HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-14-2021 PC Minutes 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.