Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-02 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION PREPARED BY COUNCIL MEETING DATE 1/2/13 Community Development ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT AGENDA • ITEM #, John McCool STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission's meeting on October 22, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved Planning Commission minutes for the meeting on October 22, 2012. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 12/17/12 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Planning Commission minutes from meeting on October 22, 2012 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS City Adninistrator Dat COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission October 22, 2012 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, October 22, 2012, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Neal Heurung, Brian Pearson, Lise' Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Maureen Ventura, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Elijah Harter Staff Present: John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Justin Olsen, City Council Approval of Agenda Ventura made a motion to approve the agenda. Reese seconded. The motion was ap- proved unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Rostad asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non - agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Rostad explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capac- ity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he ex- plained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Discussion Items 6.1 Farm Animals in Residential Districts Discussion on whether the City Code should be amended to allow chickens and ducks on properties less than five acres in residential zoning districts. McCool summarized the staff report and asked for direction from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Rostad asked in there was anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Planning Commission on this topic. Rynka Olson, 8153 Jeffery Avenue South, stated that her concern is that a lot of people have not experienced taking care of chickens and that information will be presented without that knowledge. Care of a chicken is relatively similar to a small dog. Chickens do not cause any more problems than dogs and they don't bark. She offered her assistance in the discussion on allowing chickens. Heurung asked how many chickens Olson has and how they are kept. Olson responded three and they are kept in a backyard coop the size of a garden shed and in a 10 -foot by 8- foot fenced area. The chickens are let out from that area when the family is outside super- vising. Heurung asked if the chickens are pets or for eggs. Olson stated both. Brittain asked what types of complaints were received about these chickens. Olson stated that the problem is they have a neighbor who does not want chickens. Brian Olson, 8153 Jeffery Avenue South, stated that they have not received any direct complaints from any neighbors. All the neighbors they have spoken with are very supportive. He stated they clean up the chicken coop area and the chickens are not noisy. He thinks it would be appropriate to draft an ordinance allowing chickens which addresses concerns such as licensing fees, inspections, minimal area, etc. Other communities have similar regulations. Bob Burtman, 9476 Harkness Court South, stated that he has two mallard ducks and two Pekin ducks that they keep as pets. The ducks are clean and do not make noise. They are kept in a five -foot by four -foot by two -foot cage. He presented a petition to the City Council signed by 19 neighbors. There was discussion regarding number of complaints received, staff time required for en- forcement, complaints about other types of animals, health concerns, noise issues, care of the animals, property maintenance, attraction of varmints, location of coops, sanitation is- sues, not allowing roosters, lot sizes, how many animals would be allowed, setbacks of coops and run areas from property lines and structures, impact on home values and sales, neighbor approval prior to allowing fowl on properties, and current code enforcement actions for dogs and cats. Reese asked what staff is requesting from the Commission. McCool responded that the City Council asked if this issue should be pursued or not. Olsen explained that he was the Coun- cilmember who requested that the Planning Commission review whether the ordinance should be amended. If so, the first step would be to let staff know what further information is needed for a proposed ordinance amendment. It was the consensus of the Commission to discuss amending the ordinance to allow for chickens and ducks on urban lots and to provide staff with baseline requirements. Suggestions proposed for the ordinance included structure setbacks, requiring fences, that structures should be permanent and look similar to other structures on the site, no outdoor storage of food or waste, no butchering or egg sales, no roosters, require a licensing fee, limit to chickens and ducks, exclude geese and roosters, limit the number allowed, and Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 3 of 4 include information on what the code enforcement officer should be looking for. There was also discussion on whether or not permission from neighbors should be required. Heurung made a motion that the Planning Commission inform the City Council that this issue does merit further discussion. Rediske seconded. Reese stated that he believes the Commission already informed staff that an ordinance amendment should be prepared for discussion. He does not support the motion because he would like to finish the initial discussion tonight. Ventura agreed with Reese. McCool ex- plained that staff and the Council were not looking for an ordinance amendment this evening. An ordinance amendment requires a public hearing. This is very early in the process and the question is merely does the City pursue this or not. Based on the motion and second, the di- rection is to report to the City Council that the Planning Commission is willing to develop ordinances addressing this issue. Rostad summarized that the Commission should vote on whether this issue has merit or not, and if so, to discuss how the proposed ordinance should be crafted. McCool stated that was correct. He also believes there would probably be a number of meetings before the Commission makes a recommendation on a proposed amendment. Motion passed on a 7 -to -1 vote (Reese). Rostad asked if staff needs further information for Council. McCool responded staff will re- port to the Commission what the City Council's direction is. Staff will continue to look at what other communities are doing and prepare a packet of information to be reviewed at future meetings. Brittain asked for more information on the types of complaints other cities have received so they could be addressed in our ordinance. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes from September 24, 2012 Reese made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 24, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Pearson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of October City Council Meetings McCool reported that at the October 3 meeting, the City Council approved the proposed ad- dition to 3M's abrasive facility. The City Council took no action on the Planning Commis- sion's recommendation on the variance application for a proposed pool on 63rd Street to be 10 feet from the rear property line and prohibit any encroachment on easements; they di- rected staff to prepare new findings to reduce the setback from 15 feet to 8 feet, which al- lows for a two -foot encroachment on the easement, and prepare a hold harmless agreement that would hold the City harmless of any damage that would occur to the in- ground pool. The City Council approved the variance and hold harmless agreement at their October 17 meeting. Olsen explained that the City has approved other hold harmless agreements. The Council also approved the historic conditional use permit for Hope Glen Farm at the October 17 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Olsen noted that unlike other referendum questions on this year's ballot, a non -vote on the City's park referendum questions is not a no vote; it is an undervote. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Brittain asked about the status of the 80th Street culvert project. McCool responded that the street and curb should be done in about a week, which would allow for vehicle traffic. The work on the slope of the ravine area will continue until possibly next spring. Reese noted that the swimming pool handouts from the Building Inspections office have not been updated yet. McCool stated staff is in the process of modifying the handouts. Reese asked if the City can regulate the size of political signs. McCool responded no, the number and size of political signs was established by state law. In 2011, the City Council, following the recommendation of the Planning Commission, updated that City's sign ordinance on campaign signs to bring it into compliance with state statute. He explained other portions of that ordinance amendment, including distance from streets and sidewalks. Brittain asked if there was any distinction between temporary political signs and permanent billboards with respect to how they are set in the ground, such as with four -by -four posts. McCool responded no. I Rediske asked for an update on the proposed development for the former Home Depot site. Olsen responded that the developer has letters of intent from LA Fitness and Goodwill. They are working to secure the third tenant. The Economic Development Authority was asked to grant an additional extension for 30 to 60 days to work through financing issues. He ex- plained the financing process for this project. Rostad asked what happened with the pet store that was initially part of the development. Olsen explained that there may have been an issue with approval for that type of business from existing tenants due to competition clauses in leases. Adjournment Ventura made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rediske seconded. The meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m.