Loading...
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