Loading...
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.