Loading...
2013-03-26 Planning Comm Minutes Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2013 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES March 26, 2013 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 28, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Noonan, Hennes, and Hennessey. Those absent: Chair Field, Commissioners Roston, Magnuson, and Viksnins. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Bob Kermis. There not being a quorum attending the meeting, the Commissioners were informed that they could hold the public hearings, gather input, ask clarifying questions on cases, but would be unable to take any actions on any items. Approval of February 26, 2013 Minutes Held over to the next Planning Commission meeting Hearings PLANNING CASE #2013-02 Jane McKoskey st Lot Split at 668 – 1 Avenue Mr. Bob Kermis, Senior Planner explained that the applicant is proposing to split a property at st 668 – 1 Avenue into two individual parcels. The property is currently occupied on the east side by a single family and a detached accessory structure. This property is zoned R1 – Single Family Residential. Within the R1 districts, minimum lot width of one hundred feet is required and a minimum area of fifteen thousand square feet is required. At the time of the original staff report it was believed that there was an inability of the lots to meet the minimum area and width requirements. It was noted that the submitted survey differs from the actual plat drawing. The submitted survey is actually inaccurate in that twenty additional feet of area actually is provided per the plat. Therefore, the concern over the area requirement is a non-issue. The other item of note is that the survey identifies an alley to be vacated. That alley actually was formally vacated several years but was simply never finalized. Staff recommended approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1.The word “proposed” be removed from the shaded area relating to the vacated alley Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2013 2.The applicant includes five-foot drainage and utility easements along interior lot lines. Mr. Richard Burrows was on behalf of the application. Commissioner Hennes asked if there was a timing issue on getting this application approved. Mr. Burrows replied that the family would like to move forward with their father’s estate. Commissioner Noonan supported approval of the application, should City Council be inclined to deal with it without the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hennessey and Hennes echoed that sentiment. Should Council decide to move forward with this application, they would consider it at their April 2, 2013 Council Meeting. PLANNING CASE #2013-03 Brian Smith Zoning Amendment to allow beekeeping Mr. Bob Kermis, Senior Planner explained that the Somerset Country Club is requesting an amendment to the R1 – Single Family Residential Zoning District which would allow the keeping of bees as an accessory use. Currently, the ordinance prohibits food animals, which include animals typically raised for the purposes of food production. Currently that does include bees. Thus the keeping of bees is not currently allowed in the zoning district. Mr. Kermis noted that there has been a movement related to the keeping of bees in residential area over the past few years. Many cities have considered this issue; some who have approved the keeping of bees identify it as a local food source, a means of pollinating area plants, and have found that the impacts really are not all that significant upon neighboring uses. In those cities, it is common to regulate the number and size of the hives to minimize the neighborhood concerns. Most area cities have chosen not to allow the keeping of bees within residential zoning districts. The primary concerns are about bee stings, etc. The City of Minneapolis has a zoning process that allows the keeping of bees if neighboring properties find the activity to be acceptable. That process is not available in most cities, including Mendota Heights. Occasionally cities have addressed this issue by allowing this activity only on larger rural type lots. In this particular case, that would seem to be appropriate if the city is inclined to allow this activity. The applicant has suggested that the amendment limit the bees to a maximum of ten hives on properties of fifty acres or more. Staff feels that the imposition of the conditions proposed in the amendment would minimize any observable impacts on the neighboring parcels. Staff would support the amendment. The planning commission had a number of questions on the nature of bees, and the difference between domestic and feral bees. Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2013 Mr. Alan Spalding, 45 Windy Hill, Sunfish Lake, MN is a member of Somerset Golf Course and a beekeeper. Spoke in favor of the code amendment, answering several questions about bees. Mr. Spalding noted that the City of Stillwater recently approved a beekeeping ordinance if anyone was interested in looking at a comparable case study. Mr. James Bade, Somerset Golf Course Superintendent noted that the Town and Country Golf Course in St. Paul started this program last year and the University of Minnesota is involved. Somerset is a one hundred forty-nine acre plot and is certified by Audubon International, for golf course management. Ms. Laurie Tostrud, a member of Somerset Golf Course and a resident at 1490 Somerset Court also spoke in support of the amendment. Commissioner Noonan supported the amendment with the proposed conditions. Commissioner Hennessey felt that the positive attributes outweigh any potential negative consequences, as did Commissioner Hennes. Discussion AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE PERTAINING TO GARAGES Commissioner Noonan suggested this topic be laid over until the full commission was present to discuss. Commissioners Hennessey and Hennes agreed. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2013-01 Yorn Yan Code Amendment and Conditional Use Permit •Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-34 Vince Nonnemacher Code Amendment •Denied by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.