Loading...
10.2. SR 11-02-2020Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 10.2 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Work Session November 2, 2020 Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Item Description Reviewed by Ordinance Discussion: Keeping of Chickens Cal Portner, City Administrator Reviewed by Action Requested Discuss the current chicken ordinance and provide staff with direction regarding a possible amendment. Background/Discussion During the Open Forum of the October 19, 2020, City Council meeting, a resident spoke regarding the keeping of chickens on residential lots. She noted the current ordinance limits chickens to parcels 2.5 acres and larger and stated her lot is smaller than the requirement. She asked the City Council to review the ordinance and discuss reducing the minimum lot size for the keeping of chickens on residential parcels. In the spring of 2017, staff conducted two surveys to gauge the public opinion of chickens and assist in the drafting of an ordinance to expand the limited opportunities available at that time. The Planning Commission held two public hearings and the City Council ultimately adopted the recommendation from the Commission. Since adoption of the ordinance, no complaints regarding permitted operations have been received, although code enforcement has contacted a few residents regarding non -permitted operations. Financial Impact None Mission/Policy/Goal The ordinance discussion meets the changing needs of residents and seeks to maintain and improve their quality of life. Attachments Section 30-803 relating to the keeping of chickens Community Survey results Planning Commission and City Council packets and minutes The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires pi ospei ly. M TUREJ Updated.• August 2020 Sec. 30-803. - Animals. (a) Definitions. The definitions in section 30-1 are applicable in this section. (b) Purpose. It is the intent of this section to establish regulations which will allow the keeping of animals within the city in a safe, clean, and healthy manner. The city recognizes that certain types of animals require regulations and standards to ensure that the health, safety, and welfare of the public is protected and to promote the compatibility of land uses as it relates to the keeping of animals. (c) Applicability of other regulations. The provisions of this section relate to the regulation of animals in the context of land use compatibility. These standards and provisions are not exclusive of other regulations set forth in this Code. The provisions of any other ordinance, statute or rule which impose other or greater restrictions shall also apply. (d) Keeping of cbickens. (1) Number and type of cbickens. a. A maximum of 12 chickens (hens) are allowed on parcels two and one-half to five acres on all residentially zoned properties in the city. b. For parcels within the R-1a zoning district, the number of chickens can be increased with a conditional use permit, as described in this section. C. Chickens are not permitted on parcels below two and one-half acres in size in the RI- b, R1-c, and R1-d zoning district. d. Roosters are not permitted on parcels two and one-half acres to five acres in size, unless a conditional use permit is granted. (2) Oicken coop and run. a. Every person who owns, controls, keeps, maintains, or harbors chickens must keep them confined at all times in a chicken coop or chicken run. b. Chickens are not allowed in principal or accessory structures. C. Chicken coops may not be constructed on any parcel of land before construction of the principal structure. d. A chicken coop will be considered an accessory structure and will count towards total lot coverage. e. Chicken coops and runs must comply with all applicable building and zoning codes and regulations. f. Setbacks. i. Chicken coops and runs must be setback at least 25 feet from any residential structure and at least ten feet from the property line. ii. Chicken coops and runs must be located in the rear yard. Corner lots must maintain front yard setbacks from all property lines adjacent to rights -of -way. iii. A chicken coop and run may not be located within 45 feet of a wetland or stormwater pond. g. Design standards. i. Chicken coops may be no larger than ten square feet per chicken and must be elevated between 12 and 24 inches to ensure air circulation beneath the coop. A chicken coop must have rodent resistant flooring. ii. Chicken runs may not exceed 20 square feet per chicken and must have a protective overhead netting to keep chickens separated from other animals. iii. Chicken coops and runs must be completely enclosed. A chicken coop and run must be enclosed with weather resistant wood or woven wire materials. Additionally, hardware cloth or similar material must extend one foot beyond the base of the coop and run area to protect from predators. (3) Additional requirements. a. Chicken feed must be stored in rodent -proof containers. b. Chicken may not be kept or raised in a manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons on other property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor, or filth. The slaughtering of chickens is prohibited. City of Elk -�-1 River Request for Action To Item Number Planning Commission 6.8 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Public Hearin s March 28, 2017 BrieAnna Simon, Planner Item Description Reviewed by City of Elk River — Ordinance Amendment Chris Leeseber , Senior Planner Reviewed by ■ Ordinance amendment to expand opportunities for the keeping of chickens in residential areas, Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Case No. OA 17-03 Action Requested Recommend, by motion, approval of the Ordinance Amendment as proposed. Why is this amendment being proposed? Every year staff receives numerous calls asking if chickens are permitted within the urban service district, specifically on lot sizes less than five acres in size. The ordinance currently requires five acres of land and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for lots within the urban service district to have chickens. Outside of the urban service district, chickens are permitted on properties less than five acres in size with a Conditional Use Permit. If the a property is greater than five acres in size outside of the urban service district, chickens are permitted and the number of chickens can be doubled with a CUP. On all properties within the City of Elk River, if the property lot size and required permitting is obtained, the property is permitted to have 0.01 animal units per one acres of fenced pasture land or 100 chickens per one acre of fenced pasture land. Staff brought this information to the City Council during a work session to discuss amending the ordinance, and staff was directed to look into a possible amendment. A survey requesting resident feedback was also posted to the city's social media page. The results of that survey are described below, but there is support for allowing chickens on properties of all sizes. What is the public benefit? Based on the support shown in the survey, a majority of residents would like to see the keeping of chickens expanded to smaller lots, specifically those below 2.5 acres in size, and within the urban service district. Additionally, the survey asked questions on the number of chickens to allow, specific regulations on the keeping of chickens, and permitting requirements. This survey was open to everyone, not just residents of Elk River. After eliminating duplicates, the survey presented 256 responses with 70 percent of those surveyed in favor of permitting chickens on smaller lot sizes. Of the survey participants 89 percent lived in the City of Elk River, of which 71 percent said they are in favor of permitting chickens on smaller lot sizes. The proposed amendment expands opportunities for the keeping of chickens, and includes regulations intended to reduce impacts to neighboring properties. p0WIafo $r I Is Background/Discussion With the majority of those surveyed in favor of permitting chickens on smaller lot sizes, city staff reviewed all of the survey results and compared those to zoning regulations from nearby and similar cities. The cities inventoried include: ■ Otsego ■ Hastings ■ Ramsey ■ Burnsville ■ Anoka ■ Rochester ■ Jordan ■ Shoreview ■ Shakopee Other cities in the area were reviewed (e.g., Big Lake, St. Michael, and Rogers), however chickens on smaller lot sizes are not permitted in these communities. Staff modified regulations from the above communities to fit our communities desires, and to address concerns of noise, pests, odor, waste management, and predators expressed in the survey. Number of Chickens Survey Results Number of Chickens Lot Size of Those in Support Survey Results of Urban Chickens 3% Survey Results ■0 ■ 1-3 m 4-6 m 7-10 m Blank City Code Research 11% 3% ■ Less Than 0.3 Acres ■ 0.3 to 2.5 Acres ■ Greater Than 2.5 Acres ■ Other Minnesota City Chickens Per Acre Minimum Lot Size Anoka 4 Total Max 0 Burnsville 4 Total Max 0 Hastings 4 Per Acre 1 acre Jordan 4 Total Max 10,000 square feet Otsego 10 Per Acre 0 Ramsey 6-48 (Less than 3 Acres) Sliding Scale 0.04 Units Greater Than 3 Acres) 0 Rochester 3 Total Max 12 Max - Education/Institutional Use 0 Shakopee 5 Total Max 0 Shoreview 4 Total Max Greater than 4 0 2 acres or more with CUP N:\Departments\Commiuiity Development\Phiuung\Case Files\OA\OA 17-03 Chickens\4-Miming Commission\OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28-17.docx Recommendation Staff recommends allowing a total of 4 chickens on lots all lots less than 2.5 acres. These are the lots that will typically be located in the urban service district (i.e., R1-b, R1-c, and R1-d zoning district) or on lots with shared sewer and water in the Open Space Preservation zoning district. Staff also recommends allowing 12 chickens without a CUP on parcels above 2.5 acres, but below five acres outside of the of the urban service district (i.e., R1-a zoning district). These lots would need to follow the same permitting and design standards as those identified for smaller lot sizes. This number can be increased with a CUP to meet the existing agricultural animal regulations. Setbacks Survey Results Setback Requirments Survey Results 4% City Code Research ■ On the property line ■ At least 5 feet • At least 10 feet ■ At least 20 feet ■ Blank Minnesota City Property Lines (min) Adjacent Inhabited Structures (min) Anoka 5' 5' Burnsville 10' 50' Hastings 25' 25' Jordan 25' 25' Otsego Required Setbacks of Principal Buildings in Respective Zoning District Doubled Side Yard Setback - Ramsey 10' 30' Rochester Meet accessory structure setbacks 25' Shakopee 10' 50' Shoreview Meet accessory structure setbacks 30' Recommendation Staff recommends limiting the location of coops and runs to be the rear yard of a property, and requiring a 10 foot setback from side and rear property lines. If the property is a corner lot, front yard setbacks will be required from all property lines adjacent to streets. Coops and runs may not be located in drainage and utility easements and need to meet all additional accessory structures requirements outlined in the zoning code. The coop and run area will count towards total lot coverage. Additionally, a 25 foot setback from adjacent inhabited structures is proposed. This includes neighboring homes. N:\Departments\Commiuiity Development\Phiuiing\Case Files\OA\OA 17-03 Chickens\4-Miming Commission\OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28-17.docx Additionally, staff is recommending the location of coops and runs to maintain the 45 foot setback on all lots within the City of Elk River from wetlands and stormwater ponds. This setback area is important to ensure the safety of the animals and water quality. See the attached memo from the Stormwater Coordinator and Environmental Coordinator for more information. Fencing Survey Results Fence Requirements Survey Results 2% 0_0 Code Research • Require fences (chain link ortransparent fence material) ■ Require 100 percent opaque fences(cannot see through) ■ Allow Free Range m Blank Minnesota City Fencing Anoka ■ Fully Enclosed Facilities Burnsville ' Fully Screened with Solid Fence or Landscaped Buffer - Min of 4' height and Max 6' height Hastings ■ Fully Enclosed Facilities Jordan ■ Fully Enclosed and Covered Facilities Otsego ■ Fully Fenced Outdoor Yard Ramsey ' ■ Fully Fenced Exercise Area Non -opaque fencing - 10' setback from all property lines Rochester ' Fully Screened with Solid Fence or Landscaped Buffer - Min of 4' height and Max 6' height Shakopee ' Fully Screened with Solid Fence or Landscaped Buffer - Min of 4' height and Max 6' height Shoreview ■ Fully Enclosed Facilities Recommendation Staff recommends requiring a fully enclosed run and coop area with a 100 percent opaque fence. The opaque fence will improve safety of the chickens from predators and neighboring animals (e.g., dogs) by eliminating them from view. Staff is open to discussing additional screening or secondary fences and landscaped buffers, but would like the Planning Commission's and public's feedback. Having the yard fully fenced may help prevent chickens from running loose if one/multiple get out of the coop and run area, further reducing potential conflicts with other animals. N:\Departments\Commiuiity Development\Phiuung\Case Files\OA\OA 17-03 Chickens\4-Miming Commission\OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28-17.docx Additionally, staff is recommends fencing for chicken run areas maintain a 25 foot setback from wetlands and stormwater ponds. This setback area is important to ensure the safety of the animals and water quality. See the attached memo from the Stormwater Coordinator and Environmental Coordinator for more information. Chicken Coop and Run Concerns identified in the survey included noise, pests, odor, waste management, and predators. Coop and run design requirements are important to help alleviate these concerns. These requirements varied among cities inventoried. City Code Research Minnesota City Coop and Run Restrictions Anoka ' Comply with Zoning and Building Codes ■ Clean, sanitary, fully enclosed ■ Must meet all building and zoning codes ■ Backyard only ■ Coop -max 10 sgft/chicken and max height 6 ft Burnsville ■ Coop -Elevated min of 12 in/max 24 in above grade for circulation ■ Run -Not exceed 20 sgft/chicken ■ Run -wood or woven wire material ■ Protective overhead netting to separate from other animals ■ Completely covered enclosure to protect from elements and predators Hastings ■ Solid floor ■ Maintain sanitaryconditions ■ Located in Rear Yard Jordan ■ Max Coop Size of 40 sgft - min 4 sgft per chicken ■ Max height of 10' Otsego ■ Located in Rear Yard Ramsey- ■ Coop -max 10 sgft/chicken and max height 6 ft ■ Coop -elevated at least 24 in ■ Coop -floor constructed using rodent resistant concrete Rochester ■ Run -Not exceed 20 sgft/chicken ■ Run -wood or woven wire material ■ Protective overhead netting to separate from other animals ■ Maintain sanitary conditions ■ Backyard only ■ Coop -No larger than 10 sgft/chicken and max height 6 ft Shakopee ' Coop -Elevated min of 12 in/max 24 in above grade for circulation ■ Run -Not exceed 20 sgft/chicken ■ Run -wood or woven wire material ■ Protective overhead netting to separate from other animals ■ Must meet all building and zoning codes for accessory structures Shoreview ' Maintain sanitary conditions ■ Not placed in front yard ■ Not placed in side yard abutting a street N:\Departments\Commiuiity Development\Phiuung\Case Files\OA\OA 17-03 Chickens\4-Miming Commission\OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28-17.docx Recommendation — Coop and run area Staff recommends requiring chicken coop and runs to only be permitted in the rear yard. Additionally, to reduce impacts of animals and rodents, staff recommends the following: ■ The coop and run shall meet all building and zoning codes. This includes permits for coops and runs exceeding 200 square feet. ■ The entire coop and run areas will need to be in a complete enclosure. This will include a protective overhead netting to protect from other animals for runs and fenced in areas. ■ The coop and run area will need to maintain sanitary conditions. Due to the mixed results of the survey, the following recommendations are put in place to ensure chicken coops and runs do not encompass the entire rear yard, along with establishing an atheistic standard. The chicken coop size will be no larger than 10 square feet per chicken with a maximum height of six feet. Since the maximum height fence for residential properties without a permit is six feet, the maximum height of the coop should be six feet to ensure it does not exceed the fence height. Coops must be elevated a minimum of 12 inches and maximum of 24 inches above grade to provide adequate circulation. The floor of the coop must be constructed of rodent resistant material. The run size will be no larger than 20 square feet per chicken. The run is to be constructed of wood and wire material to completely enclose the facility. Additional Requirements City Code Research Minnesota City Additional Restrictions Anoka ■ No Roosters ■ No Roosters ■ Principal building required on property Burnsville ■ Grains and feed stored in rodent -proof containers ■ Cannot run at large Not allowed in home and/or garage ■ No roosters Hastings ■ Food containers and feeders must not be accessible to rodents and wild birds Jordan ■ No Roosters Otsego ■ No Roosters, Male Peacocks or Water Fowl Ramsey ■ No Roosters ■ No roosters Rochester ■ Feed and manure must keep rodent and raccoon proof containers and not placed in yard compost piles ■ Principal building required on property Shakopee ' Grains and feed stored in rodent -proof containers ■ Cannot run at large ■ Not allowed in home and/or garage ■ No roosters (lot size less than 2 acres) ■ No slaughtering Shoreview ' Cannot run at large ■ Food materials stored outside must be in closed containers with lids ■ Not raised or kept for fighting ■ No cockfighting N:\Departments\Commiuiity Development\Phiuung\Case Files\OA\OA 17-03 Chickens\4-Miming Commission\OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28-17.docx Recommendation Staff recommends requiring a principle building on the property to ensure animals are looked after at all times. Additionally, staff recommends prohibiting roosters, guinea fowls, and animals running at large (free range). This is important to control noise levels and reduce the impacts to residents on other properties. All grains, feed, and manure are to be stored in rodent -proof containers and disposed of properly and promptly. Animals will be prohibited in the garage, house or accessory dwelling units of a property. The slaughtering of animals will also be prohibited. Additionally, manure may not be stored within 45 feet of all wetlands and stormwater ponds. This setback area is important to ensure water quality. Maintaining the 45 foot buffer area will help protect the water bodies from fecal contamination due to run off. Permitting Survey Results 2% Permitting ■ Yes, application and chicken tags only (similar to dog license) ■ Yes, application and site inspection ■ Yes, review with public notices,public hearing, and approval by CityCouncil (conditional use permit) ■ No permitting required Notified if Neighbor Applying for Chicken Permits 3% ■ Yes ■ No ■ Blank N:\Departments\Commiuiity Development\Phiniing\Case Files\OA\OA 17-03 Chickens\4-Miming Commission\OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28-17.docx Ci . Code Research Minnesota City Permitting/ Licensing Anoka ■ No Permit/ License ■ $50 License Fee Burnsville ■ 2 year permit ■ Police Department Enforce ■ Licenses approved by City Council ■ Notify property owners within 350' of Planning Commission meeting Hastings Not run with land or transferable ■ Staff inspect property prior ■ 1 year probationary period before fully grant ■ Annual license fee Jordan Backyard Chicken Permit ■ Tags required for each chicken Otsego Fowl Keeping License Ramsey Fee Title ■ Permit Required ■ 2 year permit Rochester ■ Granted by common council ■ Provide scaled diagram and locations of coop, run, distance from ■ property lines, structures and sizes Shakopee ■ No Shoreview ' License Required to City Manager 2 year permit Minnesota City Impounding Restrictions Burnsville 0 10 days Hastings ' 5 business days ■ Failure to claim revoke license Rochester ■ Suspended or revoked permit by council action guilty of misdemeanor Shakopee ■ 3 business days Recommendation Staff recommends requiring a two year permit, site inspection, and tags for each chicken. An initial site inspection will be conducted prior to approval of the permit. With this in mind, the coop, run and fenced area will need to be installed prior to a permit and chicken tags being issued. Staff also recommends tagging the chickens. The cost of the permit is anticipated to cover the price of the tags and site inspection. These tags will help code enforcement personnel easily detect those who do verses those who do not have a permit. It will also help to return chickens to their rightful owner if they get loose. The first time a loose chicken is identified, staff will work with the owner to return it to the enclosure. The second offence will result in a suspended or revoked permit. Without tags it may be difficult to identify whose animals are loose and increased time to identify who does/does not have a permit for code enforcement. Staff suggests a $50 permit to cover the cost of the tags and staffs time to inspect the site. N:\Departments\Commiuiity Development\Phiuung\Case Files\OA\OA 17-03 Chickens\4-Miming Commission\OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28-17.docx Overview of the Proposed Ordinance (1) No roosters or guinea fowl. (2) No more than 4 chickens are allowed on parcels below 2.5 acres in size. (3) A total of 12 chickens are allowed on parcels 2.5 acres to 5 acres in size. The number of chickens can be increased with a conditional use permit for this in the urban service area. (4) Every person who owns, controls, keeps, maintains, or harbors chickens must keep them confined on the premises at all times in a chicken coop or chicken run. Chickens are not allowed in any part of a house or accessory structure. (5) No chicken coop or run shall be constructed on any parcel of land before construction of the principal building. (6) All chicken coops and runs must comply with all applicable building and zoning codes and regulations. (7) A chicken coop and run will be considered an accessory structure and will count towards total lot coverage. (8) A chicken coop and run cannot be located in the front or side yard. Corner lots must maintain front yard setbacks from all property lines adjacent to right-of-ways. (9) A chicken coop and run must be setback at least 25 feet from any residential structure on any adjacent lot and at least 10 feet from the property line. (10) A chicken coop and run may not be located within 45 feet of a wetland or stormwater pond. (11) A chicken coop and run must be completely screened from view with an opaque fencing. (12) A chicken coop may be no larger than 10 square feet per chicken and may not exceed 6 feet in height. A chicken coop must be elevated a minimum of 12 inches and a maximum of 24 inches above grade to ensure circulation beneath the coop. A chicken coop must have rodent resistant flooring. (13) A chicken run cannot exceed 20 square feet per chicken and the fencing cannot exceed 6 feet in height. A chicken run may be enclosed with wood or woven wire materials, and may allow chickens to contact the ground. A chicken run must have a protective overhead netting to keep the chickens separated from other animals. (14) Chicken grains and feed must be stored in rodent -proof containers. (15) No chicken may be kept or raised in a manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons on other property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor, or filth. Financial Impact None, the permit fee will cover the time necessary to inspect and administer the permitting process. Council Meeting If acted on, this item will go to the April 17, 2017, City Council meeting. Attachments ■ City Code Requirements Review ■ Survey Questions ■ Survey Results ■ Stormwater Coordinator and Environmental Coordinator Memo N:\Departments\Commiuiity Development\Phiuiing\Case Files\OA\OA 17-03 Chickens\4-Miming Commission\OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28-17.docx Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 28, 2017 required wetland delineation. The applicant has requested that the review period be extended to August 25, 2017. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. 6.7 Outfront Media/John Bodger — 18050 Zane Street NW ■ Conditional Use Permit for a Digital Changeable Copy Sign, Case No. CU 17-05 The staff report was presented by BrieAnna Simon. Staff recommended approval of the request with the 4 conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. John Bodger, 815 Highway 169, Plymouth, MN, applicant — Stated that staff did a good job in working with him on his application and agreed with the conditions. There being no further public comment, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Feinstein to recommend approval of the request by Outfront Media/John Bodger for a Conditional Use Permit for a digital changeable copy sign, with following conditions: 1. The CUP shall not be recorded until conditions three and four have been satisfied. 2. The CUP is not a building permit and all required sign permits must be approved by the building department prior to any construction activities on site. 3. Staff approval of the final survey and sign location. 4. Staff approval of landscaped plans and specifications outlining compliance with the standards set forth in Sec. 30-871(8). Motion carried 7-0. 6.8 City of Elk River — Ordinance Amendment BrieAnna Simon presented the staff report. Commissioner Rydberg asked for clarification on the language requiring the coop to be elevated 12-24 inches off the ground, and if this applied to the run as well. Ms. Simon stated only the coop would need to be off the ground. Commissioner Larson -Vito stated she did not see a regulation against slaughtering chickens in the actual proposed ordinance, only in the recommendations. Ms. Simon stated that prohibiting slaughtering will be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Thiel asked if inspections will be required to see that structures are maintained. Ms. Simon stated that inspections will be done every two years. Chair Johnson Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 6 asked what happens if an issue arises between inspections. Mr. Simon stated that any further action would be complaint -driven or as noticed by staff. Councilmember Wagner asked who would do the inspections. Mr. Carlton stated that planning staff would make the first inspection and subsequent inspections would be handled by code enforcement staff. Councilmember Wagner asked if any of the other cities that were surveyed experienced an impact on property values by allowing chickens. Mr. Carlton stated no, that was not mentioned. Councilmember Wagner stated that there are a number of developments that have homeowners associations and asked if they could be more restrictive than the city's ordinance. Mr. Carlton stated yes, they could be more restrictive, but not less restrictive. Councilmember Wagner asked if other cities passed on any information they have learned since adopting their ordinances. Ms. Simon stated that a couple cities stated they had an issue of animals running at large and had to involve animal control. Also, some of the cities noted that initially there was high interest in raising chickens, but that the interest dropped off quite a bit after a year or two. Councilmember Wagner asked what happens when people lose interest. Ms. Simon stated that they would prepare a one -page handout stating what people should expect. Mr. Carlton noted that he is aware of a rescue site called Chicken Run in Minneapolis, so apparently this can become an issue when people become tired of raising chickens. Commissioner Thiel asked what would happen to the coops and runs when people lose interest. He expressed concern that keeping chickens could attract wildlife/predators. He felt odor would need to be addressed, depending upon the lot size. Commissioner Rydberg stated that he felt that the proximity to pedestrian and public use areas should be considered in the permitting process. Chair Johnson stated that attracting predators could be a concern for the neighbors. He asked if the permit fee was in line with other cities. Ms. Simon stated that the fees in the cities surveyed ranged from $30 to $50. Chair Johnson suggested the chicken area be screened with opaque fencing. Commissioner Larson -Vito stated she opposed creating a financial burden to raise a few chickens. Commissioner Nicholas stated that he did not feel the yard should require opaque fencing. Commissioner Rydberg asked if other cities noticed an effect on property values. Ms. Simon stated she did not ask that specific question but she could ask the communities which were surveyed. Commissioner Feinstein asked if staff had concerns with compliance issues. Ms. Simon stated that there are other sections of the city's ordinance that address enforcement. Commissioner Rydberg asked what is the maximum number of chickens that would be allowed on the smaller lots. Ms. Simon stated that the smallest lots could have 4 chickens. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 7 Councilmember Wagner asked how the size of the chicken coops would be regulated. Ms. Simon explained that typical lots are allowed 1,200 square feet of accessory structure including attached and detached, and that only 2 detached structures are allowed. The maximum number of detached structures allowed on large lots is 4. Councilmember Wagner asked if the property owner would be required to take down the coop if it was no longer in use. Ms. Simon stated no, it would be the same as any other detached structure. Discussion followed regarding opaque fencing of the coops and runs. It was the consensus of the Commission that requiring opaque fencing of the coops or runs themselves would defeat the purpose of raising free-range/cage-free chickens. Further discussion followed regarding multi -family residences. It was the consensus that raising chickens would not be an option for multi -family or two-family residential. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. Dan Cooper, 17869 Lincoln Street NW, stated that he lived on a 1-acre lot and had chickens. He stated that opaque fencing would not be conducive to healthy chickens. He stated that he did not feel fencing was necessary on his approximately 1 acre lot which backs up to park land. He stated that if fencing were required, he could build one for about $200 if he did all the work himself. Mr. Cooper discussed the benefits of raising chickens. He stated that an opaque fence would be too expensive and would cost $900 or more. Mr. Cooper asked why compliance checks are being proposed, as the only city that requires them is Hastings. He stated that there are no compliance checks for dogs and their kennels/shelters and felt this would be unfair since their chickens are pets. Mr. Cooper stated that Elk River's ordinance as proposed would be the second most restrictive of all of the cities allowing this use. Greg Wierschke, 19227 Yale Street NW, stated he has had the opportunity to raise chicken near a residential neighborhood on the Burandt property for the last four years. He stated that he has found the best shelter to be 8'x 8' x 2'. He stated he only has had one predator problem in that time. Mr. Wierschke suggested that applicants provide an invoice that the states the chickens were purchased from a hatchery registered with the government, to ensure they are disease -free. He stated that his runs and coops are portable and can be taken apart and moved. He stated that the permanent structures being discussed would cost $900 - $1,000 and his cost $200 - $500. He stated that the chickens can be kept safe and away from view. Lori Richard, 14381 1906' Ave NW, stated that the number of chickens per lot size needs to be reconsidered. She stated that 4 chickens are not very many and small properties could easily accommodate more than 4, since they don't take up much room. She stated she raises chickens and has no problems with animals. She stated that locking up the chickens in the coop at night prevents predators from coming around. She felt that a 1-acre lot could easily accommodate 10 —14 chickens. There being no further public comment, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rydberg suggested that some research could be done on disease issues. He stated he was in favor of postponing this amendment to next month's Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 8 meeting. Chair Johnson suggested maybe more information could be gathered regarding any complaints about chickens, fencing and coop design. Commissioner Rydberg stated that trying to regulate design could "open up a can of worms" down the road that the city would have to deal with. He stated that the city does not get involved in dog house design and this would be similar. Chair Johnson suggested taking out the word "opaque". Discussion followed regarding lot sizes, setbacks, fencing, whether or not to require a building permit, and number of chickens. Commissioner Larson -Vito stated she would rather see a nice chicken coop built than a fence, since fences don't foster good neighborhoods/communities. Mr. Leeseberg noted that requiring a building permit means additional costs. In addition to the permit cost, there would be additional costs since the structure would then require a foundation, meet wind load and snow load, etc. Commissioner Larson -Vito suggested a building permit not be required, just some requirements through the chicken permitting process. Councilmember Wagner stated that she was not worried about the 1-acre plus lots, but more so the t/a acre or less size lots. She noted that coyotes are an issue in her neighborhood. She suggested that maybe the 1-acre plus size lots have a different set of requirements. She stated that she could see requests coming in next for pigs, goats, llamas, etc. She stated that they have to take into consideration the remaining 23,000 plus residents who do not want to .� raise chickens. She stated that she felt the 1/2 acre lots are better suited to raising chickens. Motion by Commissioner Rydberg and seconded by Commissioner Nicholas to continue the proposed ordinance amendment the April 25, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 7-0. 7.1 City of Elk River — Ordinance Amendment Mr. Carlton reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment regarding wetland setbacks and wetland buffer setbacks. Moved by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Larson -Vito to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to reduce the wetland setback requirements for fencing and maintained turf on parcels platted prior to June 19, 2006. Motion carried 7-0. 8.1 City Council Liaison Update Councilmember Wagner stated there were no updates and that she would take the Planning Commissioners' input to the City Council for the planning items reviewed tonight. Survey Results 1. The keeping of chickens on parcels less than 1 /2 acre will not be permitted. Prohibit Chickens on Lots Less Than 1/2 Acre 44% ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree Disagree Way too close to neighbors and children Most of the homes in Elk River are on less than half an acre! Chickens do NOT need much land. As for proximity to neighbors and noise concerns, chickens are far less noisy than a barking dog. Chickens are meant to roam. I think it should be permitted. That is incredibly restrictive. The city don't take care of the dog problem why add Urban farming should not be limited to individuals with more problems acreage restrictions. No If you are trying to limit owners to four hens I really don't see why a small yard can't handle this Agree No more than 4 chickens NO ROOSTERS on less than 1 /2 acre. Good! Disagree Yes! Houses are too close together! I disagree because chickens belong in the country, not within city limits. If they are that close to neighbors, it may get stinky or It's privately owned property, stay out of it. noisy Agree. You should lower the limit of chickens for this size of property. Only if they get a permit and approval of Let everyone have some chickens shelter/location on property. Half an acre (or less) is not proper area in which to 6 hens on city lots can be well maintained with fenced have a decent size chicken coop and fenced in place lots and proper housing outdoors to run. would be permitted for hens only. Why does the size of the lot matter? Just keep them a certain distance from property lines. Agree. Even some hens can be noisy. This will eliminate most people. Chickens should not be allowed in neighborhoods. Why not smaller fenced in yards? They are great for You should have to have 1+ acres to have a chicken. insect and mosquito control. They are restricted to the homeowners property. Less lawn chemicals are used on lots where people have chickens, which is something the city promotes. Page 1 Agree Disagree Good. Chickens don't belong in non -farm Many cities allow keeping of chickens on less than a 1 /2 environments. While it's a current fad the fact is acre, including the city of Minneapolis, among others. people abandon them, there are chicken shelters all Hens are quiet, each to care for, and a great way to teach over the country because of that. Also, neighbors have children responsibility and where our food comes from. no choice in living with these dirty, noisy animals being Limiting to over 1 /2 acre limits most homes in the cities. next to them. They are NOT the same as dogs. Decreases house values next to it. People buying a city I would agree if this was 'free-range' chickens. However, sized lot and building a nice home on it certainly do fully contained chicken coops (such as are purchased at not expect to have chickens running around within 10 Fleet Farm or Tractor Supply can house 4 - 6 hens nicely feet of their property. When it comes to resale of a with easy upkeep. They take up space no larger than 6' x more expensive home and if there is a homemade 8'. chicken coop, unpainted outside your window buyers will not give your home a second look. If people want to raise chickens they should buy a hobby farm or a much larger parcel of land and landscape and build hedges around it. If the person gets agreement from all surrounding neighbors within a specified distance, it should be allowed. I think you can have chickens but not roosters! Chickens are awesome pets for laying and keeping bus away They don't hurt anything Chickens need very little space. Let people have the freedom to have laying hens. Roosters may be a nuisance. Why let them. If they want to have chickens let them. I feel that people should be able to have 2 chickens per person in the household: We needs less regulation This is America, you know "Land of the FREE." Not land of I can't do what I want on my own property that I worked and paid for! Nothing less than 2 acres should be permitted If there's no rooster and the place is kept clean, they should not be a problem If they are just having laying hens then I don't see why it matters on lot size if they only have 4. Page 2 2. The keeping of chickens on parcels between 1 /2 and 1 acre is limited to 4 hens. Limit to 4 Hens (0.5-1 Acres) 47.0 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree Disagree It should be 1/4-1 acre. The allowance should be at least six on half and more for up to an acre at least six or more hens Agree Should be 6 hens. Potentially not all will live, and if you start out with 4 you may only end up with 2 which is not enough eggs for a small family. A limit is good to be in place to help reduce overpopulation of the chickens, noise, and smell No! Houses are WAY too close together! Chickens are NOT domestic animals. I bought a city home, not a country home with farm animals living next door Agree Why only 4? 4-6 Still too close to neighbors 6 The city don't take care of the dog problem why add more problems If out of city limits. I think that there should be a distinction between 'free-range' and fully contained coops. 4 hens for free range would be healthy for the hens and could be easily kept clean. If the homeowner had a fully contained coop, (for example) no larger than 8' x 10', they should be able to house 8 hens. Six hens or less would be preferred. You shouldn't count as long as they keep it clean 6 hens on any city lots can be well maintained with fenced lots and proper housing Private property. Government should not be allowed to tell people how many chickens they're allowed to have. more than an acre is needed You should be able to keep more. Should not be allowed I would say 6 is easy on that amount of land. 10 would be easy. Chickens are not that difficult to take care of. NO ROOSTERS Half an acre to an acre is more than sufficient to handle more than four hens I think chickens should only be allowed on 1+ acre Not agreed 6 No limit, provided the hens are for personal uses and not commercial. Page 3 Agree Disagree I think that is still too small of an area. If you want farm animals, move out to more acreage! On an acre of land a resident should be allowed to have up to 20 birds I would think 6 hens would be okay on 1 acre of land. No limit needed Should be less None Good. Chickens don't belong in non -farm environments. While it's a current fad the fact is people abandon them, there are chicken shelters all over the country because of that. Also, neighbors have no choice in living with these dirty, noisy animals being next to them. They are NOT the same as dogs. Again, we should have the freedom to do what we please. I think over 20 should be considered a farm, everything else should be fine. 6 seems okay. No chickens in city Lim is No chickens in less than 1 acre. Nothing less than 2 acres should be permitted. Only parcels of 1+ should be allowed any chickens Should not allow an Should not allow any under 1 acre No chickens should be allowed in a housing development like TBF or TLE. Even if they have a half acre. 1 /2 acre is too small. An acre should still be landscaped to keep it hidden. 3. The keeping of chickens on parcels between 1 and 2.5 acres is limited to 8 hens. Limit to 8 Hens (1-2.5 Acres) 0 ■ Agree ip ■ Disagree Agree Disagree I would think a rooster would be okay on parcels of this size. You should easily be able to keep 20 plus chickens on between 1 and 2 acres of land That is reasonable 4 hens here is plenty Not unreasonable Why the limit on a large parcel? Agree A lot that large can handle more than eight hens without concern Agree Not within city limits. Page 4 Agree Disagree I'd say that 8 - 10 chickens could be allowed on 2 - 2.5 acres. I think the limit should be 20 or more. If people are raising to butcher a only keep them for 6-7 weeks then take in to get butchered I think that there should be a distinction between 'free-range' and fully contained coops. 4 hens for free range would be healthy for the hens and could be easily kept clean. If the homeowner had a fully contained coop, (for example) no larger than 8' x 10', they should be able to house 8 hens. You shouldn't count as long as they keep it clean maybe 4 hens You should be able to keep more. None On that much land (2 1/2 acres) you could have upwards of 30 or more chickens easily. On an acre you could have up to 15 easily Noll! Should be able to have as many as you want, just as long as they stay on property and kept for. Maybe change the limit to 10-15 No limit they are paying taxes and should be able to have as many chicken as they want No limit. 12 hens No limit needed 2 Freedom There shouldn't be a limit 4 hens Nothing less than 2 acres should be permitted No limit Should allow none Depends on where you live. 4. The keeping of chickens on parcels between 2.5 and 5 acres is limited to 12 hens. Limit to 12 Hens (2.5-5 Acres) ■ Agree ■ Disagree Page 5 Agree Disagree Agree 5 acres is enough to have 50+ chickens Agree Should be able to have as many as they want. Agree. Same concern here as stated above Fine the city don't take care of the dog running free why add more problems Starting to look like a small business for egg sales but the zone is rural. It depends on if they are keeping them for meat and slaughter or eggs. For eggs 12 is reasonable. For meat you process them in a few weeks and that would not be much for 5 acres You shouldn't count as long as they keep it clean Chickens do not belong within city limits. This is a bit too micromanaging. Ma be 8 hens If you have this much land you should be able to have a hobby farm. Please take a look at nowthen limits. They are far more practical. Way too man That's a small hobby farm. Seems that more could be kept on places with that acreage. With this kind of acres you should be able to have as many as you want. Just as long as they are staying on property and being kept for with no complaints. I would think up to 20 would be ok Tax payers No limit. Seems like too many chickens. No limit Roosters should also be allowed at this size yard No limit needed The limit should be higher - or no limit at all 2 Freedom Definitely shouldn't be a limit 5 acres is a lot to limit to 12. 8 hens No limit Page 6 5. The keeping of roosters and guinea fowl will be prohibited (,comments). No Roosters and Guinea Fowl 29% ■ Agree ■ Disagree 1 0 Agree Disagree They are too noisy to be kept in a neighborhood On small acreage they should be prohibited because of the noise Unless they are a legal farm 1 rooster isn't unreasonable on large parcels (10 acres+ Agree Learn the birds before you regulate them Chickens do not belong within city limits. Above 2.5 acres they can be maintained in limited quantities The purpose of having chickens within the city limits the city don't take care of the dogs running free why would be for egg production. Roosters are not needed for would I think they will police chickens any better egg production. It does cost more to order only pullets, however, it is difficult to get rid of a rooster if you order straight run chicks. Guinea fowl and roosters are loud and would be a nuisance to neighbors. However, dogs barking are just as bad or worse. On the largest parcels in the survey, a rooster should be allowed. Not guinea fowl. Roosters should be allowed if on more than 2 acres!!! Roosters prohibited, guinea fowl in fenced area. Limit to one rooster Less regulation needed roosters should be allowed at a certain acreage - such as 5 Is this city wide? Because that's ridiculous if it's city wide. Page 7 6. Chickens must be contained within a coop or run at all times, and both the coop and run must be at least 10 feet from my property line, and 25 feet from a residential structure on a neighboring parcel. Coops and runs also need to include a protective overhead covering, Coop Setbacks and Covering ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree Disagree I think on some larger properties, they don't need to be What is the concern about free-range chickens in caged. Not sure what that magic number would be. I live someone's own yard? They are excellent for controlling on a 4 acre lot and my surrounding neighbors have about pests (especially ticks!) so there is this added benefit for 15 acres or more. Their chickens are on my property all owners if they are allowed to roam in the yard. the time, but I don't mind. Size should depend on number of hens/chickens Chickens are not meant to be confined. They need to be able to roam. Agree Chickens do not belong within city limits. I agreed to this for chickens on LT 1 acre, if that gets The city don't take care of the dogs running free why approved. I would prefer it not. For properties over 3 would I believe they will police chickens acres, I think the chickens could be let out during the day. Sounds standard for city restrictions, but I would say that You are really limiting where a set up could be placed. sounds unreasonable for acres 2.5 and above Who will enforce this, how much in tax dollars will this Why an overhead covering. Predation shouldn't be the cost? I see problems coming,big ones. ci 's concern. Agree Runs shouldn't need to be covered. Mostly agree. However, if the neighbor's house is at least Should be more than 10 feet from any property lines. 25 feet away from the coop, I would think placing the They leave waste and make noise. TEN FEET from coop close to the property line would not be an issue, and property lines is NOT ENOUGH! Also will reduce would keep kids from entering a homeowner's yard to price values of homes next to it especially in a look in the coop. residential area with regular sizedcity lots. No chickens in city limits Who cares Permit and inspection for under 1 acre. Structure no! House yes. A garage or playhouse is a structure so they should not be considered! Need protection from animals on the prowl: Dogs, 10 feet is not enough from property line. Rest of Eagles, Fox, etc. statement sounds good. They should be able to run free on acre or more. free range chickens should be allowed at a certain acreage - such as 5 At what acreage? Less than 5 I'm ok with. Anything over 5 they should be able to do what they want. Page 8 Agree Disagree More distance should be mandatory How about minimum size of coop according to # of chickens. Otherwise you'll have completely copped up chickens inside very tiny coops. If I am outside I allow my chickens to free range. If I am not outside they are contained within a run and an electric fence. Chickens will wander around my yard but never too far from the coop as they are always aware that they need to be near shelter. Have used a chicken tractor before. I never lock my chickens in a run unless we are out of town. Or in the winter. The coop and run SHOULD be at least 10 feet from property lines and 25 feet from houses. AGREE 7. Chicken coops shall be limited to 6 feet in height, will be considered an accessory structure, and must follow all setback standards described in the city code. Coop Height Regulations ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Should not be considered accessory structure especially if it has wheels and is mobile and not a Permanent structure. Dog houses are not so it is unfair to restrict chicken coops Agree No need to involve city staff in measuring a chicken coo It's a chicken coop... A chicken coop isn't any more exciting than a backyard shed. There is no reason for people to o through that many hoops to have a few pets Take care of dog problem first Chickens do not belong within city limits. Because chickens spend most of their active time outside of the chicken coop, generally 2 - 3 square feet per chicken is sufficient space inside a coop. You also will need to provide space to roost at night ands ace for the nesting boxes. No one puts a standard on a dog house. Sheds can be taller, why not chicken coops? Who cares The coop is personal property and the city has no right wasting tax paying dollars trying to collect ermit fees for these types of structures Page 9 Agree Disagree 7 feet Need to be high enough 7 ft. for adult to walk in to check nests, collect e s, etc. With this being considered a structure, I'd hope you aren't thinking of using this to raise property taxes for people that will have these on their property. Why 6'? I think 8 The owner should have the right to build a coop based on their property and other structures. 250 ft setback from property lines Freedom It's a chicken coop.... 8. The size of a chicken coop will be 10 square feet per chicken and runs 20 square feet per chicken. Coop and Run Size Regulations ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree Disagree Not an expert here Again other pets are not subject to such strict rules this seems incredibly restrictive Agree Not sure on this one for the smaller lots. Would need a visual of how much space this would take on a 1 /2 acre lot. If on 1+acre lot Sounds way to large Agree Take care of dog problem first Chickens only need 2.5 sq feet per chicken in coop Because chickens spend most of their active time outside of the chicken coop, generally 2 - 3 square feet per chicken is sufficient space. Remember, you will need to provide space to roost at night ands ace for the nesting boxes. This would require people to ADD chickens to their flocks to maintain the size of their coop/run. You should be able to get more or less chickens without needing to worry about the size of our coo . Chickens do not belong within city limits. Size shouldn't matter if it's not buggin anyone Who cares Too much regulation Depends on the lot size Room to run is good. Too big. Less regulations No chickens Page 10 Agree Disagree The number of chickens you keep varies from year to year - there is no way to enforce this long-term This is not nice to the chickens. They need more space! They should be allowed to roam in a fenced yard. Constitution I understand the limiting of sizes but I'm afraid of people keeping too small of coops for 8 birds. I feel that the chickens should have more space available to them than 10 square feet per bird. 9. Chicken coops and runs do NOT need to be screened with an opaque fence on parcels of any size. No Opaque Fence Requirement 30% ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree Disagree This is unsanitary to completely block chickens and is Must have screening, not just for the coop but also any area also unfair. Other kept animals do not need this where the chickens would be visible to an unwilling fencing and would cause undue financial burden on neighbor people wishing to live a more renewable healthy lifestyle. Concern about air flow on a hot day. Chickens do not belong within city limits. Agree Who cares Let's put your dog in a fence it can't look out of. I would think the chickens would need adequate ventilation This is a stupid thought. The first 2 feet from the coming into the coop on hot days. ground on a chicken run should be hardware cloth and the rest can be chicken wire. Chickens are meant to eat bugs and worms. They are meant to breath fresh air. They have better eye sight then humans. Agree. Take care of dog problem first This is just stupid. Page 11 10. On parcels less than 2.5 acres, a site inspection and permit is required. The permit will be for two years, and chicken tags will be issued after the site inspection. Permit fee is proposed to be $50. Permting and Tags ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree Disagree Permit fee should be higher and A site inspection is a complete waste of tax dollars. Again, you do not inspect also note that neighbors and city is dog houses or other animal fences and it is a waste of people's time. I believe not responsible should the complains could be investigated instead of site inspections. Also that fee bites chickens be attacked by wild into the reason of having chickens. Economically it is cheaper to get eggs animals or should the chickens go from your own chickens and doing site inspections to pay for permits seems to a neighbor's yard and the like an unnecessary financial burden on people. neighbor's dog attacks the chickens. Agree Why would a permit be required? I think it should be parcels under 2 Site inspection is a waste of money and time for the city. There are no site acres. I like this idea because it will inspections for sheds less than 200sq ft therefore there should not be site detour those who are not serious inspections for a chicken coop and run. Also, no one does site inspections on about it and make sure the dog houses either. It makes no sense to do them for chicken coops. There chickens are properly set up and should not be a fee either or tags. cared for. Reduce the permit fee to $30 Seriously? Raise the fee to $100 We have enough permits already and why does the city need any money for me to keep chickens? Permit fee should be over $200 Why do they need to be tagged andpermitted? Should not allow chickens in Seriously! You are taxing people who want to raise chickens? What's next ... propert's under 2.5 acres!!!! I'm going to have to pay for my patio garden! Residents on smaller parcels should not have to pay fora permit. They have dog license now but city still don't take care of them that run free Disagree What part of the city budget is going to keep tabs on every chicken coop to make sure that all the laws and regulations are being followed? What are the coops required to be made of? Old pallets or whatever the owner has lying around? You are just taking any savings out of the reason for having them This isn't necessary and would require the city to maintain a chicken czar. The city already gets enough money from taxes. You don't need money if people want to have their own chickens Page 12 Agree Disagree Disagree. No licensing or 'inspection re aired. I don't feel like it's necessary to need a permit and I especially don't think two years is adequate if you are going to charge considering the lifespan of a chicken laying eggs. In addition if you truly feel it's necessary to charge for something so dumb and invade our privacy for something as simple as a few backyard pets then you should be charging everyone, not just smaller lots Seems a little extreme. I have not seen a similar requirement in other communities that have adopted this policy. It would be difficult to enforce. Would Elk River need to employ someone to do the inspections? $50 seems like a steep amount to pay for a permit to house a couple of chickens for their eggs. No. If you live on a lot that is less than an acre and in a residential area.... sure. But if you're not in a residential area... are NOT on city water and sewer and live on an acre or more. The answer to this should be NO. City makes enough on my tax money already Unreal! Too much government regulation. May as well start inspecting dog houses, etc, as well. This is bullshit! Leave people alone and let them have the birds! Permits and tags? The city must be run by idiots! No way, nowyou're trying to profit from this, no permits needed. Really? Yearly inspections The men who wrote the Constitution would be turning over in their graves if they read this. Taxed for chickens? Are you going to tax my tomato plants too? Don't charge unlessyou'll actually enforce. Need to pay 50 per chicken Seems excessive. $50 is fine for the first inspection but too much to pay every two years. Negates the cost benefit of having our own eggs. 11. Do you have any additional comments regarding the keeping of chickens in residential areas? Comments Chickens are less disruptive than dogs. They allow homeowners to work towards food sustainability by raising animals for their eggs. They contribute to controlling insects and other pests. This shouldn't be rocket science. I think Enforcement will be a problem with this. How badly is this needed? I agree regulations should be in place for small residential lots. Anything more than 2.5 acres should have zero regulations or restrictions. My fear is that too many residents that are uninformed about keeping poultry will soon realize that they have roosters that are not prohibited, Also the fact that hens do not lay eggs their entire lifespan may result in a "what do I do with this chicken" affect. 6 months equals many unwanted roosters, 3-5 years and ongoing equals many unwanted hens. Leave the "farming" to the actual farmers. Take care of dog problem first and yes I have two dogs but they don't run free on other people's property The city needs to get a clue and stop regulating. Why should I have to ask permission to own animals on my private property? The amount of government overreach is astonishing, Stay out of my business, stay out of my property. Page 13 Comments I think the city has better things to spend money and time on. Start making the people in the city clean up their yards of old cars, junk, over grown grass etc. Keep the chickens and the coops out of city limits. There is more to keeping chickens than maintain a coop. Chickens can carry diseases and how knowledgeable are the people going to be on chickens. I think the city is opening a big can of worms. It seems like the amount of rules is quite in depth and the purpose of the ordinance is to discourage the housing of chickens in the city limits. It is not a friendly policy. The policy should include environmental considerations (fully contained coop and run); health of bird considerations (no more birds than recommended by the 10 sq. foot per bird); neighbor/noise considerations (25 feet from neighbor's home and no roosters or guineas). I would think that in today's society, inspections would only be necessary when the city received a complaint. And the way that people behave these days, they will complain if the birds are noisy, smelly, or loose. A $50 permit every two years is too steep for the casual chicken keeper who intends to keep the eggs for their own use. It seems like it would be more beneficial for someone who intends to use the chickens as a potential income source. I really don't think there is any need to have chickens in a residential area where lots are less than 2.5 acres. Houses are too close together and it will be too easy for the chickens to wander/escape into neighbor's yards. I have concerns about additional predators that may come into the area where children and other small pets (dogs/cats) are housed. The city needs to be ready to enforce that the chicken owners are FULLY responsible for whatever happens to their chickens. Very disappointed in the change in size of lot chickens will be allowed on. Thought this city was a progressive forward moving city. What's next cows and horses. Someone needs to read up on keeping chickens. They are not loud. But they do make noise. LESS then a dog though. NO ROOSTERS in town. Chickens need space to roam. I think any kind of makeshift fence extended around your yard is good. I have a moveable electric fence. I can move my chickens around my yard in it. Or I move the electric fence around my chicken coop. I lock my chickens in my garden for a few hours a day pregarden time. Chickens are good composters. They eat your food and poop it out. They dig for worms and bugs. They move dirt around. They can be put to work on a compost pile and move it for you. They poop in compost pile which adds nitrogen to break down the pile into compost. (just like cow manure). They dig up garden soil digging for worms and bugs. They WILL eat your garden goods but are great at helping prepare gardens. They will eat ticks and mosquitoes. Coops are allowed ten feet from property linesP I live in the city, NOT the country!! And I will be paying tax dollars for the city to respond to chicken calls Yes, all residents should be allowed to have chickens, even renters not just homeowners. I don't think they should be allowed in residential areas. Should have 1+ acre Bigger things to worry about I feel that people should have the freedom to have chickens in residential areas provided that they are not a nuisance to the neighbors. In general, I do not agree that chickens should be kept in residential areas with small lot size. I would be so mad if my neighbor thought this was a good idea. MOVE TO THE COUNTRY!! Too much thinking about the issue. Many progressive cities allow chickens. People raise birds for a variety of reasons but mainly to feed the family, over stepping the boundaries and taxing and permitting and tagging is going to make it too expensive to do at which point we destroy people's interest in farmin ! Smell and noise are a big worry. Need to have a way for citizens to easily express concerns with the city and have them follow up on the concerns. No chickens in residential neighborhoods. How noisy they can be vocally. Less regulations are needed. No chickens in residential areas. Opposed for any lot less than 2.5 acres. No chickens in less than 1 acre. We moved to a neighborhood, not a farm. Page 14 Comments While we agree that some rules should be put in place to ensure animals are not being neglected or causing extreme disturbance, this seems to be way too much. Instead of burdening our administration and police department with enforcing tight regulation on chickens - this time and effort could be focused on more 'important issues. What would George Washington do? Must have written notarized permission from neighbors allowing chickens. My neighbors had illegal chickens for 2 years and I notified city several times due to myself getting a citation for THEIR chickens not being contained and wandering into my yard of my home daycare. The 'male city contact' in charge of the complaints did NOTHING about the illegal chickens. Neighbors finally were told to get rid of them in Feb of 2017 when a second neighbor complained. I want some clarification of this. I'm on 5 acres west of the golf course. I'm afraid this ordinance is going to ban roosters and corner me into only have 12 chickens. Also, if that is going to happen it basically says I can't let me chickens out of the run- and that absurd when I'm on 5 acres. Keep them out of the neighborhoods. I strongly disagree with allowing any chickens on property's under 2.5 acres. Do not ruin our neighborhood and outdoor enjoyment by allowing this. People can't even seem to take care their dogs, and dog urine and feces, let alone allowing additional animals. I pay very large property taxes to live in this kind of neighborhood and that would be ridiculous to be burdened with nei hbors' live hobbies. I can't disagree more with allowing chickens!!!!! Chickens should not be allowed in residential areas. I don't want to look at any in closure with chickens. Also, the screened in areas that hold the chickens tend to be an eye sore, may smell and attract unwanted animals into the neighborhood. This would be a great experience for kids who live in the City. What about the impact of outdoor cats on the wild bird population or the mess that dogs leave? A well -kept group of chickens is pretty quiet and provides a direct food benefit as well as an opportunity for kids to learn. What about other foul that people are putting in chicken coops, such as large pigeons? Page 15 Ells River Request for Action To Item Number Planning Commission 5.5 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Public Hearin s Aril 25, 2017 BrieAnna Simon, Planner Item Description Reviewed by City of Elk River — Ordinance Amendment Chris Leeseber , Senior Planner ■ Ordinance amendment to expand opportunities Reviewed by for the keeping of chickens in residential areas, Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Case No. OA 17-03 Action Requested Discuss the proposed regulations regarding the keeping of chickens on residential properties. Recommend, by motion, approval of the proposed Ordinance Amendment, and direct staff to make any appropriate changes. . Why is this amendment being proposed? Every year staff receives numerous calls asking if chickens are permitted within the urban service district, specifically on lot sizes less than five acres in size. The ordinance currently requires five acres of land and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for lots within the urban service district to have chickens. Outside of the urban service district, chickens are permitted on properties less than five acres in size with a CUP. If the a property is greater than five acres in size outside of the urban service district, chickens are permitted and the number of chickens can be doubled with a CUP. On all properties within the City of Elk River, if the property lot size and required permitting is obtained, the property is permitted to have 0.01 animal units per one acres of fenced pasture land or 100 chickens per one acre of fenced pasture land. Staff brought this information to the City Council during a work session to discuss amending the ordinance, and staff was directed to look into a possible amendment. Two surveys requesting resident feedback were also posted to the city's social media pages. The results of those surveys are described below. What is the public benefit? Based on the support shown in the first survey, residents would like to see the keeping of chickens expanded to smaller lots, specifically those below 2.5 acres in size, and within the urban service district. Additionally, the survey asked questions on the number of chickens permitted, specific regulations on the keeping of chickens, and permitting requirements. This survey was open to everyone, not just residents of Elk River. After eliminating duplicates, the survey presented 256 responses with 70 percent of those surveyed in favor of permitting chickens on smaller lot sizes. Of the survey participants 71 percent said they are in favor of permitting chickens on lots below the current minimum of 5 acres. After the Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 2017, a second survey was posted to the city's social media to receive feedback on regulations specific to discussions from the first public hearing. This survey was open to everyone, not just residents of Elk River. After eliminating duplicates, the survey i 0 W I R I U 6 V 4A UO'E presented 135 responses. The survey resulted in approximately 50/50 responses for permitting chickens on lot sizes less than 5 acres. These surveys are not statistically valid but staff has referenced the results to help influence the proposed ordinance. Staff has also been contacted by residents concerned about the proposed ordinance and impacts to their properties. Their specific concerns include free range chickens, which are not permitted with this ordinance. The proposed amendment expands opportunities for the keeping of chickens, and includes regulations intended to reduce impacts to neighboring properties. Background/Discussion City staff reviewed all of the survey results and compared those to zoning regulations from nearby and similar cities. The cities inventoried include: ■ Otsego ■ Ramsey ■ Anoka ■ Jordan ■ Shakopee ■ Hastings ■ Burnsville ■ Rochester ■ Shoreview Other cities in the area were reviewed (e.g., Big Lake, St. Michael, and Rogers), however chickens on smaller lot sizes are not permitted in these communities. Staff modified regulations from the above communities to fit our community's desires, and to address concerns of noise, pests, odor, waste management, and predators expressed in the survey. Number of Chickens Staff recommends allowing a total of 12 chickens on lots all lots 2.5 to 5 acres in size regardless of zoning. These are the lots that can be located within the urban service district (i.e., R1-b, R1-c, and R1-d zoning district) or on lots located outside the urban service district (i.e., R1-a zoning district). Staff also recommends allowing this number to be increased with a CUP to match the existing agricultural animal units. Chickens would not be permitted to roam the property, and must be kept within a coop or run area. Chicken Coop and Run Staff recommends requiring a fully enclosed run and coop, which must be located in the rear yard. Additionally, to reduce impacts of animals and rodents, staff recommends the following: ■ The coop and run shall meet all building and zoning codes. This includes coops not exceeding 200 square feet. ■ The entire coop and run areas will need to be in a complete enclosure, including protective overhead netting to defend against other predators. Staff recommends using hardware cloth to enclose the run area. ■ Hardware cloth will be extended 1 foot at 90 degrees at the base of the run area to protect from predators. ■ The coop and run area will need to maintain sanitary conditions. The intent of the following regulations is to protect neighbors by not permitting coops and runs to encompass the entire rear yard area. The chicken coop size will be no larger than 10 square feet per chicken with a maximum height allowed for accessory structures in the zoning district of the property. N:\Departments\CommunityDevelopmelit\Plaluiing\Case Files\Council Review for Direction\Chickens 11-2-2020\5.5_OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28- 17.docX Coops must be elevated a minimum of 12 inches and maximum of 24 inches above grade to provide adequate circulation. The floor of the coop must be constructed of rodent resistant material. The run size will be no larger than 20 square feet per chicken. The run is to be constructed of weather resistant wood and wire material (i.e., hardware cloth) to completely enclose the facility. Setbacks Staff recommends limiting the location of coops and runs to the rear yard of a property, and requiring a 10 foot setback from side and rear property lines. If the property is a corner lot, front yard setbacks will be required from all property lines fronting a street. Coops and runs may not be located in drainage and utility easements and need to meet all accessory structures requirements outlined in the zoning code. The coop will count towards the permitted garage size and towards the total number of accessory structures. This limit will typically be two structures and a total of 1,200 square feet. Additionally, a 25 foot setback from adjacent inhabited structures is proposed. This includes neighboring homes. Additionally, staff is recommending the location of coops and runs to maintain the 45 foot setback from wetlands and stormwater ponds on all lots. This setback area is important to ensure the safety of the animals and water quality. See the attached memo from the Stormwater Coordinator and Environmental Coordinator for more information. Fencing Staff is not looking to require a secondary fence (opaque or transparent), screening or landscaped buffers for chickens on lots 2.5 acres or greater. Staff does recommend that all fencing on properties with chickens maintain a 25 foot setback from wetlands and stormwater ponds. This setback area is important to ensure the safety of the animals and water quality. See the attached memo from the Stormwater Coordinator and Environmental Coordinator for more information. Additional Requirements Staff recommends prohibiting roosters, guinea fowls, and animals running at large (free range). Roosters may be permitted on lots 2.5 to 5 acres with a CUP as permitted in the code. This is important to control noise levels and reduce the impacts to residents on other properties. A CUP will provide a public hearing and a chance to inform neighbors of the proposed animals on the property. All grains, feed, and manure are to be stored in rodent -proof containers and disposed of properly and promptly. Animals will be prohibited in the garage, house or accessory dwelling units of a property. The slaughtering of animals will also be prohibited. Additionally, manure may not be stored within 45 feet of all wetlands and stormwater ponds. This setback area is important to ensure water quality. Maintaining the 45 foot buffer area will help protect the water bodies from fecal contamination due to run off. Permitting Staff recommends no permit for the first 12 chickens on parcels 2.5 acres or greater. A CUP may be obtained to increase the number of chickens to meet the existing agricultural animal units or to permit roosters or guinea fowl. Similar to sheds less than 200 square feet, it will be the property owner's responsibility to meet all of the ordinance requirements. Sites will be visited on a complaint basis to pursue enforcement measures. N:\Departments\CommunityDevelopmelit\Plaluiing\Case Files\Council Review for Direction\Chickens 11-2-2020\5.5_OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28- 17.docX Overview of the Proposed Ordinance (1) No chickens are permitted on parcels below 2.5 acres in size. (2) A total of 12 chickens are allowed on parcels 2.5 acres to 5 acres in size. The number of chickens can be increased with a CUP to the agricultural animal standards outlined in Section 30-803. (3) No roosters on parcels 2.5 acres to 5 acres in size, unless a CUP is granted. (4) Every person who owns, controls, keeps, maintains, or harbors chickens must keep them confined at all times in a chicken coop or chicken run on the premise. Chickens are not allowed in any part of a house or accessory structures. (5) No chicken coop or run shall be constructed on any parcel of land before construction of the principal building. (6) All chicken coops and runs must comply with all applicable building and zoning codes and regulations. (7) A chicken coop and run will be considered an accessory structure and will count towards total lot coverage. (8) A chicken coop and run cannot be located in the front or side yard. Corner lots must maintain front yard setbacks from all property lines adjacent to right-of-ways. (9) A chicken coop and run must be setback at least 25 feet from any residential structure on any adjacent lot and at least 10 feet from the property line. (10) A chicken coop and run may not be located within 45 feet of a wetland or stormwater pond. (11) A chicken coop may be no larger than 10 square feet per chicken and may not exceed 6 feet in height. A chicken coop must be elevated a minimum of 12 inches and a maximum of 24 inches above grade to ensure circulation beneath the coop. A chicken coop must have rodent resistant flooring. (12) A chicken run cannot exceed 20 square feet per chicken and the fencing cannot exceed 6 feet in height. A chicken run must have a protective overhead netting to keep the chickens separated from other animals. (13) A chicken coop and run must be completely enclosed. A chicken coop and run may be enclosed with weather resistant wood or woven wire materials, and may allow chickens to contact the ground. Hardware cloth or similar material will extendl foot at 90 degrees at the base of the coop and run area to protect from predators. (14) Chicken grains and feed must be stored in rodent -proof containers. (15) No chicken may be kept or raised in a manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons on other property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor, or filth. (16) The slaughtering of chickens is prohibited. Financial Impact None Council Meeting If acted on, this item will go to the May 15, 2017, City Council meeting. Attachments March 28, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Memo Second Survey Results Stormwater Coordinator and Environmental Coordinator Memo N:\Departments\CommunityDevelopmelit\Plaluiing\Case Files\Council Review for Direction\Chickens 11-2-2020\5.5_OA 17-03 sr PC 03-28- 17.docX Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 5 Mr. Carlton noted that the current zoning only allows 50% of the area to be used for outdoor storage and the setbacks are based on the current outdoor storage ordinance follow the front yard setback. Discussion followed regarding an appropriate setback for this type of use. Commissioner Larson -Vito stated she felt it was worth exploring reducing the setback to 75' — 100' with some type of screening. Commissioner Rydberg stated that as a resident he would be less favorable to a berm and inclined to support more foliage (landscaping). He stated that if they were able to mitigate their concerns, maybe a lesser setback could be looked at. The Commissioners also discussed possible impacts on other properties in this same zoning district. Motion by Commissioner Larson -Vito and seconded by Commissioner Nicholas to table this item to the May 23, 2017, meeting, in order to have additional time to research possible impacts of the proposed amendment on other property zoned I-3. Motion carried 7-0. 5.4 Paxmar, LLC — Miske Meadows Preliminary Plat ■ Modification to Preliminary Plat, Case No. P 17-05 Mr. Carlton explained that modifications to the approved stormwater plans and lot configurations, as well as four new lots are being proposed for the Miske Meadows preliminary plat. Staff recommended that the public hearing be opened and continued to the May 23, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, so that the Commissioners may review the proposed changes and impacts to the stormwater plans on lot size and dimensions. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. Howard Johnson, 1914 Lincoln Street NW — asked if the city has had any discussions with the County regarding safety on Twin Lakes Road. He also asked if there would be additional police presence out there to address traffic issues. Mr. Carlton stated he was not aware of any discussions with the County at this time. Mr. Johnson asked that the Commission keep the safety of the residents at the forefront of their decisions. Motion by Commissioner Rydberg and seconded by Commissioner Nicholas to continue the public hearing regarding the Paxmar request for an update to the preliminary plat of Miske Meadows. Motion carried 7-0. 5.5 City of Elk River — Ordinance Amendment ■ Ordinance Amendment to expand opportunities for the keeping of chickens in residential areas, Case No. OA 17-03 Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 6 ,--N The staff report was presented by BrieAnna Simon. She reviewed the revisions made to the ordinance amendment since the last meeting. The Commissioners discussed the revised ordinance amendment. Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. Jake Gunner, 22840 Meadowvale Road — asked if ducks were also allowed. Mr. Carlton stated ducks would not be permitted per the ordinance today. An amendment would need to be made to allow ducks. There being no further public comment, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Thiel stated he felt this ordinance takes away some of his concerns. Councilmember Wagner stated that she will continue to think about the issue of chickens on the 1 acre to 2 tla acre lots. Mr. Carlton stated that staff feels they need to consider the point at which neighbors be impacted. He stated that their intent is not to tell people what they can and cannot do, but to protect residents from the impacts of uses such as this. --� Motion by Commissioner Larson -Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment regarding the keeping of chickens. Motion carried 7-0. 6.1 City Council Liaison Update Councilmember Wagner stated there were no updates and that she would take the Planning Commissioners' input to the City Council for the planning items reviewed tonight. Mr. Carlton noted that Chair Johnson is scheduled to attend the April 17 City Council meeting as the Planning Commission representative. 7. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Tina Allard i plerk Ells River Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 7.6 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Public Hearings May 15, 2017 BrieAnna Simon, Planner Item Description Reviewed by Ordinance Amendment: Keeping of Chickens Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Reviewed by Cal Portner, City Administrator Action Requested Adopt, by motion, an ordinance amendment to expand opportunities for the keeping of chickens in residential areas. Why is this amendment being proposed? Case No. OA 17-03 We are frequently asked if chickens are permitted within the urban service district, specifically on lots of less than five acres. Ordinance requires five acres of land and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) within the Urban Service District. Outside of the Urban Service District, chickens are permitted on properties less than five acres in size with a CUP. On property greater than five acres outside of the urban service district, chickens are permitted and can be doubled with a CUP. On all properties within the City of Elk River, if the property lot size and required permitting is obtained, the property is permitted to have 0.01 animal units per one acres of fenced pasture land or 100 chickens per one acre of fenced pasture land. Council discussed an amendment in work session and staff was directed to look into a possible amendment. Two surveys requesting resident feedback were also posted to the city's social media pages. The results of those surveys are described below. What is the public benefit? The first survey indicated residents would like the keeping of chickens allowed on smaller lots, specifically below 2.5 acres and within the urban service district. The survey included questions on the number of chickens permitted, specific regulations, and permitting requirements. The survey was open to everyone, not just Elk River residents. After eliminating duplicates, the survey presented 256 responses with 70% in favor of permitting chickens on smaller lot sizes and 71 % were in favor of permitting chickens on lots below the current minimum of 5 acres. After the Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 2017, a second survey was posted to receive feedback on regulations specific to discussions from the first public hearing. The survey was also open everyone. The survey presented 135 non -duplicate responses and resulted in approximately 50/50 responses for permitting chickens on lot sizes less than 5 acres. The comments provided presented more concerns and feedback in favor of prohibiting chickens on smaller lot sizes. These surveys are not statistically valid but staff has referenced the results to help influence the proposed ordinance. Staff has i 0 W I R I U 6 Y 4A UR also been contacted by residents concerned about the proposed impacts to their properties, specifically free range chickens, which are not permitted with this ordinance. The proposed amendment expands opportunities for the keeping of chickens, and includes regulations intended to reduce impacts to neighboring properties. Background/Discussion A survey review and comparison with zoning regulations of nearby and similar cities, including: ■ Otsego ■ Jordan ■ Burnsville ■ Ramsey ■ Shakopee ■ Rochester Anoka Hastings Shoreview Big Lake, St. Michael, and Rogers do not permit chickens on smaller lot sizes. Staff modified regulations from the above communities to fit our community's desires, and to address concerns of noise, pests, odor, waste management, and predators as expressed in the survey. Number of Chickens Staff recommends allowing a total of 12 chickens on lots all lots of 2.5-5 acres regardless of zoning and an increase with a CUP to match existing agricultural animal units. Chickens would not be permitted to roam the property, and must be kept within a coop or run area. The image shows in dark green the residential parcels 5 acres or above where chickens are permitted today with or without a CUP. The light green residential parcels show the parcels that would now be permitted to have chickens without a permit if the ordinance is adopted. Please note all other lots besides residential are shaded in light gray and not included in this analysis. Chicken Coop and Run Staff recommends requiring a fully enclosed run and coop, which must be located in the rear yard. Additionally, to reduce impacts of animals and rodents, staff recommends the following: ■ The coop and run shall meet all building and zoning codes. This includes coops not exceeding 200 sf. ■ The entire coop and run areas need to be in a complete enclosure, including protective overhead netting to defend against predators. Staff recommends using hardware cloth to enclose the run area. ■ Hardware cloth will be extended 1 foot at 90 degrees at the base of the run area to protect from predators. ■ The coop and run area will need to maintain sanitary conditions. 0.0 - a5 0.6 - 1.0 1.1 -2.5 2.6 - 5.0 - 5.1 - 1600.0 Non -Residential 1 Al Parcels N:\DepartmeAits\CommunityDevelopmelit\Plamiing\Case Files\Council Review for Direction\Chickens 11-2-2020\OA 17-03 sr CC 05-15-17.docx The intent of the following regulations is to protect neighbors by not permitting coops and runs to encompass the entire rear yard area. The chicken coop size will be no larger than 10 sf per chicken with a maximum height allowed for accessory structures in the zoning district of the property. Coops must be elevated a minimum of 12 inches and maximum of 24 inches above grade to provide adequate circulation. The floor of the coop must be constructed of rodent -resistant material. The run size will be no larger than 20 sf per chicken. The run is to be constructed of weather resistant wood and wire material (i.e., hardware cloth) to completely enclose the facility. Setbacks Staff recommends limiting the location of coops and runs to the rear yard of a property and requiring a 10-foot setback from side and rear property lines. On corner lots, front yard setbacks will be required from all property lines fronting a street. Coops and runs may not be located in drainage and utility easements and need to meet all accessory structures requirements outlined in the zoning code. The coop will count towards the permitted garage size and towards the total number of accessory structures. This limit will typically be two structures with a total of 1,200 sf in the urban service district and up to 16,000 outside of the urban service district. Additionally, a 25-foot setback from adjacent inhabited structures is proposed. This includes neighboring homes. Staff also recommends coops and runs maintain a 45-foot setback from wetlands and stormwater ponds on all lots. This setback area is important to ensure the safety of the animals and water quality. Fencing Staff is not looking to require a secondary fence (opaque or transparent), screening or landscaped buffers for chickens on lots 2.5 acres or greater. Staff does recommend that all fencing on properties with chickens maintain a 25-foot setback from wetlands and stormwater ponds. This setback area is important to ensure the safety of the animals and water quality. Additional Requirements Staff recommends prohibiting roosters, guinea fowls, and animals running at large (free range). Roosters may be permitted on lots 2.5 to 5 acres with a CUP as permitted by code which controls noise levels and reduces the impacts to residents on other properties. A CUP will provide a public hearing and a chance to inform neighbors of the proposed animals on the property. All grains, feed, and manure are to be stored in rodent -proof containers and disposed of properly and promptly. Animals will be prohibited in the garage, house or accessory dwelling units of a property. The slaughtering of animals will also be prohibited. Additionally, manure may not be stored within 45 feet of all wetlands and stormwater ponds. This setback area is important to ensure water quality. Maintaining the 45-foot buffer area will help protect the water bodies from fecal contamination due to run off. Permitting Staff recommends no permit for the first 12 chickens on parcels 2.5 acres or greater. A CUP may be obtained to increase the number of chickens to meet the existing agricultural animal units or to permit roosters or guinea fowl. Similar to sheds less than 200 sf, it will be the property owner's responsibility to meet all of the ordinance requirements. Enforcement measures will be on a complaint basis. N:\Departments\Community Development\Plamiing\Case Files\Council Review for Direction\Chickens 11-2-2020\OA 17-03 sr CC 05-15-17.docx Overview of the Proposed Ordinance (1) Chickens are not permitted on parcels below 2.5 acres in size. (2) A total of 12 chickens are allowed on parcels 2.5 acres to 5 acres in size. The number of chickens can be increased with a CUP to the agricultural animal standards outlined in Section 30-803. (3) No roosters on parcels 2.5 acres to 5 acres in size, unless a CUP is granted. (4) Every person who owns, controls, keeps, maintains, or harbors chickens must keep them confined at all times in a chicken coop or chicken run on the premise. Chickens are not allowed in any part of a house or accessory structures. (5) No chicken coop or run shall be constructed on any parcel of land before construction of the principal building. (6) All chicken coops and runs must comply with all applicable building and zoning codes and regulations. (7) A chicken coop and run will be considered an accessory structure and will count towards total lot coverage. (8) A chicken coop and run cannot be located in the front or side yard. Corner lots must maintain front yard setbacks from all property lines adjacent to right-of-ways. (9) A chicken coop and run must be setback at least 25 feet from any residential structure on any adjacent lot and at least 10 feet from the property line. (10) A chicken coop and run may not be located within 45 feet of a wetland or stormwater pond. (11) A chicken coop may be no larger than 10 square feet per chicken and may not exceed 6 feet in height. A chicken coop must be elevated a minimum of 12 inches and a maximum of 24 inches above grade to ensure circulation beneath the coop. A chicken coop must have rodent resistant flooring. (12) A chicken run cannot exceed 20 square feet per chicken and the fencing cannot exceed 6 feet in height. A chicken run must have a protective overhead netting to keep the chickens separated from other animals. (13) A chicken coop and run must be completely enclosed. A chicken coop and run may be enclosed with weather resistant wood or woven wire materials, and may allow chickens to contact the ground. Hardware cloth or similar material will extendl foot at 90 degrees at the base of the coop and run area to protect from predators. (14) Chicken grains and feed must be stored in rodent -proof containers. (15) No chicken may be kept or raised in a manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons on other property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor, or filth. (16) The slaughtering of chickens is prohibited. Planning Commission Meeting A local resident questioned if the ordinance included the keeping of ducks or if it was specific to chickens. The ordinance is specific to the keeping of chickens but ducks are permitted under the agricultural animal ordinance in the city code. We did receive public comments prior to the Planning Commission meeting concerning free range chickens and impacts to neighbors. After the Planning Commission meeting, staff received a comment noting interest in broiler chickens. Broilers are kept for approximately 56 days then slaughtered for food. The same concerns are held for smaller parcels regardless of length of time on the property. The commission consensus was 2.5 acres is a good starting point was for expanding opportunities. N:\Departments\Community Development\Plamiing\Case Files\Council Review for Direction\Chickens 11-2-2020\OA 17-03 sr CC 05-15-17.docx Staff stated one -acre parcels can still be located in a neighborhood setting throughout the city. Also, the 2.5 acres was not a determination as to who had enough space, but rather a point that felt appropriate to mitigate impacts to adjacent properties. Many of the concerns from the surveys had to do with how the change would impact their property (noise, odor, values, etc.) which are easier to address on larger lot sizes. Commission members also stated they liked not requiring permits on these lots, which was a concern noted in the surveys. The Planning Comnussion unanimously recommended approval. Financial Impact None Attachments ■ March 28, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Memo ■ Second Survey Results ■ Stormwater Coordinator and Environmental Coordinator Memo ■ Ordinance Amendment Document N:\Departments\Community Development\Plamiing\Case Files\Council Review for Direction\Chickens 11-2-2020\OA 17-03 sr CC 05-15-17.docx City Council Minutes May 15, 2017 Page G deed it over due to previous litigation with Mr. Lenz. He noted the city is still within the 120 day statutory deadline for required action. Council questioned the city's legal right to require the outlot be deeded when city documentation, such as minutes, clearly state it is required. Attorney Beck agreed with Mr. Nielson in that the oudot wasn't conveyed as it should have been but, unfortunately, there is now a new owner attached to the property. Moved by Councihnember Westgaard and seconded by Councihnember Wagner to continue the public hearing to June 19, 2017. Motion carried 5-0. 7.4 Preliminary Plat update: Miske Meadows, Paxmar LLC Mr. Carlton presented the staff report. Mayor Dietz opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, Mayor Dietz continued the public hearing. Moved by Councihnember Wagner and seconded by Councihnember Westgaard to continue the public hearing to June 5, 2017. Motion carried 5-0. 7.5 Ordinance Amendment: Outdoor Storage in the 1-3 District, Satellite Shelters Mr. Carlton presented the staff report. Mayor Dietz opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, Mayor Dietz continued the public hearing. Moved by Councihnember Westgaard and seconded by Councihnember Olsen to continue the public hearing to June 19, 2017. Motion carried 5-0. 7.6 Ordinance Amendment: Keeping of Chickens Ms. Simon presented the staff report. Mayor Dietz opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, Mayor Dietz closed the public hearing. Council discussed the public outreach for this item. Ms. Simon noted the survey on the website was open to anyone, not specifically Elk River residents. She stated the first survey, which did not discuss lot sizes had a 50/50 response for and against chickens in urban areas. She discussed the concerns ATVE City Council Minutes May 15, 2017 Page 7 mentioned in in the survey. She stated the second survey did outline the proposed amendments to the ordinance. Council noted this was a good starting point in creating a chicken ordinance, but expressed concerns with a large population of people who will want chickens on smaller lots. Mr. Carlton noted the first survey was indiscriminate in regards to lot size, but Survey #2 did break down to allowing chickens on different lot sizes. He stated there was a mix of support when the smaller lot sizes were proposed, noting it was a 60/40 split. He stated 60 % weren't in favor of the smaller lot size. He noted there was overwhelming opposition to requiring permitting but staff feels if Council decides to lower the lot size, a permit should be required. He stated staff has concerns with smaller lot sizes and the impacts to adjacent neighbors. Councilmember Wagner discussed action at the planning commission. She stated, based on her own social media outreach, she had posed the question about chickens and lot sizes and received an overwhelming no to allowing them in residential neighborhoods. She further questioned compliance with the new ordinance. Staff noted it would be complaint driven. Moved by Councilmember Westgaard and seconded by Councilmember Wagner to adopt Ordinance 17-09 amending Chapter 30, Section 30-803, Animals, of the City of Elk River, Minnesota, City Code. Motion carried 5-0. 8.1. Wayfinding Master Plan Bids Ms. Gardner presented the staff report. Council discussed costs and budget for the next two years. They further discussed the gateway signage design options. There were questions about whether to accept the bids, which were completed for more than was budgeted, or to select signage budgeted in the Capital Improvement Plan. Ms. Gardner noted the bids covered more work than was included in the budget and funds would come from the GRE Fund. She stated previous Council consensus was to utilize this fund. Mr. Portner stated taking the bids apart changes the phasing, the mobilization, and costs. He stated the bidders would have a whole different pricing attached when bidding out fewer items and this option is mote beneficial cost -wise to the city. Mr. Portnet stated there are a few options Council could consider such as: ■ Staff could provide further details about sign costs. ■ Reject the bids and remodel another bid option. • Continue discussion to another meeting. PIYIRII IT