HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-11-2011CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, John Anderson, Kent
Williams, Beth Nielsen, and Victoria Reid (arrived at 7:16 p.m.).
Absent: Kathleen Martin
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and NAC Planning Consultant Nate Sparks.
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council proceedings
Council member Weir presented a report of recent activities and decisions by the City
Council.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
5. Approval of December 14, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the December 14, 2010
minutes with recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin
and V. Reid)
6. Public Hearing - Holy Name of Jesus Church (PID #24-118-23-14-0011 & 24-
118-23-14-0006) requests a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to
expand their existing cemetery and construct a columbarium structure.
Finke presented the application by explaining the City approved a previous CUP for
an expansion in 2008 and 2009 for the cemetery. He said the applicant was proposing
to revise their previously approved plans. Staff recommended rescinding the previous
CUP approval and start over since the previous improvements were never completely
followed through.
Nielsen asked if the house at 52 County Road 24 was part of the previous review
process since she noticed it had been removed. Finke explained the demolition of the
home did not require approval by the Commission or Council. The removal of the
home only required a building permit.
1
Finke reviewed with the Commission the existing and proposed cemetery layout. He
provided the existing and proposed numbers related to grave site and explained the
new area proposed to not only have grave sites but also a columbarium structure. He
further explained staff recommended paving the internal roadway within the next two
years and the use of the church parking lot for funeral parking rather than driving
over to the cemetery.
Williams asked if staff had concern with people utilizing the crosswalk on County
Road 24. Finke stated a cross walk did exist. Nielsen asked if grass parking was an
option. Finke said yes. Anderson asked how far of a walk would it be from the
church to the cemetery. Finke explained the crosswalk was located on the west end
of the church and cemetery and it was approximately a half mile round-trip.
Finke said the Police Department recommended traffic control when larger events
occurred.
Finke reviewed the existing and proposed trees, landscaping and screening within the
cemetery. He said the applicant proposed a variety of deciduous and coniferous trees.
Williams asked if some of the existing pine trees were being removed. Finke
confirmed they were being removed, but transplanted within the site in a better
location.
Finke explained the applicant would be required to install stormwater improvements
consistent with SWPP requirements.
Weir said she didn't see where the high water table was on the plans to determine the
depth of the grave sites with the water table. Finke explained the high water table
was at 995, which would impact the grave sites shown on the site plan below the
1001 contour.
Nielsen asked if the new expansion area had a higher density than the existing area in
the cemetery. Finke said 850 burial sites existed currently and a little less than 1200
new burial sites were being proposed. Nolan asked what information staff had across
the region of appropriate density for cemeteries. Finke stated he did not have that
type of information. but could provide at another meeting. He also noted the
applicants architect was present and could possibly speak to that question.
R. Reid asked if the City had a maximum number of burials sites within a cemetery.
Finke said no.
V. Reid asked if staff had heard from the property owner farthest to the east. Finke
explained public hearing notices were sent out and staff had not heard anything from
the property owner to the east, nearest the cemetery.
2
Nolan asked how staff determined the distance people would have to walk to get from
the church to cemetery. Finke explained he measured it linearly.
Dan Garry, applicant and Church Administrator resides at 2920 Brockton Lane,
Plymouth. Garry explained the church parking lot currently is used for funerals and
approximately 95% of the people attending the funeral stay at the church for lunch,
while close family members go to the cemetery site for the burial.
Garry said it was very infrequent that the cemetery had a large number of people
wanting to drive their vehicles to park at the cemetery, but would be willing to pave
the internal road if recommended as part of their application approval.
Nolan asked where the cemetery was at with its capacity of existing grave sites.
Garry said there were approximately a handful unsold. He said they typically have
20-30 burials per year with current death rates. He said they were hoping to provide
options to those grieving with the new proposed layout.
Nielsen asked if they would encourage filling up the existing cemetery area prior to
going to the new section. Garry said they would encourage filling the existing area
first, though he anticipated if they provided more alternatives within the cemetery,
some people that have already purchased burial sites may choose cremation, which
would free up additional burial sites within the existing cemetery area.
Williams asked how many burials occurred each year to nonmembers. Garry said
typically five and under. He said they didn't sell to nonmembers, but the nonmember
burials were people that were members at one point.
Bill Sanders, landscape architect for applicant, described the existing cemetery area
and new design. He said the new area has a substantial amount of space not proposed
to be used and feels it's very comparable. He said the niches are new.
Nolan asked if the proposed grave site dimensions were standard. Sanders explained
the areas between grave sites would be grass, since the site was small. Williams
asked if there were standards for distance between grave sites. He said if the site was
larger they probably would have another access aisle down the middle of the new
section of graves. Sanders said 3'-1/2" x 10' or 4' x10' was standard. Nielsen asked
the size of the proposed sites. Sanders said they were 3'-1/2" x 10.' Williams asked
if he had designed cemeteries more dense than the proposed design. Sanders said
Holy Name had greater setbacks/open space around the perimeter of the grave sites
than most cemeteries.
Nielsen asked if the grave sites were side by side. Sanders said yes. He further
explained that grave sites in the past were closer together, since sites were typically
sold in larger volume to families, but currently the trend is getting away from selling
in blocks. Nolan said he was surprised the cemetery didn't have landscaping, other
3
than trees. Sanders said sometimes a cemetery holds out on filling all empty spaces
so families can plant a tree in the cemetery as part of their memorial.
Nielsen asked if the new area would have flush ground stones. Sanders said they
would be flush to the ground.
Weir asked about the water table. Sanders said they are working with the Engineers
on design.
Weir asked what would be done with the spoil from digging the graves. Garry said
they would either grade it on the site or haul it off. He said they tend to import dirt
rather than get rid of dirt. Weir said she just wanted to know what happened to the
dirt after digging out a grave site and Garry said he could verify what happens.
Sanders said they would continue to work with the Engineer on the water table and
those grave sites impacted.
Garry stated he felt the parking was sufficient. Nolan asked about the garage on the
site and what they planned on doing with it. Garry said the garage was approximately
eight years old and they would store the equipment they needed to maintain the
cemetery. He added that they would need to modify the water and electricity to
proposed area.
Nolan asked about traffic control with larger events and how it would be handled. He
said he would like to have more detail on what triggered a larger event.
Finke explained traffic control would be handled from the police department or police
reserves. He said a general requirement is not uncommon.
Public Hearing was opened at 8:02 p.m.
Public Hearing closed at 8:03 p.m.
Density — Nielsen said she had concern with the proposed density. Finke asked for
clarification on the density concern. Nolan said the grave sites were at grade, but he
would like to see some vegetated relief. He said most of the nicer cemeteries had
overstory trees. He said the issue of the water table is also a concern of his. He said
he notices a lot of hardcover with no relief in the center. Nielsen agreed with Nolan.
Anderson said the site was lovely and it would be nice to retain it as much as
possible. R. Reid agreed with Nolan but would like to see some designated areas
where there were more trees.
Stormwater/wetland — R. Reid said she felt comfortable with it since the applicant
was willing to work on issues. Nolan said over time nothing would be permanently
waterproof. He asked Weir if the Council would prefer the Commission to deal with
it prior to going to the Council. Weir asked Finke if the applicant could go to the
Council meeting prepared. Weir said the applicant would need to resolve the issue
4
with location of grave sites and water table prior to going to the Council. Finke
explained that would be possible.
Nolan thinks the applicant should deal with the grave sites by moving them out of the
water table area rather than looking at waterproof vaults. He said he was skeptical of
anything other than moving the sites out of the water table. Nielsen asked if there
was a requirement to notify future purchasers of grave sites within a water table.
Garry said he wasn't aware of any.
Condition #9 — The Commission agreed the roadway width should be 20 feet.
Nielsen asked why the roadway should be signed one-way. Finke explained if the
roadway was two-way and the width of the roadway reduced from 20' to 16', it could
create confusion and traffic conflicts.
Condition #14 - Williams would like to see parking expanded. V. Reid said she
didn't feel additional parking was necessary. Nolan asked where the expansion of the
western road was located. Finke explained and also added that language to the
development agreement would better clarify requirements if the City deemed it
necessary sometime in the future. Anderson asked why staff wanted to pave the road.
Finke said gravel surfaces tend to run-off into the wetlands and then eventually would
go into Holy Name Lake. He further added that even though the City does have some
graveled roadways, generally paving is required throughout the City.
Williams asked for clarification of proof -of -parking. Finke explained it's a method of
identifying parking locations on the site without installing them. The exercise is to
show that the required parking would be possible to install, but not required to be
installed unless needed at a later date. It was recommended to modify language in
second sentence by deleting "may" and replace with "retains the right to."
Condition #16 - Landscaping and screening — Nolan said he would like to see a few
grave sites pulled out to design more of a park -like setting in the center of the
proposed area. Nielsen asked if benches were being proposed for the new area.
Sanders said there would be benches installed around the columbarium. Garry asked
if the Commission would consider a gathering space with benches rather than trees in
the center. The Commission concluded they would like to see two to three additional
trees placed in the center of the cemetery area.
Condition #17 - The Commission recommended changing the condition to require all
burial vaults to be out of the water table.
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval of the
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review with recommended changes. Motion
carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin)
Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen, to rescind the previous CUP. Motion
carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin)
5
7. Public Hearing — JJC Hamel LLC (PID #11-118-23-41-0001) at 805 Hamel Road
requests a Preliminary Plat and a 10 foot Variance to the 60 foot right-of-way
requirements of the Subdivision ordinance to subdivide the property from one
lot into three.
Sparks presented the application and explained the three lots met all minimum lot size
and width requirements to subdivide. He explained the right-of-way was a sufficient
width for Hamel Road, though a ten foot variance was being sought for reduction
from the 60 foot requirement. He further reviewed the water, sewer, grading,
drainage and rain garden for the lots. He also explained the modifications to the
grading could impact the trees on -site and reviewed the recommended conditions.
R. Reid asked for clarification of how the rules for granting variances had changed.
Williams said the City could grant a variance if the property couldn't be put to use.
Finke explained the application before them was a variance from the City's
Subdivision ordinance, so the same standard didn't apply as it would for a variance to
the zoning ordinance. Williams clarified with Finke that the reasonable use didn't
apply. Finke explained it's a different standard for reasonableness and uniqueness.
Williams asked what criteria the Commission had to follow to grant a variance under
the Subdivision ordinance. Finke reviewed the criteria with the Commission.
Nolan asked applicant Joe Cavanaugh if he had anything to add to the discussion and
application request. Cavanaugh said he had nothing further to provide.
Public Hearing was opened at 8:57 p.m.
Karen Fobes, 845 Hamel Road, voiced concern with all the driveways and homes
adding additional hardcover and increased density. Removal of the trees and how
they currently screen was also a concern. She said they have issues with drainage and
water sitting a portion of the year, and felt with the added hardcover, the areas would
be wet even more months out of the year.
Sally Proels, 865 Hamel Road, said she and her family had concern with the proposed
additional homes, because she thought people would trespass. She said they would
prefer to keep it the way it is now. Williams asked if she minded the additional
homes. She said she did have concerns with the three homes, but didn't mind the one
home as it is now. Nolan asked what she meant about trespassing. She said kids
would encroach on their father's farm and take away from his privacy.
Public Hearing closed at 9:02 p.m.
Williams reviewed the subdivision criteria to grant a variance and had the following
comments:
(a) Williams didn't see a hardship
6
(b) Finke explained the right-of-way and roadway along Pinto was unique to the City
and therefore was a hardship
(c) A question of grading and drainage concerns was discussed. Sparks explained the
applicant was revising the plans to make improvements.
(d) Ok
Finke said the strict interpretation was up against the density requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan. Finke said it wasn't unique and it was a matter of sorting it
through with the Commissions decision.
Cavanaugh asked what a reasonable amount of right-of-way was needed.
R. Reid asked if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was required for every property,
and asked if exceptions could be made. Sparks said findings would have to be written
to not amend the Comprehensive Plan. He said in his opinion he did not see that a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment was necessary and findings could be created. Finke
explained to the Commission the Comprehensive Plan trumps the Zoning Ordinance.
Grading and Drainage — R. Reid asked if the rain garden would resolve the drainage
concerns. Anderson said he is extremely sensitive to the run-off in the area and staff
would have to work really hard to convince him that substantial improvements were
being made to resolve his concerns. Sparks explained the City Engineers comments.
Nolan said he is a little troubled by not seeing a plan with more details relating to tree
preservation and grading. He said he was troubled with reviewing the unresolved
issues and then forwarding it to the Council. Sparks explained the applicant would
have to resolve the issues prior to going to the Council. He can see there is a lot of
risk if the grading and rain garden weren't properly engineered. Anderson agreed
with Nolan's concerns.
R. Reid asked if the Commission should be reviewing the design of the homes under
the Preliminary Plat. Finke explained on small subdivisions, it is not expected or
asked of an applicant.
Cavanaugh said the engineer reports noted retaining most of the water run-off to be
contained on -site.
Nolan suggested tabling the application. Anderson said he would support the motion,
but would like to be educated on the Variance request through the Subdivision
Ordinance. Nolan asked if the applicant could provide a narrative explaining the
reasons why the project meets the variance criteria. Cavanaugh said it was City staff
that suggested the Variance, since the additional right-of-way wasn't needed.
Williams said it is the applicant's burden, and they have to show how they meet the
Variance criteria.
7
Weir said she would be interested to know if hardcover would be reduced if the two
proposed driveways off Pinto Drive would instead share one driveway. Weir showed
the applicant her rough design.
Cavanaugh said Pinto Drive dead ended and the usage wouldn't get any more intense.
He said staff is the one that suggested he apply for the Variance. Nolan suggested the
applicant get someone to help him with creating a response as to why his property
should be granted the Variance.
Finke asked if the Commission was really concerned with granting the Variance, or if
they had concern with the number of homes. He further explained that the property
could be rezoned to an R2 zoning district, which would increase the density.
V. Reid asked to see a zoning map and land use map to review the surrounding lots
with the subject parcel. Finke provided maps to Commission and discussed subject
parcel and surrounding parcels. Cavanaugh said his application allowed for greater
separation than what could be allowed on the property.
Williams said the property may meet the required Variance criteria, but he didn't see
it. Nolan said he felt the property met the test for granting a variance, yet had
concerns with the grading. R. Reid said she would prefer to only see two homes, but
realizes the rules allow three homes. Anderson and Nielsen said they were
undecided.
The Commission requested the applicant provide a narrative explaining how the
property meets the Variance test and provide more details on the grading, drainage,
and tree preservation.
Motion by Anderson, seconded by R. Reid, to table the Preliminary Plat and
Variance application to a later date. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin)
8. Public Hearing — U.S. Home Corporation "Lennar" (PID #12-118-23-43-0002)
requests a Rezoning from PUD2 to R2 for the northern portion of the
Nolan/Holasek property.
Nolan recused himself from the application since he was part of the land use
application.
Sparks presented the application and explained the reason for the applicant's request
and how the application was required in order for the "Enclave" project to be able to
continue to move forward. He said staff was in support of the lot split assuming the
rezoning was approved. He further explained that staff wasn't suggesting the
applicant pay park dedication at this time, knowing the property would be developed
at a future date and could be collected at that time. It was being recommended that a
ten foot roadway easement be obtained along Hunter Drive for upcoming road
8
improvements. He further informed the Commission that the City Engineer
recommended additional easements which could be discussed.
Sparks also made note of the legal description on the drawing provided by the
applicant was incorrect and a revised plan would be required prior to their application
going to the City Council.
R. Reid asked the applicant if they would like to make a presentation on behalf of
their application. Carole Toohey, Land Development Manager for Lennar
Corporation, said they had no additional comments.
V. Reid asked if it was mentioned that typical wetland buffer easements should be
recommended. Sparks said that was a recommendation of the City Engineer at
maximum, and the Planning staff said at minimum they were recommending drainage
and utility easements along Hunter Drive for upcoming reconstruction of roadway.
Sparks informed the Commission they had some discretion. He explained the other
easements were conditioned upon development at further a date.
Public Hearing was opened at 9:51 p.m.
Public Hearing closed at 9:51 p.m.
Finke explained it was well within the City's right to take all standard easements and
over wetlands on both the northern piece and the southern piece. He said the
easements could be taken and then would more than likely have to turn around and
vacate them during time of development.
Williams asked if the Park Commission should review the application now to
determine deferring of Park Dedication. Finke stated they will take it under
advisement. Anderson said the project does impact the Park Commission and it
should be brought to their attention
Weir asked in recommendation 2 — no development recommended at this time for
either development. Sparks clarified that neither of the properties had zoning
approval prior to the southern property having any development rights.
Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend approval of the Rezoning
from PUD2 to R2 for the northern portion of the Nolan/Holasek property, and lot split
with the easements needed along Hunter Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
(Absent: Martin and Nolan)
9. Election of 2011 Planning Commission Chair
Motion by Williams, seconded by Anderson, to recommend Nolan as 2011 Planning
Commission Chair. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin)
9
10. Election of 2011 Planning Commission Vice Chair
Motion by Williams, seconded by Nolan, to recommend R. Reid as 2011 Planning
Commission Vice Chair. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin)
11. City Council Meeting Schedule
January 18, 2011 - Anderson
February 1, 2011 - Nolan / standby - Nielsen
12. Adjourn
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Nielsen, to adjourn the meeting at 10:03 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Martin)
10