Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPC Minutes 08-12-2020 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Theresa Couri, Peter Galzki, Ron Grajczyk, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, and Robin Reid. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Director Dusty Finke and Associate Planner Deb Dion. 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda No comments made. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Finke provided an update from the July 21 and August 4 Council meetings. He noted the City Council discussed the Tamarack Drive Vision Study on July 21 and there was a lot of feedback from property owners along the corridor. The Council tabled the study and staff intends to present on August 18. 4. Planning Department Report Finke stated that the written report was available in the packet. 5. Public Hearing - Tom and Jim Ditter – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive - Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Interim Use permit to subdivide four existing lots into five Finke presented the application. He noted the request includes a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat, and interim use permit. He noted two of the four lots were previously connected to the sewer system which had been installed in the late 1990’s to bail out failing septic systems along Holy Name Lake. Finke stated that other properties connected at the same time were rezoned to Suburban Residential, but larger lots were not. He noted staff believes lots over 60,000 square feet in size were not rezoned because it may have created an unintended consequence of allowing further subdivision, which was not the intent. He presented a site plan showing the existing and proposed comp plan guiding and zoning. Finke noted the proposed lots appear to meet the requirements of each district. Finke noted that the proposed lot lines would result in two homes being located on Lot 1 and would result in some of the existing outbuildings being located on new lot lines. He stated that the 2nd home east of Holy Name Drive was subject to a life estate and the applicants were requesting the demolition of this house and outbuildings be delayed whilst their mother continued to live in the 2nd home. Until that time, no construction would occur on Lot 4. Finke stated that staff recommended approval subject to the conditions noted in the report. Reid asked if Commissioners had any questions. 2 No questions were asked. Tom Ditter (2032 Holy Name Drive) stated he had nothing to add but is available for questions. He said that it seemed like people did not have concerns with the preliminary plat. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. There were no comments. Reid closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Galzki noted that while the application was complicated, the request was straightforward. He stated he was in support. Piper stated it appeared a lot of thought went into how the plat was laid out and she supported it. Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Piper to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat, and interim use permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. A roll call vote was performed: Nielsen aye Galzki aye Piper aye Grajcyk aye Couri aye Reid aye Motion carries unanimously. 6. Public Hearing – Kayla Brugger – 1345 Elsinore Circle – Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation (in-home fitness instruction) Finke presented the staff report. He stated that the property was zoned Urban Residential and the district allows Home Occupations with limited customer visits as a conditional use. He stated that the applicant proposes no more than 3 clients on any given day and 6-10 clients per week. Finke noted the main question was whether the Planning Commission determined whether this number of clients met the requirement for “limited customer visits.” Finke also noted that the ordinance requires parking areas for the home occupation to be screened from adjacent properties and streets. He stated that staff does not believe it would be possible for any suburban or urban lot to fully screen a parking area, but that the City could require additional screening if the Planning Commission and City Council thought it was necessary. Finke stated that the ordinance described general criteria for all CUPs and specific requirements for Home Occupations. He stated that staff recommended approval of the CUP with the conditions described in the report. Kayla Brugger (1345 Elsinore Circle) thanked everyone for their time reviewing the request. She said that she believes it is an important service to offer for the community and she was excited to move ahead. She indicated that the conditions seemed workable. Grajcyk asked if the activity would extend outside, such as running through the neighborhood. He stated that this may be of more concern to the neighbors. 3 Finke replied that the ordinance specifically required all activity of the home occupation to occur within the home and that it could not extend outdoors. Piper stated that she would support flexibility to allow for classes with up to three people. She asked how many clients the space could accommodate. Brugger stated that she was only planning on doing individual sessions during Covid restrictions. The space may accommodate four or five people, however she was more comfortable with three. Nielsen stated that it appears the recommended conditions would allow for classes. Three clients would be permitted in a day, and there was no prohibition against them coming at the same time. Piper asked if the applicant was ok with the conditions. Brugger responded that she was ok with them. Reid opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m. There were no comments. Reid closed the Public Hearing at 7:38 p.m. Galzki stated that this is an important service and seems like a good thing to allow, especially with existing Covid restrictions. He stated that he would be open to providing the opportunity to open the garage door on nice days, but that he did not want to push the issue if the applicant was not concerned. Nielsen stated that she was comfortable with the proposal however wouldn’t want to exceed three people at a time. Reid stated that she was in support with the limitations suggested. Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the nine conditions noted in the staff report. A roll call vote was performed: Nielsen aye Galzki aye Piper aye Grajcyk aye Couri aye Reid aye Motion carries unanimously. 7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Setback and Other Requirements for Residential Accessory Structures Finke summarized the discussion that the Planning Commission previously had in May and July. He displayed a table showing the size of accessory buildings currently allowed by lot size. He stated that any lot is permitted an additional shed up to 120 square feet. He stated that staff had tried to create a sliding scale with a table that would allow the additional sheds to be larger on larger lots. Finke displayed another table showing varying setbacks for different size sheds on varying lot sizes. 4 Piper asked if the 12 feet in height would allow sufficient roof pitch. Finke stated that the height is measured to the midpoint of the roof, not the peak. This should allow for more than 4/12 pitch for a 200 square foot shed with 8’ side walls. If an owner wanted a taller side wall or more pitch, they could always meet the full setback. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Eric Voltin (630 Shawnee Woods Road) stated that he supported the amendment. He noted that they had a larger lot and just built a pool. They had existing accessory buildings and were limited to a 120 square foot shed to store things for their pool. They were excited to be able to build a larger shed in addition to their existing buildings. He said that the extra size made sense for larger lots and the setbacks seemed fair. Reid closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Nielsen stated that she believed these tables were exactly what the Commission were describing during their discussion in July. She thanked staff for their efforts to create the tables. Grajcyk said the proposed changes seem fair for property owners and should serve well in the future. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Galzki to recommend approval of the ordinance amending chapter 8 of the city code related to setback and other requirements for accessory structures. A roll call vote was performed: Nielsen aye Galzki aye Piper aye Grajcyk aye Couri aye Reid aye Motion carries unanimously. 8. Approval of the June 9, 2020 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the June 9, 2020, Planning Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. 9. Council Meeting Schedule Grajcyk volunteered to provide an update at the August 18 City Council meeting. 10. Adjourn Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.