Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 01-20-20211 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Approved Minutes Planning Commission Meeting January 20, 2021 Chair Anderson called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on January 20, 2021. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners David Witte, Justin Markell, Michael Boo, Bryan Oakley, Donovan Saba and Julie Pointner. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten , Senior Planner Kip Berglund, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, Senior Planner Lori Sommers, and Community Development Coordinator Matt Lupini. OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Ned Carroll, University of Minnesota Bee Squad Representative Gary Reuter and University of Minnesota Extension Services Representative Wayne Martin. Chair Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Plymouth Forum Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Witte to approve the agenda. With All Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Consent Agenda (4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on January 6, 2021. Motion was made by Commissioner Boo and seconded by Commissioner Saba to approve the Consent Agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Public Hearings (5.1) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) to allow Bees in single-family zoning districts (2019060). Senior Planner Berglund reviewed the staff report. 2 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Chair Anderson introduced Gary Reuter from the University of Minnesota Bee Lab. Mr. Reuter stated that he has been a beekeeper for 35 years and has been taking care of the bees at the university for the past 30 years and is active in the industry. He stated that he has worked with municipalities in the past to help create ordinances, although not directly involved in the creation of this ordinance, he did have discussions with the staff and noted that he is available to answer any questions. He further stated that he feels that the setbacks are conservative, noting that typically a ten-foot setback from the property line and a 25-foot setback from an occupied home would be sufficient. Commissioner Boo asked if any cities have adopted an ordinance and then repealed it or have experienced problems after implementing an ordinance. Senior Planner Berglund replied that he could not find any examples in which a city adopted an ordinance and then repealed it because of problems. Mr. Reuter commented that he has not heard of any cities reversing ordinances once adopted either. He stated that some cities have made amendments once adopted to make the ordinance work better in the community, such as Minneapolis allowing beekeeping on roofs. Commissioner Witte asked if there are any native honeybees. Mr. Reuter confirmed that all honeybees are nonnative. Commissioner Witte commented that bees are typically not aggressive. He asked if bees swarm for other reasons outside of rejection of the queen. Mr. Reuter replied that swarming is actually reproduction for a honeybee colony. He explained that in general if a colony is doing well and has good resources, sometimes half the hive will leave to start a new colony as a form of reproduction. He stated that it is not an aggressive behavior. He stated that bees are only aggressive when protecting their home or themselves, which is why they like to see distance from the colony, which is typically five feet. He stated that a swarm will have a few thousand bees and a person could get nervous if they see that. Commissioner Witte stated that this seems to be more of a hobby type of beekeeping and reviewed the process someone would follow to start their colony. He asked if that colony would be expected to expand over time. He asked if bees would be reproducing at a rate that would expand the number of hives past that which would be allowed. Mr. Reuter commented that the beekeeper can control the expansion. He explained that a person would generally start with a package of bees that would include a queen and about 7,000 bees for their box. He stated that the bees do not expand exponentially because bees only live for six weeks during the summer. He commented that most bees will stay within the colony making enough honey to maintain through the winter. He stated that about 50 percent of the bees will not make it through the winter. He noted that if the bees survive, the colony is split into two hives in the spring as a method of swarm control. He agreed that the number of hives should be limited to two or four and if someone has successful hives, they could sell a hive. 3 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Commissioner Witte asked for thoughts on beekeeping in an urban area compared to a rural area and whether there would be a recommended lot size. Mr. Reuter replied that he did not believe that lot size was necessarily the issue, as long as the setbacks can be met. He stated that there should not be a regulation keeping a beekeeper from keeping the bees right next to their own house, but they should not be kept close to a neighboring home. Commissioner Witte asked if insurance coverage has come up in the past for other municipalities. Mr. Reuter commented that he is not aware of such a requirement. Commissioner Oakley referenced the flyaway barrier, which appears to be a fence. He asked if that would then fall under the fence ordinance related to height. He noted that there would be a minimum height for a barrier but there is also a maximum height for a fence. Senior Planner Berglund replied that the flyaway barrier must be a minimum of six feet high. He stated that fencing located in the rear or side of the property, where hives would be allowed, can be six feet high under ordinance, or higher under a conditional use permit. Commissioner Markell asked if public property is defined in the zoning ordinance as it is mentioned in the draft ordinance related to the flyaway barrier. Senior Planner Berglund commented that the intention would be that public property is publicly owned and could be utilized by the public and could be within proximity of the property, such as park property owned by the city or three rivers park district. He commented that a sidewalk would not fall into that category. Community Development Director Juetten commented that the ordinance states that hives cannot be in front yards and therefore a sidewalk should not be an issue. He stated that further review related to trails adjacent to a side yard would need to be completed. Commissioner Markell referenced the permitting process and stated that he would like to see an annual or biannual permit rather than a three-year permit. He stated that as drafted there would be a 14-day review period where neighbors within 200 feet could object and if a neighbor has a bee allergy the permit would be denied. He asked what would happen if someone received a permit and the following year a person moves into the neighboring property that has a bee allergy. Senior Planner Berglund confirmed that an applicant could receive an approval in year one and would not have to ask for subsequent approval until year three. He noted that the allergy would not be discovered until the permit expires and renewal is requested. He stated that staff does not believe that disclosures would be required for neighbors of a property that keeps bees. Commissioner Saba commented that as an agent it would be a decision whether to disclose that information. He stated that he would encourage his customer to disclose that if they were listing their property, but it would not be required. 4 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Community Development Director Juetten stated that the requirement for signage has been included so that someone looking at a property for potential purchase could notice the sign. Commissioner Pointner asked how intense a water source would have to be. Mr. Reuter replied that the water source could be a bucket of water. He stated that he would recommend that the water be supplied continuously to prevent bees from traveling to look for other water sources. He stated that the water would need to be filled perhaps once a week because bees do not drink much. Commissioner Saba commented that it appears that bees can wander up to two miles from the hive. Mr. Reuter confirmed that to be true but noted that he would not call it wandering as bees are precise in their travels. He stated that the average distance is 1.25 miles from the hive and will stay as close as possible because it is less work. Commissioner Saba asked the targeted source of pollen. Mr. Reuter replied that any source of pollen will suffice. He noted that in the spring it typically begins with dandelion and fruit trees and then clover and goldenrod in the fall. Commissioner Saba commented that there is agricultural land in the area and asked if bees are attracted to that food source. Mr. Reuter confirmed that bees are attracted to gardens and a garden may see improvement from the pollination. He stated that bees get a little from soybeans and nothing from corn but do benefit from other row crop fruits and vegetables. Commissioner Saba commented that the intent is described as hobby and education and asked if that would be a proper categorization. Mr. Reuter replied that specifically within residential areas that would be the intent as a beekeeper that is doing that as a business would not do that on a residential property. He commented that most hobbyist like to watch the behavior and take care of the bees and might get a small amount of honey as well. Commissioner Saba asked for information on the competition that the hives would bring to native bees. Mr. Reuter replied that if there is a very limited resource there would be some competition but if there is a legitimate amount of flowers available all the bees would survive together. He commented that in most municipalities that allow beekeeping, other than Minneapolis, there is only interest from a few residents, and it is not an overwhelming response. 5 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Commissioner Saba commented on the concept of doing this for the betterment of the environment and therefore would be concerned that people would have the intent of helping bees in the environment, but this could create competition. Mr. Reuter stated that if the goal is to simply help native bees the resident would be better off planting flowers rather than beekeeping. He commented that beekeeping is not inexpensive and would easily cost in excess of $1,000 to get started. Commissioner Oakley asked if there would be a suggestion for the maximum number of permits that should be issued in order to reasonably support the population. Mr. Reuter replied that they have had that discussion in the bee lab but did not come up with a number. He commented that perhaps there is a legitimate cap on a certain number of colonies within a certain distance, using the example of a set number of permits within a two-mile radius. He recognized that could create problems as that would be a first come first serve basis type policy for residents in the same area. Commissioner Witte asked if a beekeeper could sell honey at a farmers market without an additional permit. Senior Planner Berglund replied that if clients come to the home and market for sale from the home a home occupation permit would be needed but noted that additional permitting would not be required to sell honey at a farmers market. Commissioner Witte commented that many homeowners associations have covenants that would clash with beekeeping and signage. He stated that it would be nice if there is advisory language that states a resident must check with their HOA to ensure that activity is allowed under the covenant. Senior Planner Berglund replied that language is not included in the draft ordinance but agreed that many HOAs have restrictions beyond the city’s restrictions. He stated that if the ordinance is allowed the city could place language on the website that summarizes the ordinance and could include a statement that although the city allows the activity the resident should check with their HOA to see if the activity is restricted. Chair Anderson commented that at one point in his life he did keep a colony of bees for pollination of his garden and trees. He referenced the queen excluder, which would keep the queen restricted to parts of the hive and may prevent swarming. He asked if that should be required. Mr. Reuter confirmed that is partly the intent of the excluder and advised that it also prevents egg laying from the honey supers. He stated that there are pros and cons to using the excluder but noted that he would not recommend requiring it. Chair Anderson stated that Plymouth is mostly developed with lawns treated with chemicals intended to kill dandelions and clover. He asked if there would be sufficient food available with that type of chemical use. 6 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Mr. Reuter commented that unfortunately people favor grass without dandelion and clover, but he believed there would be enough food. He commented that if someone were keeping bees that could not collect enough to live, he would hope that person would realize and stop keeping the bees. Chair Anderson commented that many plants purchased are treated with a chemical that is detrimental to bees and asked for input. He asked if the city would need to regulate the use of that chemical if beekeeping is allowed. Mr. Reuter replied that if the chemical is in a plant that is going to flower it would be a problem for the bees as it is a systemic pesticide that goes throughout the plant. He stated that anything that could be done to discourage the use of that product would be beneficial for all bees. Senior Planner Berglund commented that he is not aware of a ban on that product within Plymouth. Community Development Director Juetten commented that there has been a common theme from the city council that there is a fear of bees and bee allergies. He asked for input on that concern. Mr. Reuter replied that his wife has bee allergies, and he has kept bees for 35 years without incident. He stated that the chances of being stung are pretty slim. He estimated that two to three percent of the population is thought to be allergic to stinging insects and within that population the venom is different, so the person is typically not allergic to all stinging insects. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Gretchen Larson, 12511 11th Avenue N., Plymouth, who stated that she is a resident of ward two and has been interested in beekeeping for some time. She stated that she took the beekeeping course at Bethel College two years ago and encourages the ordinance change to allow beekeeping. She stated that the state is offering grants to homeowners to support pollinators in order to create more habitat. She stated that she has spent more time at home this past year than ever before and people have been spending more time in their yards and improving their property. She stated that the health of the land will be the legacy they leave for the next occupants. She commented on the intricate relationship between the people and the land. She stated that pollinators provide a quantifiable and measurable level of health. She stated that beekeeping allows the integration of people and place. Chair Anderson introduced Mandy Rhead, 14915 32nd Avenue N., Plymouth, commented that she supports the ordinance to allow the keeping of bees and echoed the comments of the previous speaker. She noted the relationship between bees, the environment and food sources. She stated that many people in the community support the keeping of bees. She stated that some of her concerns would be related to the setback requirements proposed and commented that a more reasonable expectation would be to have a setback from the property line. She stated that she also has concern with the flyaway requirements, as most properties would have other homes within 200 feet of the hive. She stated that she would not want to see a six-foot fenced box in the middle of someone’s yard and that may prevent someone from keeping bees. She commented that she agrees with the permitting, notification and signage as that would alert people to a hive 7 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 on the residence. She stated that perhaps only the homes immediately adjacent to a hive would need to be notified. She stated that she is not concerned with the use of a smoker or with noise from bees. She thanked the commission for allowing her to provide input. Community Development Director Juetten replied that the setback measurements would be taken from an aerial GIS image and a resident would not be required to go onto a neighboring property to measure the distance from that home. He clarified that the 50-foot setback would be from homes located adjacent to the property and if the hive is within 200 feet of a neighboring home or public property, a flyaway barrier would be required to separate the hive from those areas. Commissioner Witte commented that the commission talked about fencing not too long ago and thought the fencing requirement was increased for commercial locations. He asked if that language could be incorporated in this instance. Community Development Director Juetten confirmed that the height was increased to 6.5 feet within the fence ordinance and noted that the language for the flyaway barrier could mirror the fence ordinance. Community Development Coordinator Lupini read an email from Daniel Mack, 12610 53rd Avenue N., Plymouth into the record with comments of support as a resident and beekeeper. The resident likened beekeeping to keeping a dog as a pet, noting that both are docile, and the likelihood of aggression would only come if provoked. The resident asked if the flyaway barrier would be necessary or whether the setback itself would be sufficient. The resident asked if a beekeeping class would be required for those that are already experienced and whether it would be necessary to place restriction on honey sales from the home. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Mr. Reuter commented that a flyaway barrier has a purpose but having a flyaway barrier within 200 feet is excessive. He stated that if something is 25 feet from a colony there would most likely not be any interaction. He explained that a flyaway barrier is typically used if a hive is going to be closer to the property line. He stated that if the hive were going to be setback from the property line by 25 feet a flyaway barrier would not be needed but if the hive were going to be closer than 25 feet a flyaway barrier should be used. He commented that many cities require an educational component but there is variability on what that requirement is. He did not know of any municipalities that make an exception for experience. Community Development Director Juetten agreed that it would be difficult to prove experience or what is considered experience and therefore it would be easier for implementation if a class is simply required. Senior Planner Berglund commented that honey sales from the home would require a home occupation permit as that type of activity is limited from the home, based on the language within the home occupation section of the code. Commissioner Saba commented that there are better ways to support native bees, by planting flowers or a garden, and therefore it seems that beekeeping would work against improving the 8 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 environment for native bees. He stated that unlike the dog analogy, bees wander without leashes for up to two miles and are not contained within a yard. He commented that neighbors come and go, and beekeeping could impact the value or desirability of a neighboring home. Commissioner Witte stated that he could support the idea but does have additional questions. He commented that this would be a lot of work as a hobby. Commissioner Pointner stated that she could support this as she does not believe there would be a huge inflow of permit requests from residents. She commented that the draft resolution includes provisions that would make it a safe activity. Commissioner Boo stated that he leans towards supporting allowing this activity. He stated that he does understand the viewpoint of Commissioner Saba but noted that the intent of allowing the activity would be as a hobby and not a means of improving environment overall. Commissioner Oakley commented that he would support some form of the ordinance although there are some details he would want to work out. He stated that this is a hobby that some people are interested in, noting that he has purchased honey from a coworker that keeps bees in a neighboring community. He believed that the ordinance could be designed to ensure that it works well for those that are interested. Chair Anderson stated that he also supports this ordinance. He stated that he agrees with the comments of Commission Saba related to pollinators noting that he has spoken at a public forum about bee safe yards. He stated that he plants native plants for pollinators which includes bees and butterflies. He commented that it is a lot of work to be a beekeeper and therefore people will most likely only come forward that would do it responsibly. He suggested that the commission review some of the issues within the draft ordinance, beginning with the setback. Commissioner Markell stated that he lives in a neighborhood managed by an HOA that would most likely not allow this activity. He provided the example of a one third acre lot that has homes on both sides and backs up to the backyards of other homes. He asked if the 200-foot setback would then be triggered on all sides and require a flyaway barrier on all sides of the hive. Senior Planner Berglund confirmed that would be correct. He stated that there are some communities that specifically state a boundary fence cannot act as a barrier. He stated that as the ordinance is drafted a six-foot boundary fence around the yard and the home itself would act as the flyaway barrier. He recognized that the ordinance is conservatively written, and the requirements are up for negotiation by the commission. Commissioner Markell noted that it appears that as drafted the ordinance would not allow for a boundary fence to be a flyaway barrier. Community Development Director Juetten commented that boundary fences can serve as flyaway barriers and therefore the last sentence of section E could be removed. Commissioner Oakley commented that there are two issues, how far a hive should be setback from the property line and whether there should be an additional setback from homes. He suggested that the requirement in E should be removed, as activity on adjacent properties could 9 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 impact an existing hive. He used the example of a hive existing and then a neighboring property owner expanding their home. He stated that he has received comments that the 25-foot setback is excessive, noting that he does not have expertise on this matter and would defer to the experts. He asked if the commission feels that E is necessary at all and whether D should be changed. Mr. Reuter commented that a ten-foot setback from the property line would be sufficient. He stated that in general a flyaway barrier would be required if the hive is within 25 feet of an adjacent occupied dwelling. Commissioner Boo commented that this activity would be a hobby and therefore it should be comfortable for the rest of the neighborhood to live with this hobby on a neighboring property therefore he supports a 25-foot setback. He stated that there are also setbacks on the other side of the lot line for structures and believed that a 25-foot setback for the hive would be sufficient and did not see a need for section E. Commissioner Witte agreed with the comments of Commissioner Boo. He stated that he would also suggest 200 feet be replaced with 50 feet for the flyaway barrier requirement. Commissioner Saba stated that Minneapolis requires a flyaway barrier if the hive is within 25 feet of the property line. Mr. Reuter stated that if you are more than 25 feet from the property line you would not need a flyaway barrier. Commissioner Saba agreed that the flyaway barrier would not seem to be needed if the 25-foot setback is implemented. It was the consensus of the Commission to use the 25-foot setback and not require a flyaway barrier. Commissioner Oakley commented that while he would support a maximum number of permits, he would be unsure what that would be and therefore would suggest leaving that unless it becomes an issue. Mr. Reuter commented that he would be unsure how to create a maximum number of permits. He stated that if he were to place a restriction, he would suggest that permits be at least one mile apart, which is the requirement for the distance between commercial hives in North Dakota. Commissioner Oakley stated that he was considering whether there be a maximum number of permits allowed within the city, rather than placing a distance restriction. He asked how many hives could reasonably be supported in a 36 square mile city and did not believe that type of information was provided in the report. It was the consensus of the Commission to not place a restriction on the number of permits allowed within the city and to require permittees to complete a beekeeping course. It was confirmed that the language related to a home occupation permit should remain for honey sales from a home. 10 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Commissioner Markell asked what types of permits are renewed on an annual basis. Senior Planner Berglund reviewed the types of activities that require annual permits, such as temporary sales. Community Development Director Juetten commented that rental licensing for a single-family home is required to be renewed every three years while an apartment is each year, and a liquor license is renewed each year as well. Commissioner Markell commented that he believes the renewal process should be annual to ensure that there are no issues. He used the example of someone purchasing a neighboring property has a conflict. Community Development Director Juetten commented that would create the situation that if someone goes through the expense of starting a hive and the process to obtain a permit, that could be in jeopardy because someone purchased a home within 200 feet that does not like that hobby. Commissioner Markell commented that would be a risk to the beekeeper as their hobby is inferior to the health and welfare of others. Commissioner Oakley commented that he would support the three-year permit period as proposed. Commissioner Pointner stated that she would support three years. Chair Anderson commented that he would also support a three-year permit. Commissioner Markell asked if a permit could be revoked during the three-year period if someone purchases a home within 200 feet that has a documented allergy. Community Development Director Juetten commented that a person would receive the permit for three years and if operating under the regulations, staff would not review new information until the next review is done at the next renewal. Commissioner Saba asked if language could be included that would allow revocation in the scenario that an allergy is identified. Commissioner Markell commented that there could be legal issues with enforcement and would simply prefer to have a one-year permit period. Commissioner Saba noted that he could then support a one-year period if it is not revocable with evidence shown for allergy. Commissioner Oakley commented that he does not think this issue is as widespread as it is made out to be by some people. He commented that if someone purchases a home, they have the responsibility to find out what is going on around them and if there is signage posted around the hive, that would be the required warning. He stated that if someone does not want to live next to 11 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 a beehive, they should not purchase that home. He stated that part of the reason to support the three-year permit is partially to decrease the load on city staff and to support the hobbyist that obtained the permit because of the investment they put into starting the hobby and obtaining the permit. Commissioner Markell commented that this is venturing into new territory and if someone wants it, they should be willing to regularly prove they meet the requirements. Chair Anderson asked for input from staff. Community Development Director Juetten stated that staff will do whatever the ordinance states. He stated that if 150 permits are requested that would create a staffing problem as the permits would come in at the same time each year, therefore it would depend how many permits are required. Commissioner Pointner asked if the group would compromise at two years. Commissioner Markell confirmed that he could support two years but would not support three years. Chair Anderson confirmed the consensus of the Commission to support a two-year permit length. Commissioner Oakley referenced subdivision one, which allows up to two beehives. He commented that it has been said that only 50 percent of bees survive a winter and that they typically divide, therefore it does not seem that would be appropriate. He stated that in some years both hives may die, but in others both may survive and would need to be split. He asked if three hives would be a better number. Mr. Reuter stated that the numbers could be larger depending on the lot size. He commented that two could be okay but three would be reasonable for backyard bees. He provided additional details on the things that impact whether bees live through the winter. Commissioner Boo stated that he finds that two hives would be sufficient as a hobby. Motion was made by Commissioner Boo and seconded by Commissioner Oakley to recommend to the City Council approval of the resolution and findings of fact approving the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) to allow bees in single-family zoning districts (2019060) with changes to the draft ordinance eliminating the last sentence of flyover barriers, eliminating the 50 setback from adjacent property homes, eliminating the need for a flyover barrier and the change for permit length from three years to two years. With six votes in favor and one vote against, the motion carried. Commissioner Saba voted against. (5.2) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) to allow chickens in single-family zoning districts (2019041). Senior Planner Sommers reviewed the staff report. 12 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Commissioner Markell stated that he would be inclined to support a permit for this use, even more so than for beekeeping. Senior Planner Sommers replied that through the staff research most other municipalities that allow this activity do not require a permit. Chair Anderson commented that chickens would also propose less of a danger as they are confined to a cage and therefore there is less potential harm to others. Senior Planner Sommers commented that the ordinance would not allow free range chickens, if outside of the coup or run they must be supervised. Commissioner Oakley asked for details on enforcement and how people would know what they are supposed to do without the permit process. Senior Planner Sommers stated that staff would develop a handout similar to the handout for accessory structures under 200 square feet, which are allowed without a permit. Commissioner Boo commented that the lack of a permit would seem to mean that enforcement is done based on complaints. Senior Planner Sommers confirmed that if a complaint were received, a code enforcement staff person would be sent out to review the issue. Commissioner Saba asked and received confirmation that roosters would not be allowed. Commissioner Witte mentioned the written comments received from Jeff Kulaszewicz’s, specifically the need for younger chickens because of the short egg laying lifespan of hens. He asked if the ordinance addresses that issue. Senior Planner Sommers stated that staff looked at how detail orientated the ordinance needed to be in order to allow the activity within Plymouth. She stated that they tried to keep it broad and still provide a limit that should not cause issues for neighboring property owners. Commissioner Witte stated that he would tend to agree with requiring a permit. He noted that some people do not pickup after their dogs and therefore he would be skeptical that people would clean up after chickens in a manner that would not create a nuisance for those downwind. He stated that he would be more likely to support the idea with the requirement for a permit. Chair Anderson introduced Wayne Martin, 1988 Fitch Avenue, St. Paul, and the University of Minnesota Extension Services stated that replacement birds will come up eventually. He stated that egg production begins to decrease in the second year, but the birds can live six to eight years. He stated that it would depend on the purpose of the birds, whether they are pets or used for egg production. He stated that each bird will produce about five eggs a week, therefore all full production four birds would produce 20 eggs per week. He commented that bringing young birds in brings its own complications as they would need their own space as the older birds may not be kind to them. He commented that four birds would be easy to manage. He commented that the birds are social animals and therefore he would not suggest less than four. 13 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Commissioner Markell asked if someone could use the CUP process to have a coup and chickens if this ordinance were not approved. Senior Planner Sommers replied that without this ordinance a resident would not be able to have chickens unless they are located on the FRD district. Mr. Martin commented that he would agree that a permit could be helpful as sometimes people are not educated on chickens prior to deciding to get them. He stated that a two-to-three-hour introductory class could be helpful before people get the birds. He stated that he and others in Minneapolis offer short courses that are approved by animal control. Commissioner Witte referenced an article written by a veterinarian in Colorado related to urban chicken keeping. He stated that community ending up using a permit and requiring a course and inspection from a local humane society. Mr. Martin agreed that it would be worthwhile to start with education rather than having chicken owners panic when they face an issue that could arise. He commented that human health is also an issue. He stated that people love holding small chicks, sometimes close to their face, and do not realize that chickens could be hazardous to their health. Chair Anderson referenced the potential that chickens could attract predators and asked for more information. Mr. Martin agreed that many animals like chickens, noting that the worst predator is hawks and therefore a run should be covered to keep aerial predators out. He stated that chicken coup wire is not sufficient for the bottom portion of the coup as it has gaps large enough that would allow a racoon to reach through and pull off feathers. He stated that he recommends using hardware cloth on the bottom as that would prevent predators from reaching through. Commissioner Oakley commented that Plymouth does have wild turkeys and asked if there could be conflict between chickens and turkeys. Mr. Martin commented that it would be unlikely that there would be any issues unless the turkeys get into the pen and eat the same food, noting then the potential for disease to spread between the birds. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Mandy Rhead, 14915 32nd Avenue N., Plymouth, commented that she has been quite interested in keeping chickens. She stated that last spring she had trouble getting eggs from the store on multiple occasions and then considered keeping chickens of her own in her backyard. She stated that during her research she discovered that the activity was not allowed in Plymouth. She stated that when she learned that the city would be discussing this topic, she reached out to many of her neighbors. She stated that as a gardener she would like to continue to provide more of her own food supply through both vegetables and chickens. She asked the commission to support the ordinance. She stated that she would like to see an ordinance require the chicken coup and run area fenced to prevent nuisance situations and 14 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 problems with predators. She stated that she would support an area larger than 150 square feet in order to ensure that the chickens remain healthy. She asked if a secondary medical coup could be allowed in order to segregate a chicken if it becomes sick or injured and needs to be separated. She stated that she would not support allowing roosters. She asked if there could be consideration to change the setback from 10 feet to six feet from the property line, as that would align with other accessory building setbacks. She believed that the onl y setback should be from the property line rather than having a setback from the property line and adjacent homes. She commented that in her yard she would have difficulty complying with the requirement to keep the home closer to her home than the property line because of the sloping of her backyard. Chair Anderson introduced Joe Shebuski, 10800 40th Avenue N., Plymouth, who stated that his comments focus on the food safety issue as he is a food microbiologist. He commented on some of the risks that the birds could introduce into their environment noting that pregnant women and children are more susceptible to foodborne illnesses. He stated that there are opportunities for mitigation such as handwashing and coup management. He also provided comments on the avian influenza which could not only impact large numbers of birds but has the potential to impact humans as well. He commented that commercial chickens are managed in a different way than backyard chickens, therefore the backyard chicken environment provides additional potential for the spread of illness. He commented that there are a variety of pets available for people to choose from and therefore did not believe food producing animals should be used as pets. He commented that permits would allow the city to keep track of who is keeping chickens and also believed that an educational course would help to ensure that people are aware of the measures that must be taken to manage the birds in a healthy way. Chair Anderson introduced Jeff Kulaszewicz, 11420 Ridgemount Avenue N., Plymouth, commented that he is a member of the Plymouth HRA and has been a resident for the past 20 years. He stated that he did submit written comments prior to the city council review session. He stated that the sample ordinances included in the packet recommended six or more chickens as they are flock animals. He commented that the difficulty in maintaining a flock is that some chickens will be lost that will need to be replaced. He referenced the language that states a chick can stay in the house until six weeks old. He asked what someone would then do at the six-week point, as they are not old enough to lay eggs or be with the older chickens. He commented that perhaps with up to 200 square feet coop allowance, that would create the ability to have an area for the younger chicks that could also be used for isolation if a chicken is sick. He referenced the language related to easements and asked if that would include an overhead power easement. He stated that the language related to corner lots would most likely prohibit the keeping of chickens on corner lots as most of the property on those lots would be defined as a side yard. He asked for clarification on the reference to front yard and equivalent. He referenced the eight-foot height limit and noted that other accessory buildings are allowed to be ten feet. He was unsure how a proper coup could include a roof that sheds snow at a height of eight feet. Chair Anderson introduced Carla Sortomme, 16440 28th Avenue N., Plymouth, commented that she has been interested in having backyard chickens for the past 3.5 years. She commented that the draft ordinance is very conservative related to the limit of four chickens that must be enclosed. She stated that the only reason she believes a permit should be used is to ensure education is included as that would help to prevent an issues related to illness. She commented that if someone maintains the coup and washes their hands there should be no issues with illness. She commented that she kept chickens before moving to Plymouth and never had any issues with 15 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 noise or odor complaints. She stated that salmonella does not solely come from chickens and could also come from amphibians or reptiles, which are kept as pets. She commented that people can own amphibians and reptiles and did not see it fair that chickens could not also be kept as pets. She acknowledged that a large number of chickens could create an issue, but four chickens is a very low and conservative number that should not cause any issues for neighboring property owners. She commented that people are not required to obtain permits for dogs, which are much more likely to cause injury to others and therefore did not believe permits should be required for four chickens. Chair Anderson introduced Nicole Gerl, 4375 Juneau Lane N., Plymouth, commented that it sounds like the previous speaker desired more than four chickens. She stated that she would be agreeable to starting with four chickens with perhaps a review done after one year to determine if that number could increase. She referenced the previous comment that people do not pickup after their dogs and assumed that comment was related to when people are out walking their dogs. She noted that chickens would be kept inside yards and therefore that would not be a similar issue. She referenced the comment that was made that eggs have become cheap but noted that during the height of the pandemic there was a shortage of eggs and the price was not cheap. She commented that the most common neighborhood concern would be related to odor. She acknowledged that if you do not clean up after chickens, they could smell but dogs create much more waste than chickens and that waste often remains in the yard for a longer amount of time. She stated that the other main neighborhood concern would be related to noise. She stated that chickens can be noisy but are far less noisy than dogs. She commented that the decibel level of chickens is similar to human talking and stated that chickens do not make noise all the time. She referenced the run and coup size, stating that the original draft presented to the council was 60 square feet which has been increased to 120 square feet. She commented that the updated size seems fair for four chickens. Chair Anderson introduced Joan Claude, 205 Magnolia Lane N., Plymouth, stated that she grew up in Iowa had always had chickens. She stated that based on her experience she does not favor having chickens in urban areas. She stated that she is concerned that the waste could bring in other unwanted animal activity. She stated that she has never seen a free-range chicken listen to commands such as “come”. She stated that she agrees with the comments of having a more reinforced bottom of the coup and a covered run area. She stated that she does support requiring a permit as people often sensationalize having chickens without realizing the work that is needed. She also believed that an educational class could help people to realize what is necessary before purchasing the chickens. She asked what someone would do with a chicken that dies or when their chickens are too old to produce eggs, if slaughter is not allowed. She also asked what would be done with the waste, as chicken waste cannot immediately be used for gardens and would most likely take one to two years to breakdown to do so. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Sommers stated that chicken waste is not a prohibited item and therefore could be picked up with regular trash pickup. She stated that the language related to easements was intended to be for drainage and utility easement and not overhead powerline easements, noting that language could be clarified. She stated that for accessory structures there are two categories, noting that those 200 square feet or less have certain restrictions depending on the zoning while 16 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 those above 200 square feet have different restrictions. She referenced the comment related to equivalent yards and noted that it is the area on through lots or corner lots that could be conceived as a rear or side yard. She referenced the eight-foot height limitation noting that the thought was that someone could walk into a chicken coup with a height of eight feet and that would still limit the impact on adjacent properties. She confirmed that the proposed size was increased from the original proposed size of 60 square feet to 120 square feet based on discussion with the city council. She stated that the ordinance could be revisited in the future to determine if that size should be increased further but it was believed that it would be better to begin with more conservative sizes. Mr. Martin commented that four birds would be a minimum. He stated that the neighboring cities have been cautious at first, beginning with a smaller number and increasing that over time as they become comfortable with the activity. He noted that Minneapolis began with four birds and now allows a higher number based on the amount of space available. He stated that he would not require a mandatory size of 120 square feet for the run as that would be a lot of space for four chickens and an added expense. He stated that he typically recommends three to five square feet inside the coup per bird, noting that five feet would be better in Minnesota because the birds tend to be outside less in the winter. He stated that ten square feet per bird is recommended in the run area, noting that 60 square feet for four birds would be a wonderful size but a 120 square foot run for four birds would be excessive. He stated that people may have fenced yards and allow the birds in the yard with them when they are outside, or the birds could be kept in the run area during the day. He stated that in the winter the birds will spend their time in the coup and run area, if that is kept clear of snow as the birds do not like snow. He was unsure that someone would want to keep chickens in the home for a longer period of time because of the health issues and odor that could arise. He noted that chicks are cute but by four to six weeks they are less cute and begin to smell when kept in the home. He stated that a fenced run and fenced yard would provide the ability for someone to have the bids in the run area during the day while they are gone, or out in the yard if they are home and in the yard with them. He stated that manure would need to be managed for the issue of odor and potential health issues for the birds. He stated that manure can be managed to use in a garden setting but confirmed that the material should not be used in the same year it was deposited. He stated that if manure were going to kept for garden use it would be composted with the bedding material throughout the course of the year and then used the following year in a vegetable garden. Commissioner Witte asked where birds six to 21 weeks would be kept. Mr. Martin replied that in a farm setting there would be a separate area for those animals to grow. He commented that very young chickens have to be kept in a very warm setting until four weeks of age, often using a heat lamp or other device that creates heat, therefore they would need to be separate from older chickens. He stated that after that time the person could begin the process of exposing them to the other birds. He stated that younger birds require a different diet and therefore it is difficult to mix flocks. He stated that it would make more sense to replace the flock rather than trying to mix the birds because they will be mean to each other. Commissioner Witte commented that this is a conservative draft and there is interest in the community. He stated that he would prefer to treat this similar to bees and require a permit and educational class. He stated that with those two additions he could support the proposed draft. 17 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Commissioner Oakley commented that he agrees with Commissioner Witte. He referenced the setback, noting that 25 feet was required for bees while 10 feet is proposed for chickens. He suggested that perhaps consistency should be applied. He was unsure that bees would be more hazardous to health, noting that any pet brings a potential issue. He stated that he did not have a strong feeling but noted that he would suggest a two-year permit, similar to the bees. Commissioner Boo commented that he would also support the draft ordinance with the change of adding a permit and educational class. He commented that the operation is complex enough that people should not be expected to know what they are doing without that. He stated that the permitting process would also provide good information for the city to have. He stated that he sees the issue of setback a little different than the bees simply because this structure would be of some size and would be visually impactful, unlike a beehive, therefore a larger setback may be more justified because of that structural component. He did not believe the size language should be changed as it allow up to 120 square feet for both the coup and run. He did not believe that the issue of replacement needed to be addressed in the ordinance. He commented that people will need to manage their four-bird flock and replace them in the manner that seems appropriate to them. He commented that four birds seem to make sense. He stated therefore he could support the ordinance with a permit and educational class required. Commissioner Pointner agreed with the comments of the previous commissioners to add the permit and classes. She commented that this would allow the city to understand what is occurring in the city while the allowance rolls out. Commissioner Saba commented that he would be against this for the same reasons as the previous case. He stated that this is livestock, and he would not support allowing other livestock such as ducks, quail, or pigs on urban lots. He stated that when you move to a community it is your responsibility to check what is allowed and some people may have chosen Plymouth because it did not allow the keeping of bees or chickens. Commissioner Markell stated that he also will not be supporting the ordinance. He stated that he would distinguish this from the previous case as he believes this would bring nuisance more than anything else. Chair Anderson stated that he would support the ordinance and believed that the education component would be important. He commented that the permit would provide more ability for enforcement on whether the class is taken. He explained that the class would be a method to sort out those that would and would not want to have chickens based on the responsibilities that would be needed. Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Pointner to recommend to the City Council approval of the resolution and findings of fact approving the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) to allow chickens in single-family zoning districts (2019041) adding to the ordinance the requirement of a two-year permit and an educational component and amending the ordinance to clarify the easement as a drainage and utility easement and not overhead powerline easements. With five votes in favor and two votes against, the motion carried. Commissioners Markell and Saba voted against. Chair Anderson briefly recessed the meeting. 18 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Chair Anderson reconvened the meeting. (5.3) Mission Ponds Homeowners Association (HOA) Reguiding Request (2020072). Commissioner Saba recused himself from this item because of a real estate listing he has in the general area. Senior Planner Berglund reviewed the staff report. Chair Anderson clarified that all the Commission is looking at tonight is only the reguiding request and if approved a future application for plat would be required. Commissioner Boo asked if the original density allowed for the parcel required this area to be open space. Senior Planner Berglund replied that this townhome area was originally shown as 36 units and was reduced to 27 units for visible impacts. He stated that the density was not just for this townhome area but also the single-family homes within Mission Hill and Mission Ridge. He stated that the total area was roughly nine acres and under low density it could accommodate 27 units. Commissioner Pointner asked the reason this is being considered if the only decision today is whether to change the designation. Senior Planner Berglund stated that since 2004 staff has received questions from the HOA about creating the additional lot. He stated that the RPUD was eliminated in 1996 and the subject property is under the LA-1 guiding, therefore the subdivision is at or above the density allowed by the guiding. He stated that in order to add an additional lot, this process would need to be followed. He stated that the intent of the applicant would be to create an additional single-family lot. Commissioner Markell asked staff to summarize the alternatives that were outlined within the report. Senior Planner Berglund replied that a number of different alternatives were listed in the report and included transference of the property to the adjacent property owner, allowing adjacent property owners to maintain the property, or dedicating the property as a natural preserve. Commissioner Witte stated that this area was mentioned as being 7.7 acres while the draft resolution refers to 7.5 acres. He asked which calculation would be correct. Senior Planner Berglund replied that those numbers are estimates taken from GIS and believed 7.7 acres to be the more accurate estimate. Commissioner Witte asked if this would be considered a legal non-conforming use because it was developed in a conforming manner, but the guiding changed which changed the 19 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 conformance. He asked and received confirmation from staff that this proposed change would make the parcel conforming with the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if the increased density allowed under the proposed guiding would make it possible for homes to be removed and reconstructed at a higher density. Senior Planner Berglund stated that in order for that to occur, all the property owners would need to consent to the sale of their homes and any future development would be subject to the city review for zoning regulations. He stated that the applicant has not mentioned that intention. Chair Anderson introduced Susan Drakulic, 11180 36th Place N., Plymouth, representing the applicant who stated that this is a 40-year-old association that is reaching a point where it needs to review infrastructure and maintenance needs, including streets and other maintenance activities. She stated that it was determined that the funding is not sufficient for the improvements that will be needed in the future. She stated that one option for that funding would be to increase dues significantly which would be burdensome to the residents and could hinder future sales of units. She stated that the association does have this additional lot and began this process with the city in 2019 to determine the steps that would be needed to split that lot for development of a home. She stated that they did receive an offer for the potential lot for the construction of a single-family home, with the acknowledgement of the city processes that the association and potential buyer would need to go through. She stated that there is a pond and stream that separate the lot from the association and therefore is not usable by the association. She stated that this potential sale would allow the association to continue to fund future maintenance needs. Chair Anderson introduced Bill Smith, 11170 36th Place N., Plymouth, representing the applicant who stated that the monthly dues are $335 per month currently and raising that amount higher would make it difficult for some of the older residents to remain in their homes and would impact the valuation of the properties. He stated that the best thing for the association would be to sell this asset in order to increase the reserves. Ms. Drakulic stated that the association has governing documents, with the board members serving as volunteers. She noted that in order to move forward on this process they had to obtain 100 percent approval from the property owners and first mortgage holders, which they have been able to do. Commissioner Markell asked if the association is responsible for snow removal. Ms. Drakulic confirmed that the city does not plow their streets, the association is responsible for its own snow removal. She commented that the roads are private drives, and the association is responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Smith commented that they have also resurfaced the streets recently, which was fully born by the association. He stated that they are a small association and therefore they have had difficulty funding all these costs with simply the membership dues. Commissioner Markell asked if there is any knowledge as to why the trail promised in the original development agreement did not come to fruition. 20 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 Ms. Drakulic commented that she does not have any knowledge about the trail. Chair Anderson opened the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Steve and Karen Chesebrough, 11255 36th Place N., Plymouth, who stated that they submitted written questions prior to the meeting and have nothing further to add based on the presentation. They provided a brief summary of their written comments and questions that were included in the commission packet along with a description of the vacant lot. Mrs. Chesebrough commented that she believes that a single-family home on this lot would fit in better with the surrounding homes and neighborhood. Mr. Chesebrough commented that it would seem the driving force behind the request is the financial gain of the applicant and believed that one of the criteria for a variance is that the reason not be for financial gain and noted that perhaps additional massage is needed of the application submittal. Chair Anderson introduced Kirk Soland, 11330 36th Place N., Plymouth, who commented that he finds the vacant lot detached from the housing development and does not see a practical purpose the association would have for it. He stated that he supports selling the lot to allow someone to build a single-family home on the lot. Chair Anderson introduced Colin Nelson, 3630 Evergreen Lane N., Plymouth, who commented that he lives in the Mission Hills neighborhood and supports the proposal for the Mission Ponds association to divide their property. He stated that the reguiding would have benefit for the townhomes and single-family neighborhood. He did not see a benefit in forcing the association to hold on to this portion of their property as it is a very separate place that is not visually or physically accessible to them. He stated that the property has not been well maintained and has invasive buckthorn. He commented that the separation would be beneficial as the association could then sell the lot and the land would be better used for a single-family home. He stated that Mission Hills has an abundance of trails and greenspace and therefore this parcel would have a negligible impact. He stated that allowing a home to be built would also provide additional funding to the school district as well. He stated that the staff report states that engineer has determined that the majority of the easement could be vacated but then states that all easements have already been vacated through previous resolution. He asked for clarification on that item. Chair Anderson introduced Erica Nolte, 11040 36th Place N., Plymouth, commented that she lives across the street and has had the privilege of looking at the pine trees in this area. She stated that her original questions concerned whether the property would be redeveloped and whether the trees would remain. She stated that her questions have been answered and she would support the request. She asked if there would be potential for the property to change and developer at a higher density if the rezoning is approved. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Berglund identified a drainage easement that encompasses a large portion of the area that could be split to create an additional lot. He stated that if the reguiding is approved and a subdivision request is made, staff would look into the easements further. He stated that engineering has stated that if the easement does exist, they would be comfortable vacating a majority of that. He referenced the comment that the lot is overgrown and was described as a gully. He identified a wetland in the area that has some natural drainage that goes into the area 21 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 that could be proposed for a single-family home. He noted that part of any additional applications would include a review of the drainage. He stated that any subdivision request that could come forward would be subject to the tree preservation requirements. He stated that technically if the reguiding were approved, the area would be allowed to develop at a rate of up to six units per acre but that would require buy in from all the property owners within the subdivision and the applicant has not stated any intention to follow that path. Chair Anderson stated that there was a comment related to variance criteria and explained that this is not a variance request and is instead a reguiding request. He commented that he appreciates that the comprehensive plan application is proceeding any further requests. Commissioner Oakley stated that it would make sense for a single-family lot to be on the street to the north and the vacant lot does not appear to make sense. He stated that in reading more background it appeared that an extra lot was given to the parcel in order to support the requests of the developer. He stated that now 40 years later, those that are not receiving benefit from the additional lot are stuck with it. He commented that it seems like poor planning and as much as he does not want to change the previous negotiations between the city and developer, he does not think the current property owners and members of the association should be penalized for this poor planning. He stated that he leans towards support for the reguiding and believed that this is a good lesson for future project review. Chair Anderson commented that 40 years ago was a very different time and this entire area was reviewed under a PUD with different negotiations. He stated in 1996 the city removed the PUD concept which created nonconforming situations. He commented that the commission should review this from a land use point of view today and when you look at the flag area it makes sense for that to be a single-family lot. He stated that it would not make sense to allow the overall parcel to increase in density to the maximum allowed under LA-2, but it does make sense to have one additional single-family home on that lot. He recognized that in the past the developers used the concept of privately maintained streets and infrastructure and in some instances the city has had to take control of that infrastructure. He commented that this association has not done that and instead has come forward with a creative solution to continue to fund maintenance and other responsibilities of the association. He stated that he does support the concept of the process that will be necessary to split this parcel off to create a single-family home and noted that this would be the first step to doing so. Commissioner Witte agreed with the previous commissioners. He commented that land prices 40 years ago were much lower. He stated that one concern would be that if this is reguided someone could be tempted to buy all the properties and redevelop with high density. He noted that this could also create a precedent for other associations to come forward with requests to develop empty lots. He commented that this is a good solution for this situation. He noted that the applicant is not the only one advocating for this request. He stated that the packet contained many comments in support and not supporting the request and appreciated all the input. He stated that he will be supporting the request. Commissioner Boo commented that he found this to be a difficult decision to make. He stated that many rules were created 40 years ago and have continued to be followed because that was the agreement that was made then. He stated that this is also a unique situation in that this lot is not really connected to the townhouse lots and was intended as open space with a private 22 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 pathway for the association to maintain the lot and not as a connection to go through to the neighboring development. He stated that there is also a physical separation for the lot. He stated that he is also empathetic to the association and its members. He commented that they should not be stuck with poor planning of the past if there is a rational solution today. He stated that the lot is comfortably located in a development of single-family homes and is large enough to support the construction of a similar house. He stated that he does struggle with the precedent and lack of principal that this decision would be made upon. Commissioner Markell commented that he is also conflicted as this does seem a good use for the property but the only reason for this request is financial gain. He recognized that costs increase, and perhaps better planning and cost estimates would have prevented this situation. He stated that there may be other neighborhoods that have similar financial struggles and do not have the same option to sell land. He stated that the development agreement promised that lot as open space in return for one additional lot and now that bargain is asked to be overlooked. He stated that he could see how this could create a slippery slope of future requests. Community Development Director Juetten commented that this could create additional requests from associations but stated that staff has not analyzed every development in the city as to whether their open land would be developable. He was unsure that this would be a slippery slope but could open the door for additional requests. He noted that not all HOAs are in the same financial position and may not be able to gain 100 percent approval to sell land. Commissioner Pointner referenced the comments that other residents allowed their children to play on that land. She stated that the land is owned by the HOA and therefore is private property. She stated that if the land were meant to be used by everyone, it would be city owned land. She believed that the HOA has the right and ability to sell the land if desired. Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Witte to recommend to the City Council approval of the resolution approving the Mission Ponds Homeowners Association (HOA) request to reguide 7.5 acres from LA-1 to LA-2 (2020072). With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. (5.4) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) regarding traffic sigh visibility relating to fencing and plantings (2020094). Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and on a motion by Commissioner Witte and a second by Commissioner Boo the public hearing was continued until February 3, 2021. With all Commissioners voting in favor. (5.5) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) to add a Dynamic Display Billboard Definition and Allow Dynamic Display Billboards in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts (2019072). Chair Anderson opened the public hearing and on a motion by Commissioner Witte and a second by Commissioner Pointner the public hearing was continued until February 3, 2021. With all Commissioners voting in favor. 23 Approved Minutes January 20, 2021 New Business (6.1) Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2021 Community Development Director Juetten reviewed the staff report. Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley and seconded by Commissioner Witte to elect Commissioner Anderson as Chair and Commissioner Markell Vice Chair for 2021 and submit the elections to the City Council. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 12:21 a.m., January 21, 2021