Loading...
2016-11-21 Planning Comm MinutesNovember 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES November 21, 2016 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 21, 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 Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of October 25, 2016 Minutes COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2016, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Hearings A) DISCUSS ISSUES AND ORDINANCE OPTIONS RELATING TO DOMESTIC CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP gave the highlights of the staff report by stating that discussion on this issue has occurred in recent past. He also noted that he personally takes advantage of his neighbors who bring him fresh eggs on occasion but he would try not to let that sway his recommendations. The issue has come up with a number of residents approaching the City Council requesting that action be taken. The issue is that, currently in the City only domestic animals (cats, dogs, etc.) are allowed in the City. No other kinds of farm animals are allowed in the residential areas. The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to consider it and staff has then worked with some of these residents who had ideas and suggestions. In the memo of December 21 staff outlined several things:  Residents are interested in having healthy fresh food  Other surrounding communities are allowing chickens in residential areas with restrictions November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2 Approaches to Regulating Chickens in Residential Areas Currently in the Mendota Heights City Code, they simply are not allowed because the code is silent on it. 1. Zoning Approach In other communities where they are allowed they are mostly covered by a zoning ordinance and they are then included as an accessory use to residential uses; typically issues addressed are clearly defined numbers of chickens allowed and regulations on where, kind of structure, the setback requirements, etc. 2. Animal Control Approach The City of Edina has a very different approach, which is simply to regulate them under the Animal Control Ordinance, which regulates stray dogs and what is done if there are dangerous animals around. It simply lists the kinds of animals that could and could not be had and then says ‘accept for four or six domestic chickens which may be kept’. As far as on the ground, if that were to be allowed in Mendota Heights, you may not see any difference if they have them in their backyards. What would be different would be the enforcement and how the City would handle that if there were problems or issues. Planner Carlson did not go through is memorandum line by line since it merely outli ned the two approaches that could be taken. However, he did mention specifically the concern that he heard when speaking with city staff and with the Chief of Police. Currently, in the City the Chief of Police is the designated Animal Warden and is responsible for dealing with problem animals, typically stray dogs. Most of this authority then is handed off to an outside agency for approximately $3,000/year. This agency then would go out and actually take care of these kinds of problem animals. This is on a complaint basis as there is no regular patrolling of the City for this kind of issue. It was the Chief’s concern, and others, that this would create a problem for enforcement for which there is currently no budget and no staff specifically directed to do i t. So this is something that the planner position and a zone enforcement role could take up; it is something that a police officer or community officer or other designated person could handle if it were under the animal control portion of the code. If the zoning approach were recommended, then the code would be amended in several places to allow the keeping of chickens as an accessory use; just like a storage shed or garage. In the single-family residential districts chickens would be added to the definition of domestic animals; chicken coops would be added to the definition of animal kennels; a kennel for chickens would be added to the list of permitted accessory structures; and clarify that only one chicken enclosure is allowed. If the animal control approach were recommended, he suggested it be renamed to ‘domestic animals’; currently in the code it is just dogs and cats. Then add a new section on chickens stating that up to four female chickens are allowed as a domestic animal. He then added that only female chickens are allowed in the sample ordinances he provided as male roosters tend to crow at the crack of dawn and are not very popular in residential neighborhoods. Continuing he November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3 explained that the animal control approach would also state that a chicken coop or enclosure would need to meet the standards for an accessory structure in the zoning code and enforcement would be by the same animal warden who enforces regulations on dogs and cats. Planner Carlson also included in his memo a list of communities that allow chickens and the basic provisions that are in their zoning codes. Planner Carlson and staff did not may any specific recommendations on this issue but did list a number of options for the Commission to consider: 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. Planner Carlson then read an email received from Commissioner Costello in response to this issue, “I am unable to attend the Planning Commission Meeting. Here are my thoughts on chickens for whatever it’s worth. Not looking for a response because it would be considered a quorum if a bunch of PC members responded, just thoughts.” “Complaint code enforcement is difficult no matter if zoning or animal control. There is usually a verbal or written notice; then if not corrected within a certain number of days another letter; then another wait to allow correction; then another or a ticket. This is just something to keep in mind as there is not a quick remedy process.” “If a zoning ordinance is considered, I’d want to see a limit on chickens, no roosters, coop si ze and height limit, not within setbacks, and removal of fecal waste that is not compostable.” “Couple of questions: how long have the cities referenced in the report have their ordinances in place. Curious if they have made any amendments since adopting or if it is working. Second, for those that don’t require a license or permit, are they receiving complaints difficulty in enforcing.” At this point, Planner Carlson noted that staff researched the codes and excerpted the policies in the memo. He himself has not followed up to ask any of Commissioner Costello’s questions; when was it adopted, have they had complaints, is it working, etc. Chair Field reiterated that the Commission’s work this evening is to look at options and forward the public hearing results and this report to City Council. The Commission will not be drafting any ordinances at this time. Council needs to make the policy decision; do they want the Commission to actually go forward. Commissioner Hennes noted that the Commission dealt with this issue several years ago. Chair Field noted that it was no more than 1.5 years ago. Commissioner Hennes continued by stating that he believed the Commission recommended against it. Discussion occurred over whether or November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4 not the actual discussion was for pigeons or chickens. When the discussion occurred on chickens the Commission was tied on its recommendation. At that time, the Council denied the request. However, there is a new Council being seated in January 2017 so this work is now being done for a different Council that will meet on January 3, 2017. Commissioner Roston noted that he has heard two different things from people he has spoken with regarding this issue; 1) hens will not lay eggs unless there are roosters around or nearby and 2) hens will lay eggs without a rooster nearby. He then asked which was correct. Commissioner Petschel asked if the chickens lay eggs for four to five years but they live for ten; and it appears that most of the other cities ordinances prohibit slaughter; what do the chickens do for the remaining five to six years. Planner Carlson replied that he was unaware of what the actual practice is but he imagined that they could be taken elsewhere for slaughter or simply keep them as pets. No ordinance actually requires them to lay eggs. Commissioner Petschel asked for clarification or confirmation that this would only refer to the keeping of chickens, not other types of domestic fowls (i.e. turkeys, ducks, geese). Planner Carlson replied that he has not seen those other types of domestic fowls in other ordinances. Chair Field noted that, as he was reading the memo, that the City could do both an animal enforcement and zoning solution. Planner Carlson confirmed this could be done as long as they were coordinated. Commissioner Hennes asked why some cities require a permit or license and others do not. Planner Carlson replied that he did not have an answer to that question. A permit would allow the City to keep track and have some kind of record and at least be aware of the regula tions. Without a permit, it is simply on the books and people are expected to know and enforcement actions would be on a complaint basis. Chair Field asked if the municipalities that required a permit otherwise had animal control officers. Planner Carlson was unable to answer that question. Commissioner Noonan asked if the City currently requires permits or licenses for other domestic animals. Planner Carlson replied that only dogs are required to have licenses. Commissioner Noonan asked Planner Carlson to walk them through requirements for a coop and asked how it would fit in, or how large would those coops be in light of the accessory structure requirements. Planner Carlson explained that on a lot that is less than 4 acres the size limit is 144 square feet; however, on a larger lot the accessory structure could be as much as 1,000 square feet. When talking about a typical residential lot in the City of Mendota Heights, the size would be limited to 144 square feet. November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5 Commissioner Magnuson asked, referencing the photos included in the memo, if the coop was the actual building and included the fencing around it or if it was only the building itself and the fencing was extra. Planner Carlson replied that to be a structure, it would need to be enclosed. Also referencing the photos, Commissioner Petschel noted that one of the coops appears to be an enclosed fenced area with a transparent roof. He then asked if that counted as a structure. Planner Carlson replied in the affirmative. An enclosed structure within a fenced area - only the enclosed building would be considered an accessory structure. Councilmember Roston, referencing the list of cities that have adopted ordinances, asked if there were other cities that had considered and rejected these ordinances. Planner Carlson replied that he did not look into that area. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Patrick Watson, 1327 Delaware Avenue, had spoken before the Council, among others about allowing chickens within the City and did not wish to repeat him self. The Planning Commission and the Council had considered this a few times in the past, most recently in response to a violation where some people were found to have chickens illegally. He and his friends are trying to do this the legal way; most people he has spoken with are ignorant of the fact that it is illegal and others have questions that require answers. He pointed out that most of the cities that have permits are the ones that were the first adopters to either rollback an ordinance that previously existed or allowed more permissible ordinances. What is happening now in most cities that have adopted it recently (like Richfield, Edina, and St. Paul) is they are rescinding their permit requirements because they have discovered that it is not necessary and they are handling it all under either zoning or animal control. Commissioner Magnuson noted that in other municipalities that have permitted chickens, they range anywhere from two chickens to six chickens. She then asked Mr. Watson if he was aware of some kind of ‘magic’ number. Mr. Watson replied that a chicken in its prime generally lays one egg a day. It is just a matter of how many people want eggs. Typically two or three is the magic number for a backyard flock for a family that does not do mu ch with eggs. He and his neighbors put in a request for six in their request because they were aware that are two elementary schools in their district and a high school, where they do occasionally raise chickens. They have had up to six in each location. They had also put in an age requirement in their request; up to six over 4 months old. Then they would be allowed to hatch a flock, adopt out the spares, and keep six. Chair Field asked for confirmation that the testimony given was before the City Council, not before the Planning Commission. Mr. Watson confirmed. Commissioner Magnuson asked if chicken waste was compostable what was done with it. Mr. Watson replied that chicken waste is 100% compostable; he referred to the University of Minnesota Extension Service and a few other places that give very good guidance on composting backyard chicken waste. Dodge Nature Center is also very happy to show anyone how backyard November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6 composting works for a reasonable amount of chicken waste (a small ash can full a week). The odor is not objectionable if they compost regularly. If a family does not compost, it can be disposed of just like kitty litter in the garbage. Addressing an earlier question about what do to with chickens that have stopped laying, Mr. Watson stated that there are three choices; 1) if on a farm, the chicken goes into the pot but if slaughtering is not allowed in the area then it can be taken somewhere else for slaughtering, 2) some people raise them to the end of their natural lives (10 – 12 years), or 3) euthanasia, just like dogs and cats. Commissioner Petschel noted that in other municipalities it appears that there are no prohibitions on slaughtering the animals. He then asked if there were specific rules for slaughtering them. Mr. Watson replied that this is a big pink elephant in the room. In a civilized society they would either take them to the vet for euthanasia or keep elderly chickens running around in the backyard. Mr. Watson also noted that the coop itself would the weatherized structure that would keep the animal out of the weather, the wind, the rain, and the snow. The ‘run’ is what gives them the opportunity to have sunshine, grass, insects, etc. – the chicken wire enclosure. Most runs are protected overhead to keep predatory birds from diving in and raccoons from climbing in. So, most likely, that would be considered a part of the accessory structure permitted limit. Mr. Alex Theobald, 1045 Delaware Avenue, stated that many cities around Mendota Heights already have the option to raise chickens. He continued by stating that when moving to Mendota Heights it surprised him that the city does not allow chickens; given the fact that this area was all farm fields. He also believes that raising backyard chickens could serve as a way to create a better relationship among neighbors. He understands the concerns about noise, smells, and etc.; however, there should also be thought given to what could be created that would be good. As Planner Carlson pointed out, he enjoys getting eggs from his neighbor. This could provide an opportunity for neighbors to get to know one another better; provide opportunity for children in the neighborhood to obtain experience in having responsibility (i.e. watching the chickens while the neighbor is on vacation). He continued by explaining that he was raised on a farm in Iowa and could answer some of the questions or address concerns anyone could have. He also confirmed that hens lay eggs without a rooster present. They are also considered to be pets, just like any other domestic dog or cat. Commissioner Petschel asked, in Mr. Theobald’s experience, if the run and the coop are considered in the size of an accessory structure. Mr. Theobald replied that he was unsure what was being got at; however, chickens are social animals. As far as the size goes, a person would want to ensure that there is sufficient space available otherwise they will get bored and start picking on each other. Commissioner Magnuson asked if a person were limited to 144 square feet would it be of sufficient size. The response was in the affirmative for the number of chickens being considered (for the coop and the run). November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7 Planner Carlson stated that the enclosures he is familiar with in his neighborhood where they have four or six chickens; the actual enclosed area where they are huddled in the cold weather is fairly small (4x4 or 4x6) and then there is a larger area that is fenced on all sides (and covered) so the whole area would be the structure from a zoning definition. Commissioner Petschel asked when the two residents look at the options that the Commission is considering – the zoning approach or the domestic animal approach – does it make any difference. Mr. Theobald replied that maybe Mr. Watson could answer that question. Mr. Watson replied that the domestic animal approach was not even in the scope of what he and his neighbors were considering but he agrees that it would be simpler and gives them everything they are looking for. Mr. Theobald also commented that if the City has a permit requirement they would need to have someone to address the permits in the office. In his job as CPA, he knows that any compliance activity is an additional burden and oftentimes governments place the requirements on citizens and themselves. In the end it becomes less efficient and more of a burden than a benefit. Chair Field commented that if there were problems with compliance that needs to be enforced without an animal control officer, the city is going to underwrite an undue burden to have to enforce the regulations, which may explain why the permitting process has been used initially while cities feel their way into permitting domestic chickens. Mr. Watson stated that if one were to look back at the cities that have this and they will tell you that there have not been issues – no one is seeing chicken farms, mass slaughtering, vermin, noise problems – even rooster or cock fighting are not allowable activities. Planner Carlson noted that in his years of land use planning and zoning he has come to a question that could frame many issues – let’s let people do anything they want to with their property, unless it causes a problem. The city does not regulate many, many things that they do with their property. Whenever there are regulations under contemplation he often asks ‘what is the problem we are trying to solve’. Imagine there were chickens in every other backyard in Mendota Heights – what would be the problems anticipated, what would be the problems to be solved, and are there regulations needed to solve those problems; or cannot they be easily solved and that is a use that poses so many problems that they should not be allowed or should prohibition of chickens in the City be continued. Commissioner Noonan stated that it was not so much a problem to be solved but what the desire and expectations are of the community. He took exception to the comment that as a landowner he should be able to do whatever he wants with his property provided it does not cause a problem. That is not the nature of what zoning is all about. Zoning is there to provide an appropriate exercise of the police power to control health, safety, and welfare standards. By the same token the Commission weighing in on whether or not the city is going to permit or not permit – or recommend chickens in backyards is very much is a reflection of the zoning and the police power. This is an appropriate discussion to have, whether the Commission believes this meets the expectations of the community. He stated that he felt a little bit naked as there were November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8 two individuals advocating a particular position, yet the Commission does not have the broader community weighing in. Rather than believing that the broader community does not care, he surmised that the broader community does not know. Chair Field replied that the Commission was not asked to have a public hearing to say yea or nay; it was asked to explore possible alternatives to chicken in Mendota Heights so that the City Council could then make a policy decision, answering the question asked about the community. Commissioner Noonan respectfully disagreed, as there was a public hearing, the Commission heard testimony from two individuals, but did not hear anything from the other side of the issue. With the Commission asked to make a decision with only hearing one side of the issue makes him uncomfortable. Chair Field reiterated that the Commission is not being asked to make a recommendation – they were asked to hear about this and refer up to the Council various aspects that could be used for an ordinance for them to make a determination. Commissioner Noonan noted that in the staff report there are four options: 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. It is a recommendation based upon the testimony and the discussion being had now. Commissioner Noonan explained that he was not assuming that the Commission was going to write an ordinance tonight. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Noting the banter earlier, Commissioner Roston asked if the Commission was to make a recommendation yes, we think it’s a good policy to come up with some ordinance that would allow chickens; or no, we think it’s not a good policy. Chair Field replied that what he saw at the City Council meeting was that they did not know what to do; they wanted the Commission to look at different ways to dealing with the subject matter. The Commission was to be proposed with different communities ways of handling it, the Commission might suggest that it should be done by means of permitting, might suggest it should be done by means of zoning, or might want to do it both – but it is not the Commission’s job to draft an ordinance. The City Council needs to direct the Commission as to what they want it to do. Planner Carlson stated that he believes the Council’s direction was not very explicit. The four options before the Commission were entirely his; it was an attempt to list ways the Commission could handle this issue but they may come up with something else. Chair Field replied that it is November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9 very hard for the Commission given the fact that the Council did not say ‘come back to us with an ordinance’ to deal with this subject matter. He took this evening as an opportunity to hear from the folks that came this evening, to see what different communities are using as an option, and to forward that information up to the Council and then have them tell the Commission what they would like – whether that is an ordinance or not. Commissioner Noonan stated that it sounds like the Council wants the Commission to make a determination on whether or not this would be a good public policy – to permit chickens. If the Commission feels that it would be good public policy then they could offer an opinion on the options of zoning or animal control or something else – or get that decision option back on the rebound. The Commission would make a broad-based policy recommendation to Council, Council decides whether or not they agree with the recommendation, and then they punch it back and the Commission rolls up its sleeves. Chair Field stated that was sort of the work the Commission was trying to not roll up their sleeves and get into the ordinance and redrawing the ordinance. Commissioner Hennes stated that he believes there is some value in sharing with the Council how the Commission feels; it all boils down to the issue of whether or not to allow chickens. He does not have a problem with it; if someone wants to have chickens in their backyard it would not bother him. Commissioner Roston stated that he is completely opposed to this. Someone comes before the Commission and wants pigeons and they deal with that; someone wants bees and they deal with that; someone wants whatever and they deal with that. He understands that chickens is the animal du Jour and everyone is hot about chickens right now, but next year it could be something else. His belief is that Mendota Heights is a suburb not farmland. If people want to have chickens – he goes to great Minnesota all of the time and there is tons of farmland out there to be had if you want to raise chickens. He expressed his dislike of the look of the coops when he drives by them as they are ugly and make the backyard look bad. He also does not like the concept of starting to add additional domestic animals. He cannot rationalize how the Commission could say yes to chickens but no to pigeons, or no to bees, or no to something else. Everyone that he has personally reached out to has the same response. The City do es not need to have the same ordinance as everyone else just because they are in close proximity and allow it. Commissioner Magnuson expressed her confusion about what should be done now – should someone make a motion. Chair Field replied that this is what everyone is trying to determine based on the ambiguous charge from the City Council. She continued by stating that she would be happy to roll up her sleeves and work on an ordinance and is happy to offer her view on chickens – she not have a particular problem with chickens – although she believes the proposed ordinance provided would need to be augmented in some significant ways. But just as a bare general policy matter, she would be all right with two or three but was unsure about allowing six. Commissioner Petschel noted that he is leaning towards allowing chickens but a good point was brought up – as there are arbitrary alliances – why not pigeons, why not reindeer – can the Commission come up with a good argument for why they would differentiate between chickens and pigeons. November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10 Chair Field clarified that if someone owned a piece of property in Mendota Heights that was zoned agricultural they could have all of these types of animals. The issue under discussion would be within the residential zoning districts. He also noted that, in many cases, it is not until it comes to the attention of a neighbor that it becomes an issue; which was the case with a pigeon application before. Commissioner Noonan voices his support of Commissioner Roston’s position. In thinking about his own neighborhood and what would his reaction be to a neighbor’s having a chicken coop and run in their backyard. He has also tried to put his feet in their shoes as well – he does not believe it meets the expectations of what this community is all about. It is pushing the envelope of what a domestic animal is and moving into an area with a slippery slope – it could be chickens today and something else altogether tomorrow. The use is inappropriate and it raises an issue that has one perspective being shared today without benefit of the other perspective. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW DOMESTIC CHICKENS IN THE CITY AYES: 2 (Roston, Noonan) NAYS: 4 (Hennes, Magnuson, Petschel, Field) ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 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 Commissioner Hennes then asked for a friendly revision so that the Commission would not be tied to either the zoning approach or the animal control approach. After discussion, the movement was: COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ALLOWING DOMESTIC CHICKENS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY, WITH THE STANTEC REPORT DETAILING VARIOUS ZONING OPTIONS IN ADJACENT COMMUNITIES, AND WITH NO RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE TYPE OF ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AYES: 4 (Hennes, Magnuson, Petschel, Field) NAYS: 2 (Roston, Noonan) ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 2, 2017 meeting. November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 11 Verbal Review City Administrator Mark McNeill informed the Commission that staff has completed interviews for the Community Development Director and a tentative offer has been made to a candidate. Staff is now in the process of doing some background investigation and negotiations. It is hoped that this would be successful and it would be taken to the City Council on January 17, 2017 with that individual being able to start their duties in mid-February 2017. Planner Carlson noted that he sat in on those interviews and he has known this individual; he was their first choice. Chair Field also noted that he interviewed this person and believes the City would be very pleased with them. Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2016-40 Ideal Energies, LLC, 1450 Mendota Heights Road Conditional User Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2016-41 Jerry Trooien, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit • Tabled by the City Council o In light of work being done outside of obtaining a permit the applicant was asked to work with staff to address those issues; the applicant was asked to apply for an after- the-fact permit to address those issues; the applicant engaged a landscape architect to develop plans, however due to the onset of winter those detailed plans did not come together; the architect requested permission to do stop-gap measures to prevent erosion; plans are expected sometime this winter or early spring; the 120-day review deadline comes up in the middle of February, a decision will need to be made to either deny the permit on the table or to ask the applicant to waive that deadline PLANNING CASE #2016-42 Timothy McGough, 1787 Lexington Avenue Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning • Withdrawn at the request of the applicant Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:05 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1