Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-19-16 PC Minutes 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Monday, December 19, 2016 1. Call to Order: Chairperson V. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Chris Barry, Laurie Rengel, Robin Reid, and Victoria Reid. Absent: Planning Commissioners Kim Murrin and Janet White. Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and City Planning Consultant Nate Sparks. 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda No comments made. 3. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. 4. Public Hearing – Lunski, Inc. – Concept Plan Review for a 126 Unit, Three-Story Senior Assisted/Independent Living Facility and a One Story Commercial Building to be Located North of Highway 55, South of Chippewa Road, and West of Mohawk Drive 5. Public Hearing – Woodridge Church – 1500 and 1542 County Road 24 – Conditional Use Permit to Expand Existing Building, Interim Use Permit to Continue Use Existing Residence, Lot Combination to Combine Two Parcel, Rezoning to Rural Public/Semi-Public and Site Plan Review for Addition Sparks presented the list of requests before the Commission from the applicant, Woodridge Church, which is proposing to add a 15,000-square foot addition to the existing 28,000 square foot structure; which will request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He explained that the expansion would trigger the need for the church to do a lot combination of the two properties they own and that would require a rezoning of that property to match the existing zoning which allows the church as a conditional use, and advised that an Interim Use Permit (IUP) would also be necessary to allow the existing home to remain. He stated that the IUP would need to include a dedicated end time noting that the church is proposing to remove the home at the next time when they request an expansion. He displayed a sketch of the proposed expansion, which would add space for classrooms, lobbies and restrooms to the upper and lower restrooms. He noted that there are not plans to expand the sanctuary or the parking at this time in this proposal. He provided additional details on the intended use of the classrooms proposed in the expansion. He reviewed the proposed building materials which will match the existing exterior of the building. He reviewed details of the septic plans and landscaping, noting that the landscape items removed as part of this request will be replaced at a ratio of one to one. He stated that the secondary site for the septic would need to be shown on the site plan and noted that the building inspector believes that the modification of the existing septic site will be to code. He reviewed the parking requirements of the site and how that compares to the existing parking provided. He again reviewed the reasons for each of the proposed requests before the Commission. 2 Rengel referenced the septic system, which was noted that it had been inspected and found to be adequate. She asked if that is for the primary or secondary site. Sparks explained that the building inspector reviewed the plans for the primary site noting that the secondary site would simply require soil borings. He stated that the review of the building inspector reviewed the plans for the expansion of the primary septic site and found the plans to be adequate. He stated that the septic plans would be finalized with the building permit request. Paul Johnson stated that there is a secondary septic site already established through previous plans, that simply needs to be included on the new plan. Rengel asked if there is a timeline for the sanctuary expansion. Sparks stated that it was loosely mentioned to take place in the next few years and is the primary impotence for the 2013 variance request. Rengel asked where 1765 Medina Road is located on the map. Sparks identified the property on the map. R. Reid stated that the previously accepted proposal looks similar to this expansion plan and asked if the church chose to not move forward on that plan or whether this is in addition to the previous expansion plan. Finke stated that the applicant went through the process for the variance but the actual plans for expansion were not applied for at that time. He noted that this is similar to the application in 2009 that was withdrawn pending results of the moratorium that was enacted. R. Reid stated that there is a substantial amount of classroom space being added, which would indicate that the church is expecting a substantial increase in those attending classes. She asked if the added classrooms are in reaction to the current demand for classroom space or whether this would be to add classes. Sparks stated that the applicant has stated that they are adding this space to accommodate the current needs for classroom space. R. Reid asked if the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be for the existing Comprehensive Plan or under the new Plan. Sparks confirmed that the amendment would be to the current Comprehensive Plan. Barry asked if the lot combination, which triggers many of the other necessary actions, was the decision of the church or the City. Sparks stated that the combination was a part of the variance approval, which will allow for the eventual removal of the existing home. He reviewed the language of the variance which requires the lot combination with the next expansion of the site. Barry asked if it would be more appropriate to conduct the lot combination when the sanctuary is expanded, rather than with this expansion. 3 Finke stated that one justification for the variance to exceed 40,000 square feet is the aggregate size of the property, which would require the combination of the lots in order to reach the necessary size of the lot. Chairperson V. Reid referenced the proposed conditions of the CUP, noting that number 11 seems to require additional detail. Sparks noted that the standards are found in italics on page two of the staff report. Chairperson V. Reid asked and received clarifications on the recommended conditions and which request they specifically apply to. Barry asked if the rezoning would have an impact on the draft Comprehensive Plan the City is working to update. Finke noted that Plan is not yet adopted so that change could be made. Paul Johnson, Senior Pastor at Woodridge and Medina resident, stated that the when the building was constructed there was an auditorium but the necessary classroom space was not constructed. He provided additional details on the intended use of the new classroom space and the existing gym space. He stated that the growth is determined by the size of the auditorium and explained that currently there is inadequate space for the children. He stated that the intent is to balance out the current needs of the site for children’s activities to match the current membership. Chairperson V. Reid asked for information on growth projections. Mr. Johnson stated that there is not a five-year projection and estimated that the church has grown by 150 people, or ten to 15 percent, in the past five years. He explained how churches base their attendance and capacity of their auditorium. He noted that if the church were to experience growth, their next step would most likely be to add another service time. R. Reid stated that if the church is planning to expand to the sanctuary, the church must then be expecting growth. Mr. Johnson provided additional details on the legal settlement that was reached between the church and the City and noted that there are not plans currently to expand the sanctuary. He stated that perhaps in five to ten years they would consider expanding the sanctuary. He stated that an expansion to the sanctuary is simply allowable under the settlement and is not a for sure action at this time. He noted that most likely the church would add an additional service if the demand increased. He explained that the church would need to pay for the current facility before they would consider another addition. He noted that the numbers included in the settlement are those of the full master plan and is not what was asked to be built at any time and simply secures the potential in the future. He stated that this is not a rapidly growing church and is much more likely to add multiple services over incurring the debt that would be necessary to expand the auditorium. He provided details on the different levels of attendance on Wednesdays compared to Sundays. R. Reid asked for information on lighting for the site. Mr. Johnson noted that they have adjusted the lighting to only be on during times of use and to be set on a timer. He provided examples of two services for young people under tragic 4 events that the church learned from and now know how to qualify the number of attendees to determine if the church would be an adequate fit for the service. Barry stated that in looking at the grading plan the drainage tends to head east and asked where the water would travel from the new addition roof. Trevor Grives, project engineer, stated that the roof water will be routed to the existing storage pond on the west side. Mr. Johnson noted that the neighboring residents will not notice much of a difference as there is not additional parking or use proposed and the addition will match the existing building. Chairperson V. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Harry Schleeter, 1585 Medina Road, stated that his property is just northwest of the existing property and abutting the property with the home. He noted that he is also a member of the church. He stated that the church is a good neighbor and he does not have any complaints. He stated that he does not see any issue as this will just expand the space for what the church already offers. He stated that his concern would be that in 10 years there would be capability to expand and stated that perhaps that could be more defined. He asked if it would be allowable to better define that type of expansion. He stated that this is an organization inside of a neighborhood of homes on large lots. Written comments were also received from Martha Van de Ven and will be entered into the record. Chairperson V. Reid closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. R. Reid asked if a revision to the CUP would be needed and reviewed upon each expansion. Sparks replied that is correct, a CUP amendment would need to come before the Commission for each future expansion. Albers stated that his biggest concern would be the impact on adjacent property owners. Chairperson V. Reid stated that one of the biggest concerns of a neighbor at the last review was the lighting and since the changes have been made by the church there has not been complaint on that matter. Motion by Albers, seconded by Rengel, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Murrin and White) Barry stated that he struggles with taking action on the lot combination at this time as the remaining actions are a result of solely that action, although he noted that he was unsure of the legality of doing a variance on a variance. Chairperson V. Reid stated that this is part of a legal settlement and asked how not taking action on that item would result. Finke stated that he is unsure and would need to look into that. He stated that the lot combination restricts what could be done, as the site would become conditioned with the same limitations and the scale of development. He stated that if the lot combination is not 5 done and that land is not needed, perhaps then the church sold that lot and something further was developed on that lot as well. Barry stated that this is awkward timing with the updating of the Comprehensive Plan and therefore it seems as if that request should wait until the new Comprehensive Plan is in place. Finke stated that in theory you could do the lot combination without changing the zoning on the other portion of the parcel which would result in one property with two different zoning definitions. He noted that while that could be done, he would not recommend that. Albers asked the tax implications from the rezoning. Mr. Johnson stated that it is his understanding that the property tax would still be required to be paid on the home regardless of the zoning for that parcel. He believed that the Commission should consult legal counsel before making a change to the approved legal agreement, noting that the lot combination is a part of that agreement. Motion by Albers, seconded by Rengel, to recommend approval of the Lot Combination subject to the conditions in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Murrin and White) Chairperson V. Reid stated that there is not a set date for the expiration of the use of the home as proposed. Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit subject to the conditions in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Murrin and White) Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Rengel, to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review subject to the conditions in the staff report. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Murrin and White) Motion by Barry, seconded by R. Reid, to recommend table the request for rezoning. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Murrin and White) 6. Adjourn Motion by Albers, seconded by R. Reid, to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.