Loading...
2021-05-25 Planning Commission MinutesMay 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 27, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2021. Further discussion: Commissioner Katz noted on Page 5 the fourth paragraph, it should state, “…approval or denial.” Instead of: “...approval of denial.” Chair Field also noted on Page 11, it should read, “Chair Field…” instead of “Chair Fields…” AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2021-06 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an ordinance amendment to City Code Title 12 – Zoning, specifically Section 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, which would amend and revise certain design standards and allowances for various accessory structures in the city. Hearing notices were published and posted to the City’s website; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 16 Staff reviewed the available actions the Commission could take. Commissioner Katz noted that the staff reports notes that this would be for residential areas only but advised that there are a few homes located within industrial zoning. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that because of the underlying industrial land use, those homes would need to come in and apply for a variance, therefore this would not apply to this instances. Commissioner Petschel referenced the language limiting to a single level and not allowing lofts. He asked for clarification on how a shop area in the lofted part of a detached garage would be viewed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that would be viewed as a livable or habitable space and therefore that would be discouraged. He explained that what could be a shop one day could easily be converted into living space the next. He stated that once a building is built the property owners could change the intended use and therefore staff would want to ensure it is clear that cannot be used for habitable space. Commissioner Petschel agreed that secondary residences should not be created on a property but noted that is usually prevented by not allowing plumbing. Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that plumbing, kitchen features and mechanical access are typically what qualify something as a dwelling unit. Commissioner Corbett asked if the roof height is a local definition and should be repeated throughout the Code. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that measurement definition is consistent throughout Code with the exception of an accessory structure under 144 square feet. He stated that he would like to limit the scale of the accessory structures under 144 square feet. Commissioner Corbett commented that it would be nice to have a consistent definition for roof height. He asked how the numbers were determined within the table by staff. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that those numbers were a reflection of a review of ordinances from other communities and then tweaking that information in attempt to best fit this community. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she reviewed the table and the percentage changes between the categories are not consistent. She suggested making the dimensions more in line with the other proportional advances. She recommended 2,400 square feet rather than 2,600. Commissioner Corbett stated that this would allow structures that are 100 percent than what is currently allowed in terms of height. He stated that he would imagine that the setbacks are related May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 16 to the impacts for neighboring properties. He asked if different setbacks should be considered for larger accessory buildings as the largest building allowed would be three times the size of some homes in Mendota Heights. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that initially he had a suggested increased setback but after speaking with legal counsel and other planners, it was suggested that the same setback for a home be used. He stated that if the Commission feels a larger setback is warranted, he would support that. Commissioner Corbett commented that he would find a larger setback reasonable. He noted that a home on one third of an acre could abut an eight-acre lot that could support a larger accessory structure, therefore he would support a larger setback as a larger lot would have space to provide that additional setback. He referenced the playhouse accessory structure language and asked if a resident would be prohibited from purchasing a premade plastic playhouse because they already have the maximum size of accessory buildings. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that this language would apply to permanent structures, not the plastic temporary structures that are easily moved around the yard. He stated that the language was intended to address the recent inquiries and demand to permanent playhouse, or treehouse structures. Commissioner Johnson referenced accessory structure 144 square feet or less, which is limited to a single story less than 15 feet in height, noting that there is also language allowing 1.5 stories but still under 15 feet in height. She asked for clarification. She stated that an accessory structure 15 feet in height setback five feet from the property line would impact the light and air for the neighboring property and could bring about complaints. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that if the setback is changed, that would put a lot of structures into nonconforming status, and he would not recommend doing that. He recommended leaving the accessory structures of 144 square feet or less at a five-foot setback. He noted that if the setback is desired to be increased for the other allowed accessory structures that could be done. Commissioner Corbett explained that the height different mentioned between the two statements related to accessory structures under 144 feet is the difference in how the measurement is completed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that currently today, the City allows for accessory structures under 144 feet to have a height of 15 feet at the midpoint. He noted that changes to that language would place existing structures in nonconforming status. He stated that limiting those structures to one story could be done. Commissioner Corbett commented that it has been mentioned that the midpoint of 15 feet is high. He stated that it would seem it could be warranted to change that but was unsure how many structures would become nonconforming. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 16 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that most sheds range from ten to 12 feet in height, at most. He noted that sheds are typically temporary structures and therefore he was unsure how much of an issue it would be for some to become nonconforming. Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps language could be included to address those existing sheds that would become nonconforming. She stated that even though sheds are considered temporary, some people go to a large expense in designing and constructing them. Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the guidance for nonconforming uses. He stated that if the desire is to limit to a certain height, he suggested 15 feet at the top in order to keep everyone in a safe range to not create an issue with nonconformance but could support the 15 feet midpoint as well. Commissioner Johnson stated that she likes the ideas brought forward related to the table and reviewing that more in detail related to setbacks. She referenced the temporary or elevated playhouses. She noted that some treehouses have become very popular for both adults and children and are not meant to be temporary. She asked if the floor of the treehouse could be at 12 feet with a railing at three feet for a total height of 15 feet. She asked if there would be setbacks for the structure or whether a treehouse could be placed next to a privacy fence, which would circumvent the purpose of a privacy fence. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that a playhouse or treehouse would currently fall under an accessory structure of 144 square feet or less and would have a five-foot setback requirement. Chair Field asked if the word temporary were removed to describe those accessory structures, would it alleviate some of the confusion that has been expressed towards the plastic playhouse example. Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that could be done. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that treehouse and playhouse have not been defined within this language and therefore perhaps those definitions need to be added. Chair Field stated that there have been a lot of suggestions made tonight, but someone would need to make a motion to incorporate those suggested changes. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the terms playhouse and treehouse are pretty universal, and he would be inclined to leave the language as such. He stated that portion could also be removed from the ordinance at this time and could be brought back in the future when the more comprehensive review of the ordinance is completed. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she would support removal of that language at this time. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 16 Commissioner Johnson agreed as she believed that more thought should be put into that and how it could impact adjacent properties. She asked if the Commission feels that 15 feet would be appropriate five feet from the property line for accessory structures under 144 square feet. Commissioner Corbett noted that the “problem structure” would be smaller in size than what is already allowed. He stated that he would like to change the limit to 15 feet at the high point rather than midpoint. He asked if the Commission feels that calculations could be done tonight for the discussed changes, or whether this should be tabled. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he would strongly suggest that the setback remain at five feet for structures under 144 square feet. He stated that B-2 and B-3 would require a ten-foot setback. He noted that if the desire is for an increased setback for the larger accessory structures, that could be made equivalent to the setback for a home. Chair Corbett noted that the issue of midpoint and high point is always a challenge. Commissioner Petschel commented that he would be comfortable with a midpoint of 12 feet, which would be fairly standard across the metro area as well as the majority of readily available structures at local stores. He stated that given with how people may play around with the geometry of roofs, someone could build a 15-foot box with a flat roof, which is not the intention. He stated that he would like to see people able to use their garages for other activities, as is common in the northern portion of the community. He noted that often times there are stairs to the lofted portion of a garage for additional structure. He noted that he would strike almost the entire portion of section six related to garages. He agreed that a backdoor should not be left for habitability. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the few times he has received inquiries, he has always been clear that the space cannot be converted into a dwelling unit or habitable space. He noted that often times workspace is morphed into a rental space or additional living space. He stated that he would be okay with shop tools or equipment stored/used in that area as long as it does not disturb neighbors. Commissioner Toth asked if the change to a midpoint of 12 feet for the structures under 144 square feet would eliminate the possibility of a barn style garden shed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that would still be allowed and explained how those barn style roofs are measured. Commissioner Johnson asked the top height of the shed with a 12-foot midpoint. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it would depend on the pitch of the roof but estimated that it would be below 15 feet. Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps the high point is 12 feet. Commissioner Corbett stated that he would still want to define it with a midpoint for consistency but wanted to ensure that the sheds available for purchase at store would fit within that range. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 16 Commissioner Johnson suggested that a midpoint of ten feet be used. Commissioner Lorberbaum provided the example of someone with an eight-acre lot building a large accessory structure and then sold and subdivided their lot and asked what would happen to the accessory structure in that instance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the accessory structure could remain as long as it remains on the lot with the principal dwelling unit; it could not be subdivided onto a new parcel. He stated that if the accessory structure were not proposed to remain on the lot with the original home it would be required to be removed. It was confirmed that was actually done in a previous case where the accessory structure was required to be removed prior to filing the lot split. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she supports removal of the playhouse/treehouse language to be considered at another time. She referenced the setback language and photographic example and asked how far the structures can be apart. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the accessory structures must be five feet from a principal structure. Chair Field stated that he spoke with staff this morning and obtained an opinion from legal counsel as well. He noted that if the table is expanded above five acres, he does have a lot that is over five acres in size and therefore there could be a perceived opinion that he could benefit from the change. He stated that he wanted to disclose that information in case someone objects to him voting on the matter. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 565, WHICH AMENDS CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ZONING CODE, TITLE 12 – ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: A 12 FOOT MIDPOINT SHOULD BE USED IN 1, 2 AND 3; IN C1 B3 2,400 SQUARE FEET SHOULD BE USED; AND SECTION 3 SHOULD BE DELETED. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM WITHDREW HER MOTION. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 16 Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that a larger structure would tend to have a larger demand for engineered roof trusses that would require or necessitate a higher roof line or structure which is why 18 or 20 feet is suggested for the midpoint for item B3. He stated that he would be open to suggestions. Chair Field noted that the setback for larger accessory structures was also not included in the potential motion. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that if desired, that could be left for the comprehensive zoning review. Commissioner Petschel asked if that language would be more appropriate for the next section related to detached garages. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that it falls under the broad category of height and this section applies to all accessory structures, regardless of shed or garage. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 565, WHICH AMENDS CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ZONING CODE, TITLE 12 – ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: PROPERTIES OVER FIVE ACRES (AS NOTED IN THE TABLE) LIMITED TO 2,400 SQUARE FEET WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; SETBACKS FOR PROPERTIES THAT FALL INTO CATEGORIES UNDER B.2.b.(1), (2) AND (3) REVISED TO 10 FEET, 15 FEET AND 18 FEET RESPECTIVELY; AND SECTION C.3 SHALL BE REMOVED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND SECTION C.1C.(6) TO STATE THAT ANY DETACHED GARAGE WITH AN ALLOWED UPPER STORY OR LOFT SHALL NOT BE USED AS A HABITABLE SPACE AND THAT THE LOFT SPACE NOT BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT HE WOULD ACCEPT THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE “ OR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR LIVING SPACE”. CHAIR FIELD CONFIRMED THE LANGUAGE TO THEN READ, “ANY ATTACHED GARAGE WITH AN ALLOWED UPPER STORY OR LOFT SHALL NOT BE USED AS HABITABLE SPACE OR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.” COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL NOTED THAT HE WOULD ALSO LIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT THE LOFT SPACE NOT BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. COMMISSIONER CORBETT AND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON APPROVED INCLUSION OF THE LANGUAGE AS SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 16 COMMISSIONER TOTH ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED FOR LARGER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. COMMISSIONER CORBETT CLARIFIED THAT WOULD BE 18 FEET. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-02 MIKE CASHILL, 806 BACHELOR AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that at the April 27, 2021 regular Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented for consideration a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an oversized detached garage, with added variances to allow the garage to exceed the maximum area of 1,800 square feet; and allow the garage to exceed the maximum height of 15 feet up to 17.5 feet (measured) or 24 feet in overall height. The Commission elected to table this matter to the May 25th meeting and kept the public hearing open. The Commission further directed staff to work on a Zoning Code amendment for further consideration at the same May 25th meeting. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff reviewed the available actions the Commission could take. Chair Field welcomed input from the applicant. Mike Cashill, applicant, commented that he is present to address any questions. Chair Field referenced the previous language related to the potential for a lot split and impact to accessory structure. He noted in that in a previous instance an accessory structure was required to be demolished in order to proceed with the lot split and asked that the applicant acknowledge that stipulation. Mr. Cashill confirmed he understands that and noted that he does not have the intent to split his lot in the future. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 16 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like to comment and commend the homeowner for replacing some of the trees. She stated that some of the trees chosen are native trees that will help to enhance the pollinator friendly City. She referenced the comments from the Natural Resources Technician and stated that while there were ill trees and trees that were not in good condition, some of those trees are native even though they have struggled. She stated that while some of the volunteer trees are pollinator friendly, they are not generally that desirable. She stated that the cherry trees will be missed by butterflies and the birds. She stated that perhaps the homeowner could find a place on their property to plant cherry trees. She stated that crab apples trees can be a challenge and suggested an alternative, such as serviceberry trees. She also appreciated that the homeowner will be removing buckthorn. Commissioner Petschel noted that his only concern in the findings of fact would be whether this would be subject to the amended standards. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that is included in the introduction but could be tied into the end of the motion. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AND CONDITIONAL UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 565. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED WHERE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE LEFT IF THE ORDINANCE IS CHANGED AND THE MOTION IS MADE CONTINGENT. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT IF THE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS A RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE APPLICANT IN THAT INSTANCE. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ORDINANCE MAY NOT PASS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. CHAIR FIELD NOTED THAT THE MOTION COULD BE MADE CONTINGENT UPON THE ORDINANCE AS APPLICABLE TO THIS APPLICATION. HE STATED THAT WOULD ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO MAKE CHANGES TO DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WITHOUT IMPACTING THIS CASE. IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE CLARIFIED THAT THE ACTION IS CONTINGENT UPON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 565 AS IT RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 16 COMMISSIONER KATZ COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD HOPE THIS ITEM BE ADDED TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA AS THE PROPERTY LINE TOUCHES PARK LAND. HE NOTED THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING COULD BE ADDED TO THE GOLF COURSE TO BUFFER THE USE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI CONFIRMED THAT COULD BE DONE. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2021 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE 2021-05 JOE OPACK, 662 IVY FALLS COURT – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Joe Opack, owner of 662 Ivy Falls Court, is requesting a variance to allow a new half-circle shaped driveway on the subject property. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. The applicant provided a “Neighbor Signatures of Consent” from six of his neighbors not objecting to the variance request. No other comments were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff reviewed the available actions the Commission could take. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Joe Opack, applicant, commented that he appreciates consideration of his request. He stated that the main door of the home is fairly obvious to the floorplan and it does not have access in the winter months. He stated that he would like to provide access without the use of steps for his older relatives that visit his home. Commissioner Katz referenced the ash trees and asked if those trees are alive. Mr. Opack commented that he was informed that the previous homeowner treated the trees. He stated that if they cannot be saved, he would plan to replace the trees as he would like to keep as many trees as possible. Commissioner Katz commented that even though trees are treated, they still tend to die because of the Emerald Ash Borer. He stated that the root system for the trees is also most likely around where the driveway will run and therefore this could be a good time to remove those trees. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 16 Mr. Opack commented that the contractors he has consulted did not believe the trees would be impacted by this project and that a decision would be needed at this time. He noted that they are mature trees, and he would like to keep them. Commissioner Johnson asked the distance from the proposed driveway and tree trunks. She stated that about 20 feet of the trunk is needed in order to avoid root impacts. Mr. Opack stated that he could have an arborist review the situation before making a decision. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked why 12 feet was selected for the driveway width. Mr. Opack commented that he does not feel he would use the driveway a lot for their personal use and want it as a spot for their visitors to park on their driveway to access the front door and then continue to pull through and avoid backing out onto the busy roadway. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she has a horseshoe driveway and believes Mr. Opack will love it. She commented that the driveways would generally align with those across the street. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant considered a sidewalk from the street to the door and why that would not be adequate. Mr. Opack commented that he considered that. He noted that he has relatives from Nebraska that routinely visit, and he would like to provide access without steps, noting that there are about eight steps from the garage side. He commented that he believes there are overnight parking restrictions that would prevent guests from parking on the road and then using the front door. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that the driveway would provide closer access for those with mobility issues. Commissioner Corbett asked if an internal circle was considered rather than two curb cuts. Mr. Opack commented that he considered other alternatives but noted those options seemed to use more cement. He stated that they felt this design would be the best choice for the neighborhood and preference for the neighbors. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is a stop sign at the Sylvandale Curve and it was confirmed there is not. He stated that could support it being a unique circumstance in terms of traffic and not having people park on the roadway. Commissioner Johnson asked about another alternative that would have two curb cuts rather than three. Mr. Opack commented that they did consider that but that would result in a large amount of sidewalk through the yard. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 16 Commissioner Toth referenced the original building permit and asked if those plans included a curved driveway. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he did not review the original building permit. He noted that the property was previously addressed from Sylvandale and the previous property owner switched it to Ivy Falls Court. He noted that this driveway would not change the addressing or functionality of the property. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY, WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE 25 FOOT WIDTH ALLOWED AT THE PROPERTY LINE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2021 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE 2021-08 PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 566 – PRESCRIBED GOAT GRAZING CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a draft ordinance which would allow the temporary keeping of goats on properties for prescribed grazing purposes only. Prescribed grazing refers to the natural elimination of certain invasive or noxious vegetation by goats, with said grazing allowed by special permit only. Hearing notices were published. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff reviewed the available actions the Commission could take. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 16 Chair Field asked if there is anyone interested in immediately using goats if approved. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that at least four or five property owners have requested this use. He stated that while there is perhaps an issue with timing, buckthorn remains throughout the season and therefore goats could be used midsummer or into the fall. Commissioner Katz referenced C5 related to the number of goats and prescribed grazing area. He asked if the prescribed grazing area would be the entire lot, or the area grazed specifically. Chair Field noted that the temporary enclosure would define the grazing area. Commissioner Johnson stated that a resident took time and effort to speak to experts and provided that input to the City. She stated that several of those suggestions could be important to add into the ordinance. She referenced comments that were provided related to the number of allowed goats in order to use the goats for a smaller period of time. She stated that she understands many cities use the one tenth threshold but believed the topography and amount of material to be grazed helps to determine the number of goats needed rather than the size of the area. She stated that while the language suggests that supplemental feeding can occur, she would not suggest that as the goats should be hungry to eat the buckthorn. She stated that if the goats become unhealthy, they should be removed and treated offsite by the contractor that owns the goats. She stated that the Invasive Jumping Worm is in Mendota Heights and is difficult to control, noting that the only way to stop the spread of that is through prevention. She referenced the use of a hoof bath for the goats which would help to prevent the spread of the Invasive Jumping Worm. She stated that goats should also be required to have a three day clean out period on their home property before being brought to a new location. Commissioner Corbett asked where that information was gained. Commissioner Johnson stated that it was within an email from a resident dated February 21st. She commented that it is important to think about the invasive species aspect. She stated that she would also support the use of a higher number of goats in order to use the goats for a smaller period of time. Commissioner Corbett stated that those comments seem appropriate. He agreed that the need for the number of goats should depend upon the density of the invasive material. He referenced the three day clean out period and asked for details on whether a goat would be counterproductive after a certain number of days if the seeds are coming back out. Commissioner Johnson commented that she believes it would be smart to work to reduce introduction of new invasive species. Chair Field stated that because there is no pressing urgency, perhaps Commissioner Johnson connect staff with the author of the email in order to incorporate those suggestions into the ordinance language. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 16 Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she hopes that the Commission provide any additional comments to staff as well to ensure the next review would be more expedient. Commissioner Toth referenced the issues of shelter and predator control. He asked how it would be handled if a goat were killed by a predator; if there would be a policy related to daily fecal control; and daily care, specifically whether someone is checking the condition of the goats daily. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked how this ordinance differs from the ordinance used by Inver Grove Heights. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff from that city did a lot of research and the City Attorney agreed that this was a good ordinance to start with, so there is not much difference in this proposed ordinance. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the proposed fence would not exceed six feet in height and asked if something should be included for a minimum fence height to ensure the barrier is sufficient. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that could be done. Commissioner Corbett noted that there would be a desire for natural containment from the owner of the goats. He stated that staff could follow up with a goat owner to determine an appropriate minimum. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked why the applicant would not be the property owner rather than the goat owner. She stated that the property owner should perhaps be the applicant and the goat owner could be a co-applicant. Community Development Director Tim Benetti used the example of a homeowners association, noting that the goat owner could then represent the property as one applicant rather than listing multiple applicants. Chair Field stated that perhaps it would be a joint application between the property owner and goat owner to ensure the conditions related to the goats are addressed. He stated that if there is an issue, the goat owners should be accountable for their goats and if the property owner is the only applicant the contact information for the goat owner may not be provided. Commissioner Katz stated that perhaps there would be a courtesy to neighbors that notification would be provided to neighbors if this permit is desired. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that is part of the ordinance as proposed. Commissioner Petschel stated that requiring a goat owner to be on the application would be similar to what is required for building permits, in which a roofing contractor is listed for roof replacement. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 16 Commissioner Corbett asked if there is licensing required for people to own goats and use them in this way. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that while there are companies out there that do this type of work, there is not specific licensing required. Commissioner Corbett asked how a goat provider would be held liable. Commissioner Petschel commented that liability insurance would be required. Commissioner Johnson stated at the February 23rd meeting it was stated that Burnsville had an animal event questionnaire and asked if that would be included or not included. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the permit application or template format has not yet been developed. He explained that a lot of information would be required to be supplied for the permit. Chair Field opened the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 New/Unfinished Business B) PLANNING CASE 2021-07 ORDINANCE NO. 568 – MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) - CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to review draft Ordinance No. 568, which represents the beginning steps in the replacement and creation of a new Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Ordinance for the community. Community Development Director Tim Benetti suggested the idea of the Commission holding a workshop to discuss this topic as it will take multiple hours to get through the nuisances of this item. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she has a number of comments. Community Development Director Tim Benetti suggested that be done in email to staff. Commissioner Petschel asked if the actual overlay is changing. May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 16 Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the outline or demarcation of the corridor has not changed. Chair Field confirmed the intent of the Commission to hold a workshop. He stated that an invitation could be extended to the City Council and/or Park and Recreation Commission as optional, should those members have an interest in this topic. He asked that the workshop not be in close proximity to the regular Commission meeting date. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that he would attempt to coordinate that and send out potential dates. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • The Comprehensive Plan has been deemed complete by the Metropolitan Council, and is going through its final review. The new plan will be brought back to the city for official adoption later. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:27 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0