Loading...
2014-11-25 Planning Comm Minutes CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES November 25, 2014 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 25, 2014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: Michael Noonan. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello. Approval of Agenda Chair Field noted a letter dated November 25, 2014 requesting a further layover of Planning Case 2014-31 to the December or January 2015 meeting. As there was no one in attendance to speak regarding this case, the Commission accepted the layover request. The agenda was approved as amended. Approval of October 28, 2014 Minutes COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2014, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2014-34 Glenn Petersen, 2361 Field Stone Court and 580 Watersedge Terrace Wetlands Permit for construction of a fence within the 100-foot buffer area of a water resource- related area Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a wetlands permit to construct a fence at 2361 Field Stone Court. The subject parcel is 0.56 acres and contains an existing single-family dwelling abutting a pond in the rear yard. The property is zoned R-1 and guided for low-density residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant intends to construct a 48-inch black vinyl chain-link fence along the rear property boundary lines, a portion of said fence would connect into an existing fence on the neighboring property, which is at 580 Watersedge Terrace and has been agreed upon by both parties. November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 The proposed fence is within 100-feet of water resource related area and does not meet the conditions for administrative approval. The wetlands chapter does require a permit for the construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. The proposed connecting fence is located a few inches onto the neighboring property and, therefore, staff had them be a party to this application since the fence would be connecting onto their property. A portion of the proposed fence would be near the ordinary high-water mark of the pond and within the 25-foot non-disturb buffer area which is recommended to maintain appropriate vegetative buffers and limit soil disturbance. However, the proposed project would not remove any vegetation or cause any soil disturbance beyond the post-digging activities. Engineering staff did review the request and they have no issues with the proposed project due to no changes to the existing vegetative buffer and limited soil disturbance. If approved, the fence would be constructed immediately after obtaining a building permit. Additional standards for residential fences would be reviewed as part of the building permit process. Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions and based on the Findings of Fact included in the Planning Commission packet. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Glenn Petersen, 2361 Field Stone Court and Mr. Dan Larsen of Midwest Fence came forward to answer any questions from the Commissioners. Ms. Katie Donovan, 590 Watersedge Terrace had more questions than comments. She asked how far back into the pond would this fence go relative to the fence that is already there and why the proposed fence could not be the same sort of fence that it would be connecting to. Planner Wall replied that he looked at the case file from 2011 for the request at 580 Watersedge Terrace as they also had to receive a wetlands permit. The fence on this property is constructed approximately 40-feet from the ordinary high-water mark of the pond. He referred the Commissioner’s to the aerial photograph and explained that there is a different vegetative pattern on the neighboring property than there is on the applicant’s property. Both fences follow the contour of the vegetation around the pond. Ms. Donovan commented that the neighbor immediately next to the Watersedge property is out of town and is unable to respond to this application. She also stated that she would like to see the properties keep to the open and rural appearance of the neighborhood. Chair Field replied that the Commission is only concerned with the wetlands permit, which is how the soils are treated and handled around the wetland. The Commission has very limited jurisdiction in considering the fence itself. Mr. Petersen returned to address Ms. Donovan’s comments and stated that as far as the type of fence the neighbor has compared to his, there is quite a bit of price difference and that is why he opted for a black chain-link fence rather than a wrought iron fence. He went with the black chain- link to try and keep to the aesthetics and appeal. The reason for putting up the fence is because his November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 wife and he just recently had a child and they also have a dog. They would like to keep both contained and not get to the pond. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-34, WETLANDS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE WITHIN THE 100-FOOT BUFFER AREA OF A WATER RESOURCE-RELATED AREA APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. 2.No existing vegetation within the wetland/water resource-related buffer area will be removed. 3.Soil disturbance in the buffer area will be limited to post-digging and no part of the wetland/water resource-related area will be disturbed. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A building permit is obtained prior to construction of the proposed fence. 2.Area between the proposed construction and the normal water level of the pond is to remain naturally vegetated. 3.Construction shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 2, 2014 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2014-33 T-Mobile, on behalf of the Ridge South Condo Association, 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to a Wireless Antenna Facility Planner Nolan Wall explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades. The purpose of this upgrade would be to increase the data and call capacity in the existing service area. The code does require CUP approval for wireless antennas. November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 The subject parcel is approximately 2.7 acres and contains a multi-family residential condominium building, zoned R-3, and guided for high density residential development. The existing antenna structure and the accessory structure were both approved by a Conditional Use Permit in 2006. The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades were shown in the submitted plans and include three new antennas, three new RRU’s, and a new modular at the base station which would be within the existing fenced in accessory structure area. No exterior modifications were proposed to the existing accessory structure and the improvements would not increase the height of the existing antenna structure itself. The code does contain specific evaluation criteria to evaluate a conditional use permit and the applicant has agreed to comply with all of those applicable provisions. Staff recommended approval of this Conditional Use Permit application with conditions. Mr. Chuck Beisner, 4974 Interlachen Drive NE, Alexandria, MN on behalf of T-Mobile came forward to answer questions. Commissioners asked questions regarding the coverage map that was included in the packet. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Marvin Jacobson, member of the association and owner one of the condominiums, asked if there would be an inspection of the work after it has been completed. Planner Wall replied that if this application was approved, another piece of it would be the potential building permit application and the building official would review it and determine if a building permit is necessary and if/when an inspection would be needed. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Commissioner Roston disclosed that his wife’s parents live in the condominium building but he has not heard from them nor has he spoken with them about this application. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-33 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR UPGRADES TO A WIRELESS ANTENNA FACILITY, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such facilities. 2.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 3.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the data and call capacity in the service area. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1.The applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 2, 2014 meeting. PLANNING CASE #2014-35 Matthew and Mary Paquette Proposed Code Amendment to Allow Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a code amendment that would allow the keeping of chickens in residential zoning districts. Staff was made aware of chickens on the applicant’s property, which is currently in violation of the city code. After being notified by the City, the applicants then requested an appeal on the City’s interpretation of the code, they requested a variance to allow the chickens and coop to remain on the property. Staff advised the applicants that use variances should not be considered in this case and that applying for a code amendment was an option for presenting this for further discussion. A similar request regarding pigeons was considered by the City Council in 2012 and that was ultimately denied. Staff does receive regular inquiries about keeping chickens and other non- domestic animals in residential areas, so this request does present the opportunity to consider addressing that current prohibition. The codes does contain two definitions of animals; the first being a domestic animal definition and then a food animal definition. Based on staff’s interpretation, chickens are not considered a domestic animal and, therefore not permitted as accessory uses in the residential zoning districts. Past determinations have been made that chickens are more appropriately defined as a food animal since they are not a common household pet in most urban residential areas and are typically raised for purposes of food consumption. According to the applicants, the proposed code amendment is intended to permit chickens on residential properties subject to the following conditions: 1.Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) may be allowed on residential properties. 2.Only hens (no roosters) are allowed. 3.A maximum of four hens per lot are allowed. 4.The chicken coop and run shall be setback at least10 feet from the rear lot line and at least 5 feet from the side lot lines. They must be at least 25 feet from the nearest habitable structure. 5.If the chickens are not contained at all times to the coop and run and allowed to freely roam within the yard, the property shall be enclosed by a fence. November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 Also included in the Commission packet was an extensive survey completed by the City of Cottage Grove in 2012. Staff included a list of additional issues for consideration that were not addressed in the proposed code amendment submitted by the applicants. Staff noted that this code amendment request raises two questions: 1.Should the City consider amending the Code to allow chickens in residential zoning districts? 2.If so, under what conditions should chickens be allowed? Whether or not chickens should be allowed in residential zoning districts is a policy decision that should be considered by the City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Staff does not have a recommendation on this issue, but, if necessary, is willing to work with the applicants and/or other stakeholders to provide any additional information to the Planning Commission or City Council on the issue for discussion. Regardless of the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the use being requested, staff recommends denial of the proposed code amendment language itself that pertains specifically to this application regarding the proposed code language based on the Findings of Fact; which are largely based on other issues raised that should be considered if the City did want to move down the road of allowing chickens in residential zoning districts. Therefore, a second motion could be considered regarding further discussion and direction to the City Council in consideration of the proposed use. Commissioners asked questions regarding how this keeping of chickens came to staff’s attention, the survey completed by the City of Cottage Grove, what the process would be if the Commission felt the keeping of chickens might be something worth exploring, past history of this type of application, and the existence of legal non-conforming chicken coops in the City. Chair Field noted that the Commission had two tasks: 1.Deal with the immediate code amendment request, which staff recommended denial based on a variety of technical reasons. 2.Decide if they want to pursue the chicken ordinance that would address these other issues. Ms. Mary Paquette, 1119 Dodd Road, stated that the actual complaint about the code violation came from an elderly neighbor who loves the chickens and was concerned about the chicken that had gotten out. She also stated that they had the chickens for two years and did not know that they were not in the code. They feel the code is very vague in listing that birds are an acceptable pet. She gave reasons why chickens make good pets. Chair Field opened the public hearing. November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 Ms. Beth Geis, 1116 Dodd Road, lives across the street from the applicant’s property and she did not know that the chickens were there because they are obviously very quiet. She commented that the recommendation for denial was based on additional issues not be addressed; however, they addressed all the issues that she had. She asked how staff would propose to re-write the code amendment. Chair Field noted that the amendment needs to fit within the context of the entire code. Ms. Christine Solberg, 1062 Chippewa Avenue, has lived in her home since 1955 and her backyard is almost kitty-corner to the applicant’s home. She noted that when she moved into the area there were two farms that were two blocks away. They had every animal imaginable on a farm; however, at that time the non-domesticated animals also had their own habitat to live in. Now that everyone has encroached so much on the wild habitat there have been a lot of coyote sightings in the neighborhood. Her main concern with chickens in residential areas is that they would attract more wild animals. Ms. Mary Paquette returned and asked if the commission decided to not move forward at this time with the code amendment, if there would be a way for them to obtain a variance until the time that the City Council would have a chance to hear this so they would not have to dispose of their pets. Planner Wall replied that there were two separate issues under consideration; one being the code enforcement issue that the Commission is not charged with dealing with or deciding at this time. However, if the ultimate decision by the Council were to maintain the code as it currently stands, staff would work with the applicant on a reasonable timeline to accommodate the removal. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Commissioners had discussion and comments regarding their desire to see this policy issue come before the Council, especially in light of the fact that the larger urban cities that surround Mendota Heights do allow the keeping of chickens as pets. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.Keeping of chickens is not appropriate on residential properties in the City. 2.The proposed code amendment does not address all of the necessary regulations to prevent nuisances and mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding properties. Commissioner Roston asked if the Commission was going to send their recommendation to the Council with the first Finding of Fact as listed above. November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS AMENDED HIS MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT: 1.The proposed code amendment does not address all of the necessary regulations to prevent nuisances and mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding properties. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, THAT IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AND EXPLORE THE IDEA OF ALLOWING A CODE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND ADVISE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THEIR DECISION. Commissioner Viksnins wanted it to be known to the City Council that there is a division of opinions by the Planning Commission on allowing chickens to be kept as pets in the City of Mendota Heights. Chair Fields recommended the motion be amended to include, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE COMMISSION IS DIVIDED ON THEIR OPINION OF WHETHER CHICKENS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE KEPT AS PETS. Planner Wall suggested, in simplifying the original motion, SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER AMENDING THE CODE TO ALLOW CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. Commissioner Viksnins reiterated that he wanted it to be clear to the City Council that he would not be in support of amending the code to allow the keeping of chickens as pets, just as he was not in favor of allowing the raising of pigeons. However, he does feel that it would be appropriate for the City Council to consider the issue. Commissioner Magnuson recommended that the motion be phrased as a statement rather than a question. Chair Field recommended the following: THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONFLICTED ON THE ISSUE OF KEEPING CHICKENS AS PETS WITHIN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND WOULD LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE INDICATION OF WHETHER THEY BELIEVE CHICKENS SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AS PETS. Commissioner Magnuson withdrew her motion from the table. November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONFLICTED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE A POLICY DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT CHICKENS AS A DOMESTIC ANIMAL IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this motion at its December 2, 2014 meeting. Verbal Review Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2014-30 GreenWood Design Build, LLC, 750 Hilltop Road Front Yard Setback Variance •The Planning Commission made a recommendation to table this application. The application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. Staff did receive a building permit to construct the single family dwelling within the setbacks, as displayed during the discussion on case. PLANNING CASE #2014-22 City of Mendota Heights, Proposed Code Amendments •Approved by City Council and adopted as ORDINANCE NO. 467 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-1D, 12-1E, 12-1L, AND 11-5 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS with some minor wording changes to one of the proposed code amendments. Discussion occurred concerning the reasons for the withdrawal of PLANNING CASE 2014-31. Staff Announcements  Tentative schedule for filling the vacant seat on the Planning Commission; December 29 - Letter of Interest and a Resume must be submitted to the Assistant o City Administrator, Tamara Schutta. She can be reached with questions at 651-452- 1850 Council to review the applications and have interviews on January 20 o The first meeting of the new Planning Commission member would be February 24 o  City Administrator Justin Miller has accepted a position as the City Administrator in the City of Lakeville: Assistant to the City Administrator Tamara Schutta will serve as the Interim City o Administrator until a new City Administrator is hired November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 The job has been posted o A personnel committee has been put together to review applications o Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:05 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10