The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutPC Minutes 02-13-18 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday February 13, 2018 4 5 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Albers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Aaron Amic, Dino DesLauriers, Kerby 8 Nester, and Robin Reid. 9 10 Absent: Planning Commissioner Janet White and Rashmi Williams. 11 12 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke. 13 14 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15 16 No comments made. 17 18 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19 20 Cousineau reported that the Council recently approved the amendment to the commercial 21 business zoning district and the Maxxon lot combination and site plan review as 22 recommended by the Planning Commission. She reported that the Council will hold the 23 annual business tour on March 8th, beginning at 7:30 a.m., which begins with a business 24 forum and then a tour of three local businesses. She welcomed any interested Planning 25 Commissioners to attend. 26 27 4. Planning Department Report 28 29 Finke provided an update. 30 31 5. Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to the 32 Requirements of the Single Family Residential (R1), Single and Two Family 33 Residential (R2), and Residential-Mid Density (R3) Zoning Districts 34 35 Finke stated that this is the first of various subjects that will be discussed throughout the year 36 related to the zoning districts, as the official controls will need to be changed to ensure 37 compliance with the draft Comprehensive Plan that will soon be in place. He stated that the 38 focus today is on low density and medium density, noting that the range has changed for the 39 medium density zoning district under the draft Comprehensive Plan. He displayed that land 40 use map and identified the locations of the low and medium density residential districts, 41 narrowing that down to the properties that are left to develop under those guides. He 42 explained the proposed changes that would apply to the R2 and R3 districts. He provided 43 additional details on the maximum eave height and the safety reasoning behind that 44 maximum. He reviewed the side yard setbacks on the R1 zoning district and advised of 45 comments that staff has received from builders. He reviewed the maximum proposed number 46 of townhomes that would be allowed in one cluster. 47 48 Albers opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 49 50 No comments made. 51 2 52 Albers closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 53 54 Albers asked if there is any concern from the Commission with any of the changes proposed. 55 56 Reid stated that she would prefer to keep the side yard setbacks as they currently exist. She 57 stated that she does not like houses very close together and she would not want to give up that 58 additional five feet. She commented that the trend of having large homes on small lots is 59 unfortunate and she would prefer to keep the side yard setback as it currently exists rather 60 than decreasing that setback. 61 62 Finke reviewed the items that would need to be considered for the zoning districts to be 63 changed in order to be in compliance with the draft Comprehensive Plan and noted that some 64 of the other elements could continue to be discussed/changed. 65 66 Reid referenced the maximum eave height and recognized the concern from the fire 67 department. 68 69 Finke stated that what is being advocated is not any taller. He explained that the change 70 could result in homes being five or six inches higher, as the difference could be 71 accommodated in the pitch of the roof. 72 73 Reid referenced the language regarding the reduction in setback, if the property backs up to 74 park land. 75 76 Finke explained that historically the City has allowed the ten-foot reduction in setback for 77 properties that back up to parkland. He clarified that the change would be to specify that it is 78 not allowed, if the Commission does not want to allow that reduction. 79 80 The consensus of the Commission was not to allow the reduced setback for properties 81 adjacent to parkland. 82 83 Finke stated that because the City has allowed this reduction in many cases, this would 84 introduce non-compliance in the instances where it has been allowed. He explained what that 85 would mean for those properties that would become nonconforming. He explained that what 86 exists today for those properties would be fine, but there could be restrictions as to what those 87 property owners could do in the future (decks, additions, etc.). He provided options that 88 could address that issue. 89 90 It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to draft an amendment to the 91 nonconforming use policy related to setbacks that would allow for an addition that is in line 92 with an existing nonconformity. 93 94 Finke referenced the rear setback adjacent to a park. He explained that the intent of the rear 95 yard setback is to provide benefit to the property owner behind the property. He stated that 96 the argument could be that if a property backs up to parkland, there is no property owner that 97 would need that benefit. 98 99 Albers noted that the benefit would be provided to the public, as a whole, because the land is 100 public parkland rather than providing a benefit to the specific property owner to allow their 101 home a reduced setback. 102 103 3 Nester referenced the mention of garages for multi-family structures and asked for additional 104 information. 105 106 Finke explained that in order to be allowed a higher density, different design elements could 107 be added, such as larger garages. He stated that the elements he highlighted are just 108 highlights, but the entire ordinance is on the table for discussion. 109 110 Nester stated that she is unsure that she likes the idea of two-family homes within the low-111 density land use. 112 113 Finke provided additional details on how that tool could be used. He provided an example of 114 twinhomes that exist in Medina. 115 116 Albers asked if there has been a thought to increasing the number of front yard trees. 117 118 Finke replied that some of the R2 lots would not have space for more than two trees, as the 119 driveway would take up about half of that space. 120 121 Albers asked about the possibility of requiring trees in the backyard. 122 123 Reid and DesLauriers stated that they would be in favor of more trees. 124 125 Amic asked and received confirmation that backyard trees are not required. 126 127 Finke stated that the reality is that the trees could get in the way of what a homeowner would 128 like to do with their backyard. He stated that there are replacement tree plans and, in essence, 129 replacement trees could be done in the backyards. 130 131 Albers asked if it would make sense to add language for backyard trees. 132 133 Finke stated that perhaps the thought is that the language would apply to a development 134 which does not already have trees or replacement trees. He confirmed the consensus of the 135 Commission. He stated that Medina has a unique front yard tree requirement, as Medina 136 requires the trees to be setback out of the right-of-way. He stated that public works supports 137 that requirement as there is less buckling of the sidewalk and less tree debris falling into the 138 roadway. 139 140 DesLauriers referenced the decrease in the bands, noting that the proposed language would be 141 narrowing the band that currently exists. 142 143 Finke explained that there were wider bands in the existing Comprehensive Plan as the 144 density range was higher, so because the draft plan includes less range in density, the bands 145 have been narrowed. 146 147 Motion by Reid, seconded by DesLauriers, to recommend adoption of the ordinance 148 regarding the requirements of the R1, R2, and R3 residential zoning districts, with the change 149 to the setback adjacent to parkland. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: White and 150 Williams) 151 152 6. 2018 Planning Department Workplan 153 154 Finke stated that included in the packet was the workplan for the Planning Department for 155 2018. 156 4 7. Approval of the January 18, 2018 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 157 158 Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Amic, to approve the January 18, 2018, Planning 159 Commission minutes with the change noted. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: White 160 and Williams) 161 162 8. Council Meeting Schedule 163 164 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Nester volunteered 165 to attend in representation of the Commission. 166 167 9. Adjourn 168 169 Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Amic, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion 170 carried unanimously. 171