HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-13-2011CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
1. Call to Order: Commissioner R. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Kathleen Martin, Victoria Reid, Kent Williams,
John Anderson, and Robin Reid
Absent: Charles Nolan and Beth Neilson
Also Present: City Council member Elizabeth Weir, City Council member Jeff
Pederson, City Planner Dusty Finke, and Associate Planner Dale Cooney
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council proceedings
Council member Elizabeth Weir presented a report of recent activities and decisions
by the City Council. Comments included approval of parking standards ordinance,
stormwater management ordinance, budget reductions, and Marx conservation
design.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
5. Approval of the October 11, 2011 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes
V. Reid asked to strike line 32.
Motion by Martin, seconded by V. Reid, to approve the October 11, 2011 draft
minutes with the recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent:
Nolan and Neilson)
7. Continued Public Hearing — JJC Hamel LLC — Request to rezone 805 Hamel
Road from UR, Urban Residential, to R2, Two Family Residential, and
subdivide one lot into two lots (PID #11-118-23-41-0001)
Cooney delivered the staff report. He stated that JJC Hamel LLC was requesting to
split the parcel at 805 Hamel Road into 2 parcels and to rezone Lot 2 to the R2 zoning
district. He summarized the existing property and showed the proposed subdivision.
Cooney discussed the required setback from County Highways. He stated that staff
1
believed the requirement is redundant with setback requirements contained within
zoning districts.
Bill Cavanaugh (applicant, 3320 Niagara Lane, Plymouth) explained his previous
application last year was proposed to have three lots and current proposed application
has only two lots. He said he wanted to maintain the variance for the right of way
variance that he had requested previously and thought this two lot subdivision
continued to include a request for a variance to the right of way. He said if he could
have the variance it would improve the lots and he didn't think the roadway would
ever go through anyway.
Anderson inquired if Cavanaugh would be open to maintaining the current zoning.
Cavanaugh said that he thought Pinto seemed to act as a break between single-family
and the multi -family to the east. Cooney stated the intent of the rezoning was to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Anderson inquired about the drainage to the southwest. Cooney stated the proposed
improvements control the rate as required. It would also filter the water as required,
but the City Engineer has recommended they work with the neighbor to the south to
pipe it to a better discharge location.
Martin inquired if there would be easements over the raingarden and swale. Cooney
stated an easement would be over the raingarden and he would check further into
requiring an easement over the swale.
Martin inquired how the process would work with the change to the setback from the
County Road. Finke stated the intent would be to get direction from the Planning
Commission and prepare an ordinance amendment which could be adopted before the
review timeframe for this request elapses.
Public Hearing opened at 7:43 p.m.
Anderson inquired if there was sufficient space to accommodate the required tree
planting. Cooney stated there was sufficient space and would be accomplished with
eleven 4-inch in diameter trees.
R. Reid stated one of the neighbors asked for a fence along the western property line.
She asked if the City could make this requirement. Finke noted that the City had
buffer yard and tree replacement requirements and he was not aware of a time the
City has required fencing for a lot split. He suggested the Commission could
condition the placement of the replacement trees in that area.
Martin stated she felt the use of trees would be a reasonable way to accommodate
screening.
2
V. Reid inquired if the City needed the 17-feet of right-of-way. Finke stated the
right-of-way is utilized for snow storage, as well as drainage and utilities. If the City
were to ever need to reconstruct the street and utilities in the future it would be best
served by having at least 50-feet of right-of-way (the minimum allowed in the code).
V. Reid stated that she thought the new proposal was an improvement over what she
saw last year. She stated the width of the lots would really not be much different than
the property to the west. Anderson said he had been persuaded.
R. Reid stated the proposal makes sense in its location. Allowing a twinhome would
be consistent with other housing in the area. She felt the fence made a lot of sense,
but perhaps landscaping could accomplish the same thing.
Public Hearing closed at 8:06 p.m.
Motion by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to approve the preliminary plat, subject
to conditions 1-11 in the staff report, and to 1) modify condition number four to
require any additional easements as recommended by the City Engineer for the
benefit of lot two and for stormwater drainage to raingarden on proposed lot one; 2)
to require eleven 4-inch in diameter trees be planted to screen the property to the
west; and 3) a new condition be added as number 12 to remit a 50-foot setback
requirement from Hamel Road on the preliminary plat, which is an amendment to the
code. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan, Neilson)
8. Public Hearing — Sarah Borchers and Brian Kingsley — Request for a Setback
Variance from the 50 foot requirement along the south property line to
reconstruct a new in -ground swimming pool in the Rural Residential (RR)
zoning district —1512 Tamarack Drive (PID #26-118-23-12-0004)
Finke delivered the staff report explaining the setback requirements changed in 2006
requiring a 50-foot setback from all property lines. He said the proposed Variance
request reduced an existing non -conformity, yet didn't bring the pool into current
setback requirements. He said the property met statutory practical difficulty
standards.
Sarah Borchers, applicant, read e-mails from two neighbors supporting the variance,
focusing particularly on the protection of the oak tree. She asked if the in -ground
pool would have to be constructed within a certain time period and Finke replied it
would be required to be built within a year from the date of the approved Resolution.
R. Reid opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. No public comments were made.
The Commission discussed the setback Variance and they requested the staff report
reflect findings that the Commission wanted to protect the 100 year old oak tree,
since it was a City goal. The Commission did not feel a fifty -foot setback could be
met and at the same time protect the 100 year old oak tree.
3
Motion by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval. Motion
carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan, Neilson)
6. Continued Public Hearing — Text Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City
Code related to regulations for signs
Finke delivered the staff report, which primarily reflected the changes from previous
review of the ordinance. The biggest change he pointed out was the removal of the
maximum area limitation based on lot size and the limitation on internally illuminated
signs.
Martin pointed out a few grammatical inconsistencies.
Martin asked about the difference between directional and internal site signs. Finke
responded that directional is external and along the street front. Internal is more
internal. Martin asked for them to be better defined.
Martin asked about the definition of a porch sign. Finke responded that if it wasn't in
the ordinance he would add it.
Martin asked if the intention on page 5, subd. 3, was to prohibit mylar balloons, or
signage on mylar balloons. V. Ried and Anderson questioned the same. Finke said
he just copied the text from another location and it is currently prohibited.
Anderson said when people are hosting a party they use mylar balloons to indicate the
location of the party. R. Reid asked if residential could be excluded. Anderson
suggested a time limitation be put in place for this type of sign. Martin added the
mylar balloons are used for birthdays and new baby arrivals in the residential
districts. She suggested that type of sign could maybe be an "event' sign. Martin
questioned if commercial businesses would have a use for these types of signs. The
Commission discussed why these types of balloons were prohibited and suggested
maybe the balloons being referred were more like the large gorillas or large objects
created with balloons to catch people's attention.
Finke responded that staff would look into revising the section. Williams suggested
excluding event signs. V. Reid asked if it should only be a residential use. R. Reid
asked if it should be struck, or should they be considered temporary signs.
Continued Public Hearing opened at 8:43 p.m.
Michael Cronin of 8809 Bush Lake Road in Bloomington spoke at the podium as a
representative for Holiday Station Stores. He made comment that a lot of
communities prohibit the balloons to be attached to the roof of a building, which
tends to eliminate the large balloons the Commission talked about, and allowed for
people to attach balloons to their mailboxes or front doors.
4
Cronin said Holiday Station Store wanted to thank the City for sending out a mailing
to all businesses which provided opportunity for them to comment on the ordinance.
He said Holiday was in the process of changing their electronic signs and tried
figuring out a way to modify their dynamic signs with Medina's ordinance and they
couldn't make it work. He went on to recommend five changes to the dynamic sign
section listed on the dynamic sign handout.
1. Asks to allow electronic message center to be added to present nonconforming
sign, as long as the area is not increased.
2. Asks to review the tier of changeable message signs handout he provided.
Holiday is trying to find ways to get people into their store ever since "pay at the
pump" started. Would appreciate being able to get 32 square feet.
3. Exclude the non EMC from the sign square footage of overall sign.
4. Asks to no longer require a sign height maximum.
5. To provide changes to lighting ambient standard. He said at noon the sign is the
lightest. No more than .03 of a foot-candle.
Martin asked clarifying questions about sign types on the handout he was provided.
Cronin responded with clarification.
Williams asked about regulations limiting the frequency of changing the message and
what his opinion was on it. Cronin responded between 8 or 12 seconds, but has no
objections to the 5 minute length. Cronin also mentioned Holiday would only want a
snap cut on these signs, and that safety would be better than some older signs (e.g.
Medina Ballroom) which use more intense effects such as flashing, wipes and fade-
ins.
R. Reid asked what the maximum area for a dynamic sign was and Finke responded
35% of sign area.
R. Reid voiced support of the EMC signs and the time limit.
Councilmember Pederson spoke at the podium and voiced concerns about making the
sign ordinance too restrictive and to be respectful of the needs of the business
community.
R. Reid asked about changes of dynamic sign regulations. Finke stated he's not
proposing to change that aspect of the regulations since it was changed in 2008.
V. Reid asked about the temporary sign limit of six 21-day periods, and mentioned
that she thought it would be too much.
Finke asked if there was a reason to differentiate between temporary signs and
portable signs. V. Reid suggested shorter periods, such as 14-days. There was
general agreement on 14 days.
5
V. Reid inquired about portable signs being illuminated or backlit. Finke responded
concerning allowing illuminated only along highway frontage. He also said mylar
balloons and inflatable signs should not be allowed taller than the building.
Martin inquired about event signs under item G. and asked if it was per event. Finke
confirmed it was per event.
Martin asked about freestanding signs. Finke directed the conversation to height.
Martin and Anderson thought 15 feet seemed too low. Anderson suggested 20 feet.
Williams stated that he would be comfortable with 25 feet. The Commission agreed
on 20 feet in height maximum as a revision.
Martin asked if 80 square feet would be adequate. The Commission discussed the
square footage allowance and they agreed 80 square feet seemed adequate.
Martin suggested that the sign not "encroach upon" the clear vision triangle.
Martin suggested a text change that one "additional" sign be allowed for gas stations.
Discussion turned to wall signs. V. Reid asked about PUD wall sign exemptions.
Finke responded that large buildings are not necessarily PUDs. V. Reid asked where
most increases are coming from. Finke responded that freestanding signs are the
biggest increase. V. Reid wondered if the allowance on large buildings was adequate.
Finke said that he would look for a resolution to their questions.
Martin asked about the measurement of the wall and grades. Finke said he would
include architectural features in the measurements.
V. Reid asked about a PUD process for larger wall signs. Weir recommended a
sliding scale rather than other options. Finke suggested thinking about Target and
Office Max. Martin asked for more guidance from staff on the issue.
Martin asked about window signs and if the restriction was per structure or per
window. Finke suggested limiting per street frontage, instead of per structure and the
Commission agreed.
Directional signs: Martin asked if pavement markings were signage. V. Reid didn't
think pavement markings should be regulated.
Martin asked about 10 feet in non -highway commercial districts. The Commission
decided 10 feet was adequate.
The Commission asked about the bonus freestanding sign for gas stations in
Commercial General (CG) districts. V. Reid suggested the elimination of the bonus
sign. Commission agreed to strike the bonus sign in CG district.
6
V. Reid asked about the 100 square foot wall sign limit in Uptown Hamel (UH), but
64 square feet in other districts. Finke pointed out that other signs are less likely in
UH. Commission agreed to lower the limit to match other districts.
Martin asked about pylon signs in the Public -Semi -Public district (P/SP). Finke
explained that it encourages monument signs since the regulations are less strict.
Williams asked why the limitation in P/SP is at 32 square feet. Finke said the
language was taken from the existing code. The Commission agreed that 64 square
feet would be consistent with other regulations.
The Commission reviewed dynamic displays and asked about the history of the
ordinance. Mr. Cronin suggested providing more information to Finke and working
with Finke on revised language at the next meeting. Martin thought that seeing the
sign examples would be helpful to gain a better understanding.
The Commission recommended tabling the ordinance by general consensus to
evaluate further the dynamic display aspects.
Finke added a distance between signs be added to language.
Tabled for further information from staff, with public hearing remaining open.
9. City Council Meeting Schedule
The Commission discussed meeting dates to present at the City Council meetings.
10. Adjourn
Motion by Anderson, seconded by Martin, to adjourn the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Neilson)
7