HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-13-2005PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 13, 2005
PRESENT: Marilyn Fortin, Tom Supel, Lennie Leuer, Dick Picard, Mary Verbick, Tom Crosby,
and Doug Dickerson. Also Present: City Planner Rose Lorsung, Planning Consultant Sarah
Schield, Administrative Assistant Janet Olson, and Council Representative Elizabeth Weir
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Dick Picard called the meeting to order at 6:10 PM
2. Wetland Ordinance Work Session
Rose Lorsung provided a brief overview of the purpose of the work session and the materials
provided in the packet. She also reviewed the areas that need to be discussed are: the City
Councils questions regarding the DNR Protected Wetlands, the triggering mechanisms for the
Wetland Ordinance, and maximum and minimum setbacks and buffers.
General discussion occurred on how the city would need to determine agriculture exemptions,
and also if agriculture is exempt from wetland regulation. General consensus was that the city
needs to look at their definition of agriculture.
General discussion occurred on the need for the Wetland Ordinance for land that is going to be
developed.
Discussion also focused on the general provisions listed in the draft ordinance and how it would
be administered. Discussion was centered on triggering mechanisms and how non -conforming
structures would be dealt with. Staff was directed to clarify A3 under general provisions on page
2 that deals with construction if the result of less then 75% of the building by an involuntary
force such as fire wind or damage — with the question being should the wording be more or less
then the 75%.
Steve Martin, a potential new property owner in Medina, questioned if a bridge over a wetland
would be permitted? John Smyth explained that it may be exempt because of de minimus
exemption per the Wetland Conservation Act.
Discussion occurred on land alteration that does not fall within the meaning of redevelopment
has the potential to adversely impact a wetland (Item 4 on the list of the General Provisions) and
how this item needs to be the same as the grading ordinance. Discussion also centered on if 50
cubic yard threshold for permitting would be easy to regulate.
General Consensus that item 4c that talks about redevelopment activity results in a net increase
in the square footage of impervious surfaces that drain to wetland, or results in the relocation of
impervious surfaces closer to the wetland, or results in changes to the drainage patterns that the
City Engineer determines will increase the velocity or rate of the wetland is redundant and
should be removed.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2005
Discussion occurred on the Wetland Buffer and Setbacks and the reasoning of having buffers and
setbacks. A buffer prohibits what can and can not be done. A buffer is a do not disturb area.
Using the chart in the draft ordinance discussion continued and resulted in general consensus to
clarify amounts in the chart and bring back to the January Planning Commission Meeting.
Jerry Peterson, 1295 Hackamore, questioned what determines the minimum and maximum of the
buffers and if it depend on the condition of the water body?
John Smyth, City Westland Engineer answered that the DNR regulates setbacks from the
ordinary high water level takes jurisdiction to the high water mark. He refereed to the draft
ordinance that states the lower the widths to meet watershed standards and thus still have
wetland protection but not to the same degree as recommended by the MPCA. The new widths
would be Preserve: 35 feet, Manage 1:25 Feet, Manage 2:20 Feet, Manage 3:16.5 Feet.
Dick Picard called for a 15 minute break.
The meeting was called back to order at 8:15 PM.
3. PUBLIC FORUM
There were no comments from the public. Dick Picard took the opportunity to thank Lennie
Leuer for his years of service on the Planning Commission.
Rose Lorsung suggested changing the order of the agenda and discuss Construction Site Run Off
Ordinance as Jennifer Hildebrand from Bonestroo was present.
4. CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROL ORDINANCE — PUBLIC HEARING
Jennifer Hildebrand provided the history of the revision of the ordinance as it is a requirement of
Medina's MS4 Permit. This ordinance addresses the State of Minnesota MPS requirements and
MCWD standards.
Doug Dickerson asked how this would affect some businesses that have an Industrial Permit with
the State that requires run off protection.
Jennifer Hidebrand explained that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems
(NPDES) ordinance would address construction portion of the program as well as the 4th
minimum control measure for MS4(municipal storm sewer system) The Industrial Permit
would address industrial sites within the City of Medina that have outside storage within their
facilities.
Tom Crosby questioned how do you get the run off permit from the State?
Rose Lorsung stated that there is one permit for building and one permit for grading for the city.
It is important to have consistent standards so the mechanisms are consistent.
Mary Verbick stated that she thought the ordinance is a good idea because it gives an overview
of an entire project.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2005
Lennie Leuer questioned if routine agricultural crop management practices should also include
"tillage management"?
Dick Picard questioned what would be agricultural purposes?
Jennifer Hildebrand again stressed that the City needs to define agriculture.
Tom Crosby stated that this ordinance is the minimum standard required by the state and is
consistent with other areas and is on an even ground as a starting point and also gives the City a
mechanism to monitor and enforce.
Doug Dickerson asked what the timing is for enforcement such as the removal of a silt fence.
Jennifer Hildebrand replied that silt fence is removed upon final stabilization with 70%
vegetative cover or occupancy of the homeowner.
Rose Lorsung replied upon completion of a project the City requires the developer to remove the
silt fence as part of the release of the project.
Marilyn Fortin had questions regarding storm water pollution prevention plan approvals and
performance standards concerning site dewatering and construction site waste.
Jennifer Hildebrand said that there are many mechanisms that can be used for site dewatering but
the public needs to be made aware of what is acceptable.
Mary Verbick questioned how the city is going to address the threshold, are we going to use 50
cubic yards vs. existing 300 cubic yards for land alteration permitting?
Rose Lorsung said that staff will review and have a clearer answer at the January meeting.
Dick Picard questioned the runoff from disturbed areas.
Jennifer Hildebrand explained the type of slope and the time frames that will be regulated as well
as the need for temporary erosion protection.
Public Hearing was closed at 9:10.
MOTION/SECOND (Crosby/Verbick) to recommend to City Council approval of the Erosion
Control/Construction Site Run Off Ordinance. MOTION PASSES by UNANAMOUS VOTE.
5. GRADING ORDINANCE — PUBLIC HEARING
Public Hearing was opened at 9:15 for discussion on the Grading Ordinance.
Lennie Leuer questioned the grading plan requirements and alternate materials and methods of
construction in regards to what was meant by fire resistance and item f what was meant by tests.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2005
Jennifer Hildebrand responded that some coverings may be flammable and for the question about
item f the type of tests are soil tests.
Lennie Leuer also asked about fill materials as described in Subd.8 item g and if that would
include retaining walls?
Jennifer Hildebrand stated that if the fill material meets the minimum requirements the definition
could include retaining walls.
Lennie Leuer asked if the grading permit requirements and application process if wetland impact
was included.
Rose Lorsung replied we will need to cross reference critical areas as defined by the city code of
ordinances.
Lennie Leuer asked if the lot line and the site boundary defmitions are the same.
Jennifer Hildebrand stated no they are not the same and it would be important for the city to
clarify the site boundary definition
Dick Picard had questions on grading permits requirements and if every application has a
proposed start and end date?
Rose Lorsung stated yes it does and it is on the application.
Doug Dickerson referred to grading permit requirements and the impact that it has on roads and
haul routes.
Rose Lorsung replied that the Public Works Director reviews the routes. The Public Works
Director can declare an emergency and halt operations if appropriate.
Public Hearing was closed at 9:30
MOTION/SECOND (Verbick/Crosby) to bring the Grading Ordinance back to the January
Planning Commission and staff update with comments made. MOTION PASSES
UNANIMOUSLY
Public Hearing was opened at 9:33
6. SIGN ORDINANCE — PUBLIC HEARING
Rose Lorsung stated that this is a working document and replaces the current ordinance so
anything pertaining to signs will be in one ordinance. The proposed ordinance has a redefined
purpose statement, has added sign types, exempt signs and prohibited signs.
Tom Supel asked why we are amending the existing ordinance that staff will have to regulate.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2005
Rose Lorsung replied that signs say a lot about a city's identity. City identity is often based on
visual identity and too many signs can be called visual pollution.
Tom Crosby added that others entities will tend to enforce as well. Such as the Target project,
they will want and require having standards in place through the developer's private covenants.
Marilyn Fortin asked about a portable sign vs. a sandwich sign as she has two requests to include
sandwich boards in Uptown Hamel.
Tom Supel objected to Flags, Emblems, and Insignia of Government Agencies, Religious,
Charitable, Public or Non -Profit Organizations Section because a Governmental sign states all
non -government groups should be treated the same and the list in Flags, Emblems, and Insignia
of Government Agencies...does not do that. He also wondered if the word commercial should
be added to the above mentioned list.
Mary Verbick asked if Subd 11 Institutional Signs are permanent or temporary
Rose Lorsung state that staff will clear up the designation by the next meeting
Tom Crosby referred to Vehicle Signs and stated the statement "for the sole purpose" should be
deleted unless the signs are temporary and licensed.
Doug Dickerson referred to the section on Offensive Material and questioned how do you police
and what is the regulatory body for enforcement? He also questioned illumination and if there is
anything included about sound?
Rose Lorsung stated the City has a comprehensive lighting ordinance and staff will look into
sound guidelines for menu boards in the Urban Commercial Zoning District.
Doug Dickerson questioned if the City has a sign inventory of present signs? And has the city
looked into taking a photographic survey?
The General Consensus was that a photographic survey would be a good idea to help determine
the non -conformities the new ordinance would create.
Dick Picard referred to the number of flags that are permitted per property and why is the
number three used?
Rose Lorsung stated the guidelines are from the existing sign ordinance that was last reviewed in
1999.
Lennie Leuer referred to the definition of a sign and questioned if a mural would be included in
the definition?
Rose Lorsung stated that it would.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2005
Lennie Leuer: referred to free standing sign definition and questioned the meaning of single
surface.
Rose Lorsung stated that she would clarify this for the next draft of the ordinance.
Lennie Leuer referred to Porches (Overhangs, canopies, arcades) and asked if the two square feet
that may be allowed to hang down would be the correct hanging dimensions?
Rose Lorsung stated this is from the existing Uptown Hamel Zoning District and will review for
the next meeting.
Lennie Leuer referred administration and enforcement and questioned if the word variance could
be changed to waiver?
Rose Lorsung stated that if it is not a variance it would not need a public hearing. It could be
administered on a case by case application and reviewed by staff.
Lennie Leuer requested that section 815.37 Conditions and Restrictions: Offenses be reviewed to
be clearer.
Tom Crosby referred to section 815.37 Conditions and Restrictions and requested that the
wording in nonconforming off premise signs be clarified.
Public Hearing was closed at 10:40
MOTION/SECOND (Verbick/Fortin) To have staff review and consider input from
Commissioners and bring back to January Planning Commission for further review. MOTION
PASSES UNANIMOUSLY
7. PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
Liz Weir commended Dick for the work that he has done on the Bylaws for the Planning
Commission. She presented a revised version that she believed would be more likely to be
approved by the City Council.
Tom Supel: stated that in light of the new information he suggests that the Planning Commission
Review both versions and discuss at the January Planning Commission Meeting.
Tom Crosby: questioned if the City Council has bylaws and if they do he would like to review
them.
Dick Picard gave a brief history of how the bylaws were created as a result of a training session
that he attended where he learned most area cities have bylaws for the Planning Commission. In
reviewing other bylaws and conversation with Planning Commissioner Members from other
communities he moved ahead working with Liz Weir and came up with a draft version that was
provided in the packet.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2005
Tom Supel agreed with Dick's intent that we are here for the citizens and must have fair and
systematic procedures in place.
Doug Dickerson stated that he thinks bylaws are a good idea.
Lennie Leuer commented that training for new Planning Commissioner Members happened 15
years ago but the training has fallen by the wayside and should be considered with new planning
commissioners.
General consensus of the Planning Commission is to review both versions of the bylaws and
bring them back for the January Planning Commission.
Liz Weir gave a report from the City Council meetings.
8. MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 9, 2005 MEETING
MOTION/SECOND (Verbick/Leuer) to approve the minutes from the November 9, 2005
Planning Commission Meeting as corrected.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUS VOTE
9. PLANNER'S REPORT
Rose Lorsung provided an update the planning issues that will be on the December 20, 2005 City
Council Agenda: the Schoon Addition Preliminary/Final Platt with Variance, adopt resolution
Leawood Farms 2nd Addition, and Public Hearing Vacation for drainage/utility easements
Leawood Farm.
Rose reported that Open Space Planning will be discussed at the Park Commission Meeting
December 21, 2005.
The first open house for public input on the moratorium will be held December 15.
MOTION/SECOND (Verbick/Crosby) to Adjourn
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY
Meeting adjourned at 11:15 PM
Planning and Zoning Assistant Date
Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2005