HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-09-2009Medina Planning Commission June 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes
CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners, Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, Michele Litts, Jim
Simons and Mary Verbick.
Absent: Beth Nielsen and Charles Nolan left meeting @ 8:15 p.m.
Also Present: Associate Planner Dusty Finke, and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda:
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings:
Finke read an update from Council Member Weir that the City Council:
- heard an annual report from Long Lake Fire Chief Van Eyll;
- heard that the Medina spring nature walk, led by Park Commissioner and naturalist
Madeleine Linck was well attended;
- held a public hearing and approved resolutions for the 2009 mill and overlay road project
for Sycamore Trail, with 50 percent of costs assessed to benefiting properties;
- tabled the open public hearing for Pioneer Trail mill and overlay;
- discussed a possible Uptown Hamel Monument sign at Highway 55 and Sioux Drive,
with Council expressing concerns about its visibility from Highway 55;
- learned that it would cost a minimum of $10,000 to move even one of the large electrical
utility boxes at the corner of Sioux Drive and Hamel Road; so as an alternative, perennial
native grasses have been planted to help screen them;
- directed staff to find the cost of screening garbage containers at City Hall;
- received a clean financial report from auditors Abdo, Eick and Meyers;
- directed staff to make further changes to the Rural Public/Semi-Public Zoning District in
order to control intensity of land use in a district in which the purpose requires low
intensity land use; and
- set dates to begin planning for the 2010 budget.
4. Planning Department Report:
Finke updated the Commission on future projects and ordinances.
1
Medina Planning Commission June 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes
5. Approval of May 12, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes:
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Verbick to approve the May 12, 2009 minutes as written.
Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen)
6. Wranglers Restaurant — David Willis (PIDs 12-118-23-41-0012, 12-118-23-41-0013 &
12-118-23-41-00014) — Amended Site Plan Review to construct an addition to the rear of
the existing building and construct a parking lot for a proposed restaurant/bar.
Finke presented application to the Commission. He explained the plat was not on the agenda for
review, but rather the amended site plan. He reviewed what triggers a Site Plan Review and
explained the application was for a 990 square foot addition and an expansion of the parking lot
since the original Site Plan Review. He further reviewed exterior materials and stated he met
with the City's Building Official and he supports hardi-board siding over wood.
Finke explained the mechanical equipment regulation and that the applicant is requesting to
install the mechanical equipment on the roof. He asked the Commission to determine whether
rooftop equipment should be allowed rather than on the ground as required by code.
Finke explained the location of the trash enclosure had changed since the previous site plan
review, which staff feels is an improvement for on -site circulation. Access to Bar/Restaurant
would continue to be available through the front and rear of the building (north and south
elevations).
Finke raised concern with the west side of the new parking lot. The parking lot dead ends and
would be very difficult for a vehicle to pull out of their space.
Finke explained the lighting requirements and that the trash enclosure area would have hardi-
board exterior to match the principal building.
He explained staff recommended a rain garden within the parking lot which would be a condition
of approval.
Simons explained that at the previous site review a condition was placed on the application to
only allow a 20 foot maximum width. Finke explained City Engineering staff was in support of
the access drive width of 20 feet.
R. Reid raised concern with the long uninterrupted horizontal hardi-board siding. She would like
to see variation and does not want to design the appearance, but thinks there could be more
thought put into the two sides of the building. Exterior material samples were provided by
Peterson -Dufresne. Finke explained that brick, stucco, stone, and glass were allowed in a UH
zoning district. The Commission suggested decorative concrete be added as an acceptable
exterior material in a future text amendment.
Simons asked what the setback requirement was for the trash enclosure. Finke explained the
district does not have setback requirements for the enclosure.
2
Medina Planning Commission June 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes
R. Reid asked what the thought process was for not allowing rooftop mechanical equipment.
Finke was unsure of the reason for the code, but thought that taller buildings may be able to look
down on other buildings and see the rooftop equipment.
Jim Willis, applicant, said he was available to answer questions. V. Reid asked what was behind
the decision to add more parking. Willis said it would be more marketable. V. Reid asked
Willis if additional stalls were needed since the addition was proposed. Willis said the addition
requires four additional spaces be added. He said they will always own the parking lot and only
sell the space for the building. R. Reid asked if he was using an architect. Willis said they have
an architect and would use a different firm to design the final building design to meet all codes
and conditions.
Willis explained the rooftop equipment would be easier to install if it were on the roof and would
be screened from view.
R. Reid said she would like to see the same stone texture that is on the front of the building to be
installed on the walls of the addition. Nolan said it wouldn't be difficult to add stone to the
existing building and it is attractive and not overly expensive. Willis stated he does not have an
issue with adding the stone. Nolan suggested a slight stager of the wall can really change the
architectural appearance of the building. Willis explained the existing building and said he had
no problem with making architectural improvements.
Nolan asked why the trash enclosure was moved. Willis explained that it was purely due to the
issue of odor. Nolan asked if it was possible to convert two parking stalls on the west end of the
parking lot for a drive aisle and replace them by the trash enclosure. Nolan felt it may take a
little more asphalt, but would have better circulation overall.
Finke suggested one-way and slant parking on the west side of the parking lot. He also noted the
future potential for lining up the internal drive aisle with the lot to the west. If this would occur,
it would provide a nice circulation pattern.
Simons asked the applicant how he felt about the LID improvements within the parking lot.
Willis said he would have to run it by his engineers, but was not a problem with him. Verbick
likes the idea that it establishes a trend for the area to implement LID practices. Finke explained
the LID requirements were not placed as a condition of approval and if the Commission wanted
the applicant to do additional research to present to the City Council, they could make the
recommendation. Nolan asked for LID to be placed as a condition and it would be a Council
option to eliminate.
Finke explained he can work with the LID language if the Commission wanted to add it as a
condition.
Simons suggested improving the architectural elements of the addition and west side of building,
which could be a condition for the Council to discuss.
3
Medina Planning Commission June 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes
R. Reid said light fixtures were discussed at the previous meeting and wondered if the applicant
had done additional research since that time. Willis explained he did not pick out a light fixture
yet, but that more unique fixtures are a lot more money than standard fixtures. The Commission
clarified the type of fixture they envisioned, and Willis was supportive of the "old town" look.
R. Reid asked if the code had specific design standards for lighting. Finke explained the City
does not have design standards for fixtures. Willis explained he can dress up a round pole with a
different "old fashioned" style fixture.
V. Reid said for an urban feel she leans towards allowing rooftop equipment. R. Reid felt
rooftop equipment goes with the territory in an urban setting.
Nolan's main concern was if the rooftop equipment would be visible, and would look at it as an
architectural element that is difficult to visualize. Willis reviewed the location of the rooftop
equipment.
Simons, V. Reid, R. Reid, Verbick, and Litts were satisfied with mechanical equipment on the
roof.
R. Reid asked what the signage would look like. Willis said the metal on the front of the
building would be covered with a red canopy.
Litts asked about the lighting ordinance and if a compromise could be made. The light pole is
proposed to be 20 feet tall. Finke explained the light would be required to meet reflective glare
requirements (footcandles), but felt changing the fixtures would change the footcandles at the
property lines.
Verbick feels that light pollution has been an on -going issue and they should be turned off when
not being used.
Nolan summarized:
• The parking lot should be modified to create an improved circular flow
• The applicant shall consider some sort of drainage flow through LID
• Allow hardi-board and require brick to be added to exterior of building to match what
currently exists on west elevation
• The applicant shall consider spandrel glass on the west and north elevations
• The applicant shall install a light fixture that has an "old downtown" appearance
• The Commission was in support of mechanical equipment on the rooftop, and that it
should be adequately screened
• Staff shall expand condition 5 to add details regarding face brick
• The Commission supported the proposed landscaping and green space
Motion by V. Reid, Seconded by R. Reid to approve the Site Plan Review with
recommendations and conditions specified. (Absent: Nielsen)
4
Medina Planning Commission June 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes
7. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8, Section 826 of the City Code —
Related to regulations on maximum animal unit density per grazable acre in the
Agricultural Preservation and Rural Residential zoning districts.
Finke provided review of the proposed ordinance amendment to the Commission.
Verbick stated the purpose is to not have too many animals in too small of a space. She does not
feel the wooded area should be counted as grazable acres and language should be created to
better clarify without being too restrictive for people who have large lots of land.
Verbick said she doesn't have a problem with allowing Type 1 wetlands for grazable acres. She
asked if the City would want to gather historical information over time. Finke said that no one
would compile the information unless a property owner was proposing a project. Finke
explained staff has various data bases for information that may not be exact and over time the
nonconformity issue would wash away.
Finke explains Type 1 wetland may deter people from removing trees. Type 1 wetland grazing
lessens the restrictions and increases the allowable acreage for more animal units.
Simons reviewed the "alternatives" with the Commission. Finke explained by adding Type 1
wetlands staff would not be able to determine the type specifically. The owner/inquirer would be
required to complete wetland delineation.
V. Reid asked staff if many animal owners were out of compliance. Finke stated that from the
phone calls received, they were fairly out of compliance.
R. Reid asked why a nonconformity carries over with the sale. Finke explained the legalities for
nonconforming uses.
Simons asked how staff regulates the buffer area around Type 1 wetlands. R. Reid asked what
was put in the wetland ordinance about grazing. Finke said there was no language put in the
wetland ordinance; therefore, there is nothing to stop animals from grazing in the wetlands.
Finke asked about Type 2 wetland buffer areas and allowing grazing. Simons pointed out the
question is really how to calculate grazable acres.
Allowing Type 1 essentially relaxes the code yet is more difficult to calculate.
Finke said the City Engineer explained that Type 1 wetlands will be much less likely to be
damaged by trampling or grazing than other types of wetlands if this occurs during a dry time of
the year.
R. Reid felt the wetland ordinance should be modified prior to making a decision. She said why
count areas as grazable acres and not allow them to graze within it. Finke and Simons felt that it
doesn't make sense.
5
Medina Planning Commission June 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes
V. Reid questioned how many people would be out of compliance. She felt the City may need to
add an educational component and has concern with a regulation that is really not clearly in
compliance.
Litts felt animal owners want to take good care of their animals and if they have a small parcel
they would reasonably choose what would be appropriate. She further felt the City would have
issues with revising the wetland ordinance.
R. Reid asked if the City has rules for manure management. Finke explained the City does not
and that manure management was one of the issues. Finke explained during the Open House it
was pointed out that if manure management is the issue, then regulating the manure should be
done rather than animal units.
Conclusion of Commission was to utilize performance standards to regulate manure and over-
grazing. Finke said he can either go away from animal units, or keep animal units and add
performance standards.
Finke asked the Commission for clarification of performance standards and what level they are
looking for within the standards. He said they could be broad or specific.
Summarized:
• Adding purpose statement is ok
• V. Reid would rather increase animal units and not count Type 1 wetlands or its buffer
area to calculate the number of permissible animal units.
Simons asks what is it the Commission is really being asked by the Council. Finke said that a lot
of properties are already grazing in Type 1 wetlands and so it allows it to continue. He didn't
think the objective was to increase the number of animal units by adding Type 1 wetlands.
Simons said he was fine with including Type 1 wetlands.
Finke asked for overall direction of the Commission; and if specific items did not have
consensus, the Commission could vote.
Simons asked for the definition of over -grazing. Verbick feels the Commission is being asked to
digest something very difficult in a short amount of time. R. Reid asked if the purpose is to
make it be easier for staff Finke did not feel it was the Council's reason to make the change.
Finke explained staff took the ordinance to the Council for discussion and to get clarification of
how to interpret grazable acres, as well as whether wooded areas should be included or excluded
in grazable acres. Finke said the Council was adamant that wooded areas should not be included
in grazable acres.
Finke asked what type of information the Commission is looking for from staff.
6
Medina Planning Commission June 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Public Hearing opened at 9:43 p.m.
The Commission was alright with Type 1 wetland, but concerned with the implications.
Public Hearing closed at 9:54 p.m.
R. Reid made a motion to add the "Purpose Statement," which expands the ability to implement
a CUP.
Motion by Simons, seconded by Verbick to allow Type 1 wetlands as grazable acres. R. Reid,
Simons, and Verbick in favor. Opposed: Litts and V. Reid, based on concerns with how it fits
within the wetlands ordinance. All concerned with implications to the wetland. The
Commission agreed as a whole to have further discussion on performance standards. The
Commission recommended the ordinance be taken to Council prior to the Planning Commission
hearing it again. R. Reid said they would need a lot of information prior to discussing. (Absent:
Nielsen and Nolan)
8. Adjourn: Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Verbick to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously (absent: Nielsen and Nolan).
7