Loading...
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