid referenced the cost of monitoring the well location to ensure that other water supplies 580
are not affected. She stated that there is concern regarding the additional stress that would 581
place on the water supply in addition to the number of septic systems that would be added in 582
proximity to wells. 583
584
Albers stated that he has concern regarding the exit to Deerhill Road as the traffic level will 585
be highly increased on that roadway. He stated that he drove down Deerhill Road recently 586
and it reminds him of being up north because of the rural characteristics and would hate to 587
lose that because of this development. 588
589
Williams stated that he tends to review the issue from a larger perspective and stated that 590
from a conservation design standpoint priority resources need to be identified that are being 591
preserved, which has been identified as the Tamarack swamp and forest. He noted that under 592
the plans for what could be developed under regular development there would be eight homes 593
placed in that high quality resource area. He stated that when comparing the proposed 594
conservation plans to the plans that would be allowed under regular development there are 15 595
homes in the high quality resource area under the conservation design. He did not understand 596
how doubling the number of homes within that area marked as a high quality resource 597
advance any conservation objective. He stated that he walked the site and there are 598
significant slopes that would direct runoff into the Tamarack swamp. He noted that there are 599
buffers proposed that would not be provided through regular development. He questioned the 600
tradeoff that would be received for the extra buffers, noting that there would simply be area 601
preserved to the south that is currently crops. He stated that the applicant already dug up the 602
established prairie once and questioned what would stop the applicant from doing that again 603
in the future. He stated that he did not see the application meeting a number of objectives of 604
the conservation design ordinance. He stated that the density requested far exceeds the 605
benefit the City would be receiving. He was also concerned with the added traffic this would 606
add to the Homestead and Highway 6 intersection and also believed that the added traffic 607
would require Deerhill Road to be upgraded to handle that traffic. 608
609
Murrin believed that if this moves forward an importance should be placed on the HOA 610
covenants and the enforcement of that, specifically regarding the septic systems. She stated 611
that it seems to make sense that the neighborhood would need an additional access point but 612
did not believe that Deerhill Road could handle that extra traffic. She stated that although the 613
City would be gaining a conservation easement she did not see that the minimum allowed 614
conservation easement would equal the maximum density allowed. 615
616
White stated that she did not feel that the maximum density would be justified by what the 617
City would be receiving in return. She stated that the viewshed from Homestead Trail is 618
important and had concern. She also had concern with the added stress this would place on 619
Deerhill Road. She stated that she did not feel that this application meets all of the objectives 620
for a conservation design subdivision. 621
622
Murrin stated that if there were only 22 homes exiting onto Deerhill Road that would place a 623
significantly less amount of stress on the roadway. 624
625
Nolan echoed the comments that he did not see that the primary benefits would justify the 626
maximum allowed density. He stated that this process has to be give and take and 627
acknowledged that 38 acres is a lot of land and the size of this parcel allows something more 628
meaningful to be done. He stated that he sees a lot of property that does not have street 629
13
frontage and in the spirit of conservation it seems that the applicant is attempting to fit in 630
extra lots. He stated that the applicant is also asking for additional flexibility with the septic 631
sites. He stated that if this site is so tight that additional leeway must be given to allow septic 632
sites within the conservation easement perhaps that is not the best application of the 633
conservation design ordinance. He stated that another property owner is present tonight 634
listening to this discussion because he has brought forward similar conservation design plans. 635
He stated that his message must be consistent in that this is an incentive program and the 636
more the applicant gives to the City, the more the City can give to the applicant. He stated 637
that even 20 houses would change the character of Deerhill Road. He stated that when 638
looking at the proportionality of what is being asked for must be considered and more must 639
be given in return for requesting the maximum density allowed. He stated that when talking 640
about conservation he would like to see that conservation is not lost in translation. He stated 641
that Medina is rural and there is a method for this to work, but it must be equal on both sides. 642
He stated that perhaps this plan could work if a few amendments were made to reduce the 643
density. 644
645
Murrin questioned if the development could be planned to not access Deerhill Road. It was 646
confirmed that could not be done. 647
648
Nolan stated that as nice as Deerhill Road is that would not be the first road in Medina that 649
needs to be updated. 650
651
Motion by Williams, seconded by Albers, to recommend denial of the Conservation 652
Design-Planned Unit Development General Plan, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning subject to 653
the findings that were provided during the discussion, that the objectives of the conservation 654
design ordinance are not met through the application. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 655
Foote) 656
657
Finke stated that the City Council will review this item at their meeting on Wednesday, 658
August 5th. 659
660
Nolan briefly recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. 661
662
Nolan reconvened the meeting at 10:03 p.m. 663
664
7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Solar 665
Equipment 666
667
Finke stated that the Commission discussed solar equipment in regard to the business park 668
and industrial zoning districts in February and the Code was amended at that time to allow 669
ground mounted solar equipment. He stated that the solar equipment attached to structures is 670
allowed within every zoning district in the City while ground mounted equipment is only 671
allowed in the industrial and business park zoning districts. He stated that there were 672
comments from residents at that time desiring the ability to install ground-mounted 673
equipment within the rural residential zoning district. He stated that the draft ordinance was 674
provided for context and highlighted the different rural residential districts that could in 675
essence allow ground mounted equipment. He stated that the draft ordinance also includes 676
stipulations for properties, such as the property must be at least five acres in size. He stated 677
that staff estimates that there are about 580 properties that would be eligible under this draft 678
ordinance. He noted that if the ten-acre lot size is desired that would cut the eligible lots in 679
half. He stated that the staff proposed a 100-foot setback, which is twice the general setback 680
for properties within the rural residential district, noting that animal structures require a 681
setback of 150 feet for comparison purposes. He reviewed the proposed regulations on 682
14
height, site lines, visibility and screening. He stated that staff recommends using a 683
conditional use permit (CUP) for those that would desire a ground mounted solar array. 684
685
White questioned if it would be necessary to state that the installed panels would be only for 686
the primary resident of the property. 687
688
Finke stated that he believes that the ability to sell back energy is a benefit that the State sets 689
up to economically incentivize homeowners. 690
691
Nolan stated that he had the same concern. He stated that he likes the idea of allowing solar 692
power for residents but is not sure he wants to make it a commercially viable option. 693
694
Williams explained that homeowners would still have a Wright Hennepin Electric bill and 695
there would be a credit on the bill. 696
697
Reid explained there are some days that too much solar energy is generated to use and that is 698
where a credit is earned through the electric company to offset days when it is cloudy and no 699
energy is gained. 700
701
Finke noted that the credit also helps to offset the cost of installation for the homeowner. He 702
explained that the CUP would allow public input through a public hearing rather than an 703
administrative approval. 704
705
Nolan stated that he would tend to ease into this more conservatively as it could be a nuisance 706
to a neighbor. He liked the idea of using the CUP and only allowing within the rural 707
residential district. 708
709
Nolan opened the public hearing at 10:18 p.m. 710
711
Mindy Rechelbecher, 1242 Hunter Drive, stated that she and her husband purchased raw land 712
on Homestead Trail with the intent of building their dream home on that parcel. She stated 713
that they would like to have ground mounted solar energy on their new parcel and she was 714
disappointed to find out that would not be allowed. She stated that there are difficulties to the 715
roof mounted solar panels as holes would need to be drilled into the house, maintenance is 716
more difficult, it is difficult to clear the snow in the winter, and the panels cannot move with 717
the sun. She stated that ground mounted equipment can move with the sun during the day to 718
collect the most amount of sun possible. She stated that ground mounted equipment is also 719
easier to clean off and repair as they are easily accessible. 720
721
Chris Peterson, Bloomington resident that is moving to Medina in November, stated that he 722
will not be within the rural residential zoning district so he will not be able to utilize the 723
ground-mounted equipment. He referenced the 100-foot setback noting that in theory that 724
sounds good but in practice that would only allow about 1.5 acres of usable space including 725
the home that is on the lot and other features such as trees. He noted that with that setback 726
the amount of homes that could use the feature would be further limited. He stated that a 50-727
foot setback would be sufficient. He noted that Tesla is about to release a power wall which 728
is a battery that would attach to a home and would store the solar energy for later use. He 729
stated that it would be difficult to sell solar energy to a neighbor as there is a lot of regulation 730
by the utility company and the State. He stated that the more people get behind solar energy, 731
the more energy costs will go down. He stated that it is very difficult to generate your entire 732
energy supply from solar in Minnesota. 733
734
Nolan closed the public hearing at 10:28 p.m. 735
15
736
Reid stated that she was considering more than a 100-foot setback as sometimes once solar 737
equipment is installed a neighbor wants to construct something that may block the equipment. 738
739
White echoed the comments of Reid noting that she was thinking of a 150-foot setback 740
similar to animal setbacks. 741
742
Williams stated that would be comparing apples and oranges explaining that a larger animal 743
structure buffers that use from neighbors and allows additional space if the animals get out 744
before they would reach the neighbor’s property. He stated that he would actually be more in 745
favor of a 50-foot setback. 746
747
Murrin stated that she would support a minimum lot size, noting that five acres would be the 748
minimum that she would support at this time and stated that the restriction could be reduced 749
in the future if everything works well. 750
751
White stated that if this was adopted with a 100-foot setback could a homeowner then request 752
a variance from the setback. 753
754
Finke confirmed a variance could be requested but noted that a hardship would need to be 755
proven. 756
757
Nolan stated that he supports the ordinance as proposed. 758
759
Williams questioned if the Commission could support a 75-foot setback. 760
761
Reid stated that she would support 100 feet and Nolan and Albers also supported a 100-foot 762
setback. 763
764
Motion by Albers, seconded by White, to recommend approval of an Ordinance 765
amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code related to solar equipment. Motion approved 766
unanimously. (Absent: Foote) 767
768
8. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to 769
Setbacks from Upland Wetland Buffers 770
771
Finke provided background information explaining that in a new development situation 772
current City regulations trigger the establishment of vegetative buffers upland from wetlands, 773
which range in width from 20 to 50 feet. He stated that there is also a setback from structures 774
based on the type of structure. He noted that accessory structures have a five-foot setback 775
from buffers. He explained that the purpose of the setback from the buffer is to protect the 776
buffer, which protects the wetland. He stated that in the Enclave neighborhood there are a 777
number of properties that have limited depth to construct decks because of the way the homes 778
were built on the lot and the wetland buffer setbacks. He noted that staff has received about 779
half a dozen requests from homeowners in the Enclave that would like to build decks but are 780
not allowed because of the setback. He stated that one homeowner requested a text 781
amendment, which would decrease the setback from 15 feet to five feet for uncovered decks. 782
He noted that the resident approached the City Council to request action and the Council 783
requested that the matter move forward in this manner. He noted that there are letters of 784
support from residents within the Enclave, noting that there are additional homeowners that 785
would be interested in decks that simply have not yet applied. He noted that the wetland 786
buffers are providing the water quality protection necessary. He noted that as drafted this 787
would prevent a three or four season porch and would only allow uncovered decks. 788
16
789
Albers confirmed that a deck could include a combination of covered and uncovered if the 790
covered portion meets the necessary setback requirement. 791
792
Williams questioned the purpose of allowing only uncovered decks. He stated that he does 793
not see the purpose of distinguishing. 794
795
Nolan questioned if a variance could be provided. 796
797
Reid stated that the Commission did discuss the issue with Lennar when reviewing the 798
Enclave development plans, as they could see that there would not be room for decks. 799
800
Murrin stated that if there is more buildable space on a lot that would be used and that would 801
encourage larger houses on smaller lots. 802
803
Nolan opened the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. 804
805
Kyle Abell, resident of Enclave neighborhood, stated that Lennar did tell them about the 806
setback before they purchased the property but noted that he does want to build a deck. He 807
stated that they would be okay with an uncovered deck. 808
809
Reid questioned how many feet the home is from the structure. 810
811
Abell stated that only one corner of his deck would encroach into the setback area. 812
813
Albers questioned if that is the case in that development that only a small portion of the deck 814
would fall into the setback area. 815
816
Finke stated that it is common that the full back of the deck would encroach in that 817
development. 818
819
White questioned if the setback were reduced from 15 feet to 10 feet would that be enough. 820
821
Abell stated that would be enough for his property but did not know if that would be enough 822
for other property owners. 823
824
Murrin questioned where the rest of the homeowners were tonight and confirmed that they 825
were notified as well. 826
827
Abell stated that they were notified and had sent him to speak, noting that an email had been 828
sent as well. He stated that Charlie Morse had sent an email to residents within the Enclave 829
and believed there were about 40 to 50 responses. 830
831
Nolan closed the public hearing at 10:50 p.m. 832
833
Finke stated that developers do consider some reasonable decks when laying out the lots. He 834
agreed that reducing the setback would push that building envelope for developers. 835
836
Nolan stated that he would be surprised if there was a lesser price for the lots with the smaller 837
backyards. He stated that if the setback is reduced a developer will come in with homes 838
closer to the wetland buffer. He stated that while he is sympathetic to the homeowners that 839
want decks, the ordinance cannot be set based on those six homeowners. He noted that is 840
why he would support a variance rather than changing the setback. 841
17
842
Williams stated that the homeowners purchased the lots knowing that the decks could not be 843
built. 844
845
White agreed that while she is sympathetic to the homeowners they were told, or should have 846
been told about the setback. 847
848
Motion by White, seconded by Albers, to recommend denial of an Ordinance amendment to 849
Chapter 8 of the City Code related to setbacks from upland wetland buffers. Motion 850
approved unanimously. (Absent: Foote) 851
852
Nolan noted that the residents can still attend the Council meeting to voice their concern. 853
854
Finke stated that he would contact the resident to advise him of when this would go before 855
the City Council. 856
857
9. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to the 858
Site Plan Review Process 859
860
Finke stated that the Commission reviewed this item briefly the previous month. He stated 861
that there had been concern from business owners regarding the approval process for smaller 862
items and the Commission reviewed some items that could possibly be reviewed 863
administratively. He noted that there was concern regarding parking lot expansions and 864
whether the process as it stands currently is a disincentive for businesses to create additional 865
parking. He noted that the City does not have a maximum allowed for parking. He stated 866
that the ordinance as drafted would allow administrative review and approval for certain 867
items and reviewed those items that are proposed to be allowed. 868
869
Murrin referenced the construction of an accessory structure of 5,000 square feet and 870
questioned if the golf course building would have been allowed under administrative review. 871
872
Finke stated that the golf course property is under a PUD and therefore still would have been 873
required to go through the process. 874
875
Murrin stated that additional trees were required to be planted and noted that would not have 876
been added if that had been done under administrative review and suggested that size be 877
lowered. 878
879
Reid noted that change of use could have additional parking requirements. 880
881
Finke stated that there would still be administrative review and if the request meets the Code 882
it could be approved, rather than requiring a 75-day process. 883
884
Nolan stated that perhaps parking expansions could be capped at 20 to 25 percent. 885
886
Finke stated that he finds it hard to write a report for the Commission to review for parking 887
lot expansions as those are simply calculations and is pretty cut and dry. He stated that there 888
are ways to avoid the process, noting that businesses can do the expansion in sections to 889
avoid the process. 890
891
Nolan opened the public hearing at 11:03 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 11:03 p.m. as 892
there were no comments. 893
894
18
Finke agreed with the comments on the accessory buildings noting that item could be 895
removed from the administrative review process. 896
897
Nolan stated that he would support a 1,000 square feet accessory structure under 898
administrative review and confirmed the consensus of the Commission. 899
900
Reid stated that perhaps a maximum parking expansion be set over a period of years. 901
902
Williams stated that the parking lot expansion could be allowed setting the limitation that the 903
property owner has not expanded their parking lot by more than 25 percent in the last two 904
years. 905
906
Reid suggested extending that to three years. 907
908
Williams asked if that limitation would solve anything. 909
910
Nolan asked for input from Finke. 911
912
Finke stated that he would not like to see a limit. 913
914
Motion by Williams, seconded by Reid, to recommend approval of an Ordinance 915
amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code related to the Site Plan review process, amending 916
the language number four on page three to read “expansion of an existing parking lot, 917
providing that the applicant has not expanded the parking lot by more than 25 percent over 918
the past two years” and also amending number eight to reduce the size of the accessory 919
structure allowed under administrative review from 5,000 square feet to 1,000 square feet. 920
Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Foote) 921
922
10. Council Meeting Schedule 923
924
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday at which time the deck 925
and administrative review will be discussed. He noted that an update would be given on 926
Stonegate but that item will not be on the agenda. 927
928
White volunteered to attend the meeting. 929
930
11. Adjourn 931
932
Motion by Reid, seconded by Williams, to adjourn the meeting at 11:09 p.m. Motion 933
carried unanimously. 934