Loading...
2016-12-21 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA December 21, 2016 — 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approve October 25, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Public Hearings: a. Discuss issues and ordinance options relating to domestic chickens in residential districts 6. Verbal Review 7. Staff and Commission Announcements 8. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES October 25, 2016 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 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, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Christine Costello. Others present: Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP; Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek; City Administrator Mark McNeill; Approval ofAQenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 28, 2016 Minutes COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 proco"tntinn c A) DODD ROAD TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY — STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES Ms. Fay Simer, AICPA from Stantec Consulting Services presented the findings of the Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study, which had been requested by the City of Mendota Heights. The work was funded by a statewide health improvement program grant that the City received from Dakota County. Through that grant funding, City staff did some community outreach around the conversation of a trail along the Dodd Road Corridor. Stantec was retained to research the technical feasibility of a trail. Ms. Simer wanted it to be known that this is just the first step in this process and this is not a proposal for a trail alignment. The purpose of this study is to help the City understand the level of effort it would take to construct a trail and will enable the City to apply for future grant funding by having some preliminary work done and some cost estimates. Ms. Simer shared an image of the proposed alignment of the Mendota -Lebanon Hills Greenway Master Plan, which showed Dodd Road as a potential alignment for that greenway. This image also showed the Metropolitan Councils plan for a regional bicycle transportation network, a Tier 1 alignment — their highest priority connection. October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1 2 The City's Parks and Open Space Plans in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies improvements for a trail between Trunk Highway 110 and Marie Avenue. Those improvements are being funded as part of MnDOT's 2018 resurfacing of Dodd Road. MnDOT has also been doing some outreach in Mendota Heights in advance of the 2018 -resurfacing project of Dodd Road to understand biking and pedestrian needs along the corridor. Currently, MnDOT does not have any plans or funding to change the road alignment or add a trail as part of the resurfacing project. However, there may be some opportunities to do things along the road, as it exists today to make it safer for bikers and walkers. Comments and Feedback Received by MnDOT during their outreach process in Mendota Heights: • Dodd Road needs a sidewalk • 40 mph is too fast • Dodd Road is on the regional bicycle transportation network and needs some sort of accommodations Received by the City of Mendota Heights at their outreach during the Mendota Heights 5K and Park Celebration: • Overwhelming positive comments about establishing a trail along Dodd Road • Desire for a safer corridor for biking and walking Received from seniors living in the Parkview Plaza and Village Commons developments: • They would not use the trail for transportation purposes • There was some interest in a recreational facility Ms. Simer then shared an image of what a trail alignment would need along Dodd Road: • Five feet of separation between the road and the trail • Eight -foot wide trail • Two -foot clear zone • Five-foot easement for public right-of-way Discussions were had with Xcel Energy regarding burying the utilities and discovered that the cost of burying utilities would be on the entity that requested it and could add an additional $1.5M to $2M to the cost of the project. Utility boxes will still need to have space in the public right-of-way. Another thing to keep in mind would be the need to add storm sewer and gutter to replace any ditches that were filled in to accommodate the addition of a trail. These would be necessary to handle the stormwater that the ditches facilitate currently. Guiding Pg rinciples for Anal • Minimize crossing to maintain a continuous trail segment along one side of Dodd Road for as long as possible • Utilize available public right-of-way as much as possible • Minimize relocation of utilities • Minimize disruption to slopes and trees October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2 3 Stantec's recommended trail alignment, based on the guiding principles listed above, has been broken down into nine segments. Note: this recommendation is based on what is constructible, not necessarily based on conversations with property owners. Segment Descriptions / Major Activities Required Segment 1 — Delaware Ave. to Chippewa Ave. • Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail • Remove and replace existing stone retaining wall • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20' trail corridor • Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs Segment 2 — Chippewa Ave. to Emerson Ave. • Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20' trail corridor • Clear 35-40 trees and shrubs Segment 3 — Emerson Ave. to Wentworth Ave. • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20' trail corridor • Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs Segment 4 — Wentworth Ave. to Marie Ave. • Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20' trail corridor • Clear 55-60 trees and shrubs Segment 5 — Marie Ave. to Maple St. • Not analyzed as part of this study. Trail extension planned as part of 2018 Dodd Road resurfacing project. Segment 6 — Maple St. to Hw. I 10 • Not analyzed as part of this study. Trail exists along east side of Dodd Road. Segment 7A — Apache St. to Decorah Ln. (off-road on public right-of-way) • • Clear 30' wide corridor through existing woods; approximately 30 trees and brush Segment 7B — Hokah Ave. to Decorah Ln. (along Dodd Road) • • Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail • • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20' trail corridor • • Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs Segment 8 — Decorah Ln. to Lake Dr. • • Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail • • Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20' trail corridor • • Clear 30-35 trees and shrubs Segment 9 — Lake Dr. to Mendota Heights Road • Extend grading limits in public right-of-way to 30-45' to eliminate retaining walls • Clear 10-15 trees and brush For the purpose of helping the City think through what it would take to obtain this 20 -foot alignment along the West side of Dodd Road, Stantec did a preliminary assessment of the October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3 4 different segments and found that there are approximately 71 parcels along Dodd Road where the City would have to acquire right-of-way to achieve that 20 -foot trail corridor next to Dodd Road. Preliminary Cost Estimates The preliminary cost estimates do not include right of way acquisition or temporary construction easement costs Segment 1 — Delaware Ave to Chippewa Ave - $227,400 Segment 2 — Chippewa Ave to Emerson Ave - $699,450 Segment 3 — Emerson Ave to Wentworth Ave - $628,575 Segment 4 — Wentworth Ave to Marie Ave - $832,875 Segment 5 — Marie Ave to Maple St - $0 since a trail construction is already planned Segment 6 & 7 — Maple St to Hokah Ave - $0 as existing trail facilities to remain Segment 7A — Apache St to Decorah Lane - $176,625 Segment 7B — Hokah Ave to Decorah Lane - $230,025 Segment 8 — Decorah Lane to Lake Drive - $614,475 Segment 9 — Lake Drive to Mendota Heights Road - $230,625 Total Estimate - $3,640,050 Recommended Next Steps • Continue discussion in the community to generate and assess buy -in and support for the trail corridor • Pursue trail construction in segments, spreading the costs out over time. Begin construction along southern trail segments where right-of-way is publicly owned • Initiate individual meetings with property owners to assess their interest in selling property or easements • Continue conversation with Xcel Energy and other utility companies regarding relocation needs of private utilities • Look for opportunities through the development review process to acquire trail easements as properties change ownership • Continue to work with MnDOT to install crossing and safety improvements during the 2018 resurfacing project • Long term, the City should look at both segments 7A and 7B to maximize the trail's connectivity with existing trail and park systems Commissioner Hennes asked, with 75,000 square feet and 71 different parcels, what the ballpark estimate of what the cost would be. Ms. Simer replied that Stantec does not estimate costs as part of their work. They are planners and engineers and they do not want to be the ones assessing what the market value of those properties would be. Commissioner Hennes then asked City staff if they had any idea. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City would probably pay somewhere between $5 and $10 a square foot. October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4 5 Chair Field noted that it might be worth adding the existing trail section from Marie Avenue south, just so all of the slides can be seen together in the report. Commissioner Petschel asked if this study agnostic to any plans from the County about the greenway; instead of doing construction along segments Dodd Road, would it make sense to use whatever the County is willing to pay for. Ms. Simer replied that it would certainly make sense to use the County right-of-way where it is available — there is County right-of-way available along the southern portion of Dodd Road. The City now has some numbers to work with in terms of what the construction costs are in that area. Commissioner Magnuson noted, as a follow-up, that she knows for a fact that it is a County priority at the current time to connect downtown St. Paul into the entire County network. This seems to be creating a completely separate path that does not seem to fit with the County's plan. Chair Field stated that he was unsure if that was the nature of the project that Stantec was charged with. It would be unfair to ask Stantec to comment on that since it was not part of the project they were tasked with. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that Stantec was hired to study a trail corridor along Dodd Road. The County typically is after greenway trails, which are wider and more open through nature areas. This trail section would actually be more for local users to get to some of those greenway trails. Commissioner Hennes asked what would typically be the funding mechanism for this type of project. Mr. Ruzek replied that within County right-of-ways, the County would typically pay for 55% of the trail costs. Within the state right-of-way, the City could use municipal state aid funds, apply for grants, or use general tax levy funds. None of these trail segments are allocated to move forward at this time; this is just the study process. The City recently applied for a grant and would most likely not be receiving one for the next trail section to the north. The trail section between Maple and Marie, the City is proposing to use municipal state aid funds. Mearin s A) PLANNING CASE #2016-39 KATHLEEN CASPER, 548 BUTLER AVENUE WEST VARIANCE REQUEST Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that this application is for a variance to build a new slightly larger garage in roughly the same location of an existing garage. Planner Carlson shared an aerial image of the property with the existing garage and then another with the new garage penciled in. He noted that the existing one -car garage does not meet required setbacks and the replacement with a new two -car garage in the same location would require variances, as it would also not meet the required setbacks. He stated that it would be possible to place a 22 x 24 garage that would meet the setback requirements; however, it would be pushed all of the way next to the house. This is listed as one of the practical difficulties in the report. October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5 6 Planner Carlson then listed the criteria that must be met to issue a variance and shared how this request met that criteria. Staff recommended approval of this variance request. Commissioner Hennes asked if the property owner gave any consideration to building an attached garage, thus having it meet the setback requirements. Planner Carlson replied that he is unaware of any consideration of this kind. The plan is to place the new garage in roughly the same location as the existing garage. Commissioner Magnuson asked for elaboration of the practical difficulty of relocating the garage because of the slopes. Planner Carlson replied that there is a significant drop in slope across the site and pointed that out in the image he shared earlier. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ms. Kathleen Casper, 548 Butler Avenue West, addressed Commissioner Hennes question by stating that she did not consider building an attached garage. However, it would be difficult because of the way the house is setup; it would be attached to her dining room and kitchen, and it would block the view from the windows along that area. Commissioner Magnuson asked if Ms. Casper had considered the placement of the garage where it would fit in the setback area. Ms. Casper replied that she did not as it would be so close to the house and would have the same drawbacks as an attached garage would have. Chair Hennes asked how far of a drop is there from the house to the existing garage. Ms. Casper replied that it is approximately 1.5 to 2 feet and is noticeable. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-39, VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The variance requests meet the tests in the code for practical difficulties. 2. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals for residential land uses. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6 7 1. The applicant must submit elevations depicting the height of the proposed structure, exterior building materials, and garage door heights to the City for review prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to construction. 3. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with the applicable City Code performance standards noted in Section 12-1I. Chair Field noted that typically the Findings of Fact would amplify the fact that the lot is rather obtuse in its shape and secondly, would note the elevation change from the house to the garage. He believes it would be better in the record to have that. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION, THAT THE ANALYSIS INDICATING THE IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT, AND THE GRADE CHANGE FROM THE HOUSE TO THE GARAGE BE INCLUDED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON SECONDED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 1, 2016 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2016-40 IDEAL ENERGIES, LLC, 1450 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that this application is for a conditional use permit to construct a solar energy system in the side and rear yard of the Minnesota Knits facility. The applicant wishes to install portable solar panels to provide electricity; a 60 kilowatt array with a number of panels that would be placed on both the side and rear yards of the site. Planner Carlson shared an image of the subject property indicating where it is located in relation to surrounding streets and properties. The image also indicated the proposed location of the solar panels. The proposed location of the solar panels would meet the setbacks and the provisions in the code in terms of area. There is an apparent contradiction in the code that refers in one section to solar energy systems only in the rear yard and the other section of the code it sites the area that a solar energy may occupy in both the side and rear yards. Planner Carlson stated that, in his experience and his approach, whenever there appears to be a contradiction in the code, it is interpreted in October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7 8 favor of the applicant unless there is some great harm that would come because of it. In this situation, between a couple of industrial buildings and the side yard and rear yard setbacks significantly from the front yard, where it is viewed from the public right-of-way, his interpretation is that in meeting the area requirements by putting it in both the side and rear yards is a reasonable request. Planner Carlson noted that the conditions listed, that were not entirely clear from the application, is whether there would be screening and fencing around the array. In the large solar arrays that he has worked with there has been continuous fencing just for security because they are, in essence, a small power plant. Screening for both security and aesthetics would be appropriate in this regard. Commissioner Noonan asked, in regards to fencing, if Planner Carlson was suggesting that fencing be erected along the rear lot line and the side lot line. Planner Carlson replied that he believes it should be installed for security unless the applicant has information that indicates it is not necessary. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there is any glare with these types of solar panels. Planner Carlson replied that Stantec has worked with one of the larger solar farms developers and there have been glare studies done. These panels are built to absorb the sunlight, not to reflect it. It does reflect light but it is not like a polished plate of glass, it is very subdued reflection. Commissioner Magnuson stated that her concern was for the traffic being on three sides of this property; thus her question regarding the potential for glare. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Rich Ragatz of Ideal Energies, 1450 Mendota Heights Road, came forward to be available for questions. In response to Commissioner Magnuson's question, he noted that all of the panels face directly south and would not be facing towards the road nor would they affect traffic. Commissioner Noonan asked why a ground array instead of a roof -mounted array. Mr. Ragatz replied that they have done a number of rooftop installations and that is typically what they like to do. However, this building has a metal roof with a rubber membrane; it would be too challenging to install a rooftop array without puncturing the membrane. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there were any plans for a fence. Mr. Ragatz replied that they could fence it but is unsure if it is needed. Minnesota Knitting Mills would like for them to fence it so they are open to doing that. They would have to figure out how to accommodate egress from the fire door but they could work with that. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8 9 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-40 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposal meets the spirit and intent of the code dealing with solar energy systems. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant constructs a fence or other form of visual screening along the south side of the property, to be approved by the City Engineer. 2. That trees are removed properly in accordance to City standards, as discussed in section 3-4-2 of the City code. 3. That the applicant provides proper utility connection and safety documentation. 4. That the applicant applies for all additional required permits including a building permit. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 1, 2016 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE #2016-41 JERRY TROOIEN, 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that this application was for a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit within the Mississippi River Critical Area to trim some trees and underbrush on the property. Planner Carlson shared an image of the property outlining the location of the house and surrounding streets. This lot, which is approximately five acres, was subdivided a couple of year ago to create a second home lot in the front of it of approximately 1.6 acres, leaving 3.4 acres with the existing house and garage. The applicant wishes to remove nine trees and associated buckthorn underbrush in a wooded, brushy area on the newly created parcel. Photos and descriptions of the trees were included in the Commissioner Packet. When Planner Carlson visited the site he noted an area of disturbed ground indicating some grading activity already and there did not appear to be any erosion control measures, nor could he find any kind of permit being pulled. However, it may fall below the threshold of the area or the amount of earth to be moved that would trigger a permit. Nonetheless it is adjacent to the area that is wooded and some trees that the applicant wishes to remove. Therefore, it is October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9 10 recommended that condition three be incorporated into the work that is being done here and that the work on these trees, if approved, is done professionally and carefully. Commissioner Noonan asked for additional information on the reasoning for requiring that a qualified professional do the removal — it seems contrary to the notion of a weekend handyman going in and doing the work, especially when dealing with an invasive species. Planner Carlson replied that there is some buckthorn and other brush that would be a weekend handyman type removal; however, these are also nine large trees that is really beyond a handyman and would require a tree service to come in and remove. Commissioner Noonan asked if this could not be a decision made by the property owner, based upon his expertise and comfort in terms of removing those trees. Planner Carlson replied that it could be and that would be a judgment call that the Commission and the Council could make. He did note that this is in the critical area with heightened scrutiny. Commissioner Petschel asked why trees are being cleared prior to the plan of a home construction. Planner Carlson replied that would be a question for the property owner or his representative. Commissioner Magnuson asked, in Planner Carlson's view, if these trees were to come down if there would be sufficient cover remaining on the property, it would not open the space up, so that the houses become visible. Planner Carlson replied that, in his opinion, this would not significantly alter the view and it would be reasonably protected. Commissioner Petschel wished to know if the location of a future home site is contingent upon these trees being removed. Planner Carlson replied that this was his understanding as the trees are not located on the proposed home pad. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Adam Vetvick of Vetvick Law, St. Paul, MN, representing the property owner, came forward and explained that Mr. Trooien could not be present as he is traveling out of state. In response to Commissioner Magnuson's question, Mr. Vetvick replied that there is enough tree cover that, if these trees were removed, would block any kind of view onto the lot or out of the lot. In response to Commissioner Petschel question, Mr. Vetvick replied that typically this would all be done in one fell swoop. However, just with certain goings on within Mr. Trooien's personal life and other things happening it just hasn't been possible to have it all done at the same time. There is some consideration being made as far as what is actually going to be built, but those are discussions for another day. They are seeking to clean up the lot a little bit, get some of the junk trees out of the way, and some of the underbrush off there as well. Mr. Daren Carlson, 992 Caren Court, in regards to the clearing done on the property last year, asked if a critical area permit had been applied for at that time. Chair Field indicated that it was noted in the staff report that it is unknown if a permit had been applied for. Mr. Carlson continued by asking what the repercussions are for doing activities without the permit. Chair October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10 11 Field replied that they might have a discussion on that later. Right now they are dealing with the staff report and public testimony. Mr. Carlson commented that he and his neighbors noticed those activities last summer and fall occurring between 8:00 p.m. and midnight to the point where it was causing some of the neighbors to have trouble sleeping. When they went over to ask that the activities be halted they were treated very rudely. In regards to the condition for approval that the removals are done professionally and carefully, he questioned if the previous activities were done in the same manner. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the area had been lit during the nighttime activities. Mr. Carlson replied that there was heavy machinery and bulldozers in there for several nights removing trees and moving earth with lots of lights and noise from the machinery. Mr. Ken Herrmann, 995 Caren Court, asked if the property owner would be required to request another permit and subsequent hearing if he wished to remove any additional vegetation in the future. Planner Carlson replied that the removal of trees in the critical area would require a critical area permit. When questioned, Planner Carlson indicated that the removal of a tree downed by a storm or disease could be outside the authority of a permit and it would not be necessary; but more investigation would need to be done before he could give a definite answer. Mr. Herrmann then asked if, in the future, if there is no notice given that he plans on removing more vegetation and the neighbors notice activity, to whom should they come to have an investigation. Chair Field replied that they should contact City Hall and report it immediately. Mr. Hermann asked what the timeline is for doing this kind of work — what time in the evening should the stop. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the rule of thumb is to go by what the pollution control agency or state statute requires. Technically it is set at 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The City likes to restrict contractors to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; however, they are allowed to make noise until 10:00 p.m. Mr. Hermann asked how difficult would it be to change the zoning from R-1 Residential to Commercial. Planner Carlson replied that it would be a two-step process; a City Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan that designates it as low density residential, following that would be zoning. Taking a residential property in the middle of other residential properties and making it commercial would be highly unusual and not likely to occur. Mr. Carlson, representative of the property owner, noted that rezoning is not part of this application and there are no plans to do that. As far as when work should cease, if it should become part of the conditional use then so be it. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 11 12 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED and added that condition one be amended to include the phrase `and that no work is to be done outside of the timeframes that are permitted within City Code.' COMMISSIONER NOONAN SECONDED THE MOTION and made a friendly amendment that the work timeframe be narrowed to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., which Commissioner Magnuson accepted, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-41, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The property is within the Critical Area and subject to code requirements of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area, if done carefully and professionally. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Removal of trees and underbrush is performed by a qualified professional and that no work would be permitted before 7: 00 a. m. nor after 7: 00 p.m. 2. Removal of trees and underbrush is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on drawings and photos accompanying the application 3. Erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place in the area noted as well as the area of open soil adjacent to it to the south until ground cover can be established Commissioner Roston expressed his disagreement with the altering of the allowable timeframe, as there is already a limit set in the Code; however, he would not argue the point. Commissioner Petschel asked if there were conflicting requirements based on noise and construction. The response what that the ordinance that deals with noise has nothing to do with construction. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 1, 2016 meeting. Commissioner Magnuson asked about consequences imposed in the past when cutting in the critical area were done prior to the granting of a permit. Commissioner Roston replied that he believes that this body — the Planning Commission — does not have the authority to do anything; the City of Mendota Heights does. The appropriate person to refer this question to is probably the City Attorney. October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 12 13 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY INVESTIGATE THE MATTER OF THE CUTTING OF TREES, BRUSH, OR OTHER VEGETATION, AND THE MOVEMENT OF EARTH LOCATED ON A PARTICULAR SITE AT MR. TROOIEN'S PROPERTY; AS WELL AS INVESTIGATE THE TIMING AND THE EQUIPMENT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED AND THE EXTENT OF WORK THAT WAS PREFORMED AND WHETHER OR NOT A PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE PERFORMANCE OF SAID WORK, AND IF NOT WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES MAY BE. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Absent: D) PLANNING CASE #2016-42 TIMOTHY MCGOUGH, 1787 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that this request was for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. The initial application was by Mr. Timothy McGough and it has since been revised to Lexington Properties, LLC. The property involved is a single-family lot on Lexington Avenue and is bordered by other single-family homes and by the townhomes to the north. Mr. Carlson shared an image of the site on the 2030 Land Use Plan and another image of the site on the Zoning Map. The site is guided as low density residential, as are all of the properties surrounding it, and is zoned R-1 Residential. The request is to rezone the property from R-1 Residential to R-2 Residential and to change the land use from low density to medium density. There is not much precedent in the City for the R-2 and the medium density residential. However, immediately to the north of this property are twin homes and immediately north of that are tri-plexes located in the City of Lilydale or the City of Mendota. If this property were surrounded by all single-family dwellings and uses, it could be argued that rezoning to R-2 would not be permissible as no one likes `spot zoning'. However, with the twin homes [located in Mendota Heights] and tri-plexes [not located in Mendota Heights] being located immediately to the north this may not be a case of `spot zoning'. Staff made no recommendations on this matter. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Tim McGough, 1442 Knollwood Lane, commented that he is aware that the City reluctantly considers rezoning but believes that have a medium density property in this location would make for a clean transition from the relatively high density property to the immediate north and the low density properties to the south and west. He continued his explanations for allowing this October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 13 14 rezoning by addressing the points listed under "Findings of Fact for Denial" in the staff report. He also expounded on his willingness to do whatever is necessary — be it a Planned Unit Development or an agreement between the owners of the twin home — to assure the City and the community that there would be no additional units built on this property — only the twin -home he is planning. Commissioner Magnuson asked who actually owns the property. Mr. McGough replied that he believes that two children of the former owner, who has passed away, own it. He does have a signed purchase agreement contingent upon getting it rezoned to R-2. Commissioner Roston asked for clarification that the lawyer Mr. McGough consulted was not with the firm Commissioner Roston works at. Mr. McGough confirmed that it was not the same firm. Mr. Maris Kurmis, 2250 Plymouth Road, Minnetonka and listing agent for the property came forward to give evidence for the zoning change as well as to represent the sellers. He echoed the arguments already made by Mr. McGough. Mr. Tom Evans, who lives in Kingsley Estates located north of the subject property, stated that he believes that a twin home owned by two different owners is actually a condominium. If it is a condominium it removes a lot of the issues that some people have had; that being build a twin home and make it owner occupied with renting out the other side, or build a twin home and have an absentee owner making it an apartment. Planner Carlson clarified that the zoning ordinance speaks to density and lot size but not to ownership structure. Mr. Bob Hughes, 1117 Orchard Place, owns the property located directly south of the subject property, which is very similar in size and character. He believes that the subject property was sold at a too high of a price and the only way to come out on top is to make it a rental property. He believes that making this a rental property would negatively affect the value of his own. Mr. McGough returned and noted that he chaired a buildings and ground committee for a 66 -unit condominium so he knows how they operate, what they require, the difference of opinion and everything that goes into them. That is not what they are about here, they are not interested in developing the property — they are interested in building a home for themselves and their best friends. Their best friends are in the same situation as they are; they are looking to downsize and be on one level. They have looked at every other property available in the City and they do not work for a number of reasons. They want to live on the property and have no intention of subdividing, renting out, or being a bad neighbor. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 14 15 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Commissioner Magnuson stated that she is not in favor of rezoning this property. She then asked if there were any other way that this project could go forward, which would eliminate some of the concerns about not being able to control an R-2 property and limit then how this property were used in certain way such that it would be limited to two units, owner occupied, etc. Planner Carlson replied that he could not see a way. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is in essence a zoning where you get to control the pieces of it; this property would not qualify for a PUD due to its size. The City is limited to the uses, the lot sizes, and the densities that are in the discreet zoning districts. It's either R-1 and single-family or it's R-2 and then other things would apply. Commissioner Magnuson continued by explaining that the setting of precedence is of concern as there are other similar properties located next to or near the subject property and the City would be hard pressed to deny any similar rezoning requests. Planner Carlson stated that the City does have discretion in where to draw the line at the land use level — they could redraw the current line to include this one property and then stop there. As far as limiting it to just two units — he does not see how. Commissioner Roston also expressed his opposition to the rezoning but he also stated that he would not have a problem with two units. He believes that with a creative lawyer that it could be accomplished. Commissioner Hennes stated that he would be comfortable with the rezoning as the applicant has made a compelling case and that it is simply a matter of making the property an R-2 and see where the chips fall. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-41, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The property is located on the edge of two areas with different density and character. The subject property could logically follow the pattern to the north. To the west, south, and east are low density single family neighborhoods; Abutting the property along its entire northern edge is a medium density development more in keeping with a medium density R-2 zoning designation than the single family R-1 designation it has now. 2. The property fronts directly on Lexington Avenue, a major street, and any additional traffic from a medium density development on the property would not pass through other quiet single-family neighborhood streets. 3. The property has sufficient area for four single-family lots, but it is not possible to subdivide into conforming lots due to its dimensions and configuration, and its single frontage on Lexington Avenue. Allowing a duplex, triplex or other medium density October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 15 16 structure would allow the owner a reasonable use of the land not otherwise possible given the dimensions of the property. The motion died for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-41, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The property abuts single-family uses on three of its four sides and there is currently a clean straight line between the different densities. Changing this property to medium density is not a clean dividing line. 2. Reguiding the property to Medium Density and rezoning to R-2 would entitle the owner to the full density and uses allowed for R-2 zoning, perhaps up to four units, not just one duplex structure. 3. Even though the property to the north is medium density the City need not expand that to the subject property; the current dividing line is reasonable. 4. There are no other areas of the City guided for Medium Density as a stand-alone designation and only one other lot in the entire City zoned R-2. Creating a new R-2 district would be an anomaly in the City's land use and zoning scheme. Additional discussions occurred on the reasons for denying the rezoning, the agreement that allowing two dwellings on the property would be feasible if it could be done in a way that would not set a precedence or create spot zoning, and the possibility of a creative solution. Chair Field asked if an application is denied if there was a limitation on when it could be brought back. The reply was that according to the ordinance it would be six months. Commissioner Roston noted that he would add a friendly amendment that the six-month waiting period be waived. Chair Field asked Mr. McGough if he would like to lay this issue over and study the situation with his attorney as opposed to going down the tortured path of having a denial its consequences. Commissioner Noonan stated that the question before the Commission was the rezoning from an R-1 to an R-2 and for the reasons that have been expressed he couldn't support the rezoning or the spot zoning for moving of the transition line. However, he believes there were challenges thrown out to explore options within the context of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning, which would allow a development to come forward. He would not necessarily support laying it over; he would like to deal with the zoning issue. However, there is openness to consider achieving what the applicant wants within the context of the zoning. October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 16 17 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF ASKING THE APPLICANT IF HE WOULD LIKE TO LAY HIS APPLICATION OVER TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 (NOONAN) ABSENT: 1 Mr. McGough returned and, after lengthy discussions on what exactly could be the outcome of laying it over, replied that the Commission should go ahead with the decision at this time. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field called the standing motion of denial. AYES: 3 (ROSTON, NOONAN, MAGNUSON) NAYS: 3 (HENNES, PETSCHEL, FIELD) ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 1, 2016 meeting without a recommendation from the Planning Commission Verbal Review Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2016-35 Great Northern Builders, LLC, 780 South Plaza Drive Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Adiournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:17 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 17 18 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 551.452.1850 phone I 651.452.8940 fax www.mendc)ta-helghts.com CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE: December 21, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP Interim Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-43 Discussion and Ordinance Options Relating to Domestic Chickens COMMENT: Introduction The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to consider the question of permitting domestic chickens in Mendota Heights. A group of residents is advocating for allowing chickens and staff has worked with them to develop options for the Planning Commission to consider. Background Domestic chickens are currently not allowed in the City. Discussion The attached memo outlines the issues and options for code amendments, should the Commission wish to recommend a course of action. Action Required The Planning Commission is asked to give direction to the City Council on the issue of domestic chickens. This a public hearing on potential options only and the Planning Commission can choose to recommend code amendments or not, to the City Council. 19 (30 Stantec MEMORANDUM Date: December 21, 2016 To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission From: Phil Carlson, AICP Re: Chickens in Residential Neighborhoods The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to discuss the issue of keeping chickens in residential neighborhoods in Mendota Heights, which is not currently allowed by Mendota Heights zoning. This memorandum summarizes two potential approaches to an ordinance, provides information on potential issues and opportunities associated with allowing chickens, and provides a comparison of codes from other cities allowing chickens in residential areas. CODE APPROACH OPTIONS If the City wishes to allow raising chickens in residential areas, there are two basic approaches - through the zoning code or through the animal control code. Zoning Approach The Mendota Heights Zoning Code could be amended in several places to allow the keeping of chickens as an accessory use, which might be accomplished as follows, in all single family residential zoning districts (R-1, R-1 A, R-1 B, R-1 C): 1) Chicken would be added to the definition of Domestic Animals 2) Chicken coops would be added to the definition of Animal Kennels 3) A kennel for chickens would be added to the list of permitted accessory structures 4) Clarify that only one chicken enclosure is allowed Animal Control Approach A second, alternate approach would be to amend the Code through animal control and not involve zoning. Regulations on domestic animals are in Title 5 Police Regulations of the Mendota Heights Code, Chapter 3 - Dogs and Cats. The current code deals only with cats and dogs, but chickens could be added to the chapter. This approach could allow chickens as follows: 1) Rename the Dogs and Cats section to Domestic Animals 2) Add a new section on chickens, stating that up to four female chickens are allowed as a domestic animal. 3) A chicken coop or enclosure would need to meet the standards for an accessory structure in the Zoning Code. 4) Enforcement would be by the same "animal warden" who enforces regulations on dogs and cats. 20 (10 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission - Chickens in Residential Neighborhoods December 21, 2016 Concern - Animal Warden Responsibilities and Enforcement Currently in Mendota Heights the Police Chief is designated as the animal warden, responsible for dealing with stray or dangerous dogs, and the occasional coyote, deer or other problem animal. This authority is contracted to an outside firm for $3,000/year. Enforcement is on a complaint basis only and there is no regular personnel assigned to patrol the city for problem animals. Zoning enforcement is also on a complaint basis and will be part of the discussion around the new Community Development Director position to be filled soon. Enforcement of chickens would be an added duty that is not currently contemplated or funded by the Police Department, the Planning Department or the City Council, and would need to be part of any new scheme to allow chickens. ABOUT CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS It is increasingly popular in many communities throughout the Twin Cities, and the nation, to allow residents to have chickens in their back yards as pets and for the production of eggs. Currently, dozens of communities in the region allow for chickens in residential neighborhoods. The issue is also gaining traction in community planning as a way to increase access to healthy food, which is an issue of growing concern and interest for many. The Minnesota Food Charter's Food Access Planning Guide has developed numerous policies that support raising chickens in urban and suburban areas. These policies include: • Support practices that integrate healthy food in residential settings • Adopt regulations that establish standards for gardening and urban farming that are compatible with neighboring properties and promote public health • Review and simplify regulations for food and farm related land uses to improve the variety of food options in the community The MN Green Step Cities program has also developed best practices promoting backyard chickens including: • Facilitate the creation of home and community gardens, chicken and bee keeping, and incorporation of food growing areas in residential developments. CHICKENS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS A number of Mendota Heights residents are interested in the possibility of housing chickens in their yards. These residents have brought their ideas to the City for review. `A (5� Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission - Chickens in Residential Neighborhoods December 21, 2016 3 ISSUES Many communities have raised conflicting issues and concerns regarding chickens in residential neighborhoods. Often, the debate stems from a desire to preserve the character of single family neighborhoods while allowing property owners to reasonably use their property. Communities allowing chickens have attempted to balance these concerns and enhance their neighborhoods. Some of the key issues are listed below. Noise: Typically, urban and suburban communities only allow hens in their residential neighborhoods. The noise associated with roosters is considered a nuisance to neighboring residents. Chicken Coops and Proper Maintenance: A major concern for nearby residents is the safety and security of chickens in an urban area. Problems can arise if the chickens escape their yard or if coops and pens are not well maintained. Most communities which allow for chickens require that the chickens are housed in a coop that meets certain maintenance requirements. Often, animal control or another city department will conduct inspections to ensure safety standards are met. Examples of chicken coops and pens are illustrated below: Public Health: Another concern associated with having chickens is the potential for public health concerns associated with animals and waste. Chickens and other fowl can carry diseases that are harmful to other fowl or animals. If not cleaned, chickens can also harbor mites in their feathers. Additionally, chicken feed and food scraps can attract rodents and other pests. To mitigate these problems, some cities have special requirements for coop cleaning, waste removal, security of feed, "dirt baths" for chickens to clean themselves, and slaughtering. Eggs: Most chickens kept on residential urban and suburban properties are used to raise eggs. Home chickens can present a new food source for residents looking for an organic, local alternative to eggs purchased in the grocery store. Chickens produce eggs for 4-5 years. `11 (10 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission - Chickens in Residential Neighborhoods December 21, 2016 4 Pest Management: Chickens eat insects and can provide an alternative to pesticide based management strategies. Domestic Animals and Pets: Chickens and other domesticated farm animals are not typically treated as pets by municipal animal control departments. However, some chicken owners have found their animals to be friendly, tame, companion animals. Chickens live 10-12 years. Private Property Rights: Some advocates of chickens in residential areas believe that keeping chickens is within their rights as a property owner, so long as any negative externalities caused by the animals are mitigated. CODE COMPARISON Many communities have allowed chickens within their residential zoning districts, with varying restrictions. The table on the following page summarizes a few different code options from communities around Mendota Heights. Full code language for some of these municipalities is attached. Edina has a different approach - not connected to zoning at all, but to animal control. In the Animal section of their code up to four chickens are allowed. None of the communities studied required a minimum lot size for having chickens in residential neighborhoods. Vadnais Heights is in the process of adopting the code summarized below. This memo reflects the most current draft version. 23 (5� Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission - Chickens in Residential Neighborhoods December 21, 2016 ZONING FOR CHICKENS - CODE COMPARISON OF SELECTED CITIES Community License/Permit Standards Require ? West St. Paul Yes Maximum: 2 chickens • Residents can have more than 2 chickens pending City Council approval Eagan Yes 0 Maximum: 5 chickens • Coop and run required: chickens are restricted to this area or a fenced yard • Minimum coop size: 2 square feet per chicken • Owner must reside on the premises • Eggs are for personal consumption only • Roosters are prohibited Burnsville Yes • Maximum: 4 chickens • Coop and run required: chickens are restricted to this area • Minimum coop size: 10 square feet per chicken, limited to 6' in height • Screening is required • Roosters are prohibited Bloomington No Maximum: 4 chickens • Coop and run required: chickens are restricted to this area • Maximum coop size: 120 square feet, limited to 6' in height • Screening is required • Roosters are prohibited • Proper disposal of waste is required not com ostable Richfield No Maximum: 3 chickens Inver Grove Yes Maximum: 6 chickens Heights Coop and run required: chickens are restricted to this area • Roosters are prohibited Vadnais Yes Maximum: 5 chickens on lots less than 1 acre, on lots larger, 5 Heights additional chickens per acre with a maximum of 20 chickens • Coop is required • Coop size: minimum 4 square feet per chicken required with a maximum area of 120 square feet. Height is limited to 12 feet. • Roosters are prohibited • Other uses of chickens such as meat, breeding, and fighting are prohibited Minneapolis Yes 0 Maximum: 6 chickens • Screening is required • Regular maintenance of coops is required. • Fecal waste and litter should be double bagged and disposed of in the trash. • Animal control inspects the property for safety and cleanliness annually. • Roosters are prohibited • Slaughtering of animals is prohibited Edina No 0 Maximum: 4 chickens • Regulated with animals, not zoning • Enclosure required 20 feet from lot line, <300 square feet in size 24 (5� Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission - Chickens in Residential Neighborhoods December 21, 2016 CODE OPTIONS - DETAILS Zoning Approach The code amendments would be as follows. The amendments to permitted accessory uses in Section 12-1 E involve the R-1 District, but the code for R-1 A, R-1 B and R-1 C refers back to the R-1 uses, so those other districts would also allow chickens if this approach is adopted. Suggested amendments to the current code are in blue underline text. 12-1B-2 Definitions: ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets including female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) kept for purposes of companionship or household -use egg production on1X. KENNEL, ANIMAL: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal or Lip to 6 female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus), over four (4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale. 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures (C) 2. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: a. Number And Size: (1) Accessory buildings (other than detached, private garages) shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. (2) Property is four (4) acres or less: One accessory structure with the area not to exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet and one enclosed animal kennel with the area not to exceed one hundred fogy four (144) square feet used solely for the purposes of keeping female chickens (Gallus ,gallus domesticus) (3) Property is more than four (4) acres*: Total area cannot exceed four hundred twenty five (425) square feet, provided: (A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet. (B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected, with no more than one 25 (5� Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission — Chickens in Residential Neighborhoods December 21, 2016 enclosed animal kennel used solely for the purposes of keeping female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) 12-1E-3: R-1 One -Family Residential District: C. Permitted Accessory Uses: Within the R-1 one -family residential district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: Domestic animals, as defined herein, keeping for noncommercial purposes, including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises; provided, that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall be located not less than one hundred feet (100') from the nearest residence with the exception of an accessory building used as an animal kennel solely for the purposes of keeping female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) which is subject to 12-113-3. Keeping of up to 6 female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) over four (4) months of age for the purposes of companionship or household -use egg production. Domestic Animal Code Approach The code amendments would be as follows. Suggested amendments to the current code are in blue underline text. Chapter 3 DOGS AND r n T -S DOMESTIC ANIMALS 5-3-10: CHICKENS A. Up to six female chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, may be kept on a residential premise as domestic animals, provided such chickens are kept in an accessory structure meeting the provisions of the Zoning Code. Such structure must be constructed so that it may be easily cleaned, and so that the chickens are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the outside. 26 (10 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission - Chickens in Residential Neighborhoods December 21, 2016 B. The animal warden has the authority to enter upon private premises whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that chickens are being mistreated or pose a threat to the health and safety of people or other animals. [Renumber the last two sections of Chapter 3.] 5 3 19 5-3-11: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS 5 3 11 5-3-12: PENALTY OPTIONS The Planning Commission has a number of options: M 1) Recommend to the City Council that they approve an ordinance using the zoning code approach to allowing domestic chickens, with or without conditions or revisions. 2) Recommend to the City Council that they approve an ordinance using the animal control approach to allowing domestic chickens, with or without conditions or revisions. 3) Recommend denial of the proposal to allow domestic chickens in the City. 4) Recommend another course of action to city staff or the City Council. 27