HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-10-15 PC Minutes 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday March 10, 2015
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Charles Nolan,
Janet White, and Kent Williams.
Absent: Victoria Reid.
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and City Councilmember John Anderson.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
No comments made.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
Councilmember Anderson reported that the City Council considered the Concept Plan from
Stonegate Farms, noting that the Council echoed some of the same concerns the Planning
Commission had. He reported that the Council also approved the Final Plat approval for
Wakefield.
Murrin asked for additional information regarding the solar energy discussion the Council
had and whether their recommends were different from the Planning Commission.
Anderson stated that he was not present at the meeting when the Council discussed that item.
Finke reported that the Council did make two amendments from what the Planning
Commission had recommended including a reduction from 500 to 300 feet in regard to the
setback from residential properties and the Council also removed the one-acre maximum
from the maximum allowed footprint.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
5. Approval of the February 10, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to approve the February 10, 2015, Planning
Commission minutes with noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Reid)
6. Public Hearing – Jeff Varney – 3985 County Road 19 – Conditional Use
Permit for Construction of a 10,080 Square Foot Accessory Building in the
RR-UR Zoning District
Finke identified the applicant’s property, which is a 113-acre parcel on County Road 19. He
stated that the applicants are proposing to construct the new accessory building and relocate
an existing accessory building on the site. He displayed an aerial photograph of the subject
site, highlighting the location of existing buildings, wetland, and land used for agricultural
2
purposes. He advised that more than two accessory structures on rural residential property
are allowed through the use of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He reviewed the planting
plans, which would assist in breaking up the mass of buildings and would also provide color
relief. He reviewed the proposed setback information as well as the proposed size and height
of the building, which will be a pole frame type structure. He reviewed the proposed storm
water management aspects proposed for the site and noted that even with the additional
building the hardcover of the site would only equal about two percent of the site. He stated
that staff recommends approval of the CUP with the conditions noted in the staff report. He
stated that staff received two written comments, including suggestions from the City of
Loretto and a letter of support from a Loretto resident.
White asked for additional information regarding the proposed setback from County Road 19.
Finke explained how the setback was calculated noting that while there is no dedicated right-
of-way, the applicant did account for an estimated right-of-way.
Williams referenced the comments made from the City of Loretto and questioned the
difference moving the building 30 feet would make.
Finke explained that moving the building would have an impact on grading and storm water
treatment as proposed.
Williams questioned if the berm would be able to be installed or whether there would be an
impact on the vegetative swale.
Albers questioned if the swale would be regularly mowed or whether the vegetation would be
allowed to grow.
Finke stated that the applicant is open to either but explained that generally the plantings are
placed lower in the swale and allowed to grow.
Jeff Varney, applicant, stated that the building location was determined because of the steep
drop off and additional fill that would need to be brought in if the building were to be moved
to the location proposed by Loretto.
Nolan questioned if a second berm would be feasible.
Varney stated that he would be open to that option, if the berm were to be three to four feet in
height. He stated that he would be willing to let the swale grow but would want to mow
every 30 days or so in order to maintain the healthy vegetation and aesthetic of the property.
White stated that she often drives by the property and commended the property owner on the
aesthetic. She questioned if the landscaping could be continued to the end of the shed that
will be moved, noting that she would prefer trees to a berm.
Varney stated that he would not be against that option, noting that he is open to work with the
City on their suggestions.
Murrin asked for the applicant’s input regarding the plan submit from Loretto.
Varney stated that the area where Loretto proposed to locate the building is actually wetland
and therefore that location is not feasible.
3
Murrin questioned if someone is living in the farmhouse on the property.
Varney stated that no one is living in that house at this time. He confirmed that the house is
in very nice condition.
White stated that the second berm would not create the appropriate screening and believed
that the trees would provide a better buffer.
Nolan opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.
Roger Georges resides at 6773 County Line Road SE of Medina stated that he likes the
proposed plans and believed that buildings are a better use for storage of materials and
equipment. He believed that the trees would provide sufficient screening and was not in
favor of the berm as the property is very uniform and clean.
Nolan closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m.
Nolan commented that while he originally was in favor of the berm he did not feel strongly
and felt that the extended tree line and landscaping would be a benefit. He noted that this
property is substantial in size and questioned what would occur should some of the property
be sold. He suggested placing a minimum lot size that would be necessary to support the
accessory buildings.
Finke reviewed the current standards under the zoning district and the process of review that
would be conducted should the property subdivide in the future.
Nolan suggested using the language 40 acres or a certain percentage.
Foote agreed that the berm could create more problems than benefit, as it would not screen
anything.
Murrin referenced the comments from Loretto and stated that she did not think they would be
appropriate in this situation because the applicant stated that it would not be practical to
implement them and still be able to operate the farm.
Motion by White, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff report and as discussed by the Commission.
Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: V. Reid)
7. Public Hearing - Puptown, LLC – 810 Tower Drive – Amended Conditional Use Permit
to Increase Maximum Number of Dogs Permitted at Existing Dog Daycare/Boarding
Facility
Finke stated that the Puptown facility opened in 2011 and provided background information
on the use and what is allowed under City Code. He stated that in the originally approved
CUP there was a limit on the maximum number of dogs. He explained that even when at full
capacity of allowed dogs, the site is far from utilizing the indoor space and the applicant is
requesting an increase to the number of allowed dogs. He explained how calculations could
be made to determine the amount of space needed per dog. He stated that staff visited the
property and has not received any complaints through the police department or from
neighboring property owners. He stated that staff recommends approval as presented subject
to the conditions listed in the staff report.
4
Albers questioned if there were any concerns regarding waste.
Finke stated that the facility is clean and he did not see any concerns, but noted that a waste
management plan is required under the CUP.
Tom Kingstead, owner of Puptown, LLC, stated that the business has been open since 2011.
He referenced a color photo shown in the Commission packet. He stated that the driveway
paving and turf installation occurred prior to the doors being opened. He stated that he stays
overnight at the facility as they do not believe in caging the animals. He stated that there is
room to grow at the facility. He reviewed how the waste management plan was developed
and is followed. He stated that typically there is not noise from the dogs and the facility does
not cause an odor.
Murrin stated that she visited the site and questioned where the owner sleeps at the facility.
Kingstead identified the area where he sleeps with the dogs, noting that the room is air
conditioned and heated. He stated that the dogs play so hard during the day that they sleep
well throughout the night. He stated that if the dogs need to go out during the night they do
take them out to the bathroom.
White stated that the maximum limit of dogs is probably self-imposing as the level of service
could most likely not continue past what the business can support.
Kingstead agreed that he is the one who feeds the dogs every morning and stays at the
facility. He stated that with spring break coming up they would like to be allowed to have
additional dogs. He noted that there are employees in addition to him and his wife.
White stated that she was pleasantly surprised that there was not an odor when she visited the
site.
Kingstead explained that their facility is run differently than other kennel and facilities of this
type, which sets them apart from those other facilities in terms of quality.
Williams questioned how the site would handle inclement weather, such as 20 below zero.
Kingstead stated that the dogs often like to go outside even in the cold temperatures but noted
that there are additional inside areas for recreation as well. He noted that the dogs are tested
to ensure that they are a good fit for the facility.
Nolan asked for additional information regarding the interaction between the indoor and
outdoor play areas.
Kingstead explained that there are areas, which allow the dogs to travel between the inside
and outside areas freely.
Nolan opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
No comments made.
Nolan closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
5
Williams stated that he originally had concern with the additional dogs but the applicant was
able to sooth his concern. He confirmed that the CUP would remain with the property and
not the applicant and was concerned with possible change in ownership.
Nolan stated that as long as the access between the indoor and outdoor play spaces are
uncontrolled he would not see a problem.
Murrin referenced a condition which states that sufficient space be available within the
facility but recognized the lack of information available to determine sufficient space. She
stated that she did reach out to gather additional information to determine if the necessary
space recommended by the ASPCA includes indoor and outdoor play space. She stated that
when she viewed the ASPCA website she did notice rules for dog daycare and questioned if
the City is supposed to regulate those requirements.
Nolan stated that his biggest concern coming into this discussion was the amount of space
and whether that needs to be inside or outside. He stated that he is convinced that there is
sufficient space at the facility, especially because the indoor and outdoor access is provided to
the dogs freely. He believed that the applicant is running their business well and did not see a
need to further regulate the other aspects.
Williams stated that there are conditions in the CUP, which were created to address some of
the ASPCA recommendations.
Motion by Williams, seconded by White, to recommend approval of the amended
Conditional Use Permit based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to the
conditions recommended by staff, along with the added condition that the number of dogs
permitted is subject to the dogs having free access to use the outside play area. Motion
approved unanimously. (Absent: V. Reid)
8. Call Special Meeting for March 17, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. to Discuss: A) Emergency Incident
Responses; and B) Open Meeting Law
Finke explained that there will be a special meeting discussing emergency incident responses
and open meeting law. He advised that all members of the Planning Commission, City
Council and Park Commission are invited to participate. He noted that the meetings will run
concurrently and this will not be considered a joint meeting.
Motion by Foote, seconded by White, to call for a special meeting on March 17, 2015 at
6:00 p.m. to discuss emergency incident responses and open meeting law. Motion approved
unanimously. (Absent: V. Reid)
9. Council Meeting Schedule
White volunteered to provide an update to the Council at the March 17th meeting.
10. Adjourn
Motion by Williams, seconded by Albers, to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously. . (Absent: V. Reid)