Planning commission passes animal‑control and winter parking amendments, debates sewer and ADU code changes

River Heights planning commissioners on May 12, 2026 approved a set of code amendments addressing animal control and winter street‑parking and agreed to strike or simplify other proposed language in the subdivision sewer section while continuing an in‑depth review of proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules.

Public concerns: The meeting opened with staff reading three emailed public comments from residents (Whitney Reid Polson, Jill Skousen, Audrey Elwood) opposing a proposed citywide ban on animals from "city property" that residents read to include sidewalks and trails. Commissioners said the intent was not to ban dogs from sidewalks and that the draft should be clarified to preserve sidewalks and improved trails for responsible dog walking. Commissioners also weighed an animal‑control proposal from the city's animal control officer to define ‘‘continued noise’’ for enforcement as barking or other animal noise lasting 30 minutes or longer, with short breaks under three minutes counted as continuing. Several commissioners supported a 30‑minute threshold as an enforceable standard for chronic nuisance barking.

Leash and parks language: The commission reviewed a proposed edit to the definition of "leash," adding a clause that a leash must physically connect the animal to a person. Commissioners favored restricting park bans to parks ("no animals in city parks unless otherwise posted") rather than sweeping city property bans that residents had opposed.

Winter parking and sewer code: Commissioners modified a proposed winter on‑street parking prohibition (Nov. 15–Mar. 15) so it applies "during snow accumulation" rather than a blanket seasonal ban; the intent is to balance snow‑removal needs and resident parking. On subdivision sewer code (11‑7‑5‑c), staff and the city engineer argued for clearer gravity‑only language to avoid the city inheriting maintenance responsibility for lift stations; commissioners agreed to strike redundant or permissive language and set the section to emphasize gravity operation while removing the earlier "preferred/unless feasible/approved by the city" phrasing.

ADU draft review: The meeting included an extended discussion of attorney redline edits to the proposed ADU ordinance. Commissioners raised multiple questions for counsel: why a prior 11,000‑square‑foot threshold was moved, how to close a potential 36‑month owner‑absence loophole that could be gamed by brief returns, occupancy limits per bedroom versus unrelated‑person limits (and possible fair‑housing concerns), shared‑ownership rules, setbacks/utility easement minimums, ADU size calculation (1,200 sq ft limit), and inconsistent height limits (25 ft vs 35 ft) between accessory buildings and ADUs. Staff will request clarifications from the city attorney and research county/state occupancy references; commissioners scheduled a site visit and will revisit ADU language at a future hearing.

Commission action: Commissioner (S1) moved to adopt the discussed changes to code sections noted in the agenda packet (including 525E5 and 11‑7‑5 language as amended by the commission); a second was recorded and the motion passed. The ADU review drew extensive edits and follow‑up tasks but no final vote; commissioners assigned research and drafting follow‑ups and planned the next hearing and public‑notice steps.

Next steps: Staff will coordinate attorney clarifications and bring a revised draft back for public hearing; staff and some commissioners will research occupancy language and other cross‑references to state/county code before the next meeting.