Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03AItem No. 3 A CITY OF LAKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 19, 2014 Chair Lillehei called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was given. Members Present: Linda Maguire, Vice Chair Bob Boerschel, Chair Brooks Lillehei, Paul Reuvers, Ex -officio member Nic Stevens Members Absent: Karl Drotning, Jason Swenson Others Present: Daryl Morey, Planning Director; Frank Dem ,y, Associate Planner; Daniel Licht, The Planning Company; and Penny ]3Ia►ig, Recordi ° yecretary 3. Approval of the Meeting Minutes ^3 The June 5, 2014 Planning Commission meeti ;minutes were approved as presented. Oq x work sesi�n minutes were approved asThe June 5, 2014 Planning C�T�i presented. ` 4. Announcements Planning Direc oDaryl Morey stated 8# e-mails were distributed to the Planning Commissionwere received from 6jWdents regarding the keeping of chickens after the Planniri�6t-ommisij n ckets wefrt out last Friday. Mr. Mojtyr rted th ,--the July 3, 2b14 Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled. They# scheo4led meeting is July 17, 2014. 5. Cityof Lakeville t,ro Chair "Lill opened .,the public hearing to consider amendments to several chapters of:Title 11 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Lakeville City Code concerning: A. The ing•of`ehickens on single family residential properties; B. Brew oh ' }premises, brewery, small brewery, brewpub, distillery, micro - distillery, farm winery, tap room, and tasting room uses in certain agricultural, commercial or industrial districts. Mr. Licht stated that the City Council asked for a review of the keeping of chickens in residential districts based on inquiries received from residents. Mr. Licht indicated that City staff presented a summary of regulatory issues and performance standards that have been adopted by other communities in the Twin Cities area to the City Council at their work session on February 24, 2014. The City Council directed staff to prepare a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment for consideration by the Planning Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2014 Page 2 Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the survey information prepared by staff at their March 20, 2014 work session. Mr. Licht explained that currently the Zoning Ordinance defines chickens as farm animals which are allowed to be kept only on farm properties in the AP, Agricultural Preserve District, RA, Rural Agricultural District or the RAO, Rural Agricultural Overlay District. Mr. Licht summarized the results of Associate Planner Frank Dempsey's extensive research of nine cities that are similar to Lakeville with respect to population and growth characteristics to see how those cities add ress,the keeping of chickens on single family residential properties. Mr. Dempsey's firldings are described in Mr. Licht's June 12, 2014 planning report. Mr. Licht stated that any change to the Zoning Ordinance to Allow the keeping of chickens must include regulations to prevept,hVisances, protectli $:health and well- being of the animals, and minimize a potential negative im�t to nearby properties. Mr. Licht reviewed the proposed Zoning di` mance amendment for allowing the keeping of chickens on single *nlly_residential perties, which are included in his June 12, 2014 planning report. ; Mr. Licht stated that City staff reco' tnends4, ie -Planning iCommission receive public comment and make, ;0; tx nendat t_ale City owncil. Chair Lillehei gpOned the he .ting to th4ublic for comment on the proposed Zoning Ordinance aiii�nn"nt cqqberning the : keeping of chickens in single family residential districie: ; Comm66*-ft ,;7e a nce. Robert Stewart, 1'64551talkAyenue + He thanked tli ':City for.,all the research that went into the preparation of the ,seven pages of the draft amendment. He stated the residents will be safer because of this, • He feels that, the rules for the keeping of chickens are already covered under the nuisance section of the City Code. • He states that chickens don't bark, bite or leave large piles of poop like dogs and there are not seven pages of rules for the keeping of dogs. • He stated the easiest way to allow the keeping of chickens on single family residential properties is to remove chickens from the list of farm animals. • He felt that people should not have to give up their privacy for City inspections of their property just to have chickens. Bob Hagen, 17135 Isleton Avenue 9 Asked for a copy of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, lune 19, 2014 Page 3 He felt the size allowance for the chicken coop is too large. He felt that anyone who wants to keep chickens should get approval from their neighbors. He would like to see that the chickens are enclosed at night due to cats and raccoons that roam the neighborhoods at night. Sam Lucido, 16539 Imperial Circle He has had two years of experience raising chickens in Lakeville. He stated that when he contacted City staff he was informed that chickens were not allowed on single family residential properties and that City enforcement was on a complaint basis. He then contacted his neighbors and, when they did not object, began keeping chickens on his single family residential property in Lakeville (This is a violation of Zoning Ordinghce regulations). He handed a copy of his speech, which includes specKc V 11 -comments about the proposed ordinance, to the recording Mary. They ark, attached hereto as part of the minutes from tonight's me4trrg. James Braaten, 9665 Upper 205" Street • He stated that if enforcement is to be �Wplajnt based, that should be written into the ordinance. • He expressed concern abpot the high pr ce,.($100) of the permit. This could be a limiting factor. Motion was madeby, Magu1re, on :_Boerschel to close the public hearing at 6:27 Ayes: Maguire,,iaerschel,:iillehei, `divers. Nays: 0 Chair Lillehei asked for corhm60ts .!"%,the Planning Commission. Discussion pointsjndud: r The Planning Com"ssion asked staff to respond to the size of the coop, the Administrative Permit f, and whether neighbors should be required to give their consent to the keeping of chickens. • Mr. Licht state41hat the intent of the maximum size of the structure was to tie it into the accessory building regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. • Mr. Morey stated that the City's Administrative Permit application fee is $100. This applies to all Administrative Permits. He indicated that it is generally intended to cover the cost of staffs time to process the permit. Mr. Morey commented that, if this Zoning Ordinance amendment is approved, an annual re -inspection fee is not proposed at this time. • The Planning Commission had a discussion regarding neighbor consent as part of the Administrative Permit. Mr. Licht commented that the neighbor consent could turn into a variance application if even only one neighbor objected to the permit. Commissioner Boerschel asked what would happen if a new neighbor moved in and objected to the keeping of chickens after an Administrative Permit was approved by the City. Mr. Licht indicated that the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2014 Page 4 keeping of chickens would be grandfathered under the initial approved Administrative Permit. Mr. Morey stated that the City Attorney has in the past advised against establishing land use approvals that require neighbor consent. He stated that if the Planning Commission is considering adding neighbor consent to this ordinance amendment that they defer action on the amendment until after an opinion is obtained from the City Attorney's office. • Regarding the inspection/privacy concerns, Mr. Licht stated that City staff would need to determine compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements as part of an Administrative Permit application or a complaint. • Commissioner Reuvers stated he cannot support the proposed amendment because there is a place for chickens and that is on farms and not in residential neighborhoods. He stated if the Cfty Council approves the amendment, he recommends that the allowance : be ,limited to two chickens and that neighbor consent be required. • Commissioner Maguire stated that chickens are appropriate for the country lifestyle. She cannot support the amendment because of the'noise and smell associated with the keeping of gNk6ns and because she'W,unsure of the appropriate number of chickens th` ;should be allowed. • Commissioner Boerschel stated the hlpnnira�`` -ommission has to look at what is in the long term best interests of th�'ltbmfriunity. He stated that the City has received input that4i6 keeping of 6` lcicens on single family residential r. properties would be detriiiientsl< the imawi6f d.akeville and that he tends to agree with this input. He sated he 40" LLnot th1r� ,.the City has the resources to police the proposed regula pns a - '$�,QO Mministrative Permit fee will probably not bo'adlequate. Wa- `ted he knows of single family residential properties ' n his n.60borhoch---, at have chickens, including roosters, in violation, 4'f'City ordinance and th* is a lack of enforcement now. He stated the proposed ordinance would infr a upon a neighbor's right to enjoy their property. 0pr these she pan*A support the proposed amendment. • ,,Qhair.Jillehei- aced there will 66.4 time and place for urban chicken coops. -le ° stated that ,because 12% of land in Lakeville is currently zoned agricultur 1, therelan opportunity to keep chickens and other farm animals in the city teday. In the future, when the city is built out, this issue could be - ti - ..re -visited. Chair Liillehei explained that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the proposed amendment to the City Council and the City Council takes final action on the amendment. Mr. Morey indicated that the amendment will likely be scheduled for the July 7, 2014 City Council meeting. Motion was made by Reuvers, seconded by Maguire to recommend to City Council denial of the Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow the keeping of chickens on single family residential lots by administrative permit, as presented. Ayes: Maguire, Boerschel, Lillehei, Reuvers. Nays: 0 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2014 Page 5 Chair Lillehei indicated the public hearing will now move to Agenda Item 5.B. Mr. Licht stated that City staff had initiated a review of the allowance of brewpubs, tap rooms, small breweries and similar uses within the City based on increased interest in such businesses within the Twin Cities area and the response of other cities to accommodate these uses within commercial and industrial zoning districts. He indicated that the Planning Commission had an initial discussion of this issue at their March 20, 2014 work session and directed City staff to draft amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for further consideration at a public hearing. Mr. Licht stated that brewpubs, breweries, micro -distilleries; distilleries and wineries are all regulated under Minnesota Statutes 340A as to the -volume of beverages that may be 1) produced by the facilities, and 2) sold on or offsite of the premises. Mr. Licht reviewed the definitions of these facilloes based on `the existing definitions outlined by State Statute for consistency an4I. common undersAa #ing of the uses being regulated both by the State and Qt ► through the Zoning OrOinance. These definitions are included in the June 12, 0 .? planning .(Sport. Mr. Licht reviewed the zoning districts these facilhies will be allowed and whether City staff proposes to allow the(".,aqtivities as either a permitted or conditional use, which are listed in the June 12, 2Q74 Wtging rep6A._.. Mr. Licht stated that the allowance* the va+tts alcohdt(c beverage production and retail service businee s.mould bei { - to "ih®, , performance standards of the district in which tj py,bre 16tlftd. He mated that City staff is proposing to amend the off-street pafiking requir ents in tion 11-19-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to include brewp#, taprooms and tastin'9..,,fooms within the category of restaurant uses. Mr. 1, t e*ained "that the draft Zoning Ordinance amendment includes one housekeeping r inion He stated that commercial recreation is currently listed both as a permitt6&.bse and.;es a conditional use within the OP District. The intent is that such uses be ail d ask-a,conditional use subject to the performance standards Iisted-in Section 11-75-7.A of the Zoning Ordinance. The draft Zoning Ordinance amendment includes deletion of commercial recreation as a permitted use in the OP District. Chair Lillehei asked for any comments from the audience. Comments from the audience. Robert Powell, 11774 -205th Street W. • Mr. Powell stated that the amendment doesn't say if this amendment is only for commercial establishments. If he has a winery on his farm, does the proposed amendment impact him? Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2014 Page 6 Mr. Licht stated that the proposed amendment addresses commercial on -sale and off -sale liquor activities regulated under State Statute and would not affect someone producing wine or beer on their property for their own consumption. Motion was made by Reuvers, seconded by Boerschel to close the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. Ayes: Lillehei, Reuvers, Maguire, Boerschel. Nays: 0 Chair Lillehei asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Discussion points included: • Chair Lillehei asked if an existing restaurant Would now be allowed to brew beer inside their building. Mr. Licht indic4W that they would. • Would there be a requirement that a ,certain portion ,of ,an establishment's sales be for food? Mr. Licht stated ,.## t this is addressdd'.by State Statute. Under the Surly Law, tap rooms po,';#asting rooms are exerimota#rom the food requirement. • The Planning Commission concurred, p# th",$'was a very positive amendment and will be a nice amenity for the regoekft of Lakeville. They expressed appreciation for staff roactive o "'Ahis issue so as to encourage businesses like these to`: An Lakeville;; . The Planning Commission `Tz� . i 3 thanked Mr. Licht and City ff for�4Wr.work 6�� hi,s amendment. Motion was madg .tY"ilWuire, sib Council approval .of the Z61* Ordin brewery, smallybr+ewery, bre3ub, dist and tasting room uses in ,.c Wain agri presented til 1 j i ouvers to recommend to City amendment to allow brew on premises, , micro -distillery, farm winery, tap room, iral, commercial or industrial district, as Aygot,: to 4ers,_AAa941, Boerschel, Lillehei '0 There being no further'busine§s, the meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted; Penny Brevig, Recording Secretary ATTEST: Brooks Lillehei, Chair Mr. Mayor, members of the Planning Commission, I have 2 years experience as a responsible urban chicken owner. Prior to obtaining chickens, I discussed the lack of ordinance with City of Lakeville staff, and verified that chickens were not permitted by City Code but that enforcement would be on a complaint basis. Based on that understanding, I discussed my interest in keeping chickens with my neighbors. Both neighbors raised no objections. I further encouraged them to notify me immediately if any concerns arose. Several weeks after my starting my chicken run and coop with 3 hens, I contacted both of my neighbors again to ask them if they had any concerns. Both neighbors were surprised as they hadn't even noticed that I'd started the chicken run. I have statements from both neighbors to provide. Also prior to my starting a chicken coop, I met with several dozen urban chicken coop owners in 6 metro area cities. I explored their practices, numbers and types of birds, design and construction of coops and runs, practices in all 4 seasons, concerns and issues. My opinion at that time, and still held today, was that responsible urban chicken management would not be a public nuisance and would not impinge on the rights of other's enjoyment of their property. And responsible urban chicken management could provide a good source of healthy organic food, great educational and enjoyment opportunities for children and adults, and chickens can be pets loved by all. My only recommendation to the members of this Planning Commission is that any ordinance be restricted to the following philosophy. That philosophy is: r 051 1. All conditions in the ordinance should be necessary for protection of fwi pubkE. !f any conditions are restrictive without truly protective value, those restrictions are not only inappropriate but are inconsistent with the values all residents of Lakeville should assume. 2. The conditions should be consistent with societal norms. A reasonable comparison of societal norms is acceptance of dogs. Like many in this room, / have experienced sleepless nights due to the barking of dogs, sometimes several houses away. / too have experienced stepping in dog manure which is dramatically larger and more offensive than chicken manure. / too have experienced the risk to the safety of my children and myself due to the illegal but accepted practice of dogs running off leash in public areas? Based on this philosophy, and lots of practical experience with responsible urban chicken ownership as well as witnessing irresponsible chicken ownership, I have the following specific comments on the draft ordinance. Draft Ordinance comments: It should be noted that if I have not commented on a proposed provision, it can be assumed that feel the provision is at least acceptable. Section 2. Part C.2.b(l) maximum of 2 chickens. I see no reason for this restriction. I have 3 hens with very little maintenance requirements and NO impact to neighbors. Our limitation of 3 hens was based solely on the number of eggs we wanted for our consumption. A reasonable limitation would be 4 or 5. Section 2. Part C.2.b(2) no roosters agree with this restriction. Section 2. Part C.2.c(1)(b) coop shall not exceed 120 square feet Seems excessively large to me. W coop is 16 square feet and is spacious for my 3 birds. Based on the previous condition in C.2.c(1)(a), a 120 SF coop could house 60 birds. Section 2. Part C.2.c(6)(b) coop and run must be 20' from lot line This condition is reasonable if it is consistent with requirements for dogs, as dogs are much louder and more intrusive than chickens. Section 2. Part C.2.c(7)rip vacy fence screening required This condition is reasonable if it is consistent with requirements for dogs. •� '.l - •- • -• l 31"le-77-11121101 This condition is unnecessary as chickens always go to sleep inside from dusk to dawn. I'd like to hear what evidence there is of noisy chickens at night. While unnecessary, I have no objection to this condition since it is irrelevant. Section 2. Part C.2.g(2)) chickens not allowed in a residential dwelling Again what is the reason for this restriction? Why would it not apply to dogs? I know of several folks who raise chickens from young chicks and they are loved pets. I am an adjacent neighbor of Sam Lucido at 16359 Imperial Circle. Sam has had a small urban chicken coop for 2+ years. During this time, I have experienced no negative consequences from this chicken coop. Steve and Shari Kuefler 16549 Imperial Circle I am an adjacent neighbor of Sam Lucido at 16359 Imperial Circle. Sam has had a small urban chicken coop for 2+ years. During this time, I have experienced no negative consequences from this chicken coop. a6ze 67-��O�1Fred and Sue Guzman 16536 Imperial Circle _.(Q :i3 _ f da - �