HomeMy Public PortalAboutPC Minutes 12-10-2019 1
CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday December 10, 2019
1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Aaron Amic, Peter Galzki, Beth Nielsen, Kerby Nester,
Cindy Piper (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), and Robin Reid.
Absent: None.
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
No comments made.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings
Finke reported that on November 19th the Council reviewed a Feasibility Study for a sanitary
sewer lift station at Willow Drive and Highway 55 which would support the Adam’s Pest
Control property as well as other properties in that area. He stated that the Council approved
the Chippewa Road and Arrowhead Drive Visioning Study and also accepted all the public
utilities and streets within the Enclave development. He reported that on December 3rd the
Council accepted the resignation of Rashmi Williams from the Planning Commission, noting
that vacancy will be filled at the end of the year. He noted that the Council directed staff to
draft a resolution of approval for the Raskob hardcover variance as recommended by the
Planning Commission. He noted that the Council also reviewed the Adam’s Pest Control
development and directed staff to move forward with documents for approval. He stated that
the Council also reviewed and approved of a lot combination in the Independence Beach
neighborhood. He reported that the Council also adopted the final budget and tax levy.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update.
5. Public Hearing – Arrowhead Holdings, LLC (OSI) – 4101 Arrowhead Drive
– Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, and Conditional Use Permit
for Construction of a 75,000 Sq. Ft. Building Expansion
Finke presented a request from Arrowhead Holdings (OSI) for various land use applications
to construct a 75,000 square foot addition to the south of the existing building and additional
parking to the north. He explained the purpose of each of the land use requests. He stated
that the Commission and Council previously reviewed and approved a request from the
applicant over one year ago for an additional building to the north that did not move forward.
He explained that this expansion would move forward rather than the additional building. He
reviewed the adjacent land uses. He stated that the wooded preserved area would remain
preserved under this site plan. He provided a rendering of the building addition and
additional parking. He explained that the rezoning would ensure that the zoning matches the
new property lines, with Commercial Highway applying to the existing OSI lot and Business
2
Park for the outlot. He stated that about 12 acres would shift from the outlot to the OSI site
under the Preliminary Plat. He stated that in the future the outlot could be subdivided into
several lots or replatted as a single lot prior to construction. He stated that there would be
needed improvements at the access point to support the improvement, noting that the
Arrowhead Drive and Chippewa Road Visioning Study identified two options. He noted that
one of these options would be required as a condition of approval for the Preliminary Plat.
He explained that the preferred option can be determined between the Council and applicant.
He stated that there are some relatively minor conditions of approval related to the Site Plan.
He suggested that perhaps some modulation be added to the center of the building to breakup
that façade. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit is fairly standard, noting that the
criteria are listed in the staff report and advised that staff recommends approval of the Site
Plan and Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
Lon Negen, representing OSI, was present to answer any questions.
Galzki asked for input on possibly breaking up the long wall with additional modulation.
Negen commented that the existing architecture is simple in shape and form. He recognized
that this is a very large building and breaking it into smaller sections could make it appear
more patchwork. He noted that they are intending to maintain the existing architecture
theme.
Galzki asked if there is a shortage of ornamental trees and asked if there has been additional
thought to that element.
Negen replied that there has not been much luck with ornamental trees on the site and
therefore they would not want to continue to plant something that is not successful on the site.
Reid stated that she does not have a problem with the large spans of the building as it fits with
the existing building.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
No comments made.
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend approval of the rezoning of the
expanded OSI site to CH and the outlot to the BP zoning district, the Preliminary Plat, and the
Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff
report. Motion carries unanimously.
6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Signs
Finke presented changes to the sign ordinance. He stated that the first change was discussed
back in July related to internally illuminated signs within certain zoning districts. He noted
that the Commission did not support allowing the illuminations throughout all of the districts
at the time. He stated that staff updated that recommendation to be less expansive, allowing
internally illuminated signs just along arterial roadways. He stated that the second change
would relate to transferred/shared signage between sites. He stated that the coordinated
signage language would allow transference of signage from one lot to another, using the
example of a business park with a sign that identifies multiple tenants within the site. He
noted that the current language would count the shared signage against whichever property on
3
which it was located. This is a big disincentive against shared signage. He stated that some
other communities allow a development sign above and beyond the signage for any specific
lot. He noted that the language proposed would allow lots to transfer some of its allotted
signage for coordinated signage. He provided details on the allowance that would be given
for coordinated signage. He stated that a limitation was included on how much signage could
be transferred. He noted that staff also included a recommendation that the giving and
receiving site be within 1,000 feet of each other.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Todd Leyse, Adam’s Pest Control, stated that his business would benefit from coordinated
signage at the new site. He stated that while the primary access point will be from Willow
Drive, they would like to have signage near Highway 55. He stated that the coordinated
signage would provide benefit. He asked if wall signage could be transferred toward the
coordinated signage. He believed that these changes to the ordinance would make it easier
for customers to find the businesses they are attempting to visit.
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Finke stated that many properties are allowed more than one freestanding sign, because
properties are allowed one sign per street frontage. He used the example of Adam’s Pest
Control, noting that the front business would be allowed a sign near Highway 55 and another
near the cul-de-sac. He stated that the northern Adam’s Pest Control lot would only be
allotted signage on the cul-de-sac. He noted that business could transfer some of its signage
to the exterior of the development and have a smaller cul-de-sac sign.
Galzki commented that for that site it would make the most sense to have large signage near
Highway 55 with smaller signage at Willow Drive and the driveway.
Finke provided details on the maximum size of the coordinated sign allowed.
Reid referenced two arterial roadways (CR24 and CR11) and asked if those should be
excluded as it is unknown how that area will develop.
Finke explained that this would only apply to commercial zoning districts and none of the
property along those roadways was commercial. He stated that these roadways could be
excluded, if the Commission desired.
Nester noted that the properties on those roadways do not have the appropriate zoning to
allow internally illuminated signs and therefore does not have a problem including those
roadways. She noted that if there is a rezoning that would come before the Planning
Commission.
Galzki stated that the last discussion included the level of illumination, specifically for
properties with adjacent residential property. He asked if 200 feet would be sufficient to
protect adjacent residential properties.
Finke stated that the prohibition against internally illuminated signs within 200 feet of
residential property was not included in the draft as proposed. He provided additional
information on the previous measurements that staff has completed on illuminated signs.
Nester commented that she likes the idea of prohibiting the signs within 200 feet of
residential properties. She commented that the arterial roadway was a great addition.
4
Amic asked why a 1,000-foot limit on distance would be needed.
Finke explained that the intent would be for coordinated signage to be related to a specific
development area.
Motion by Nester, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending
regulations pertaining to signs with additional language prohibiting internally illuminated
signs within 200 feet of residential property. Motion carries unanimously.
7. Approval of the November 12, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the November 12, 2019, Planning
Commission minutes with noted changes. Motion carries unanimously.
8. Council Meeting Schedule
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Amic volunteered
to attend in representation of the Commission.
9. Adjourn
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Nielsen, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.