Loading...
2017-01-24 Planning Comm MinutesJanuary 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES January 24, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 24, 2017 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, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda Chair Field proposed that Case 2016-43 to the third position and hear Cases 2017-01 and 2017- 02 first. The agenda was approved as amended. Commissioner Roston indicated that he would need to leave at 8:15 p.m., which was accepted by Chair Field. Approval of December 21, 2016 Minutes Chair Field noted that the minutes needed to be amended to reflect the correct meeting date of December 21, 2016. Commissioner Costello noted that the date needed to be corrected in the first paragraph as well. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 2016 AS CORRECTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Agenda Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP stated that he and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek has spoken with people who intended to in attendance for Case 2017-01 and had indicated to them that it would probably not occur until approximately 7:30 p.m. The Commission then made the decision to change the order of the agenda to hear Case No. 2017-02 first and Case No. 2017-01 second. All commissioners agreed. It was recommended that estimated times for agenda items not be given or shared in the future. January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2017-02 MARK GERENT, 697 WESLEY LANE LOT SPLIT Planner Carlson explained that this application was for a subdivision of an existing single-family lot located on the corner of Wesley Lane and Wesley Court, 697 Wesley Lane. The proposal is to split the lot into two new single-family lots, each of which would meet the minimum requirements set in the City Code. There is an existing home in the middle of the lot with a driveway coming up the west end of the lot into the rear. Sharing an image of the proposed survey, Planner Carlson stated that the intention is to remove the existing single family home. The narrow end of the lots would face on Wesley Lane with one using the existing driveway to access a new garage and home, the other accessing Wesley Court coming off the east side of the lot. The proposed location of the homes and driveways are preliminary and for discussion only. The application is for the subdivision of the two lots and not for the actual specific location of the homes and driveways. A key feature of this lot is that it is heavily wooded on the south side, facing Wesley Lane, bermed and rises creating a hidden lot. Staff worked with the applicant to ensure that the rise and berm and most of the existing trees would be preserved along the perimeter of the lot. Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions. Referencing Condition No. 6, Commissioner Hennes asked if drainage problems existed on the site. Planner Carlson replied that anecdotally he had heard that there were. The owner of the property to the west had called and stated, due to the driveway being right on the western property line, that when snow is plowed and when it rains in the summer that the lay of the land is such that there is drainage that would go into the rear yard of the adjacent property to the west. When the new lot is built upon it would be good so as to not aggravate those kinds of problems. Taking out that driveway would be one step, at least in the winter. The plan is for that driveway to come up short and stay in the front of the lot and not create a plowing problem with pushed snow right next to the lot line. This is a detail that would come in at the building permit stage and not at this point. Commissioner Magnuson, indicating that this question was not specific to this application but to a broader audience, noted that there is another lot split request this evening and that it appears to be a lot of this type of requests lately, wondered if the City Council has had any conversations or developed any guidance in terms of how they want the community to look going forward. The City seems to be going from a community that enjoys some pretty large lot sizes to one that seems to be subdividing up into smaller parcels. Planner Carlson answered that he is unaware of any specific conversations taking place. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that this new City Council that took office on January 1, 2017 has not had that discussion. January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3 Commissioner Noonan stated that it is the large lots that can be subdivided because they are in accordance with the R-1 standards; so they can be subdivided as of right. Administrator McNeill noted that this is a valid and appropriate question to ask the City Council in light of the upcoming update to the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Mark Gergen, 1900 Oak Street, came forward to address the Council and to answer questions. To address the issue of smaller lot splits, Mr. Gergen stated that he is affiliated with building homes all over the Twin Cities area and one of the attractions to Mendota Heights are the lot sizes. A lot 100-feet by 150-feet, in the metropolitan area, is a very generous lot. Mr. Kenneth Larson, 703 Wesley Lane, is the owner of the property directly to the west of the applicant’s property. He explained that he is very upset about this application. The property line is within inches to one foot of his driveway. He continued by trying to explain the threats to his life and other incidents of retaliation. This supposedly started when the real estate agent told the previous property owners that there would not be anything built on the lot he purchased. After making additional claims, he stated that he is against that property line being abutted within less than five feet from his driveway. He claimed that the moving of the driveway to the front would only make the snowplowing and drainage problems worse. He has already had to replace his sprinklers heads many times. When he got off the phone with Mr. Carlson his daughter, who had been shoveling snow, she pointed out to him intentional grooves that had come into their yard from the neighbors driveway, peeling the sod off. After 25 years he no longer has any patience for these types of shenanigans. Chair Field requested that Mr. Larson keep to the topic at hand, that being the application for the lot split. Mr. Larson stated that he is against this application and that he believes greed has a lot to do with it. He also mentioned that approximately 50% of the trees on the south side of the lot are buckthorn and are a mess. Mr. Patrick Smith, 695 Wesley Court, stated that he is not in favor of the lot split. One of the reasons he purchased his home two or three years ago was because they could not see a home right next to them. Now one of the newly proposed homes will be right in view. The second thing is that there is a drainage issue. The lot where the house sits, the house sits on the top of the berm. The home that would be built towards Wesley Court is actually going to sit in a trough, a low point between the road and the top of the berm. There is already standing water that flows downward toward his fence area. His landscape people have told him that there is nothing that can be done about it. The water is supposed to shed over towards Mager Court, which it does not do. His fear is that if this home is sitting in that cross area, that any type of build up to alleviate that is going to push more water towards his property. His third concern, according to scuttlebutt in the community, is that the lot lines are not accurate. He requested that there be a review done to make sure that whatever the original plot was that the lot lines are accurate. January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4 He also noted that it appears that there will only be 24 feet in between the proposed houses. He asked if that is really what anyone wants in the community. There are also approximately 13 trees that sit in the yard and half of those have been deemed to come down; that does not include the row that is on Wesley Lane. It includes the trees that are actually in the yard. Those trees are the ones that he sees out of his window and enjoys. When he purchased his home there was an architectural committee that was part of the covenants of the area. He asked how that is being addressed. Chair Field reiterated that the Commission is only dealing with the lot split and not with any issues that anyone has with the association. Mr. Dave Dresbach, who lies in Block 1, Lot 8 of Rolling Woods Addition at 710 Mager Court, came forward stated that he has lived at his property since 1989. He purchased his property, as have other since, when there was an association governing homes in the subdivision. Such things as home size, fences, and specific uses were subject to approval by association members. This association was abandoned after the last lot was built upon. Many have expected, and have seen, a general adherence to the association expectations. One of the items in the covenant was that no lot would have more than one single-family dwelling. This application seems to violate the spirit of that. At this point, Chair Field stopped Mr. Dresbach and stated that the Commission is only dealing with a lot split, not with issues that were in any covenants and the frustrations arising out of those covenants not being followed today. Mr. Dresbach, referencing the driveway issues raised by Mr. Larson, stated that the variance that was issued to allow the installation of the driveway within a few inches of his property line should be brought back into code. He also recommended the removal of the buckthorn on the property. Ms. Mary Dresbach, the wife of the previous speaker, stated that the lot split is a decision that can be made because there are not more covenants affective in the neighborhood. This is a matter of what the neighborhood should look like. Developers do not care as they are look ing to split a lot to build two homes; the neighbors who have been there for a long time are going to deal with the consequences. She understands that legally all kinds of things can be done. She urged the Commission to take into consideration the people that live in the area. Mr. Steve Santos, 673 Wesley Lane, stated that he firmly agrees that the lot split can be a very negative impact on the neighborhood and property values. He comes from the investment community and sees many characteristics of the last real estate bubble seen. If homes start being stuffed into what appears to be undersized lots, it can jeopardize the overall value of all of the properties throughout the City, including his own. He voiced his objection to this lot split request. He echoed the concerns made by Mr. Larson and the issues with his driveway. The January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5 proposed split of the lot and the proposed positioning of the homes do not compliment this neighborhood. Mr. Mark Gergen, 1900 Oak Street, returned to respond on the comments made. To address the driveway issue, he noted that he would prefer to move it over. In most cities there is a three-foot minimum allowed between a driveway and the lot line. The challenge here is that the driveway was there before the neighbor’s home was built; in redoing this he would adhere to a five-foot minimum and possibly a little additional. However, the further away from the lot line it is moved the more they would be cutting into the berm and the more trees would need to be removed. To deal with most of the other issues that were brought up, he stated that he would be happy to have a neighborhood meeting and talk about them. He suggested that the neighbors look at what he built at 1900 Oak Street and 1930 Oak Street [a previous lot split] to be assured th at this is not something that would be detrimental to the values of the properties. As far as architectural review and those kinds of things, he believes their standards are above what would have been seen in the covenant or restrictions. Commissioner Hennes asked for clarification on where the existing driveway is and where the proposed new driveway would be located. Mr. Gergen pointed out the locations on the survey but reiterated that he would be willing to move the new driveway and have a five-foot buffer between the driveway and the lot line. Based on a question asked by Commissioner Magnuson on whether or not the applicant would be required to adhere to the city code regarding the setback requirements for the driveway, Planner Carlson stated that his interpretation of this is that there is an existing condition and there is a driveway in place as a legal non-conforming situation. However, he believes it would be reasonable to assume they could keep the portion that is there, remove what is not needed, and it would be considered acceptable as a grandfathered in existing condition. Moving it would certainly clean up this situation, provide the required setback, give the relief to the neighboring property owner, but it would require pushing into the berm and removal of the tree. The Planning Commission would be well within their rights to a judgment call on that. Commissioner Roston commented that the Commission is only dealing with a lot split right now; the driveway and everything else will be addressed in the site plan, construction plans, and staff would deal with that later. He then asked if the driveway decision needs to be made right now. Planner Carlson replied that as part of the subdivision process some of these site alteration features could be addressed within the conditions. Commissioner Roston noted that, as he looks at the survey, these are two conforming lots. No lot size variances are being requested by anyone. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation on the setback requirement for the driveway if the existing non-conforming condition was not in existence. Planner Carlson replied that it would be five feet. January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6 Commissioner Magnus asked if Condition No. 6 could be changed. Instead of reading ‘not to aggravate’, could it be changed to reduce, mitigate, or alleviate. This would be the perfect opportunity to solve any existing drainage problems. Mr. Gergen replied that he would be happy to address this at the neighborhood meeting and to listen to their concerns, and bring it back at that time. Planner Carlson stated that it would be appropriate to try to make sure that the Commission is not making the problem worse with this lot split and whatever happens on the new lots. However, he would not wish for this applicant, the Planning Commission, or staff to promise the neighbors that they would be solving any drainage problems within this application, which is why he worded Condition No. 6 the way he did. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-02, LOT SPLIT, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is requested. 2. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots on Wesley Lane. 3. The specific plans proposed have placed the proposed future homes and driveways such that there is minimal removal of existing trees, thus preserving as much as practical the existing character of the neighborhood. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2. Such grading plans and building plans that will allow for the preservat ion of the trees on both Parcel A and Parcel B as shown on the survey drawing date 1-13-2017 from Bohlen Surveying and which will serve to alleviate any drainage problems onto neighboring properties. Any other land disturbance must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. 3. Front setbacks to Wesley Lane for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be 40 feet and 45 feet, respectively, more or less as shown on the Bohlen survey drawing, in order to preserve the existing trees indicated. 4. The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, as part of any building permit application. January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7 5. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. 6. On Parcel A, the rear portion of the existing driveway will be removed, and graded so as not to aggravate drainage problems, and the ground restored with suitable ground cover, as approved by the City Engineer before a certificate of occupancy is issued. 7. Park dedication fees in lieu of land per current City policy will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 8. The existing home is to be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 9. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. AND WITH THE ADDITION THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 10. On Parcel A, when the building permit is applied for it will adhere to the setback requirements for the placement of the driveway Commissioner Magnuson, for the record, commented that she would vote in favor of this because this lot split meets the requirements as they exist in the code and there is no reason not to vote for it under those circumstances. She was glad to hear that the whole issue of this subdivision process may be something that can be studied more in depth as the Comprehensive Plan is looked up and updated going forward. Chair Field stated that he understands where Commissioner Magnuson is coming from; however, he was unsure if in the Comprehensive Plan Amendments there would be any changes to the subdivision process. The only thing that can be changed is the land use. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 7, 2017 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2017-01 DBG, LLC, 1919 HUNTER LANE LOT SPLIT & CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Planner Carlson explained that this application was for a lot split and critical area permit on a property located on Hunter Lane and Culligan Lane. There is an existing home in the middle of the lot and the lot is large enough to accommodate a lot split. This split would create two lots both of which would face Hunter Lane. The lots each would meet the minimum size required by City Code. The additional issue with this application is that it is within the critical area and so some increased scrutiny is required. The critical area is a unique feature, a unique natural resource, and any development in or near it should be considered carefully. Planner Carlson shared an aerial view of the property in relation to the Mississippi River and the critical area bluff. The corner of January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8 this property is 400+ feet from the beginning of the bluff. There are standards in the code that want a setback 40 to 50 feet from the bluff for any kind of disturbance to ensure that the character of the bluff and the visibility from the Mississippi River is not compromised. In this case, this property is sufficiently far away that there would be very little impact on the critical area. The applicant has submitted plans that show some trees being removed from the property and has been asked, as part of the review process, if some of those trees could be preserved. When looking at the preliminary grading plan, it appears that the grading would take out two trees that front on Hunter Lane. These trees appear to be large mature trees and it would seem that some small adjustment in the grading plan could preserve the ground near them and allow them to remain. The applicant has submitted plans, survey, preliminary grading plan, and proposed building areas that meet the standards in the City Code. Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions. Planner Carlson mentioned two specifics, 1) if there is a way to adjust the plan to accommodate the preservation of the two trees; and 2) there is a City project for the street reconstruction that would affect these properties and that is noted one of the five conditions. Commissioner Noonan was struck by the similarities of this application with the previous one heard and took the opportunity to compare the conditions. In this particular case he noticed that there is no requirement for parkland dedication or payment in lieu of parkland and asked if that was an oversight. Planner Carlson replied that this lot was originally two lots that were facing the other way and so the parkland dedication has already been paid. Commissioner Roston asked for confirmation that two lots already exist on the property; the only thing the Commission is doing is rotating the lot lines. Planner Carlson confirmed that this is the case. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Fritz with DBG, LLC came forward to address the Commission and answer questions. He noted that the purpose of rotating the lot lines is to help minimize any grading issues. Commissioner Magnuson asked what the ‘little pebbly things’ were on the photograph provided by staff. Mr. Fritz replied that would be the location of the new proposed driveways. Mr. Fritz also commented that in his opinion the two trees in question are not in good condition and with the demolition of the current house they would be impacted and not would survive. Commissioner Magnuson asked about the remaining three trees. Mr. Fritz replied that those could definitely stay. Chair Field asked if the Libertini family currently owned this property. Mr. Fritz repli ed in the affirmative. Chair Field noted for the record that he works with Mr. Libertini and; therefore, may January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9 have a conflict of interest. He did not recognize the address as being that of Mr. Libertini but if anyone feels that there may be a conflict of interest he would be happy to recuse himself from voting on this application. Mr. Scott Miller, 1021 Wagon Wheel Trail, came forward on behalf of the Libertini family. He too asked for confirmation that this is merely a movement of the lot lines, not an actual lot split. Planner Carlson confirmed. Mr. Miller continued by stating that he understands the Abrams sent in a couple of questions, one of which he believed was addressed in the presentation; that being the drainage. He continued by referencing the Mendota Heights City Code 12-1D-4, D2 that reads “Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures”. He stated that when they did the calculation for the setback they did only the adjoining neighbor; however, the code reads ‘structures’ – plural. Most of the communities he has worked in take the average of the entire street. The concern is that they could legally go about 38 feet from staff’s calculations. The first neighbor is approximately 46 feet and, he believed, the adjoining neighbors are even further back. He would like to see if the developer could accommodate on parcel two, where it borders Culligan Lane, if that could be setback to meet the adjoining neighbors – if they would be willing to do that. His next question was regarding the teardown of the home and wished to ensure that City Code 12-1E-1, A5A that reads “Tear down and construction of new single-family dwellings and additions, modifications, and alterations to existing dwellings shall not raise the first floor elevation more than one foot (1') above the existing condition” would be adhered to. Planner Carlson replied that this would be his interpretation of this portion of the code and that it would be required. He would also like to have the location of the trees addressed to prevent sight-line issues as people are driving down Hunter Lane and turning onto Culligan Lane. Mr. Wes Cutter, 1169 Veronica Lane, asked about the trees along the north property line and if they were going to be impacted by the construction of the homes. Chair Field reiterated that the Commission was merely looking at a lot split, not on the removal of trees. Mr. Cutter asked how he could find out if those trees were to be impacted. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek came forward and pointed out that the trees in question were actually on the pro perty to the north and not on the subject parcel. Mr. Cutter stated that he understands that this lot split is perfectly legal but he would hate to see a large lot like this go away. Ms. Becky Doherty, who lives down the hill from the subject parcel, als o agreed that this is a perfectly legal lot split but voiced her opposition. She also noted that even after having the street rebuilt they still have a problem with drainage runoff. She hoped that when they built the new January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10 house they would take that into consideration. She also had a concern about safety issues with the driveway entrances being on Hunter Lane. Mr. Mike Fritz with DBG, LLC returned and stated that one of the reasons for removing the trees on the corner is for safety. However, they are not opposed to planting new trees along Culligan Lane as replacements. He believes that opening up the corner is a good idea. He also noted, based on the documents provided to staff, they meet the setback requirements on both streets as they are applying front yard setbacks to both the Hunter Lane and Culligan Lane sides of the lots. Planner Carlson noted that when a building permit comes they would apply the setback rules in the code and make sure that it is cited properly; likewise with the first floor elevation. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-01, LOT SPLIT & CRITICAL AREA PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is requested. 2. The two lots resulting from the lot split are comparable in size and frontage to other lots in the area. 3. The plans and approvals required in the building permit process will serve to ensure adherence to the spirit and intent of the Critical Area code. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2. The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, as part of any building permit application, such additional landscaping to be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. This will include revisions to the submitted grading and landscape plans to allow the 20” pine and 22” pine trees on the Hunter Lane frontage to remain if at all possible. 3. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. 4. The existing home is to be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 11 5. Connection charges for City Project # 200902 shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 7, 2017 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE #2016-43 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DOMESTIC CHICKENS – DRAFT ORDINANCE Chair Field noted that in December 2016 the Planning Commission had a discussion of possible things to do with chickens and forwarded their comments to the City Council, who in turn returned it back to them and asked them to draft a proposed ordinance for the City Council’s consideration. The objective this evening was to look at drafting an ordinance for the City Council’s consideration. Planner Carlson highlighted some of the issues in the draft ordinance that staff has created for consideration by the Planning Commission. Staff took into consideration many comments from discussions had at the Planning Commission and the City Council. There are also a number of very interested residents in this issue. This draft ordinance does amend both the Animal Control section of the City Code and the Zoning Code. It was organized to allow the keeping of domestic chickens as a permitted accessory use. It was suggested that there be an annual permit with a fee but no fee amount of specified. There were no screening of chicken coops and runs proposed in the ordinance; however, it is an important issue and can be added as appropriate. The area or size was taken from other cities; two square feet for the coop and five square feet for the run. Staff suggested in this ordinance that the composting of waste could be allowed if handled properly. Staff also suggested a six-foot height to the coop but has received comments back from residents that this is unreasonable and much too low. Staff suggested ten-foot side setbacks and thirty-foot rear setback. Other accessory uses are allowed simply a five-foot setback on side and rear. Staff did not include a requirement for neighbors to sign off. Planner Carlson felt strongly, as a planner who engages in land use law discussions, that staff should not require the code to need sign off by neighbors; it should stand on its own. Planner Carlson then went through the points of the ordinance with the Planning Commission:  Section 5-3 of the code be titled ‘Domestic Animals’  Section 5-3-1 to include the definition of what a chicken is and refers to its’ Latin name of Gallus and species of Gallus domesticus January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 12  Addition of Section 5-3-10A with clarification of up to four female chickens, kept in an accessory structure, and refers back to the Zoning Code that would then have the bulk of the regulations and 5-3-10B which is the Animal Warden authority  Since a new section was added then the following sections would be renumbered to follow suit Chair Field asked if there was a definition of ‘Animal Warden’ elsewhere in the code. Planner Carlson replied that the City Council appoints an Animal Warden and that is in the Police Department, who then contract out for that service. A clear definition of that is outlined in that appointment.  Section 12-1B-2 – domestic chickens was added to ANIMALS, DOMESTIC with definitions of Domestic Chickens, Chicken Coop, Chicken Run, and Rooster included  Section 12-1D-3C Accessory Structures was amended to include Chicken Coops and Runs with specific requirements o Dimensions o Height o Construction requirements (included requirement of screening of the coop and run; however, Planner Carlson left that up to the Commission to determine if it should remain in or not) In regards to the maximum height requirement of six feet, Planner Carlson shared some comparisons between a garage [maximum height is the average between the roof peak and the eave gutter line] and accessory structures [allowed to be 15 feet high]. One could build a shed that is meets that definition without any questions asked. Staff’s initial recommendation was that coops have a maximum six-foot height level. However, one of the objections is that this is way to short to allow the entering of the coop and still have some breathing room. This is open for discussion and possible change. Another issue is the setbacks. He then shared a graphic showing a sample lot that is typical of the minimum lot size with the minimum setbacks indicated. o Regulations o Permit process  Section 12-1D-3C.2 amended by renumbering and amending sub-paragraph 2 regarding the number of accessory structures on a property  Section 12-1E-3C amended to add the conditional use of keeping chickens for noncommercial purposes Planner Carlson noted that several emails had been received on this subject and copies had been provided to the Commissioners. Chair Field noted that these emails would be incorporated into the public record. Commissioner Roston noted that he had submitted an email as part of the public record; however, unfortunately he needs to leave for a prior commitment. In his email he stated that he would recommend the 30-foot setback and the screening be required. He is opposed to the January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 13 composting, as, in his experience, most people do not do it correctly. He would also recommend that this be a conditional use permit rather than a permitted use. He has already voice his opposition to the keeping of chickens but has lost that battle already. Commissioner Hennes asked the reasoning for the 30-foot setback. Planner Carlson replied that they simply suggested that the chicken coop would meet the same setback requirements as a structure. Commissioner Magnuson asked how Planner Carlson wanted them to proceed, should they comment on the draft itself now or have the public hearing first. It was suggested that the public hearing take place first. Councilmember Petschel asked if fencing in the run would be exempt from the opacity requirements for fencing in general. Planner Carlson replied that he does not know what those opacity requirements are. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he believes the ordinance instructs for a 30% clear fence in the residential district. However, this is a good question. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Patrick Watson, 1327 Delaware Avenue, stated that he is in support of this ordinance. In regards to the setback requirement he noted that some of the lots in older neighborhoods, especially north of Dodd Road and south of Highway 110, are not the typical lot size of 100 x 150; some are 75 x 100. He shared images of two such properties, owned by supports of this ordinance, with indications of where the coops would be legally situated; one would end up being in the location currently occupied by the deck and the patio and on the other property, a large tree occupies the only acceptable spot. He also noted that his neighbor, who is also in support of this ordinance, has a lot of trees and no place to put a coop inside of the setback requirements as proposed. They have an existing accessory structure that they would love to incorporate into a coop structure. Unfortunately it goes above the six-foot average height requirement. He believes that if the Commission keeps the setback requirements as proposed they will see a lot of variance requests for coop placement. He also pointed out that dog kennels are allowed in the five-foot accessory structure area. In regards to the height requirement, his neighbor wanted to convert part of his garden shed into a chicken coop. However, his garden shed is nine feet tall. Commissioner Hennes asked Mr. Watson, given all of the research he has done, what he would recommend. Mr. Watson stated that an accessory structure is an accessory structure; there is already a screening requirement in the proposed ordinance for a chicken coop, which makes a great concession to people who don’t necessary look at what their neighbors doing on their property. He would be OK with the screening requirement if the Commission could get away from the 30-foot setback requirement. As for the height, he would not change the accessory January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 14 structure height just for a chicken coop. In his opinion no one would build a 15 -foot tall chicken coop. However, if they did there is a screening requirement. Mr. Alex Theobald, 1045 Delaware Avenue, noted that the City Council agreed to allow four chickens per lot in the City, that the structure be constructed so that it is easily cleaned, and the chickens are enclosed and protected. He continued by explaining that a six-foot maximum height would not make for an easily cleaned structure. Also, standard door heights are six feet eight inches. If the structure were allowed to accommodate a standard door it would make construction a lot easier. In relation to the setback requirement, Mr. Theobald recommended they keep the accessory structure setback of five feet. These buildings are going to look quite similar to any other accessory structure that is already in existence. Mr. Theobald then asked questions regarding the screening and what the actual requirements would be for that. Planner Carlson, referencing City Code 12-1I-9 that reads “Any use in the I district abutting on the R district that shall have open storage shall be effectively screened from the eye level vision by providing and maintaining a wall, fence or planting strip to screen and reduce the noise, dust and vision between the two (2) uses. Such wall or fence shall be six feet (6') in height and at least ninety percent (90%) opaque during all seasons”, noted that the reference stayed in the draft ordinance but the actual standard did not. He invited the Planning Commission to decide what, if anything, they would like to do about screening. Mr. Theobald stated that there is another screening option in the code; Section 12-1E-1C that reads “Screening Of Certain Materials: All waste material, debris, refuse, garbage, fuel including woodpiles of two (2) cords or larger (a cord is 4 feet x 4 feet x 8 feet), or materials not currently in use for construction shall be stored indoors or totally screened from the eye level view from public streets and adjacent properties”. Mr. Theobald asked if the email he had sent was now a part of the public record. The answer was in the affirmative. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Magnuson asked how height is measured. Planner Carlson replied that it is the average from the eaves to the peak. If it is a flat roof, then it is just the height. However, the six - foot height was a number that was pulled out of the air and it would be appropriate for the Commission discuss and decide what might be appropriate. January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 15 Commissioner Magnuson also asked about the floor of the chicken coop; the draft states that the minimum is two square feet per chicken and then it goes on to say that the floor area of the run must be five square feet. She asked if that should read ‘a minimum of five square feet ’. Planner Carlson replied that ‘minimum’ would be appropriate. She then noted that at one point the ordinance states that the construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and run must adequate to prevent access by rodents. She wondered about other animals, such as raccoons, etc. Planner Carlson replied that he would check on whether or not the word vermin would include other animals and agreed that the terminology should be broadened. Commissioner Magnuson asked a question brought up by a resident and that was what happens if someone has a chicken coop and they cease to have chickens; should there be some kind of requirement that if a chicken coop has been abandoned that it should be removed within a certain period of time – or is there a requirement in the code already regarding the removal of a structure that is in disrepair. The reply was that there is a requirement under property standards. In regards to the setback, she asked why the setback from the side yard is only ten feet but the setback from the rear yard is 30 feet. She would be more comfortable with a straight-up ten-foot side yard and ten-foot rear yard setback. She likes ten feet rather than five feet simply because she does not like five feet setbacks anyway. Commissioner Petschel asked if the City requires screening for dog kennels. Planner Carlson did not believe so. Commissioner Petschel stated that if the City does not require it for dog kennels then they probably should not require it for chicken coops. In regards to the setbacks, in practice he believes this would sort itself out. Residents would naturally work with the length of their property rather than the width. It behooves everyone to have a good relationship and work with their neighbors and maybe this does not need to be spelled out in the code. Chair Field agreed with Commissioner Petschel comment on working with neighbors; unfortunately chickens are new to the City and that, to him, is a concern. Some cities started with chicken ordinances on a more regulated basis and then, as things evolved, made changes. Part of him agrees with Commissioner Roston in that a conditional use or at least a permit being subject to the consent of the neighbors as being a viable way to bring chickens into the City and see how they work while still maintaining control. He looks at the enforcement practices of the Animal Warden and they are fairly limited. Once a permit is issued the warden can only intervene if there is a threat to the health and safety of the people or animals. It sounds as if I am a neighbor and there is a real problem but it is not a threat to me it does not appear that the warden can do much of anything. While he does not anticipate any big issues he would like to build a safeguard in there. Planner Carlson noted that this ordinance does amend two parts of the code, the animal control and the zoning. Under the Animal Warden, it does give that position the authority to go in if there is a problem. But the bulk of this ordinance is under the zoning code so it wou ld be just January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 16 normal zoning violations and enforcement. There could be an issue with the coop, that it is not quite clean enough or any of those laundry list of conditions that might not get to the point where the Animal Warden would need to go out and address a dangerous situation but still would not meet the standards in the zoning code – the zoning enforcement officer could go out and address it. He also felt quite strongly that the code should not depend on the neighbors approving. The City ordinances are set by the City Council and equal protections is applied to everyone and not relies on the goodwill between neighbors. In regards to conditional use versus permitted accessory use, Planner Carlson stated that to him this is a question or process and money. It was suggested that there might be a $25 fee to put up a chicken coop; however, a conditional use involves several hundred dollars and a 40-60 day process. If comparing this to dog kennels, someone would not be required to go through a several hundred dollars process to put in a dog kennel. Chair Field asked if the permit process was chosen, then in what situation could the permit be revoked. Planner Carlson replied that this would be a zoning enforcement issue. If someone is not meeting the standards that are in the code the permit could be revoked. That has not been developed in the language so far but it certainly could be. Commissioner Noonan stated that he echoed many of the comments made by Commissioner Roston; however, he also echoed the comments made by Commissioner Magnuson and Commissioner Petschel. He thought the comment about a 30-foot setback does indeed push the coop potentially closer to the rear face of an adjoining house. By the same token he also liked the idea of pushing a little further off of the side yard to get it further away from the lot line. He would support the notion of a reworked rear yard setback but would also support the maintenance of the side yard. In addition, he would echo Commissioner Roston’s comment with respect to the permission to compost waste. He is quite right in that unless the City is very prescriptive as to how it’s done, it most likely would be done inappropriately. He proposed that the waste disposal provisions be fairly narrowly defined and not permit the composting. Commissioner Petschel asked about fencing – should this be treated like fencing on the perimeter of a yard, which has requirements for visibility, or should it be exempted. Planner Carlson replied that the chicken coop and the run, which would be fenced, could be set back at least five feet or ten feet or more and would not be a perimeter fence. Commissioner Petschel noted that he was inquiring about the requirements of the fencing around the coop and run, not that he agreed it would be the same as a perimeter fence. It was noted that they could quite literally use chicken wire. Chair Field proposed that staff take the comments and discussions from the Commission and create a revised ordinance, making sure the clean up the wording and language that happens when merging two different documents together, and return to the Commission with it. Discussions continued regarding the height of the chicken coop. It was determined that research should be done to determine the standard height of chicken coops in other communities. January 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 17 The Commissioner then went through the proposed ordinance section-by-section and provided direction to staff of their recommended edits:  Section 5-3-10: Add some enforcement capacity to the warden to be the same or similar to the zoning enforcement officer  Section 12-1B-2: no changes were proposed  Section 12-1D-3C o The run – the run should a ‘minimum’ of five square feet per chicken o The height should be the typical standard rise and run if the eave height is seven feet o The lot setbacks should be 10 feet from the side yard lot line and 10 feet from the rear yard lot line o Construction of and materials used must be adequate to prevent access by rodents [substitute a different term to encompass other animals and rodents] o Remove the reference to screening o Under Fecal Waste or Litter: remove “or composted provided the method used and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue” o Add language that any accessory structure erected after the issuance of this bylaw shall not be used for the purposes of a chicken coops o Add language allowing for the revocation of the permit COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSION HENNES, THAT STAFF TAKE THE COMMENTS AND REVISIONS SUGGESTED BY THE COMMISSION AND REWORK THE ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR FEBRUARY 22, 2017 MEETING Verbal Review Planner Carlson noted that there were no applications considered at the last Planning Commission meeting and; therefore, there are no verbal updates to provide. Staff and Commission Announcements City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that City Development Director Tim Benetti would join city staff on February 21, 2017. Chair Field expressed his appreciation to Planner Carlson for working with the City while this role was being filled. Adjournment COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:09 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (ROSTON)