Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-14-2021 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL December 10, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2021 7:00 P.M. Meeting to be held telephonically/electronically pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021 Call-in Information: 612-517-3122 (Conference ID 470 199 766#) Electronic access (via Microsoft Teams): link available at https://medinamn.us/pc 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code pertaining to height of rooftop elements 6. Approval of November 9, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes 7. Council Meeting Schedule 8. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 December 7, 2021 City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: December 1, 2021 MEETING: December 7, 2021 City Council Land Use Application Review A) Hamel Townhomes Concept Plan – Hamel Townhomes, LLC has requested review of a concept plan for a 30 unit townhome development at 342 Hamel Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 9. Generally, Commissioners felt the concept was too dense with the proposed townhome use and was not consistent with the objectives of the Uptown Hamel district. Staff intend to present to the City Council on December 7. B) Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive – BPS Properties has requested Preliminary Plat approval for a 38-lot subdivision east of Arrowhead Drive south of Bridgewater. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 9. Commissioners were generally supportive of a PUD, although several suggested reducing the number of units and increasing green space. Staff intends to present to City Council on December 7. C) Caribou Cabin CUP and Site Plan Review – 3692 Pinto Drive – Woodbury REI LLC has requested a Site Plan Review and CUP for a small retail building including a drive-through at the southeast corner of Highway 55 and Pinto Drive. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 9 and recommended approval. Staff intends to present to City Council on December 7. D) Cates Ranch/Willow Drive Warehouse Industrial – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment Worksheet – Oppidan has requested review of an EAW and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a warehouse/industrial development east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will schedule review when complete. E) Ditter Heating and Cooling Site Plan Review – 820 Tower Drive – Ditter Heating and Cooling has requested a Site Plan Review for an approximately 5,000 square foot addition to its building. The application is incomplete for review and will be scheduled for a hearing when complete. F) BAPS Site Plan Review – 1400 Hamel Road – Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), Minneapolis, has requested Site Plan Review for construction of a place of assembly. The Planning Commission reviewed at the September 14 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council reviewed on October 5, October 19, and November 3 meeting. The applicant updated plans to be consistent with the recently adopted interim ordinance pertaining to rooftop elements. The Council adopted a resolution for approval at the November 16 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they will likely not begin construction until spring. G) Sign Ordinance Amendment – Ditter Heating and Cooling has requested that the City consider amending its Sign Ordinance to increase the allowed height and size of freestanding signs within the Commercial-General zoning district adjacent to a state highway – The Planning Commission held public hearings at the September and October meetings. Following discussion, the Commission recommended approval with several changes. The City Council discussed on MEMORANDUM Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 December 7, 2021 City Council Meeting October 19 and tabled for more information. The Council adopted an ordinance at the November 16 meeting. This project will now be closed. H) Life-Style Auto Condo – South of Hwy 55, west of Pioneer – SH Ventures has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for development of 12 buildings with approximately 258,000 square feet of space for privately owned garage condos. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and provided comments at the October 12 meeting. Most Commissioners generally did not believe the proposal was consistent with the objectives of FDA land use of the Comp Plan. The Council reviewed at the November 16 Council meeting and provided comments. The applicant has requested that the City Council remain open, as they are considering potential updates to their Concept Plan. I) Weston Woods Final Plat – east of Mohawk Drive, north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested Final Plat for development of 76 twinhomes, 42 single- family, and 33 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. Grading has begun on the project and final plans are under review. J) Medina Townhomes – 1432 Baker Park Road (County Road 29) – Medina Townhome Development LLC has requested a Planned Unit Development General Plan and Site Plan Review for 23 rental townhomes on 2 acres north of Highway 12, east of Baker Park Road. The City Council adopted approval documents on September 21. Staff is working with the applicant to address the conditions of approval prior to construction. K) Deer Hill Preserve 5th Addition – Deer Hill Road, east of Homestead Tr. – Property Resources Development Corporation has requested final plat approval for eight of the lots within the Deer Hill Preserve development. City Council approved the final plat at the August 17 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize conditions of approval before executing the plat. L) Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business, a staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. The application is incomplete for review, and the City has requested additional materials. M) Prairie Creek, Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Pioneer Trail Preserve – These projects have been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting final plat application. N) Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. O) Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded. Other Projects A) Rooftop Elements Moratorium – Staff began researching regulations in other communities and reviewing existing rooftop elements within the City. Staff intends to present to the Planning Commission on December 14. B) Elevate Business HC Worksession – I attended a worksession hosted by Hennepin County Community Works related to their programs intended to support businesses throughout Hennepin County. The purpose of the Worksession was to strategize on programs using various federal funds which are anticipated. C) Hennepin County Natural Resources Strategic Plan – I will be attending a worksession with Hennepin County staff related to their natural resource protection efforts on Thursday, December 2. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety DATE: December 2, 2021 RE: Department Updates With the holiday seasons starting last week, I think that it is important to reflect on the blessings that we each individually and collectively have. I am very thankful for being able to work in such a supportive community. One that respects police, fire, and emergency services personnel. The entire staff working at the police department goes above and beyond every day and it is evident in the phone calls, emails and things that are dropped off at the office each week. We are truly blessed. Our agency as well as many others in the metro are preparing for the Kim Potter trail. Jury selection started on 11-30-2021 with an anticipated opening statement date on or before 12-08-2021. We have two officers assigned to the west metro mobile field force team that will be ready if called to assist with the potential of civil unrest in Hennepin County. The Hennepin Chiefs have been meeting and collaborating on requests that have been coming in for our mobile field force teams. The annual Loretto Holiday Train event has been modified since CP Rail has cancelled the holiday train. It was decided that Loretto still wanted to raise money and food for the local food shelves. This event in the past has been one of the biggest contributors towards the food shelf. The Loretto Fire Department is going to have a meet and greet with Santa on December 11 in the morning and then in the afternoon they are going to close Railway Street down in their business/restaurant area and have reindeer, kiddie trains, Christmas characters and other fun holiday events. A member of the police department will be wearing the Grinch costume this year! We are again this year participating in Toy for Tots campaign and have posted information about that on our social media sites for the police department and city. Drop off sites and other information is on the website. We are also participating with Shop with a Cop. Our Officers and Community Service Officers will be pairing up with kids Patrol: The following are updates of Patrol Officers between November 10, 2021, and November 30, 2021: Officers issued 20 citations and 34 warnings for various traffic offenses, responded to 6 property damage accidents (involving deer), 6 medicals, 13 suspicious calls, 6 traffic complaints, 34 assists to other agencies, 14 business/residential alarms, and (4) 911-hangups. On 11/10/2021 Officer was dispatched to a customer problem at Casey’s General Store. It was reported a customer was upset about lottery tickets and began making a scene inside and outside the store. Upon arrival by officers the person was no longer on scene. On 11/12/2021 Officer was dispatched to a suspicious vehicle in the 400 block of Pheasant Ridge Road. Upon arrival the Officer made contact with a person in the vehicle who advised he was doing work on a home in the area. No issues found. On 11/13/2021 Officer was dispatched to Inn Kahoots Bar on a report of a customer unable to pay for his tab at the bar. Upon arrival Officer made contact with the subject and learned his debit card had been declined and he had no other way to pay for his tab. Subject contacted his brother who responded and paid for his tab and agreed to give the subject a ride home. On 11/14/2021 Officer responded to assist Carver County Sheriff’s Office on a high risk stop in the area of County Road 6 and County Road 83 in Maple Plain. Several other officers also assisted, and the driver was taken into custody without incident. Driver was wanted for domestic assault and interference with a 911 call and known to carry weapons. On 11/17/2021 Officer responded to the 3500 block of Pinto Drive on a theft report. Officer learned that overnight an enclosed trailer was stolen from a lot of the business and inside the trailer at the time were three motorcycles. The case has been forwarded to Investigations for follow-up. On 11/18/2021 Officer was dispatched to a welfare check at a business in the 800 block of Tower Drive. Officer learned that the business was supposed to be open, and an employee’s vehicle was in the lot, but no one would answer the door. While the officer was on scene another employee showed up for work and was able to gain entry into the business and learned the employee on site was sleeping and failed to wake up to open the business. No issues found. On 11/21/2021 Officer was dispatched to a reported abandoned ATV in the area of County Road 101 and Prairie Creek Drive. Upon arriving and investigating the officer learned the ATV belonged to a party who was placing markers for the snowmobile trail and had become stuck. The officer assisted with contacting a tow company to retrieve the ATV. On 11/24/2021 Officers were dispatched to an unresponsive male in the 2600 block of Bobolink Road. Upon arrival officers located a deceased male inside the attached garage at the residence who appeared to have been deceased for several days. No foul play was suspected in the incident and an autopsy is pending by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office. On 11/26/2021 Officer was dispatched to a residential burglary in the 1400 block of Willow Drive. Upon arrival the officer learned the residence had been burglarized within the past 24 hours and was discovered by a pet sitter who had stopped by to check on animals within the residence. Numerous items were found to have been taken from the residence. Case forwarded to investigations. On 11/27/2021 Officer was dispatched to a vehicle theft that had just occurred in the 4500 block of Trillium Drive. The vehicle owner reported just arriving home and was transferring items from the vehicle to the home when someone jumped into the vehicle and stole it from the garage. The vehicle was found the following day by Carver County Sheriff’s Office and after a pursuit several juveniles were taken into custody. Believed to be related to recent trend of stolen vehicles from the suburbs. On 11/29/2021 around 0319 hours Officer was dispatched to a business alarm at Liquor Depot in the 4300 block of Highway 55. Upon arrival the officer found the front door shattered by a rock. Entry was not believed to have occurred and suspect possibly scared off by the glass break alarm. Investigations: Investigating a theft of a motor vehicle. The victim’s vehicle was stolen from the garage and was later involved in a pursuit in Carver County. The vehicle was occupied by 5 juveniles. I attempted to collect a statement from the juvenile driver, but they declined. The juvenile will be charged in Carver County for numerous charges. It is unknown at this time if the juvenile who was driving the vehicle was the one who stole the vehicle from Medina. Investigation is ongoing. Investigating a theft of an enclosed trailer from a business. The enclosed trailer also had three motorcycles inside. I have sent out a crime alert with information about the trailer and motorcycle. I recently began training Officer Scharf, who will be taking over for Investigations in January. There is a lot of information to pass on and it will take several weeks. I was out of the office for the week of Thanksgiving. There are currently (6) cases assigned to investigations. 1 TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE December 1, 2021 MEETING: December 7, 2021 SUBJECT Public Works Update STREETS • Public Works has been going through our snow equipment to prepare for the inevitable arrival of snow/freezing rain. • Shouldering on Shire Drive is complete. Public Works was able to utilize some of the reclaimed material to finish the job. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Well #2 at Independence Beach was pulled out due to poor performance. After inspection a hole was found in the check valve, some very worn pipe was below the water level in the well, and a very worn motor. We engaged Bergeson Caswell to replace some pipe, the pump motor, and to rebuild the pump itself. The well should be in good shape for several more years. The last time work was completed on this well was 15 years ago, so it served us very well. • I am working through water meter supply chain issues that have the potential to impact new services in developing properties. We are looking into options as we move forward. I am in regular contact with our supplier to check on availability. • To fulfill another of our MS-4 storm water permit requirements, Public Works attended a Smart Salting Certification training course on November 30th to look at ways to reduce salt/chloride levels when dealing with slippery roads. PARKS/TRAILS • Public Works continues to remove excess dirt from Hunter Park. We have filled the old salt shed at City Hall with black dirt for use on future projects. • The Lakeshore Park concept plan is out for comment on our website and Facebook page. Residents have until December 31st to participate in the survey. PERSONNEL • Public Works remains shorthanded so we will again engage part-time help for the winter months as we work to recruit a full-time replacement. MEMORANDUM Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 10 December 14, 2021 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Colette Baumgartner, Planning Intern Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: December 10, 2021 MEETING: December 14, 2021 Planning Commission SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment – Rooftop Elements Context On November 3, 2021, the City Council directed staff to conduct a study on the regulation of rooftop elements. Rooftop elements are items that extend past the ordinary roofline and include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. steeples, spires, or belfries; 2. chimneys or flues; 3. cupolas and domes; 4. mechanical or electrical equipment; 5. flagpoles; 6. monuments; 7. parapet walls; 8. towers, poles, or other structures for essential services; and 9. other architectural features. The City Council also adopted a moratorium which prohibits any rooftop element which extends more than 12 feet above a roof. This limitation will apply until the study is completed. The City’s current Zoning Ordinance regulates these features to a limited extent, but it does not address them for all zoning districts and is not internally consistent. In this report, staff analyzes the City’s current regulatory requirements for rooftop elements and other local municipalities’ requirements. Staff then makes recommendations for the regulation of rooftop elements based on type of element and underlying zoning district. Generally, regulations differ depending on if the rooftop element is related to the building’s mechanical function or architecture. For the purposes of this report, “architectural features” are rooftop elements that extend past the regular roofline that primarily provide visual interest to the building, such as steeples, spires, or belfries; cupolas and domes; monuments; and parapet walls. Items that support the building’s mechanical function will be referred to as “rooftop equipment” and they are elements that include mechanical or electrical equipment; chimneys or flues; and towers, poles, or other structures for essential services. Rooftop solar equipment is not included in this study; regulation of solar equipment height is in Section 828.0 and those cannot extend past the building height by more than 5 ft. MEMORANDUM Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 10 December 14, 2021 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting For context, figures 1 – 9 show some examples of existing rooftop elements in the City, with each of their approximate heights shown in the captions. Figure 4: Parapet Wall at Medina Target (apprx 12 ft above roof and apprx 35 ft from ground) Figure 1: Cupola at Medina Country Club (apprx 16 ft from roof peak to top of cupola roof, apprx 10 ft to top of weather vane, and apprx 40 ft from ground to top of cupola roof) Figure 6: Parapet Wall Sign at Farmers State Bank of Hamel (~11 ft above roof and ~35 ft from ground) Figure 5: Chimney at Hennepin County Public Works (apprx 18 ft from roof line and 57 ft from the ground) Figure 2: Cupola at Leatherdale Farms at 2075 Cottonwood Trail (apprx 11 ft from roof peak and apprx 35 ft from ground) Figure 3: Cupola at Automotor Complex (apprx 7 ft from roof peak and 48 ft from ground) Figure 4: Parapet Wall at Medina Target (apprx 12 ft above roof and apprx 35 ft from ground) Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 10 December 14, 2021 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting The tallest features in the City are located on churches which were built prior to the City having zoning regulations in place. Table 1: Summary of Select Architectural Features in Medina Location Feature Feature Height* Height from Ground Medina Country Club Cupola 10 ft – 14 ft 44 ft Leatherdale Farms Cupola 11 ft 35 ft Automotor Complex Cupola 7 ft 48 ft Medina Target Parapet Wall 12 ft 35 ft Farmers State Bank Parapet Wall 11 ft 35 ft Holy Name Church Spire 40 ft 80 ft St. Anne’s Catholic Church Belfry 38 ft 82 ft *Heights are approximate and measured using the oblique imagery tool through Hennepin County Current Height Requirement in Code The City’s current Zoning Ordinance does regulate rooftop elements in some zoning districts, but the regulation differs greatly based on district. Some districts have limits on height and style of architectural features. Additionally, some districts have limits on height of rooftop mechanical equipment or requirements for screening of equipment, but others have no requirements for equipment or screening. Architectural Features Zoning District: Uptown Hamel Section 834, Subd. 1. (f) limits the height of “belfries, chimneys, flues, monuments, cupolas and domes” to no more than 10 ft above the height of the building. Zoning Administration: Accessory Structures Section 825.19 Subd. 2 allows for the addition of “chimneys, cupolas, and similar decoration” on accessory structures such that they would not cause the overall building height to be taller than 35 feet Figure 8: Spire at Holy Name Church (apprx 40 ft from roof peak & apprx 80 ft from ground) Figure 9: Belfry at St. Anne’s Catholic Church (apprx 38 ft from roof peak & apprx 82 ft from ground) Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 10 December 14, 2021 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting in residential districts. The building height is limited to 30 feet in the residential district, unless the primary use of the property is agricultural or farming. District Provisions: Conditional Use Permit for Agricultural Preservation and Residential Districts Section 826.98 Subd. 2. (m) (i) requires that accessory buildings be designed to include elements of “architectural interest” through the use of design elements such as “cupolas, dormers, windows, porches, overhangs, varied building foundation, or other design treatments.” Rooftop Equipment Zoning District: Urban Commercial Section 831.07, Subd. 1. (iv) requires the screening of rooftop equipment and limits the height of screening elements to 8 feet. Zoning District: Industrial Park Section 833.07, Subd. 1. (u) (v) requires the screening of rooftop equipment and limits the height of screening elements and rooftop equipment to 8 feet. Zoning District: Uptown Hamel Section 834.07. Subd. 1. (i) requires that the use of rooftop equipment should be avoided whenever possible. If there is no alternative, then rooftop equipment shall be “screened using the architectural elements and material from the building.” Zoning District: Commercial, Residential (R3) and (R4), Business Park and Business, Mixed-Use, and Mixed Residential District Rooftop equipment is required to be screened through the use of “architectural elements and materials which are compatible with the overall design of the building,” in the following sections: - Section 832.3.05 Subd. 2. (a) - Section 838.5.04 Subd. 2. (a) - Section 841.4.02 Subd. 5. (a) - Section 842.2.06 Subd. 4. (c) (i) - Section 843.05 Subd. 10 (e) (i) No limits on the height of equipment or screening are provided in these sections. Summary The current regulation of rooftop elements differs greatly depending on the area of the City. However, the current regulation can be summarized as shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Summary of the City of Medina’s Height Regulations Architectural Features Uptown Hamel 10 ft height limit Rural Area – Accessory Structures Effectively a 5 ft height limit Rooftop Equipment Uptown Hamel 10 ft. height limit Industrial Park/Urban Commercial 8 ft height limit Rural Area N/A Most Urban Districts Screening Required Ordinance Amendment Page 5 of 10 December 14, 2021 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting Regulations in Other Communities The regulation of rooftop elements varies greatly from community to community. Tables 3 and 4 below summarizes the regulations of architectural features and rooftop equipment for nine communities in the West Metro area of the Twin Cities. Table 3: Surrounding Community Rooftop Element Regulations Community Architectural Features Height Rooftop Equipment Height Rooftop Equipment Screening Plymouth 10 ft above the max building height or 50 ft, whichever is greater. Increases allowed by CUP. 10 ft above the building or 50 ft total, whichever is greater. Increases allowed by CUP. Screening required for all rooftop equipment greater than 3 ft, except for solar panels and wind energy conversion systems Maple Grove Explicitly does not regulate of height Architectural Features Rooftop equipment and structural elements cannot exceed 10 ft nor exceed more than 25% of the roof area Screening required so as not to be visible Corcoran 10 ft above building height Rooftop equipment and structural elements cannot exceed 10 ft nor exceed more than 25% of the roof area - Required for all rooftop equipment greater than 3 ft - Must limit views from the perspective of a point 6 ft high at all adjacent property lines Minnetrista Height limitation can be increased by CUP, parapet walls are prohibited No height restrictions Required for all rooftop equipment Chanhassen Does not regulate height of Architectural Features except Parapet Walls: 4 ft above the max building height No height restrictions Must limit views from the perspective of a point 6 ft high at all adjacent property lines or from a distance of 250’, whichever is greater St. Louis Park Limit is 50% of the allowable building height, except for parapet walls Limit of 10 ft Screening is required from ground view within 400’ of property Golden Valley Limited to allowable building height in area with provision to exceed allowed N/A - No Regulation of rooftop equipment N/A - No Regulation of rooftop equipment Minnetonka Explicitly does not regulate of height Architectural Features No height restrictions Screening required on rooftop equipment, unless the equipment is “low profile [and] self-contained” Orono N/A – no regulation of architectural feature No height restrictions Screening required in select districts – industrial, highway commercial, and residential PUD Ordinance Amendment Page 6 of 10 December 14, 2021 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting Table 4: Summary of Regulation Type Community Architectural Feature Height Limited Rooftop Equipment Height Regulated Rooftop Equipment Screening Required Plymouth    Maple Grove X   Corcoran X   Minnetrista O X  Chanhassen  X  St. Louis Park    Golden Valley O X X Minnetonka X X  Orono X X X/ X – not regulated or not limited, O – conditions,  - clear specifications Architectural Features The regulation of architectural features varies widely. Generally speaking, communities either exempt certain features from height limitations or allow architectural elements to exceed the maximum building height permitted in each district by some amount. Several communities studied – Minnetonka, Chanhassen, Orono, and Maple Grove – explicitly do not regulate the height of architectural features such as spires, belfries, cupolas, etc. Golden Valley and Minnetrista allow for architectural features to extend beyond the buildable height using special approval processes, such as a conditional use permit. Golden Valley does not specify the requirements for which additional height would be allowed. Minnetrista specifies the following conditions, in addition to the standard requirements for conditional use permits: “(1) The architectural appearance of the building shall not be so dissimilar to the existing neighboring buildings as to cause impairments in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. (2) For each additional one foot in allowable, actual, roof height as calculated by the Building Code, which is above the maximum building height allowed by the respective zoning district; front and side yard setback requirements shall be increased by one foot. (3) The construction does not limit solar access to abutting and/or neighboring properties.” Three communities allow additional height for architectural features – Plymouth, Corcoran, and St. Louis Park. Plymouth’s regulation is most similar to Medina’s regulation for these features in Uptown Hamel. Plymouth allows for additional height as-of-right, but they limit the height to be [50 feet in total height or 10 feet higher than the maximum allowable height, whichever is greater]. Plymouth also allows for additional height through a conditional use permit, so long as it meets the general requirements of their conditional use permit. St. Louis Park allows for height limitations to be “increased by 50 percent” when applied to architectural features. For example, in the single-family residential district (R-1) the building height maximum is 30 ft, so a church steeple could extend to a height of 45 ft, if the religious institution was approved with a conditional use permit. One notable exception is that parapet walls are limited to “not more than 3 ft above the limiting height of the building.” Corcoran limits architectural features from extending greater than 10 feet beyond the maximum allowed building height. Ordinance Amendment Page 7 of 10 December 14, 2021 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting Rooftop Equipment All communities studied, except for Golden Valley, have some regulation of rooftop equipment. The two most common regulation types are on height and screening of equipment. As shown in Table 4, all communities with rooftop elements regulations require screening of rooftop equipment. A notable exception is that no communities have explicit requirements on the height of chimneys, and chimneys are not defined as being part of rooftop equipment. Generally, screening elements are required to be architecturally compatible with the style of the building. Minnetrista’s requirement is the most basic and states that “roof top or outside mechanical equipment and any exterior storage must be screened from view from adjacent properties and rights-of-way with an opaque material architecturally compatible with the building(s).” Chanhassen has a similar requirement, but specifies that the sightline to the equipment is measured from the perspective of someone who is 6 ft tall standing at the property line. St. Louis Park’s requirement takes a different approach, and St. Louis Park simply requires that the screening extend at least one foot above the rooftop equipment. Minnetonka is more lenient in their screening requirement, and they require screening on equipment that is not “low profile [and] self-contained.” Minnetonka also communicates that “it is not the intent of the city to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan.” The goal of their requirement is to pursue “best interest of the city to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods.” Three of the communities we studied regulate the height of rooftop equipment – Plymouth, Maple Grove, and St. Louis Park. All of these communities limit the height of rooftop equipment to be 10 ft, and Plymouth allows for the height to be taller using a conditional use permit Opportunities and Recommendation The study of other communities shows that communities regulate rooftop elements in a variety of ways, and there is not a clear consensus in the metro area on the appropriate height of rooftop elements. This section provides a variety of regulatory options that staff believes may be suitable for rooftop elements in Medina. The first staff recommendation is to separate the regulation of architectural features and rooftop equipment as specified in this report. This will allow for a regulation that is able to be right-sized to each situation. The second staff recommendation is to create one standard for architectural features and one standard for rooftop equipment that is specified in Section 825. Zoning-Administration. This will allow for an increase in consistency and clarity in its application across districts. Most communities have a similar list of elements which are either exempted from building height limitations or allowed additional height. Ordinance Amendment Page 8 of 10 December 14, 2021 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting Architectural Features The options outlined below are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and some of them can be mixed and matched. Option 1: Fixed Additional Height Allowance The first option is to extend the 10 ft allowable height for architectural features in the Uptown Hamel District to all areas of Medina. Additional clarification would be needed, and a general interpretation would be to allow architectural features to extend 10 ft above the allowable building height limit measured from the average grade around the building. Therefore, if building is allowed to be 35 ft in a district, the architectural feature could be 45 ft tall as measured from the average grade. This would be consistent with the current regulation description for Accessory Structures (Section 825.19 Subd. 2). This option would not limit the size of an architectural feature. If a building was one story tall (about 15 feet), then an architectural feature could account for the difference and be about 30 feet in height. Additionally, this option typically would not allow for architectural features on the top of peaked roofs, such as cupolas. Since building height is calculated using the average height between the peak and eave on a pitched roof, the peak of the roof is often closer to 50 ft. Therefore, any additional architectural feature would exceed the additional 10 ft allowed in excess of the building height. The City of Plymouth accommodates this by stating that an “element may not exceed 50 feet in total height or exceed the maximum allowable height of the building by more than ten feet, whichever is greater.” Option 2: Limit Architectural Features Based on Height Above Roof The City could limit the distance by which architectural features extend above the roof on which they are located. This is similar to the interim regulations which were adopted by the City Council, which prohibit any rooftop element from extending more than 12 feet above a roof. This type of limitation could result in architectural features being limited to a lower elevation than a roof would be permitted. For example, an element on a 15-foot tall single-story structure with a flat roof might be limited to 27 feet above grade when an adjacent two-story building with a peaked roof might extend as much as 45-50 feet above the lowest grade. This would prevent architectural features from being more substantial and potentially taller than the structure they are located on. For example, a one-story building that had a roofline at 15 feet could not have architectural features that are 20 feet tall. Option 3: Hybrid Approach To address the potential downsides noted above, the City could adopt regulations which relate to both the maximum allowed height and the roof on which are located: “No architectural element shall extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance ten feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade.” Ordinance Amendment Page 9 of 10 December 14, 2021 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting Additional Consideration: Limit Number or Area of Elements None of the communities studied limit the number or width/depth of architectural features. Maple Grove and Corcoran’s 25% limit of roof coverage of mechanical equipment is the closest comparable. Without the limiting number or area of elements, it could theoretically mean that architectural features could cover an entire roof. Given the variety of types of architectural features and roof sizes, selecting a constant number of elements for all buildings seems to be overly restrictive. Limiting the percent of the roof covered or occupied by rooftop elements would be more appropriate, and staff believes 25% coverage is a reasonable balance. Additional Consideration: Allow for Increases with a Conditional Use Permit The options above may be augmented by a conditional use permit requirement. Two of the communities studied – Minnetrista and Plymouth – allow for height to be increased through this mechanism. Minnetrista requires that building setbacks be increased for each additional foot increase on the building. Plymouth does not have any requirements for conditional uses and reviews requests using their general criteria for conditional use permits. Medina’s City Code typically has specific criteria for each conditional use, so a requirement more similar to Minnetrista’s would likely be more appropriate. Rooftop Equipment Staff Recommendation: Height Limit for All Districts The first option, and staff recommendation, is to limit height of rooftop equipment to be ten ft in height and create additional allowances through conditional use permits. Screening would be required for all rooftop equipment, except chimneys or flues. Screening would be required to be architecturally compatible with the structure, as is currently stated in the code. To simplify enforcement and communication, staff recommends either keeping the requirement of screening being equal in height to equipment or screening being one foot taller than the equipment. Option: Limit the Area of Elements Similar to architectural features, none of the communities studied limit the number or width/depth of mechanical equipment. The only similar regulation is limiting the percent of the roof covered by mechanical equipment to 25% in Maple Grove and Corcoran. However, typically buildings do not have excessive roof coverage for mechanical equipment. In Uptown Hamel and the Highway Commercial district no buildings currently exceed a 25% roof cover for mechanical equipment, and the average coverage is roughly 10%. Additionally, if the City were to regulate area covered by mechanical equipment and a building had mechanical needs that required equipment to cover more than 25% of the roof area, the equipment would then go on the ground. Staff believes that equipment on the ground would be less desirable than more equipment on the roof. A potential situation where a rooftop could have excessive equipment is if old or broken equipment was not removed when it was decommissioned. Staff has not researched to see if other communities regulate the removal of old and inoperable mechanical equipment, but more research can be done. Regardless, imposing such a requirement seems like a good idea. Ordinance Amendment Page 10 of 10 December 14, 2021 Rooftop Elements Planning Commission Meeting Summary of Recommendations For greatest consistency between regions and type of roof construction, staff recommends the hybrid approach noted above. The language could be as follows: “No architectural element shall extend higher than the greater of the following: 1) a distance 10 feet above the highest point of the roof; or 2) a distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective district, measured to the average grade.” This would allow for features on peaked roofs in rural areas, and parapet walls in more urban areas. The Planning Commission and City Council can also discuss whether it is desirable to allow greater height by a Conditional Use Permit with terms similar to that of Minnetrista. For rooftop equipment, staff recommends limiting the height to 10 ft higher than the allowable building height in the building’s respective zone. Screening would be required to be architecturally compatible with the building. Table 5: Summary of Updates to Medina’s Code Architectural Features All Areas Element may not exceed roof by 10 feet or exceed the maximum allowable height of the building by more than five feet, whichever is greater. Rooftop Equipment All Areas 10 ft height limit Potential Action After holding public hearing and completing review, the Planning Commission could take the following action: Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance pertaining to rooftop elements [with the changes noted by the Planning Commission]. Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Comment received: BAPS CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO HEIGHT OF ROOFTOP ELEMENTS; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. New Section 825.22 is hereby added to the code of ordinances of the City of Medina as follows: Section 825.22. Height Limitations for Rooftop Elements. The building height limitation established in each zoning district shall not apply to the objects and features described in this section. The height of such objects and features shall be regulated as described herein. Subd. 1. Rooftop Architectural Elements (a) The following architectural elements and similar elements located on a structure shall be subject to the regulations described in Subd. 1(b): (i) Belfries (ii) Spires or steeples (iii) Weathervanes (iv) Flags and flagpoles, if attached to a structure (v) Cupolas and domes which set upon the roof and do not contain useable space (vi) Parapet walls (vii) Other architectural elements (b) No rooftop architectural element, as described in Subd. 1(a), shall extend above the greater of the following: (i) ten feet above the highest point of the roof on which it is located; or (ii) a horizontal distance of five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the respective zoning district in which it is located, as measured to the average grade. Subd. 2. Rooftop Equipment (a) The following rooftop equipment and similar equipment, when located on a structure, shall be subject to the regulations described in Subd. 2(b): (i) Chimneys or flues (ii) Smokestacks (iii) Cooling towers (iv) Elevator penthouses (v) Necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances and related screening apparatus (vi) Poles, towers, and other structures for essential services (vii) Television, radio, or telecommunication antennas, excluding antennae regulated by Section 828.75 et. seq. (b) No rooftop equipment, as described in Subd. 2(a), shall extend greater than ten feet above the highest point of the roof on which it is located. Subd. 3. Rooftop Solar Equipment shall be subject to the limitations described in Section 828.09. Ordinance No.## 2 DATE SECTION II. Clause (f) of Section 815.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: (f) Flags. No flag on a flagpole shall exceed 40 square feet in area. No single property shall fly more than three flags at one time. Flagpoles shall not exceed extend more than 40 feet in heightabove grade, except if attached to a structure as regulated in Section 825.22. If the total area of the flags exceeds 72 square feet, the excess area shall be included in any Sign Area calculations for the property. Wall-mounted flags shall be limited to one flag per property and shall not exceed 20 square feet in area; SECTION III. Subd. 2 of Section 825.19 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Subd. 2. No accessory building shall exceed 30 feet in height, with the exception of buildings where agricultural use or farming is at the discretion of the City the primary use of the property. Building projections or features, such as chimneys, cupolas, and similar decorations that do not exceed 35 feet in height are permitted in residential districts. Accessory building height shall be measured as set forth in section 825.07, subdivision 12 of the city code. SECTION IV. Subd. 1(s)(iv) of Section 831.07 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 831. Zoning – Urban Commercial Section 831.07. Design and Development Standards Subd. 1. .Design and development standards – all uses: The following design and development standards are identified for all uses. Additional standards may be identified during the review and approval process, due to the particular characteristics of each site, the proposed development of the site, and the uses on adjacent property. (s) Building Materials and Building Appearance – (iv) Screening of Rooftop Equipment – All rooftop equipment shall be designed to minimize undesirable views and forms when viewing rooftops from higher elevations and abutting property. Equipment shall be screened through the use of architectural elements and materials, which are consistent with the design and architecture of the building. Wooden boards or similar material constructed or assembled in a fence-type method or design shall not be used to screen rooftop equipment. Screening elements should not exceed 8 feet in height. Ordinance No.## 3 DATE SECTION V. Subd. 1(f) Section 834.07 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 834. Zoning – Uptown Hamel (UH) District Section 834.07. Design and Development Standards Subd. 1. Building – Architectural Standards: (f) Height. New building heights shall not exceed three stories, except as described herein. Along all street frontages and park property lines, building heights exceeding two stories shall have the third story set back at least six feet from the front line of the building, and the fourth story shall be set back 12 feet from the front line of the building. Basement levels shall not be considered a story, so long as more than 50 percent of the basement structure is below grade at the average of all areas around the building. Total building height shall not exceed 50 feet., except structures such as belfries, chimneys, flues, monuments, cupolas and domes which do not contain living space, are permitted, provided they are not higher than 10 feet above the height of the building. In the case that the distance from grade to the eave (or top corner of a flat roof) of a structure exceeds 30 feet, additional fire suppression apparatuses may be required by the city. A fourth story may be allowed if ten percent of residential units are dedicated affordable housing units. SECTION VI. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _____day of ______, 2022. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: _________________________________________ Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator-Deputy Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of ______, 2022. James E. Snoxell Steven M. Graffunder* Jeffrey A. Berg Mark V. Steffenson Craig T. Dokken Susan T. Peterson-Lerdahl Debra S. Nelson *MSBA Board Certified Real Property Law Specialist 6900 Wedgwood Road, Suite 200 Maple Grove, MN 55311-3541 Tel: (763) 560-5700  Fax: (763) 560-0119 Chad E. Henderson Tifanne E. E. Wolter Adam J. Kaufman Kelly M. Eull Virginia R. Cronin Rachell L. Henning Hannah M. Weber Nicolas L. Hanson www.hennsnoxlaw.com December 9, 2021 VIA EMAIL ONLY TO: dusty.finke@medinamn.gov Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission City of Medina Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Re: Regulation of Architectural Features and Rooftop Equipment Our File No. 32316-004 Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Planning Commission Members: We appreciate this opportunity to present the City with comments on the staff report regarding options for regulating architectural features and rooftop equipment. Because BAPS is more concerned about architectural features as they relate to the construction of its temple, we will focus on that topic and will not address rooftop equipment. The original BAPS temple proposal called for three spires. Two of the spires were approximately 44 feet above grade and one spire was approximately 50 feet above grade. The amended proposal for the BAPS temple removed the spires to enable BAPS to obtain approval to construct the temple. In conjunction with amending its proposal, BAPS indicated that it would like to work with the City on a proposed ordinance. BAPS also indicated that it would seek to add the spires to the temple following the lifting of the City’s moratorium and the enactment of an ordinance regulating such features. As was explained in connection with its proposal, the spires (including the flags at the top) have specific religious meaning and significance to BAPS. The spires are part of their religious beliefs and practices, and are central tenets of BAPS. The spires do not represent mere architectural details. Having spires on the Medina temple would be consistent with BAPS temples across the country. BAPS previously submitted photos showing examples of the BAPS temples in other parts of the country, which emphasized the importance of the spires. December 9, 2021 Page 2 We want to clarify one aspect of the staff report. The zoning codes of Maple Grove, Plymouth, Corcoran, and Wayzata all expressly exclude church spires from the calculation of building height. Excerpts from those zoning codes are attached. Although some of the zoning codes place limitations on the height of church spires above a designated building height or require conditional use permits if a certain height is exceeded, they nevertheless start from the point of excluding church spires from the calculation of building height. BAPS requests that the City enact an ordinance regarding architectural elements that is consistent with the ordinances of surrounding communities and that expressly excludes church spires. To enact limitations relating to religious uses necessarily involves the potential for the City to negatively impact a groups’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Given the importance of one’s sincerely held religious beliefs, there needs to be more flexibility when it comes to the exercise of those religious beliefs. Rigid and strict limitations on architectural elements should not be enacted for places of worship. We do not believe it is appropriate to enact an ordinance that provides for a very strict height limitation but then permits it to be varied by conditional use permit. An application for a conditional use permit in that situation will likely involve comparing the variance in the height of the proposed architectural element to the height restriction in the ordinance. The greater the variance, the less likely it would be that the conditional use permit would be approved. If the City did enact an ordinance that allows the limitations to be varied by a conditional use permit, it should specifically say so in the ordinance. Leaving out such language could lead to an interpretation that the ordinance does not permit its terms to be varied by a conditional use permit. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, HENNINGSON & SNOXELL, LTD. Steven M. Graffunder Steven M. Graffunder SMG:sak Encs. City of Maple Grove Building Height Provisions: Definition: the distance to be measured from the mean ground level to the top of a flat roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the uppermost point on all other roof types. Section 36-8 Exceptions: The building height limits established in this chapter for districts shall not apply to the following: o Belfries o Chimneys or flues o Church spires o Etc. City of Plymouth, MN Building Height Provisions: Definition: Principal Building: The vertical distance from the average of the highest and lowest point of grade for that portion of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs, to the roof de ck line of mansard roofs, and to the mean height between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs . Exceptions: the building height limits established in each zoning district shall not apply to the following list of items, except that no such structural element may exceed 50 feet in total height or exceed the maximum allowable height of the building by more than ten feet, whichever is greater, except by conditional use permit. o Belfries o Chimneys or flues o Church spires o Etc. Modifications to the topography of a lot may not be undertaken as a means of achieving increased building height, unless approved by the Zoning Administrator. In the case of any proposal to construct or alter a structure which will exceed a height of 200 feet above ground level of the site, or any proposal to construct or alter a structure to a height of greater than an imaginary surface extending upward and outward at a slope of 100:1 from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public airport, the applicant shall notify the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation in writing of the plans at least 30 days in advance of making applicable permit requests to the City. The applicant shall provide the Zoning Administrator with any comments received from the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation as part of the required applicable permit request. This local reporting is in addition to any federal permitting and review processing which may be simultaneously required. City of Corcoran, MN Building Height Provisions: Definition: The vertical distance to be measured from the grade of a building line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the upper most point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. Section 1030.080 Height Limitations: The Building height limits established herein for districts shall not apply to the following: o Belfries o Chimneys or flues o Church spires o Etc. City of Wayzata, MN Building Height Provisions: Definition: The vertical distance above a Grade Plane measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to the uppermost point on a shed, round or arch type roof, or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched, hipped or gambrel roof. Modifications to the site grading that would affect the grade plane of a lot shall not be undertaken as a means of achieving increased building height, unless approved by the City Council. The height of a stepped or terrace building is the maximum height of any segment of the building. [Chapter 902.02]. Exception: The building height limits established in each zoning district shall not apply to the following list of items, except that no such structural element may exceed 40 feet in total height or exceed the maximum height of the building by more than 5 feet, whichever is greater, except by conditional use permit: [Chapter 919.02 (B); Height Requirements\] o Belfries o Chimneys or flues o Church spires o Etc. 1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 14, 2021 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nielsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Nielsen announced that the meeting was being held virtually due to the ongoing pandemic and provided instructions for public participation. Present: Planning Commissioners Peter Galzki, Ron Grajczyk, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, Justin Popp, Braden Rhem and Timothy Sedabres. Absent: None. Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke, City Planner Deb Dion, Planning Intern Colette Baumgardner. 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda Robert Belzer, Wild Meadows resident, stated that he would like to speak about his homeowners association and related documentation. He stated that he would like to have the history of documents in order to clean up some of the HOA documents. He stated that there are 200 acres of land and water in the common areas and expressed challenges in finding the appropriate information related to the conservation easement agreement and related amendments. Nielsen commented that this does not appear to be an issue the Planning Commission can address. Belzer commented that he also has questions about the degradation of the ponds on the property. He stated that the HOA needs help in cleaning up those ponds. He also expressed difficulty in communicating with the watershed. Grajczyk asked if the resident has spoken with the MPCA related to the degradation of the ponds. Belzer confirmed that he did but noted that the ponds are private. Nielsen again noted that this is not an issue the Commission can address. Belzer commented that the problem in Medina is that the City is using old agreements that create the same problems. He stated that Wild Meadows represents 10 percent of the tax base in Medina. He commented on the high cost to clean up the ponds within the development. Nielsen stated that the Commission cannot participate in an education discussion about this topic as it lies outside the purview of the Commission and the members do not have history on this topic. Belzer commented that he has reached out to staff and was referred to the Attorney General, to whom he has been working with. He stated that the degraded ponds are still an issue. 2 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Reid provided an update on the recent activity of the City Council at its November 16th and December 7th meetings. 4. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update. Popp asked the address for the daycare center site mentioned. Finke stated that the property is south of Meander, east of Arrowhead and west of Fields of Medina. 5. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Pertaining to Height of Rooftop Elements Baumgardner provided background information noting that the Council enacted an interim ordinance on November 3rd which limited rooftop elements in the City of Medina. She noted that this action was in response to a review of a temple development when it was determined that the City did not have appropriate regulations for rooftop elements. She stated that staff reviewed the current City Code and that of nine surrounding communities for comparable regulations. She stated that the study was divided between architectural features and rooftop equipment. She displayed examples of architectural features within the City of Medina. She explained how the features are currently regulated noting the gap within the existing Code. She reviewed the information staff gathered from the study of the nine other communities, noting that four cities explicitly exempt architectural elements, one does not regulate, two cities allow those features within the building height, and two cities limit the height of architectural features. Sedabres stated that it was mentioned that some of the cities that limit height exclude things like spires. Baumgardner stated that it is up to the City as to the type of regulation, or lack thereof, it would like to make on architectural elements. Popp asked where Wayzata stands in this type of regulation. Baumgardner believed that Wayzata did not explicitly say anything about it within their Code but was not certain. She noted that staff can look into additional desired communities if directed. She reviewed the first option for regulating architectural features which would be to have a fixed additional height allowance, such as allowing ten feet above allowable building height. She explained that this could be difficult because the height of a building is different in a pitched roof. She explained that another way to provide this type of regulation would be to say that an element may not exceed 50 feet in total height or exceed the maximum allowable height of the building by more than ten feet, whichever is greater. Finke stated that he looked at Wayzata and its regulation is similar to the second example, stating that the maximum height is 40 feet or five feet above the maximum height allowed in the district, whichever is greater. 3 Baumgardner stated that option two would be to limit the height of the feature, using the example of stating no element can be taller than 12 feet. She noted that a third option would be to explicitly not regulate the height of all architectural features. She also noted additional considerations such as limiting the number or the area of elements on a roof or increased allowance with a Conditional Use Permit. Grajczyk asked if there are examples of limiting items based on roof coverage. Baumgardner provide an example of a barn covered in cupolas becomes a distraction. She stated that it was also discussed that perhaps the number of spires on the temple proposal was a reason it was found to be distracting. She stated that staff would recommend a hybrid approach of options one and two, using additional height and limiting feature height, whichever is greater. Nielsen confirmed that the Commission agrees with separating architectural features from rooftop equipment. Popp commented that this presentation is helpful as he was interpreting the information in the packet differently as to what would and would not be allowed under the examples provided. Finke clarified that Holy Name Church and St. Anne’s Church were the only two examples that would fall into nonconformance with the recommended regulations. Baumgardner provided examples of rooftop equipment on different buildings in Medina. She reviewed the current regulation within City Code related to rooftop equipment. She stated that information was gathered from surrounding communities noting that eight cities require screening, four cities do not limit height, and four cities limit the height of rooftop equipment to ten feet. She stated that staff would recommend to limit the height of rooftop equipment to ten feet higher than the allowable building height and require screening to be architecturally compatible with the building. She highlighted some of the discussion items to consider such as taller equipment being needed, whether more efficient equipment is available but is taller, and how to address chimneys. Sedabres asked for additional details on the legal opinion related to things such as church spires. Baumgardner stated that there was attention drawn to other communities that explicitly do not regulate the height of church spires or belfries used on religious buildings. She stated that it is the understanding of staff that as long as the ordinance equally applies to all buildings across the city, it would be legally approvable. Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Steven Graffunder, attorney representing BAPS, stated that he submitted general comments which were included in the packet. He stated that he will focus comments on architectural features tonight. He stated that as part of the approval BAPS received, the spires were removed, with the idea that they would come back to request addition of the spires once an updated ordinance is adopted. He commented that this regulation would be the strictest of the nine cities that were studied. He noted that if were adopted as proposed the previous BAPS Site Plan which included the spires would not be allowed. He reminded the Commission that the Planning Commission previously approved the Site Plan with the three spires. He believed this option would be too strict and stated that his client would prefer that the architectural features remain unregulated. He noted that four of the cities surveyed are not 4 regulated. He stated that regulating the features in that manner through ordinance could bump up against the religious beliefs of others. He stated that if being unregulated is not an option, he believes that the ordinance should be more flexible. He stated that he believes it would be better to not have the option for a CUP as that costs additional time and money for applicants, along with the time of the City, its staff, Commissions and Council. He believed that the preferable option would be to have more flexibility in the ordinance to allow religious organizations to incorporate features central to their beliefs. Nielsen noted that the Planning Commission did not approve the Site Plan, it recommended approval to the City Council. She clarified that the Commission is a recommending body. She noted that the members of the Commission did express concern with the spires but made its recommendation under the existing language in City Code. Abdhish Bhavsar, 2105 Chestnut, commented that one of his concerns with the development proposed adjacent to the Motorplex is because he occupies the last building in the Motorplex which currently looks out on the wetland and rural area. He stated that view would be impacted by the building and tall features. He noted that the rest of the structures within Medina abide by the height limitations and development should consider to do so. He stated that he is concerned that his view would be obstructed by the spires. He recognized that development is a fact of life but consideration for the views of neighboring properties should also be considered. Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Sedabres referenced the two churches that were mentioned earlier and asked if the proposed ordinance would make those churches nonconforming. That was confirmed to be true. He stated that he generally supports the recommendation of staff but has some concerns that other cities have made specific exceptions for churches. He believed there should be flexibility for features related to closely held religious beliefs. He stated that he would support the exception for church spires as stated in examples provided from other cities. Nielsen asked staff to speak about the impact of making the two churches nonconforming. Finke stated that he did not believe any of the ordinances specifically excluded church spires. He stated that for the cities that exempt certain features, spires were included and provided examples of some of the other items that were excluded. He stated that it is not uncommon for nonconformities to occur when ordinance changes are made. He provided additional details on what actions can occur for nonconforming properties. Rhem stated that he supports the staff recommendation and echoed the comment of Sedabres to allow an exception where it makes sense, such as a closely held religious belief. He commented that he would support allowing the flexibility through a CUP. Popp stated that he would be inclined with the approach of Orono to have less restriction but does see the need to develop some type of consistency moving forward. He stated that in general he does support the hybrid approach, perhaps providing flexibility to 15 feet rather than ten feet. He stated that he does not have an issue with the CUP exemption option. Piper stated that she would be inclined to support the recommendation of staff but would not favor the CUP option. 5 Grajczyk stated that he also likes the hybrid recommendation suggested by staff. He stated that he also feels there would be benefit to allow the CUP option, perhaps focused on more specific items on the architectural feature list aimed towards more of a religious use. Galzki stated that he also agrees with moving towards the hybrid option. He also supported dividing the issue into architectural features and rooftop equipment. He stated that this is another example of the City making a large amendment to an ordinance based on the request from one group. He stated that he was against the action in the previous discussion related to sign regulations as that was in response to a request from one party. He stated that he was disheartened to see a letter from a lawyer with the opinion that the City should make itself more like other communities. He stated that he does not like making a large change that would impact surrounding community members in response to a request for one project. Nielsen stated that she supports the staff recommendation and is indifferent in relate to the CUP option. She asked if the regulation should apply equally to all districts and the Commission supported that direction. She agreed with Galzki that many of the ordinance amendments are reactive rather than proactive and in attempt to accommodate applicants. Rhem stated that these potentially feel reactive because the issues are identified in the review of an application, but the action addresses a gap in City Code or additional clarification that is needed. Nielsen agreed that in this case there is room to clean up the language for consistency purposes. Finke stated that if there were a provision for a conditional use, there would need to be specific standards under which that type of request would be reviewed. He welcomed input from the Commission on what those standards may be. He stated that with the exception of the explicit conditions on the CUP, if the CUP is permissive, it would become a permitted aspect subject to the conditions applied. He stated that if the additional height is going to be allowed, the City should be prepared to allow that additional height, contingent upon whatever conditions. Nielsen asked if there is interest in discussing the other items of consideration such as limiting the number of architectural features or area. Finke stated that as drafted there would not be a limitation in terms of the area or percentage. He explained that it would add a level of complexity for those designing a building as well as those reviewing the requests. He stated that there would most likely be some impact on a design that is not being thought of if a percentage is included. Grajczyk commented that the majority of the Commission supports including a CUP option but noted that it also seems to add complexity to what they are intending to do with the ordinance. He stated that perhaps more time should be spent reviewing the concept of a CUP and the conditions that would be created. Nielsen agreed that if the CUP were going to be added, the Commission should have more time to discuss the issue. She confirmed the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to bring this item back for continued discussion on the option for a CUP and what that would entail. Finke asked whether the Commission would be comfortable with staff presenting this report and the input of the Commission to the City Council to gain its input and then bring this back 6 to the Commission in case the Council identifies additional information the Commission should consider. 6. Approval of the November 18, 2021 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Piper, seconded by Rhem, to approve the November 18, 2021, Planning Commission minutes as amended. A roll call vote was performed: Galzki aye Grajczyk aye Piper aye Popp aye Rhem aye Sedabres aye Nielsen aye Motion carries unanimously. 7. Council Meeting Schedule Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Nielsen volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 8. Adjourn Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m. A roll call vote was performed: Galzki aye Grajczyk aye Piper aye Popp aye Rhem aye Sedabres aye Nielsen aye Motion carries unanimously.