Loading...
2017-02-28 Planning Comm MinutesFebruary 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 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, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Mary Magnuson. The following city staff were present: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Phil Carlson, Consultant Planner (Stantec); and Tim Benetti, Community Development Director. Approval of Agenda Chair Field proposed that the agenda be revised by moving Public Hearing Case No. 2017-03 from being heard third to being heard first. The agenda was approved as amended. Approval of January 24, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Administrative Items This was not listed on the agenda; however, every February the Commission welcomes new members. Chair Field was pleased to note that the commission this year is made up of the same members as last year. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO NOMINATE LITTON FIELD, JR. AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2017. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO NOMINATE DOUG HENNES AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2017. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2 Hearings C) PLANNING CASE #2017-03 HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH, 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that Holy Family Maronite Church at 1960 Lexington Avenue wishes to make two small additions to their existing church facility. The commission is being asked to consider the impact on the neighborhood that this conditional use, as opposed to a permitted use, might have on the neighborhood. The existing church occupies the western part of the lot, which is a relatively large lot considering it is a single-family neighborhood. The parking lot occupies most of the lot. Mr. Carlson shared an image of the site plan with the proposed additions. The two proposed additions would be relatively small and one story. There would be no change to the sanctuary or the main assembly space. Therefore, there would be no change to the required parking spaces. Looking at the existing church and what is being proposed, Mr. Carlson stated that the additions are relatively minor and small. It is of the opinion that they would not have a significant impact on the site or on the surroundings. Staff recommended approval of this application. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Craig Rafferty of RRTL Architects located at 253 E. 7th Street, St. Paul came forward to address any questions from the Commission. He noted that the church is, and wants to continue to be, a very good neighbor. They have enjoyed their relationship with all of their neighbors in the area. The summary provided by Mr. Carlson was spot-on in the sense that this is a relatively innocent addition but it means an awful lot to the church. This would provide them the opportunity to expand their counseling areas, their dining area, and coordinate their administrative space. Mr. Bob Klepperich, 1092 Vale Drive, is the closest neighbor to the church, his property being directly north of the church. He stated that the church has been a great neighbor; has been fortunate to meet members of their congregation; and has had frequent visits with Father Emmanuel, the pastor and on occasion, participated in the church’s liturgy. He has no problem endorsing the project, which has become before the commission. Father Emmanuel reviewed the project with him and he sees a definite need for this type of expansion. For the record, he has only one concern, which he does not believe will be a problem. There is a definite water table problem in the area. The plan does not call for any basement work or excavation work, as the Father has explained it to him, so he does not feel that this would be a problem. He is hopeful that this project would not negatively affect the water table. Mr. Rafferty returned and noted that they were aware of, through the discussions with the planning office, and modest provisions have been made within the reach of this project to adapt the drainage February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3 swell and to create a more absorbent series of surfaces as it contributes to a nearby catch basin. Otherwise, the ponding areas within the parking area are all being directed to a more distant area from the neighbor’s property within the limits of the project. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The use is existing and has been a good neighbor in this location in this zoning district for many years. 2. The existing church use is on a busy corner and not in the middle of a quiet residential area. 3. The proposed additions are modest is size and will have minimal impact on activity, traffic, noise, or other issues that might affect the neighborhood. 4. The proposed project will meet all zoning code standards for setbacks, building height and number of parking stalls. 5. The proposed grading and drainage plan poses no concerns to the City Engineer. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant will submit grading plans, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2. The applicant will submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, as part of any building permit application. 3. All new exterior lighting will be downcast cutoff type fixtures to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 7, 2017 meeting. A) PLANNING CASE #2016-41 JERRY TROOIEN, 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY AFTER-THE-FACT CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that the application was for a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit. The critical area is that portion of the City that is on or near the bluff of the Mississippi River Valley. The property at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway is a February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4 fairly large rectangular single-family residential parcel of approximately five acres. The property, as noted in the packet and as some of the commissioners may remember, received an approval for a lot split in 2014; so there is a second single-family lot that will be permitted to be built upon, which will show up on the plans later. Any significant development or disturbance of the critical area requires a critical area permit. Mr. Trooien originally proposed last fall to clear buckthorn and some other trees that were diseased and dying on the property. When staff went to look at that piece of property, they discovered that there had been some work done on the property in the previous year. Mr. Carlson then shared an image of the property with the proposed building site, the area in this request to be cleared, and the area graded without a permit highlighted. In that fall, that application was continued until a more sophisticated and complete plan could be prepared. Mr. Trooien retained the services of a landscape architect, Mr. Stephen Mastey, ASLA, LEED AP of Landscape Architecture, Inc., who was present at this meeting, and who worked with the applicant and city staff to develop that plan. Because this was unfolding last fall, Mr. Mastey approached city staff and requested permission to at least secure the site for the winter so that the spring thaw would not contribute to erosion down the hill. He was given that permission and the erosion control measures were installed. Therefore, the site was secured over the winter. As part of this application, Mr. Trooien is asking for to do some work in grading, tree removal, and reseeding and replanting of the property, mostly in the area of this new home lot. Most of the Commissioners and city staff went out last Saturday morning (February 25th) and walked the site with Mr. Trooien and Mr. Mastey so they could explain the kind of work that is being proposed and the nature of the area. The critical area has a special code on it because it is a unique environment with a unique feature that needs to be preserved, protected, and enhanced. Mr. Mastey’s analysis revealed that there is a lot of scrub material, buckthorn, invasive species of trees, and dead and dying trees located on the property. Therefore, some kind of work on the property is appropriate and reasonable. Mr. Carlson shared an image of the previously disturbed area and explained that it is to be re- graded with the native seed mix so that when it comes up it would be native and appropriate for this area, as well as adding in native species of trees. In tandem with this plan they are looking forward to when this second lot could be built on. Again, it is an approved lot split, a home will go there; however, disturbance in the critical area requires review and city approval. Mr. Carlson then explained the intended location of the driveway and building pad and, in the process of that, create a depression that would be a drainage area, filtration pond, which would overflow into another depression and infiltration area inside the driveway turnaround, that would in turn flow to a lower part of the site. It is a plan that would enhance and protect the drainage on the site and at the same time create this new home site. Also included in this plan is a proposal to move the proposed building pad for a new house well away from the neighboring property to the east. In the original approval, in 2014 for the lot split, this building pad was approved within 20 feet of the lot line. It is now being placed about 60 feet February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5 away from that lot line. This is a significant improvement to the overall site planning and relationships to the area and will improve the drainage on the site. A key component of this is to try to preserve the character of the area and the river valley. Right now, most of that area is comprised of invasive species and so the plan is to remove buckthorn and to selectively remove some of the dead and dying elm and other trees that are non-native to the area and replacing them with native trees. Staff recommended approval of this application. To that tend, Mr. Carlson read the first condition of approval as, “Removal of trees and underbrush will be performed by a qualified professional. Removal of vegetation is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on drawings and photos accompanying the application.” He then continued by stating that there would be new drawings prepared because there is recommendation for an added area to be able to remove buckthorn. Therefore, Mr. Carlson would be adding a phrase here that would be ‘drawings prepared by whom and on specific dates’ so everyone knows exactly what drawings are being referred to. It is the intent of all involved to have these preparers and dates included by the time this application would reach the City Council, if approval were recommended by the commission. As further definition, Mr. Carlson explained that the applicant was proposing is that they be allowed to remove buckthorn on the entire property, not just on the confined area around the new building pad; and remove invasive non-native trees that are smaller than 3” in diameter. The larger trees would not be removed, except for those that are in the building pad area. The next five conditions would remain the same; however, based on this additional work, staff would add two new conditions seven and eight: 6. A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 8. All plant materials to be warranted for a minimum of three years from the date of installation. Chair Field noted that this is a public hearing that was held open from a prior meeting and is a continuation. He also noted that under the extension that was authorized by the applicant, the City has until June to act on this request. Commissioner Roston asked for clarification that the lot split has already been approved and completed. Mr. Carlson replied that this is correct. The only item under consideration is the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Petschel requested Mr. Carlson to review the constraints with respect to the removal of vegetation. Mr. Carlson replied that the Landscape Plan is only in the previously disturbed area. The removal of trees would be in the other area that was originally defined; to remove buckthorn and the large trees because the grading and such for the new home pad would remove those and many those, as noted, are invasive species. February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6 They are now asking to try to take a larger view of the whole property and remove buckthorn on the entire property and if there are invasive trees that are no larger than 3” in diameter, to remove those too. Invasive trees larger than 3” in diameter would remain so there would be no removal of the high canopy. Commissioner Noonan noted that in the added phrase to Condition #1, those plans that are being prepared would define what is being removed. He then asked if it would also define what is being replaced. Mr. Carlson replied that what is being replaced are already outlined in the plans. The plans will also define the extent of the removal. The plans would be agreed upon between the City Engineer, the City Planner, and the applicant. The plans also would not come before the City Council until approved by all. Chair Field noted for the record that staff did properly advertise a site visit last Saturday (February 25, 2017) and all but one commissioner was present. It was merely a fact-finding visit to the property since it is somewhat restricted access so they could get a complete appreciation of the site. Mr. Stephen Mastey, ASLA, LEED AP of Landscape Architecture, Inc. came forward and reiterated that the summary provided by Mr. Carlson clearly stated the intent. The additional fact- finding exercise was held so the commission could actually get to the site, see what is there, and understand the highly degraded woodland that is there. The intent of trying to flip that over and work toward something 50 to 100 years from now more closely resembles a pre-European settlement with native forest, whether that is thick woods or oak savannahs. He provided a couple of clarifications by sharing an image and pointing out on that image the grading limits. There are three parts to this request; re-vegetation, request to remove and re-grade to start to set the stage, and to look at the entire property that is overrun with buckthorn. They are not only requesting permission to address the invasive that are in the area that has been disturbed and where the new house pad is proposed to be, but to work out from that point and remove any buckthorn and other invasive that are less than 3” in diameter. They desire is to create more healthy woodland. Chair Field asked for Mr. Mastey’s professional opinion on whether or not Mr. Trooien would need to make special precautions during the removal of the buckthorn and other invasive species so as to not degradate the slope and create some potential erosion problems. Mr. Mastey replied that they would be taking a two-phase approach; cut the trees down at grade leaving the entire root system intact and using Minnesota Department of Agriculture approved chemicals that would kill the buckthorn. They do not wish to disturb the soil at all. Then as these plants start to die back, the vegetation that is still there would take up the extra air and sunlight and fill in. Hopefully, they will start to see some of those species, even some of those things as simple as Ash trees start to reseed now that there is some light. This is a cautious approach by not disturbing the understory and leaving the root system in place. Commissioner Petschel noted that the final grading as demonstrated in the staff report does not seem to be reflected in the landscape plan. Mr. Mastey replied that there were three ways they February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7 could entertain what they are requesting. Firstly, look at what needs to be done to restore the area that has been disturbed. He wanted to clearly delineate, at the very least, that this needed to be addressed. So it was left as is. Secondly, moving into the larger area, they are assuming that as this is developed and they put final construction documents together there will need to be native seeding that is similar in character to what was being suggested in the disturbed area except to move more towards woodland species that do a better job in lower sunlight situations. There may also be some additional trees that are planted but right now they just wanted to get over this hump and then they could work with the City and what their requirements might be for single-family lots for landscape requirements, etc. Ms. Maxine Bergh, 996 Caren Court, explained that her property backs onto Mr. Trooien’s property. At the present time, there are two stakes visible from her kitchen: one on her lot line and the second where the building pad was originally intended to be. She asked if the movement of the building pad farther away from the lot line has been carved in stone. According to the drawing she saw, it appears that the impervious driveway surface will be very close to her property. She wanted to ensure that the Commission is cognizant of this because they have lived in this neighborhood for more than 40 years and love it. She understands that nothing is guaranteed but is understandably concerned about what happens behind them. Mr. Carlson returned and stated that the original building pad during the lot split was shown to be about 20 feet from the lot line. That is what is staked on the site. All of the split lot is below Ms. Bergh’s property. With this approval and plan then the new home would be placed about 60 feet from her lot instead of 20 feet. Then what is next to her lot would be partly a driveway but it would be below her view, down the slope, and flat to the ground at that point. Commissioner Noonan stated that once a formal proposal is made for a home, it would be brought before the Commission for consideration and a second critical area application. Commissioner Roston stated that it appears that most of the homes in her neighborhood are roughly the same distance apart from each other as she would be from the new lot. This proposal does not appear to be changing that. Ms. Bergh agreed; however, they are used to woods and love it. When she looks at this proposal and sees the location of the proposed driveway she sees quite a change in her view. She just wants everyone to know that she is paying attention. Mr. George Bergh, 996 Caren Court, said that he appreciates the effort that the 60-foot setback from their lot line and it appears that it is documented. Obviously there is some flexibility in development; however, he was unclear on just how close to his lot line the driveway would be. He understands that it would be below their profile because of the berm. Mr. Carlson replied that the driveway would be approximately 20 feet from the lot line. Just about the same place as the previous location of the building pad. Mr. Bergh asked for clarification, as it appears that, on the plans in the staff report, the dotted line extends over onto his property. The response was that the line Mr. Bergh was referring to were contour lines of the existing grading and was not boundary lines in any of the plans. February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8 Mr. Daren Carlson, 992 Caren Court, stated that he liked the changes that were proposed both in terms of moving of the building pad but also the vegetation plans. He asked about the grading limits and how far does that have to be from the property line. The response was that there are not setback requirements for a grading permit. He then noted that this property has had somewhat of a checkered past and part of the resolution was to have a complete plan before moving forward on approving the permit. It does appear to be very good and complete, except for this Prepared By X on Date X. Given the history of this property this leaves him very uncomfortable. He believes this should be completed before any approval is provided, as a ‘complete plan’ was what was agreed upon. Chair Field noted that one of the clarifications received from Mr. Carlson was that this would be completed before it goes before the City Council for final review and possible approval. In effect, the commission is granting staff some latitude to come up with a plan to go to the City Council and still move this along. Commissioner Noonan replied that the commission is only making a recommendation; the City Council ultimately makes the decision that all the “i’s” are dotted and “t’s” crossed. Ms. Alice Chapman, 1011 James Court, noted that her concern was the plan to clean out the total property of buckthorn and trees that may be like 20 feet or less in height. She just purchased her property a year ago and one of the selling points was the privacy behind her property. If they remove all of those trees there will be no privacy. Commissioner Noonan requested clarification from staff that any of the work that is being proposed is not on the Trooien lot – the existing Trooien lot where the house is – but rather on the lot on the north side of the Trooien house and therefore would not affect Ms. Chapman’s view. Before staff could answer Ms. Chapman noted that she just heard was that they wanted to have permission to do the entire property. Chair Field replied that the request if not to remove every tree 20 feet or less in height; it is only certain invasive species that are not natural that have evolved there over time. Commissioner Petschel further clarified that the trees would be 3” or less in diameter, not less than 20 feet in height. Mr. Jerry Trooien, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, came forward and asked for a quick education on the added condition #7; “A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.” Mr. Carlson replied that this condition was added since there is a significant amount of work to be done on this property and there is going to be material removed and then material replaced, including the native seed mix and including a number of new trees. Worst-case scenario, he gets halfway through the project and disappears. The City needs to know, and the neighbors need to February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9 know, that work will be completed. It is like any other project where there is a guarantee and assurance necessary. Mr. Trooien stated that no one is required to provide letters of credit to get their work done – that is between them and their contractor. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the applicant is requesting to disturb up to five acres for invasive species removal. In development situation, the City typically requires a Letter of Credit for the landscaping portion of that project, which is usually 125% to 150% of the value of the landscaping work. Mr. Trooien asked if an infrastructure being built is asked to provide a Letter of Credit for their landscaping work. Chair Field replied that five acres is typically for more than one home; although in this case it is for one home; it is a five-acre site in the critical area and that was staff’s recommendation. The commission saw this for the first time this evening and they will have a discussion about it now that Mr. Trooien has voiced his concern. Mr. Trooien stated that he feels like this is singling him out and is onerous and unusual. Mr. Carlson indicated that it is an unusual situation; however, this is in an unusual location. Mr. Trooien is probably right that a homeowner in another part of Mendota Heights no one would care because if someone were to take down a tree and not replant it – that is just part of being in a suburban environment. Here in the critical area the commission, City Council, and the neighbors want to know that this work will be completed and when it is completed then that Letter of Credit or bond is relinquished. Mr. Trooien then asked is everyone who lives between the river and Highway 110 going to be asked to submit a Letter of Credit if they are doing work in their yard. Chair Field replied that it in part due to the size of the lot. However, it can be debated all evening. The commission will make the decision and they appreciated his comments. Commissioner Noonan noted that he believes that it also has to bear the fact that it is an after-the- fact approval that is being asked. They are looking to restore something that was removed without the necessary approvals. He recalled a similar situation in the critical area where the commission came forward and it was done without the necessary approvals and a letter of credit was also asked at that time as well. Mr. Mastey returned and noted that they are aware that it is five acres they are requesting to remove buckthorn from. This gives Mr. Trooien the ability to sit in his backyard and think about at what point do you pull it out or not; that is why they did not specify it in the plan because part of it is standing on the site and making sense of it. To that point, one of the overlying things to be thought about is if they do not remove the buckthorn then all they will have is buckthorn at some point in time in the future. They are trying to come in and have a balance where they start to set the stage where they have some larger trees starting to regenerate so that 50 or 100 years from now they actually have something on this property other than buckthorn. His second point was that in developing Parcel B, where would the best spot be for the house. They looked at the lot real close and thought about a couple of layouts; and thought about the details of the house. Commissioner Roston pointed out that this is not the venue for discussing the February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10 house detail, as the commission is not making a decision today on that issue. The point was that he and Mr. Trooien made a thoughtful analysis of where the best place for the house would be. This is why they pushed the house further away from the lot line because 20 feet away did not make sense. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Because staff made some changes in terms of the recommendations and the commission did not have that in their packet, Chair Field requested Mr. Carlson to put the revised recommendation on the overhead. Mr. Carlson complied. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-41, AFTER-THE-FACT 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 will be performed by a qualified professional. Removal of vegetation is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on drawings and photos accompanying the application. These [specific] drawings were prepared by [whom] on [specific date(s)]. 2. Erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place during grading and construction activities. 3. Grading and landscape work will be performed by a qualified professional. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading and landscape work will require a new Critical Area Permit. 6. If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, utility plans will be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 7. A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 8. All plant materials to be warranted for a minimum of two years from the date of installation. February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 11 In his motion, Commissioner Noonan also requested an amendment of Condition #6 that reads, “If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading and landscape work will require a new Critical Area Permit.” He requested that “all grading, stormwater management, and utility plans” be added as this would add an additional level of detail to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner Petschel asked about the bond requirement. The only way it made sense to him is if the grading would somehow undermine the integrity of the hill and staff would want to ensure that it was secured to prevent any sort of catastrophic erosion if it wasn’t completed. Chair Field did not agree completely with this observation. Staff would want to have it completed as a condition of the plan. A lot of times with landscaping, particularly in the critical area, it does not take and there needs to be some way to remedy it not taking and have the ability to enforce someone coming in to complete it. That is not to say that Mr. Trooien wouldn’t; it is just a common practice to address the concern by, in this case the City, to make sure there is a remedy there. Commissioner Roston noted that there is a process in place that Mr. Mastey has outlined very well. They are removing old material, grading the site, reseeding with a native mix, planting new trees and it is a process that will happen over the course of some time. Staff and the city want to ensure all of that is done. If there is an interruption for whatever reason in the middle of that no wants to be left with a hillside that is half done and the city needs to make sure that it can be completed. This is why a bond or letter of credit is required on many kinds of projects. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application after the work has been done with staff to prepare the necessary documentations. B) PLANNING CASE #2016-43 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DOMESTIC CHICKEN ORDINANCE Chair Litton Field explained that the item under consideration is a revised draft ordinance for domestic chickens. He asked for confirmation that the commission closed the public hearing at the last meeting and directed staff to work towards a proposed ordinance for the commission to review. Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP replied that he recalled the direction from staff but did not recollect the closing of the public hearing. There were people in attendance interested in this topic if the commission wished to hear from them. Chair Field read the minutes of the last meeting and confirmed that the public hearing was closed. At this time, Mr. Carlson quickly reviewed the edits made to the draft ordinance per the requests made by the commission at their last meeting. Those changes being: February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 12 • 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 should have 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 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 Hennes asked if the Council had discussed this at all since the commissions last meeting. Mr. Carlson replied in the negative and noted that Council had discussed this at their January 3, 2017 meeting and directed the commission to prepare an ordinance for them to review. COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-43, DOMESTIC CHICKEN ORDINANCE AYES: 4 (Hennes, Costello, Petschel, Field) NAYS: 2 (Roston, Noonan) ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Verbal Review Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2017-01 DBG, LLC, 1919 HUNTER LANE LOT SPLIT & CRITICAL AREA PERMIT • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2017-02 MARK GERGEN, 697 WESLEY LANE LOT SPLIT • Twice requested to be continued by the applicant Staff and Commission Announcements Chair Field noted that he was remiss at the start of the meeting to welcome Mr. Timothy Benetti as the new Community Development Director. February 28, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 13 Mr. Benetti noted that it has been a steep learning curve this last week. He was born and raised in a small farming community in north-central Iowa, went to school there and went to grad school in Nebraska. His wife is from the New Brighton area; they are currently living in Woodbury and have four kids. He just came from the City of Brooklyn Center as their City Planner for approximately six years, prior to that he worked in other communities in Iowa and in the metro. He also had the pleasure to work with City Administrator Mark McNeill approximately 20 years ago. He has worked with Mr. Carlson, who was his mentor in 2002 when he took over for the City Director position in the City of Vadnais Heights. He is looking forward to working with everyone on the Comprehensive Plan coming up. Chair Field also expressed his appreciation on behalf of the Planning Commission to Mr. Carlson for pitch hitting since October 2016 and being the city’s contract planner. He has done a fine job of stepping in. Chair Field asked if a work plan has been created in or is taking form for the work coming up on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carlson replied that his organization, Stantec, did put together a proposal that Mr. Nolan Wall, previous City Planner, brought to the commission and got approved in the weeks before he left. A background report has been created and they will be picking that back up and the commission will hear about it soon. Chair Field noted that this is an important initiative and he encouraged residents to be engaged and participate in this process, as it will set a pattern for many issues in the coming decade. Adjournment COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:22 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson)