[0:36] before.
[0:57] » Okay. All right. Welcome to our council
[1:00] meeting for August 13th. Please stand
[1:02] for the pledge of allegiance.
[1:07] » Algiance to the flag of the United
[1:09] States of America,
[1:11] >> to the republic for which it stands, one
[1:13] nation under God, indivisible, with
[1:17] liberty and justice for all.
[1:23] » Right. First up is open forum. Would you
[1:26] like to speak, Jim?
[1:28] >> [laughter]
[1:34] » Assuming there's nothing on that sheet.
[1:39] We'll move on. There's no presentations
[1:41] tonight. Um move on to approve agenda.
[1:45] Council members may add items to the
[1:47] agenda for discussion purposes or staff
[1:49] direction only. The council will not
[1:51] normally take official action on items
[1:53] added to the agenda.
[1:55] >> Move to approve.
[1:58] I'll second.
[1:58] >> All right, we have a motion and a
[2:00] second. All in favor?
[2:01] >> I.
[2:02] >> All right, that motion passes. Consent
[2:05] agenda. These items are considered to be
[2:07] routine and will be enacted by one
[2:09] motion. There will be no separate
[2:11] discussion of these items unless a
[2:13] council member so requests in which I
[2:15] event the item will be removed from the
[2:17] consent agenda and placed elsewhere on
[2:19] the agenda. Anyone have anything? Um, I
[2:22] have an item uh item 5.8.
[2:28] Okay.
[2:32] Anything else? I think that'll be it.
[2:34] >> I'll move to approve.
[2:36] the Go ahead.
[2:42] You need to run, brother
[2:45] council. You should
[2:51] » Okay, quick. Jim, what do you have a
[2:53] question on?
[3:03] Madame Mayor and council members, the W
[3:05] Communities Program is a program offered
[3:08] through the Metropolitan Council.
[3:10] There's numerous different grant
[3:11] opportunities, one of which is policy
[3:12] related. The
[3:14] >> city was awarded a grant to pay for
[3:16] almost the entirety of a housing study.
[3:19] The housing study is not directed by the
[3:21] Metropolitan Council. It's directed by
[3:23] us. they just fund the program. So we
[3:26] have also on that item an agreement with
[3:29] Stantech to complete the housing study.
[3:31] The information from the housing study
[3:33] helps influence what goes into the
[3:35] comprehensive plan identifies our needs
[3:37] from a housing standpoint
[3:39] >> or some in the case if there was a case
[3:42] of being a certain product type
[3:44] overbuilt. So it's really giving us a
[3:47] background that we need for anything
[3:48] housing related for the community as we
[3:50] move forward.
[3:50] >> So it gives us a good inventory of
[3:53] existing housing in the city.
[3:56] >> Good.
[3:56] >> Thank you.
[3:57] >> I'd uh move to approve the consent
[3:59] agenda less item 5.
[4:03] » Second.
[4:04] >> All right. I have a motion and a second.
[4:06] All in favor? I
[4:07] >> I
[4:08] >> All right. 5.8 acceptance of a donation
[4:11] from Roger Rogers.
[4:14] >> I can't talk tonight. Rogers at Seigo
[4:17] Youth Baseball. Mainly I just wanted to
[4:20] highlight um and thank them for the
[4:22] donation. We always appreciate
[4:23] donations. And it was uh $10,000. So
[4:28] that's pretty impressive. Thank you.
[4:29] >> That's wonderful. Thank you so much.
[4:31] >> Indeed.
[4:32] >> And I'll move to approve 5.8.
[4:35] >> I'll second.
[4:36] >> All right. We have a motion and a
[4:37] second. All in favor?
[4:38] >> I.
[4:40] >> All right. That motion passes. Thanks
[4:42] again, youth baseball.
[4:45] All right. We have no public hearings
[4:46] tonight, so we'll move on to general
[4:48] business. Consider amendments to city
[4:50] code and zoning code related to the
[4:52] keeping of animals and backyard
[4:54] chickens.
[4:58] Let's see. Uh are you able to see the
[5:00] PowerPoint that I'm attempting to share?
[5:07] Believe so.
[5:09] uh does only meeting organizers and
[5:12] presenters.
[5:41] Well, I pull this up. I can give some
[5:43] background on the item before turning it
[5:45] over to Zach. Um, over the past year or
[5:49] so, we've been spending quite a bit of
[5:50] time and discussion on backyard
[5:52] chickens. Uh we starting with an
[5:55] individual who came to open forum and
[5:57] through he was having active code
[6:00] enforcement case at that time. City
[6:02] council asked to look further into it at
[6:05] which point we did a [clears throat]
[6:08] um a larger survey which had over 550
[6:12] responses to it to get a good baseline
[6:15] of what the general residents feel was
[6:18] to the item. Um the survey was really to
[6:22] see trends on a few different items that
[6:24] we wanted to see. And through that
[6:27] discussion, we presented to the city
[6:29] council the different items that we had
[6:33] received feedback on and that led to the
[6:36] council direction to draft an ordinance
[6:38] which was reviewed by the planning
[6:39] commission earlier this month. And Zach
[6:42] will go through some of the details on
[6:43] that ordinance.
[6:45] >> Thanks Brett. Uh madame mayor,
[6:46] counselors, good to see you again. Um, a
[6:49] lot of this presentation, uh, is going
[6:51] to be pretty similar to the one that we,
[6:53] uh, went over at the planning
[6:54] commission, but with just a lot of the
[6:56] recommendations that we got from both
[6:58] the planning commission, counselors,
[6:59] and, uh, some of the general public at
[7:01] that last meeting.
[7:04] So, just a summary to go through it
[7:06] again, just kind of what the ordinance
[7:08] is in its complete form, um, is it we're
[7:11] going to allow residents on smaller lots
[7:12] to keep backyard chickens. Uh, this will
[7:15] be under subsection F of backyard
[7:16] chickens. Uh the ordinance required us
[7:18] to create kind of a new section in our zoning code which is uh going to be
[7:23] labeled 1-125-95
[7:26] uh keeping of animals. So, it's going to
[7:28] keep um house the the backyard chickens
[7:32] as well as relocating some of our uh
[7:35] code, you know, regarding uh livestock
[7:37] and and kennel operations into this
[7:39] section uh just for clarity and um
[7:42] easier when people are trying to kind of
[7:43] figure out what the the regulations are
[7:46] on some of these things. Um
[7:49] so, that also required us to reumber
[7:52] some tables within section 125 just to
[7:54] maintain numeric consistency. and then
[7:57] uh the amendment uh to 125102 where we
[7:59] house all of our definitions for some of
[8:02] the new terms that are referenced in
[8:03] this backyard chickens ordinance just so
[8:05] there's uh clarity u when people are are
[8:07] reading the ordinance.
[8:10] So I kind of went over some of this
[8:12] already but um yep relocating uh animals
[8:16] and farming operations, livestock
[8:18] operations into this new 125-95.
[8:22] We also updated some of our language um
[8:24] surrounding feed lots just to make sure
[8:26] that we were compliant with MPCA
[8:28] requirements um and the state
[8:31] requirements with uh livestock
[8:32] operations. Just for kind of background,
[8:36] currently the way that our code was
[8:38] written um if we would have allowed uh
[8:41] backyard chickens without updating our
[8:44] uh feed lot language in our our
[8:45] amendment or in our code, it would have
[8:48] technically been a feed lot. So we
[8:50] basically just updated our definition of
[8:51] a feed lot to uh exempt smallcale
[8:54] operations uh similar to you know
[8:57] keeping backyard chickens. These are uh
[8:59] different from you know livestock uh
[9:02] large agricultural operations that would
[9:04] be considered a feed lot by the state.
[9:07] Um let's see here. I think all this I've
[9:10] kind of gone through already. Um so
[9:13] we'll get into kind of some of the
[9:14] feedback that we uh heard from the last
[9:17] uh planning commission meeting on uh
[9:18] August 3rd. So uh a big takeaway from
[9:21] that meeting was both the some of the
[9:24] people that spoke from the public as
[9:25] well as planning commissioners wanted to
[9:27] see some sort of permit process um
[9:29] before keeping check-ins. The original
[9:31] ordinance that we brought to the
[9:32] planning commission did not uh have a
[9:34] permit process. Um through discussion
[9:37] between counselors and planning uh uh
[9:39] commissioners, I think we kind of ca
[9:42] staff came to an agreement that uh an
[9:45] actual full-on permit would be very
[9:48] labor intensive and taxing on on staff.
[9:50] And that's would potentially even could
[9:52] have required adding a staff member for
[9:54] this. And so the uh what staff is
[9:58] recommending uh with this ordinance now
[10:00] is that it'll be a uh kind of a
[10:02] registration license process um but it
[10:04] won't have an inspection. So I'll get
[10:07] over or I'll go over the actual uh like
[10:10] what that license processing is going to
[10:12] look like in a couple slides here. But
[10:13] that's kind of where we're at is that
[10:14] we're not recommending a permit process,
[10:16] but we are recommending a license um for
[10:19] this uh keeping back our chickens at
[10:21] this time. Um there were concerns over
[10:24] the number of chickens being allowed. Uh
[10:26] the planning commission uh multiple
[10:29] commissioners made comments that they
[10:31] felt it was overly complicated. So we
[10:32] kind of simplified the table that we'll
[10:34] go over here in a second. Um staff was
[10:37] seeking feedback at that meeting on
[10:39] minimum lot size and just distances that
[10:42] these chicken coops or runs need to be
[10:44] um set back from neighbor neighboring
[10:47] residential dwellings. Um it seemed like
[10:51] uh that the initial recommendation of
[10:54] 0.2 acres being the minimum was uh was
[10:58] uh agreeable for most commissioners and
[11:00] so we're still recommending that and
[11:01] keeping the uh 30 foot setback although
[11:03] we did update some of the language to
[11:05] clarify that it needs to be 30 ft from a
[11:07] residential dwelling. Earlier it was
[11:09] just a residential structure. So, uh it
[11:11] doesn't necessarily have to be 30 ft
[11:13] from somebody's shed, but somebody's
[11:15] house uh dwelling um which is defined in
[11:18] our code. So,
[11:21] um and then we did get some community
[11:23] feedback on just uh some concerns about
[11:27] how early we should be requiring
[11:29] residents to move uh chicks out of the
[11:32] out of a dwelling or garage. Um, so we
[11:34] just kind of relaxed those standards a
[11:36] little bit by a couple of weeks just to
[11:38] um we were educated and did some
[11:41] research on that and a lot of sources
[11:43] were recommending that it takes a couple
[11:46] more weeks for chickens to reach the
[11:47] maturity where they can survive outside
[11:49] um especially if it's a colder spring or
[11:52] something like that. So,
[11:55] uh Brett kind of went through this
[11:56] already, but some backyard uh or
[11:58] background on kind of how we got to this
[12:00] point. So, the survey was sent out in
[12:02] late 2025 following some community uh
[12:05] feedback of of asking whether or not
[12:07] they can have chickens. Um, like Brett
[12:09] said, we received over 550 responses.
[12:12] Uh, 70% of the people that filled out
[12:14] the survey did want to allow for
[12:16] backyard chickens, but the majority did
[12:18] also want to have a minimum lot size
[12:19] restriction put in place. Um, 0.2 acres
[12:22] was the uh most commonly selected answer
[12:24] for minimum lot size. and uh staff
[12:28] directed were directed to draft an
[12:30] ordinance at the June 23rd of this year
[12:32] uh city council work session. So um we
[12:35] did some research into various cities in
[12:37] the region. Um most cities that do allow
[12:40] them are allowing anywhere from four to
[12:43] six are the are kind of the common
[12:44] numbers that we're seeing. Permit
[12:46] processes are pretty split. Some cities
[12:49] are allow are requiring them, others
[12:51] aren't. Um, and the most common
[12:54] complaint when staff reached out to
[12:56] other cities to kind of see, you know,
[12:58] how how it was going, what are the
[13:00] what's the feedback that you've gotten
[13:01] from citizens? Um, birds getting loose
[13:04] tends to be the most common issue that,
[13:06] uh, other cities see. [clears throat]
[13:08] Um, and as you would expect, the
[13:11] majority complaints in the spring,
[13:12] summer, um, when people are getting
[13:14] chickens in the first place. Um, a lot
[13:16] of cities do allow other birds other
[13:19] than chickens, such as ducks, geese. Uh
[13:21] the ordinance that staff is proposing
[13:23] tonight is only allowing chickens, not
[13:25] other uh fowl. So um as I stated before
[13:29] recommending 02 acres um a little bit of
[13:32] background on that one uh that seemed to
[13:35] be what kind of council and a lot of uh
[13:38] the general feedback from the survey uh
[13:41] was pushing staff towards and we did do
[13:43] some analysis on lots in the city and uh
[13:47] that 0.2 2 acres does seem to be a good
[13:49] number that staff feels good about if we
[13:52] were to increase that to 0.25 acres. Um
[13:55] we would be excluding around 730 homes.
[13:58] Um just analys analyzing lot sizes and
[14:01] uh things like that. Um this will be for
[14:04] single detach family only. This uh
[14:06] ordinance will not allow people in
[14:08] duplexes, town homes, things like that
[14:10] to to have backyard chickens. And as I
[14:13] stated before, based on the public
[14:14] feedback, we are now recommending that
[14:16] we'll have a license to be able to keep
[14:18] uh chickens. So,
[14:20] kind of some summary of what the
[14:22] ordinance actually has in it. So, on the
[14:24] top left there, this is the a simplified
[14:26] table. Before we had it broken out into
[14:29] more categories depending on what your
[14:30] lot size was. Feedback was just to
[14:32] simplify this. So, like I said, if
[14:35] you're on less than 0.2 acres, you won't
[14:36] be allowed. Um, and then it's going to
[14:38] kind of scale up until you get to that 3
[14:40] acres or more area or size, which you'll
[14:43] be able to keep 20 hens. Or if you're in
[14:44] an A or R1 zone, um, you'll be able to
[14:48] keep, uh, the number of poultry as
[14:49] permitted by our livestock uh, units.
[14:51] So,
[14:53] um,
[14:55] the ordinance is drafted to, uh, prevent
[14:58] against, uh, you know, nuisance
[15:00] conditions hopefully. So, chicks, uh,
[15:02] coups and run areas will have to be kept
[15:04] in sanitary condition. Um the ordinance
[15:07] explicitly states that manure must be uh
[15:10] collected and stored until it can be
[15:11] disposed of and then um in order to
[15:14] prevent pests um collecting uh keeping
[15:17] feed in a rodent uh proof container um
[15:20] to try to reduce any type of uh pest
[15:23] coming in. Um and then as far as kind of
[15:26] setbacks and things like that. So we are
[15:28] requiring the coups and runs will have
[15:30] to be 10 ft from any property line and
[15:31] as I mentioned earlier we clarified the
[15:33] language 30 ft from any residential
[15:35] dwelling is how the ordinance is uh
[15:38] written at this point. Um some other
[15:40] feedback we got at that planning
[15:41] commission. It was in the uh ordinance
[15:44] already, but just uh wanted to make sure
[15:47] it's clear that we are requiring when
[15:49] somebody is going to uh want backyard
[15:52] chickens that when they submit their
[15:54] plans that they're going to have to have
[15:55] four square ft of minimum uh uh floor
[15:58] area per each bird and then 10 ft uh
[16:01] square feet per hen in the run area to
[16:04] uh make sure that they have enough room
[16:06] where there's not going to be, you know,
[16:08] less likely to have diseases or or other
[16:10] issues, things like that.
[16:11] Um, if the shelter, so the run area and
[16:14] the coupe is less than 200 feet, we will
[16:16] not be considering an accessory
[16:18] structure and it won't require a a
[16:19] building permit. They'll still have to
[16:21] have a license. But if they're over that
[16:23] 200 ft, then they will need a building
[16:25] permit in addition to the license and
[16:26] then that will count as an accessory
[16:28] structure, which depending on the zone
[16:30] that uh a resident is living in, we do
[16:32] have restrictions on, you know, the
[16:34] number of accessory structures that uh
[16:36] residents may have. So,
[16:40] um, other things, uh, the most,
[16:45] especially small lots that are in the
[16:46] city, they're going to have to have a
[16:48] privacy fence or similar landscaping for
[16:50] a coup and run. So, the way the
[16:52] ordinance is written currently, uh, if
[16:54] your chicken coupe or run is within 30
[16:57] ft of a neighboring property line, then,
[17:01] uh, you'll have to have it screened. If
[17:02] you have, you know, a really wide lot or
[17:05] a bigger lot, um, you may be exempt from
[17:07] that. But, uh, most of the smaller lots
[17:10] that are in that, you know, 2 to 3 acre,
[17:12] uh, those are almost in all cases going
[17:15] to have to have a 6oot privacy fence or similar landscaping just to kind of
[17:19] reduce the visual impact of these. Um,
[17:22] and then just some other things. Uh,
[17:24] this is roosters. Uh, roosters and
[17:27] crowing hens are not allowed on lots
[17:28] less than 3 acres. Um this is only hens
[17:31] just to reduce on the noise and we're
[17:33] not allowing uh water fowl, pee foul or
[17:36] any other uh similarly kept birds. So as
[17:39] far as the license process, this is
[17:40] something that staff uh worked on after
[17:42] the last planning commission. Um this,
[17:44] like I mentioned before, is not going to
[17:46] require an on on-site inspection unless
[17:48] the coupe is over 200 feet, which at
[17:50] that point it's into the building permit
[17:52] territory. Um, and as the ordinance is
[17:55] written, uh, when resident that wants to
[17:58] keep chickens, when they submit their
[18:00] application or for their license,
[18:02] they're going to have to have the name
[18:02] and contact information, the property
[18:04] address where the chickens will be kept.
[18:06] If it's a renter situation, they're
[18:08] going to need some kind of property
[18:09] ownership consent. Um, the number of
[18:11] hens that they're proposing to keep, and
[18:13] then as well as the location, size of
[18:15] the coupe and run, and showing that it
[18:17] meets setback requirements on their
[18:19] plan.
[18:21] Um, we also are viewing this license
[18:23] page as kind of a uh landing spot or one
[18:26] kind of stop for residents. So, um,
[18:30] we're going to have links to best
[18:31] practices. The University of Minnesota
[18:33] has a lot of really good information.
[18:34] There's a lot of other websites. I know
[18:36] uh um we've gotten some some good
[18:39] feedback from counselors and residents
[18:41] on on valuable information, you know,
[18:43] best practices. So, um we're hoping that
[18:46] residents will when they are applying
[18:48] for their license will be able to access
[18:50] this information and um learn more about
[18:52] it before maybe they jump into it. And
[18:54] as far as kind of the mechanics of it,
[18:56] the license will be a onetime process
[18:58] and valid for as long as chickens are
[18:59] kept on the property line. uh this
[19:01] license will not be able to be
[19:02] transferred if a resident moves or um uh
[19:06] yeah and then uh just due to us the the
[19:10] city switching over its permitting
[19:12] process to IMS um in 2027, this
[19:16] ordinance will not actually go into
[19:17] effect until January 1st because that's
[19:19] when we plan on launching this uh
[19:21] license portal as well.
[19:24] Um, so with that, I I think I'll uh open
[19:28] it up for for questions or um comments
[19:31] from counselors. Thanks.
[19:48] How far from the property line? How far
[19:50] from any dwelling? And what are we
[19:52] calling a dwelling?
[19:55] Like I don't want it near my deck. I
[19:57] don't want it near my kid's playground.
[19:59] I don't want it near my, you know what I
[20:01] mean?
[20:03] >> Cuz I've heard comments about that. Like
[20:05] I don't like I build a playground for my
[20:07] kid and then my neighbors put a coupe
[20:10] right next to it.
[20:13] So the way it's currently written is 10
[20:16] feet from any property line um and 30
[20:20] feet from a dwelling. So to your
[20:23] question that a dwelling would not
[20:26] include something like a a swing set or something like that. But uh they
[20:32] would not be able to put the coupe or
[20:33] run area right up to the property line.
[20:35] They still had to have it 10 ft from the
[20:38] property line. and feeds like from here
[20:39] to there right to the podium
[20:41] >> right and then also I would consider
[20:45] like accessory structures also have
[20:47] their own setbacks so obviously it's
[20:49] going to depend on on the district but
[20:51] in most cases you're would probably have
[20:54] at least 15 feet just based on if you're
[20:57] you know your neighbor has their
[20:58] accessory structure cited where it's
[21:00] supposed to be if your neighbor got
[21:01] chickens that 10 ft plus whatever you're
[21:03] supposed to have your
[21:04] >> sure
[21:05] >> but to your point though yes it's not
[21:07] the way it's currently written it does
[21:08] can't build a playground right on my
[21:09] property line either, right? So, it
[21:11] would be it wouldn't be 10 ft.
[21:13] >> But just so that it's uh you're it's
[21:15] clear. Yeah. It's not uh the 30 ft only
[21:18] refers to the dwelling, not um not any
[21:21] structure in in a neighbor's yard.
[21:23] >> That too.
[21:25] >> Is a deck considered part of the
[21:27] dwelling?
[21:32] Madame Mayor and council, usually a deck
[21:34] is not considered part of the overall
[21:36] principal dwelling unit, but it really
[21:38] depends on how it's kind of laid out on
[21:40] the property. Usually decks have shorter
[21:42] setback, so they can encroach a little
[21:43] further than a house could on the
[21:44] sideyard.
[21:46] So typically, no.
[21:48] >> So even if they're attached, they're not
[21:50] considered part of the dwelling.
[21:52] >> It's not considered the principal
[21:54] dwelling. There are just similar how
[21:56] decks can encroach into your rear yard
[21:58] setback and other features that a
[22:01] principal dwelling couldn't.
[22:09] [clears throat and cough]
[22:11] >> So, oh, go ahead.
[22:12] >> The only question I had was on uh just
[22:15] to be clear on enforcement.
[22:17] So, we talked a little bit about it. You
[22:19] know, Brett, you mentioned there'd be a
[22:21] citation
[22:23] or maybe you could just describe again
[22:26] the how it escalates and then cuz my
[22:29] expectation is that you get to the end
[22:32] of that process. If you can't get
[22:34] conformance, then we have a means to say
[22:38] you're off the list. you have to
[22:42] uh
[22:43] get rid of the chickens and dismantle
[22:45] the coupe and you're done and you're on
[22:48] the list that of folks that are no
[22:50] longer allowed to have chickens.
[22:52] >> Yeah, madame council. So adding the
[22:53] license process as Zach mentioned adds a
[22:56] kind of a separate layer to what was
[22:57] discussed in the planning commission. So
[22:59] now if there is we're a complaint based
[23:01] city. So, if the city receives a
[23:03] complaint on someone's chicken keeping,
[23:05] whether it's loose or animals, waste,
[23:08] whatever it may be, smell, um, city
[23:10] would typically send a letter of
[23:13] violation to the property owner stating
[23:15] that they have x amount of time to
[23:16] rectify the issue. Um, if they don't,
[23:19] there could be with the licensing
[23:22] process a revocation of their license,
[23:24] which would then mean that they are no
[23:27] longer allowed to keep chickens. If
[23:28] they're in violation of that, then
[23:30] there's citations, which are typically a
[23:32] misdemeanor charge. Um, and
[23:36] they wouldn't be allowed to keep them.
[23:37] Everyone's going to need a license now
[23:39] to operate. And if there's violations,
[23:41] we can revoke those license. If there's
[23:43] ongoing issues, we can seek further
[23:45] enforcement action. Um, the license adds
[23:49] a little bit of an easier process from a
[23:51] stat. Well, it's more work upfront. It
[23:54] adds the ability to have all that
[23:56] contact info for each ownership right
[23:59] off the bat. Um, and it also means
[24:02] everyone has to comply and follow and
[24:05] should be reading the ordinance before
[24:07] they get the chicken. So, we have kind
[24:10] of a dual approach with the license. And
[24:12] the way Zach laid it out is was our
[24:14] preferred method. Um, because we're
[24:16] going to have a site plan. They're going
[24:17] to have to submit a site plan to us. So,
[24:19] we're going to see the actual distances
[24:20] from the property line, everything
[24:22] related to it. Um, without that license,
[24:26] it meant a lot of people probably get
[24:28] them without reading the ordinance or
[24:30] all the details of the ordinance. So,
[24:31] this gives us a little bit additional
[24:33] background to it. And being that it's a
[24:35] non-insspection license, it really
[24:38] drastically reduces that staff time
[24:40] that's needed.
[24:41] >> Um, the license itself as it is operated
[24:44] will be operated through the community
[24:46] development department. And so Alex's
[24:47] going to be the one reviewing all the
[24:49] license applications that comes in.
[24:52] >> So how is it different if someone just
[24:53] does it without a license?
[24:55] >> Well, then they're in violation of the
[24:56] ordinance and they can get a misdemeanor
[24:57] charge for being in violation of our
[25:01] ordinance.
[25:03] Usually we would send a letter stating,
[25:05] "Hey, you need to have a license to have
[25:07] chickens. You need to submit this, this,
[25:09] and this to come into compliance." But
[25:12] if they don't [clears throat] do that,
[25:14] then there's enforcement action we can
[25:15] take.
[25:17] >> Good.
[25:19] >> So, I have a question. Um, how does this
[25:22] affect like legally non-conforming
[25:25] properties at this point?
[25:29] » Yeah, Madame Mayor and Council. So, the
[25:32] way that it's written is really pertains
[25:34] to all the districts. So, it's really
[25:35] looking at single family dwelling units
[25:36] as a specific use. So even if it's
[25:42] say the a home in the RC district, if
[25:45] it's a single family operated home and
[25:47] it's meeting all the standards, I should
[25:48] be able to get chickens still. So I'm
[25:51] [clears throat] thinking more along the
[25:52] lines um if you're let like your zoning
[25:57] changed, you own chickens, your zoning
[25:59] changed, you're legally non-conforming
[26:01] now. Um, does this force them to get in
[26:06] line with
[26:08] these numbers and stuff or how does that
[26:11] work?
[26:12] >> I would defer to Bob on that one.
[26:18] » Leading the fifth. [laughter]
[26:20] >> Yeah, making council. It's a it's a it's
[26:23] a good question. Uh, I I think I'm
[26:25] agreeing with what staff is saying. Um,
[26:28] uh, yes. uh because this would be an
[26:31] accessory a permitted accessory use and
[26:33] it's a permitted accessory use in all
[26:35] districts as long as the use that exists
[26:38] is a single family home. Uh I think the question you're raising counselor is
[26:44] could we make the argument could the
[26:46] city make the argument could other folks
[26:47] in the community make the argument that
[26:50] your non-conforming use your home in a
[26:53] district that doesn't allow homes is
[26:55] being expanded by the presence of
[26:58] chickens? And the answer to that is no.
[26:59] That argument wouldn't be available. Uh
[27:02] because it's an a permitted accessory
[27:04] use to a home and the home is legally
[27:06] non-conforming. You could have the
[27:08] coupe. However, to your point, you'd
[27:11] have to comply with all of the rules
[27:13] that are being created here. If you
[27:15] approve this, you'd have to comply with
[27:17] all those rules. There is no exception
[27:18] because it's a legally non-conforming
[27:20] use the house. There's no exception to
[27:22] what you could do with the coupe. you'd
[27:23] have to comply with everything with
[27:25] >> So, I'm thinking more along the lines
[27:27] like we have rural residential um
[27:30] properties that got then switched over
[27:33] to R2
[27:35] >> and so they may have a higher number of
[27:37] birds.
[27:38] >> Mhm.
[27:39] >> Are they required now to go down to this
[27:41] number of birds?
[27:42] >> And I can actually hit that on that. So,
[27:45] I didn't quite understand what you're
[27:47] saying at first. Um
[27:49] the way that this ordinance is written
[27:51] is relaxing the standard. So the way
[27:53] that the existing
[27:56] code states is you have to be a minimum
[27:58] of 3 acres. So with this new code, if
[28:01] you're hitting that 3 acre mark, you're
[28:04] still following the same feed lot
[28:06] standards that we've had in the past.
[28:08] Okay?
[28:08] >> So anyone with their current operations
[28:10] that are meeting our current ordinance
[28:12] will be able to remain the same. There's
[28:14] the slight difference with the animal
[28:17] units, but I would be highly shocked if
[28:20] anyone at 4 acres actually has 200
[28:22] chickens. The way our current ordinance
[28:24] is written.
[28:25] >> Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure
[28:28] we weren't coming through and saying,
[28:29] "Hey, you have to decrease that number
[28:31] now." Like, okay. Um
[28:36] then um I saw that the change in animal
[28:40] units and table 26 for egg one districts
[28:43] looked like it got cut in half. Is that
[28:46] kind of along the lines of the feed lot
[28:48] requirements or
[28:52] » Yes, that is uh that's in line a little
[28:55] bit more closely in line with um some of
[28:58] the MPCA standards. So they have a
[29:00] range. It's all dependent on
[29:03] the way that the chickens are basically
[29:05] being fed. So there's different animal
[29:06] units for chickens, at least at the
[29:08] state level, if they're eating dry food,
[29:10] if they're free range or liquid manure,
[29:12] uh sorry, liquid feed. Um and so we're
[29:16] the number that we've updated our uh
[29:19] feed lot unit to is is a little bit more
[29:22] in line with what the the state and the
[29:24] MPCA is uh has. So that's the the reason
[29:28] for that. And then obviously if we're
[29:30] going to update the one for the chickens
[29:32] because fowl um things like ducks and
[29:35] geese also produce more we had to just
[29:38] you know increase their uh animal unit
[29:40] in in step with with chickens.
[29:43] >> Okay. Thank you.
[29:45] >> I had a couple questions if I could. Um
[29:49] it looks like it's in the notes. Those
[29:51] opposed typically cited concerns on
[29:53] odors, noise, and predators.
[29:56] I guess my concern is it sounds like if
[30:00] there's, you know, if a complaint comes
[30:02] along, the neighbor, one neighbor says
[30:05] there there any of those things.
[30:09] Um, the followup action from what I
[30:11] understand, we just send a letter. I
[30:13] mean, I think I'm afraid where this is,
[30:16] you know, what one person thinks is a
[30:18] nuisance, the others may not, and it
[30:22] could turn into
[30:24] us or kind of a mediator getting
[30:26] involved, going out there. I'm little
[30:29] concerned police might be out there.
[30:32] You're talking about a misdemeanor. is
[30:33] that [gasps]
[30:34] I just I'm a little worried we're
[30:36] opening the door to something that might
[30:38] be somewhat vague between neighbors and
[30:41] having a lot of problems between them
[30:44] and us getting dragged in to try and
[30:46] resolve that
[30:48] or not. Is that what's been the history
[30:51] at other cities? I mean, it just seems
[30:53] like it could potentially be a problem.
[30:55] >> Yeah, Metamean Council. So, there's I'm
[30:57] going to kind of have a three-part
[30:59] answer to this. The first part is we
[31:01] already get those calls. We there's
[31:03] neighbor disputes that happen all the
[31:05] time for various different reasons.
[31:06] Chickens have actually been some of
[31:08] those reasons in the past. Um so we do
[31:11] treat that the same as we would with any
[31:13] other call. There is that fine line of
[31:16] is this just a neighbor disagreement and
[31:18] a civil issue. If that's the case, we
[31:19] push it say this is a civil issue. It's
[31:21] not a violation of our code. If you want
[31:23] to pursue your own civil action, go
[31:25] ahead do that. But there's nothing from
[31:28] a ci city standpoint that we can do. um
[31:31] from a I think Zach kind of touched on
[31:34] the um piece of what other cities have
[31:37] seen and what I've seen in the past in
[31:40] my career. It tends to be in the
[31:42] summertime
[31:43] and it's usually those that are chickens
[31:46] that are getting free. I think that's
[31:48] one of the key factors of what that
[31:50] number and putting a limit on the number
[31:52] of six. It helps reduce the smell.
[31:54] That's kind of the big thing. Smells
[31:57] typically are generally tied to large
[32:01] quantities of the birds and on hot days
[32:04] with wind blowing. That's usually when
[32:06] you get the most of the smell to be
[32:08] transferred across property lines. With
[32:10] that being said, it's also very easy
[32:12] from a staff perspective to tell if that
[32:14] is the case. If there's a blatant
[32:16] violation like smell if they have a
[32:19] license and we can contact them. That's
[32:20] kind of the best thing with it. We will
[32:22] have their phone number. Well, we'll do
[32:24] a letter spec specifically if they don't
[32:27] have a license. The license grant us the
[32:30] ability to have the contact information
[32:32] for everyone. So, trying to reduce that
[32:34] number of days, especially on a smell
[32:36] type violation. Those are pretty easy.
[32:38] Um, from the rodent one, from the cities
[32:40] that I've talked to in the past, they
[32:42] didn't see an uptick in rodents in with
[32:46] the chickens coming in. Now, whether
[32:48] that's getting calls on it or not,
[32:50] usually a city's not going to be the one
[32:52] to get a ton of calls on that. Um,
[32:56] and then
[32:58] I would say just generally the way that
[33:01] the ordinance was written was to be as
[33:03] clear and straightforward as process.
[33:06] And kind of like we talked about in the
[33:07] work session when we did it, really
[33:09] bulking up on that nuisance
[33:11] section more than what I've seen other
[33:13] cities have just to have clear standards
[33:16] and clear enforcement ability for any
[33:19] nuisance conditions that come up. So, we
[33:21] tried to be I don't want to call it
[33:23] restrictive because it's not technically
[33:24] restrictive, but it's defined enough to
[33:27] where it's pretty easy from an
[33:29] enforcement standpoint to notice a
[33:31] violation and act upon that violation.
[33:36] » And with regards to the P, if I read
[33:38] this right, the yard needs to be fenced.
[33:40] Is that correct?
[33:41] >> Yeah. Metamean Council. So, there's kind
[33:43] of two parts to that. The run has to be
[33:45] fully enclosed that the and that's
[33:47] really tied to predators. So when we say
[33:50] fully enclosed, it's with a mesh wiring,
[33:52] but that includes a top. So that means
[33:54] even at nighttime if they're not within
[33:56] the coupe, which usually they're going
[33:57] to be in the coupe, but if they're not,
[33:59] there's not the ability for a predator
[34:01] to go into the coupe. And they're also
[34:03] not ranging free for the whole day. So
[34:05] there's kind of the two pieces. There's
[34:07] a fence component, which would keep the
[34:10] first wave of predators out, you could
[34:12] say, and then the actual coupe standards
[34:15] would be one that would restrict any
[34:16] ability for a predator to come in. But
[34:19] the backyard has to be fully fenced. Is
[34:21] that correct
[34:22] >> in certain circumstances? Yes.
[34:24] >> Okay.
[34:27] >> That would be due to like proximity to
[34:30] neighbor property. So smaller smaller
[34:34] yards is the distance to the neighboring
[34:36] property.
[34:36] >> It's just if if you want them to roam
[34:38] the yard, the yard has to be fenced.
[34:40] >> Correct.
[34:42] >> They're still going to need to have a
[34:42] coupe and everything to go with it. Uh,
[34:45] yes.
[34:46] >> But if you keep them in the coupe,
[34:49] you don't have to have a fence. You're
[34:51] saying
[34:52] >> you would it? Well, it depends a lot
[34:53] size ties. I'll let Zach kind of expand
[34:55] on it, but
[34:56] >> I'm just trying to I want to be able to
[34:58] answer my neighbors questions when they
[35:00] ask me later tonight when I get home.
[35:02] >> Madame Mayor and counselors, uh, so a
[35:06] couple of things. So yes, in most cases,
[35:08] especially on small lots, a resident is
[35:10] going to have to have a fence anyways,
[35:14] even if they weren't going to let their
[35:15] chickens roam in that fenced area. And
[35:17] that's mostly due to the visual uh it's
[35:21] I guess it's two things. It's one to if
[35:23] they, you know, confines the chickens in
[35:25] a fenced area as well as reducing the
[35:27] visual impact of a neighbor having uh
[35:31] to, you know, to see the the chicken
[35:32] coupe. Um, as Brett touched on though,
[35:35] uh, the ordinance is kind of written to,
[35:38] uh, and have kind of two components. So,
[35:40] the chicken coupe, which is in our
[35:42] ordinance, going to be defined as like
[35:44] the actual, for lack of a better term,
[35:46] kind of the house that they would live
[35:47] in, right? And then the chicken run area
[35:50] which uh is the area that needs to be
[35:52] fully enclosed even from the top um with
[35:55] a w mesh wiring or if they choose to do
[35:58] a solid roof they they can but then it
[36:01] does count towards the actual size of
[36:02] the accessory structure which is um a
[36:06] consideration that residents will have
[36:07] to make. But uh yes, they will have to
[36:11] be either in the run area during the day
[36:13] in that enclosed mesh area or in a fully
[36:16] enclosed fenced yard. Um as well as the
[36:19] ordinance has a a section that does
[36:23] require residents to put the chickens in
[36:25] the actual coupe, not just the run area
[36:27] at night from sunset to sunrise. And
[36:29] that's we put that in staff put that in
[36:32] for two reasons. one to reduce potential
[36:34] noise issues, you know, late at night,
[36:37] as well as predators tend to, not
[36:40] always, but you know, predators tend to,
[36:42] especially a lot of suburban uh
[36:45] predators tend to strike more at night.
[36:47] And so having them actually in a house
[36:49] versus in that uh meshed area, um is
[36:52] part of the reason we have that in
[36:53] there. Um
[36:55] so yes, I hope that it kind of answered
[36:57] that. Just to be clear, your statement
[36:58] on fencing and size of the lot, it's not
[37:02] a perimeter fence, it's screening,
[37:05] right? That's the way I interpreted the
[37:07] way you described it.
[37:09] >> Yeah. So, it doesn't technically have to
[37:11] be a perimeter fence. If they want to
[37:12] fence an area for their chickens to
[37:15] roam, similar to what you some people
[37:17] have done with dogs, you could
[37:18] theoretically do that. But section seven
[37:20] of the ordinance is what Zach was kind
[37:21] of referring to. It states, "Men shall
[37:23] be confined in a coupe from sunrise to
[37:25] sunset during daylight." hours. Hens
[37:27] must be provided with access to the run
[37:29] area. Hens may range outside the Cooper
[37:32] run only within a fully fenced rear yard
[37:34] or or on the premise. So, it doesn't
[37:37] technically have to be perimeter fence.
[37:39] They could have a fenced area with an
[37:41] open top.
[37:45] » So, when you say mesh, like how how
[37:49] small of an opening on mesh?
[37:53] Uh I believe let me I just want to I
[37:55] believe it's 1 inch is the standard that
[37:58] we actually have. Uh yes section 5D. Let
[38:02] me make sure here. Yep. Uh the run must
[38:06] be completely enclosed including from
[38:07] above by either a solid roofing or a
[38:10] mesh uh wire hardware cloth or something
[38:13] similar. Um no uh no openings larger
[38:16] than 1 in. Um, as well as it has to be
[38:19] sufficient enough to contain the hens
[38:21] and exclude predators such as uh wild
[38:23] birds. So,
[38:26] it's we're kind of leaving it up to
[38:28] residents on how they want to, you know,
[38:31] if they want to use a net or a wire
[38:33] mesh. Um, but it does have to be small
[38:36] enough that it's uh and and strong
[38:38] enough to um to exclude predators or
[38:42] other birds. Yeah, [clears throat]
[38:44] >> it's going to be problematic with heavy
[38:46] wet snow.
[38:48] Yeah.
[38:49] >> I mean, yeah, but they they're going to
[38:52] have to manage it.
[38:54] >> I guess my concern here is just that I
[38:56] mean, obviously there's support for it
[38:58] and there's those that maybe don't want
[39:00] it and they're going there'll be people
[39:02] living next door with different
[39:03] opinions. And if the ones against it
[39:06] just call up and say, "It's loud. I can
[39:09] smell it. I've seen predators around.
[39:12] What are you going to do about it?"
[39:14] I just don't want to get us drugged into
[39:17] a bunch of that. Either you're sending
[39:20] csos out or our staff's going out or
[39:24] we're spending an inordinate amount of
[39:26] time on it. I respect people's
[39:30] right to to use their backyard as they
[39:33] see fit. But I also think about the
[39:35] neighbors and want to make sure this
[39:37] isn't creating
[39:39] a bunch of headache for our staff and
[39:42] our residents and you know just we
[39:46] creating something that's going to be
[39:47] hard to deal with and I hate to be
[39:51] sitting here hearing well now we need
[39:52] some more staff to deal with it or
[39:54] whatever. I just I'm relying a lot on
[39:57] you saying we've got the adequate
[40:00] language in the licensing part of this
[40:03] that if those kinds of vague situations
[40:07] come up with we just are we going to be
[40:09] able to just put a stop to it or are we
[40:11] going to get dragged into legal things?
[40:16] That's my concern. Madame Mayor and
[40:18] Council, the one thing I will just note
[40:19] on this is
[40:21] we are at a position where a lot of
[40:23] cities have already allowed chickens
[40:26] when those cities have kind of taken the
[40:28] burden of dealing with unique situations
[40:30] and there's a lot of resources to aid in
[40:33] our city as we begin to take this step.
[40:36] Um, numerous cities that are even
[40:38] similar to us with the growing
[40:40] community. Lakeville just bumped their
[40:42] ordinance up to six chickens for the
[40:44] smallest lots I think two weeks ago. So
[40:48] we have ability to learn and get best
[40:51] practices from that which will ease the
[40:55] burden on staff time. The license while
[40:58] it does add some staff time. I'm not
[41:01] fearing that this is going to be
[41:02] suddenly that hey this is blowing out my
[41:05] department and we can't deal with what
[41:07] we have anymore. If it was an annual
[41:10] license, I would feel differently. Um,
[41:12] but being a onetime license, it really
[41:14] aids our benefit. Um, we will handle
[41:19] complaints how we always do. It's a code
[41:21] enforcement issue. License makes I think
[41:23] code enforcement actually easier for us.
[41:26] >> Mayor,
[41:28] >> if I may, just in response to the
[41:30] counselor's question, I'm going to say
[41:31] something staff. Tell me if I'm wrong
[41:33] because I haven't studied what you're
[41:34] proposing here nearly as much as you
[41:36] have. But to your point uh counselor
[41:38] about you know the concerns are smell
[41:40] sound predators my understanding of the
[41:43] ordinance is that you've got some
[41:44] objective standards setback requirements
[41:48] a cage requirement a run requirement a
[41:51] pen requirement and other objective
[41:53] requirements that are meant to address
[41:55] those things. But if a person is uh has
[41:59] a license and has a compliant facility,
[42:02] has the run and the coupe uh all
[42:05] compliant with the requirements, a
[42:07] neighbor's complaint that the chickens
[42:09] are too noisy, just is not something the
[42:11] staff is going to deal with. I mean, the
[42:13] question is whether the facilities are
[42:16] compliant or not. And that's an
[42:18] objective question. And you know, and
[42:20] the reality is that you could have a
[42:23] compliant coupe and the chickens may
[42:25] make noise. Um, and those noises could
[42:28] be heard, but that's just the
[42:29] consequence of allowing chickens. Um,
[42:31] and so, so it do I have that basically
[42:35] right, staff?
[42:36] >> Yeah, Madame Mayor Council. Uh, that's
[42:39] correct. That is a really good way to
[42:41] look at it. Um, in a lot of ways, it's a
[42:44] lot very similar to dogs.
[42:47] It's keeping of animals. there's dogs
[42:49] that we get calls on and there's a lot
[42:51] of times where we can't address those
[42:53] items related to dogs because it's not a
[42:55] violation of the ordinance. The
[42:57] intention of the license and the
[42:59] ordinance is to ensure that we have the
[43:02] best set of standards possible to ensure
[43:05] that everyone knows what they need to
[43:07] do, how it needs to operate, and we have
[43:08] enforceable measures that we can address
[43:10] if we need to.
[43:15] The only one other comment I have is
[43:17] just the aesthetics of the coupe. And
[43:19] again, [clears throat] I know you
[43:20] describe it in here, but can it be
[43:25] can someone just cobble something
[43:26] together out of scrap
[43:29] >> pallets?
[43:30] or not? I mean, what how does
[43:34] you know, how's that going to look in
[43:35] backyards? I guess
[43:36] >> madame mayor and councel if you look at
[43:39] section 5C of the ordinance that's what
[43:41] really tries to deal with the coupe
[43:43] itself it says coupe shall be
[43:45] constructed of durable material shall be
[43:47] winter rise to protect hens from extreme
[43:49] temperatures and shall be resistant
[43:51] um so and then it goes on to talk about
[43:53] ventilation insulation and a window
[43:55] related to it um so this is really
[43:59] trying to hit the coupe itself you can't
[44:02] just put a box in your yard and call it
[44:04] a coupe we're going to actually want to
[44:06] see that as part of the license
[44:07] application of what that coupe is going
[44:08] to be made of. So
[44:10] >> that's part of the license application,
[44:12] >> correct? Yeah. They're going to have to
[44:13] show details about the coupe.
[44:14] >> Oh,
[44:15] >> and isn't there a requirement too that
[44:16] it has to either be elevated or on slab
[44:20] for the coupe?
[44:21] >> Yeah.
[44:22] >> The mayor counselors Yes. Uh so the
[44:26] Yeah, the coupe floor um will have to be
[44:28] elevated at least 12 in, not more than
[44:30] 24 in above grade unless it's uh
[44:32] constructed on a concrete slab. or other
[44:36] rodent resistant um foundation. And the
[44:39] main reasoning for that is I mean the
[44:41] rodent part is in there, but uh
[44:44] additionally research into this um
[44:48] ventilation and just air flow can do a
[44:51] lot to reduce smells that uh can build
[44:53] up. And so, um, that's part of it as
[44:56] well as, uh, rodent resistance, keeping it off
[45:01] the ground or on concrete, as well as,
[45:03] um, some air flow underneath that can help reduce, uh, reduce smells.
[45:10] >> And there's a requirement too for like
[45:12] storage of waste and feed.
[45:16] >> That's correct. Yes. So, uh, waste will
[45:20] have to be, I believe, let's see what
[45:22] section is that in here. Um, I know it's
[45:24] it has to be contained in like a leak
[45:27] proof container is I believe how it's
[45:28] worded in the ordinance. Uh, as well as
[45:33] um until it can be disposed of properly,
[45:35] which in most cases I would imagine
[45:38] every any resident that's having trash
[45:41] services um they would have to wait
[45:43] until they can, you know, dispose of it
[45:44] then. Uh and then feed needs to be
[45:47] stored in uh just a road and proof
[45:50] container is how it's worded in the the
[45:52] ordinance. Um there was some discussion
[45:55] uh amongst planning commissioners of
[45:57] should we update this the language there
[45:59] to be a metal container. Uh but
[46:02] ultimately we I think staff feels and um
[46:04] having a conversation with the
[46:05] commissioner that raised that question
[46:07] that just leaving it rodent proof is
[46:10] probably the better way to go versus
[46:12] being so prescriptive that it has to be
[46:13] metal. I mean, there's other materials
[46:14] that somebody could um you know, build a
[46:17] container out of that's still road
[46:19] proof. So,
[46:24] » Madam Mayor,
[46:25] >> yes,
[46:26] >> I've had several people in my area come
[46:29] to me and they said number one, the
[46:32] point 2 lots
[46:34] very encroachable
[46:36] and very unsightly,
[46:39] especially for people that have elevated
[46:41] decks that cover the whole neighborhood
[46:44] in the backyard.
[46:46] They're worried about loss of value
[46:50] because some neighbor has a chicken
[46:52] coupe.
[46:54] Might be a little petty, but it's a
[46:56] fact.
[46:58] They're also available that they cannot
[47:00] shield that from the neighbor
[47:03] and that they would still with the
[47:05] smallest lots that we do have don't have
[47:08] the room in the backyard to accommodate
[47:11] the chicken coupe and still have a
[47:14] sightly backyard.
[47:17] Another thing I don't like is the
[47:19] licensing practice. It was on sorry the
[47:22] licensing practice. I see a slippery
[47:25] slope
[47:26] non- inspection of the licenses.
[47:30] We want to trust people but a lot of
[47:33] people will push it to the envelope
[47:36] and if we get into enforcement then we
[47:38] get into cost.
[47:40] So I don't like that idea either.
[47:44] I think in my personal opinion
[47:48] I'm not in favor of this ordinance at
[47:50] all.
[47:51] So that's where I stand on it and we'll
[47:55] go from there.
[47:57] >> Thank you.
[47:59] >> Did those issues come up at the planning
[48:02] commission? I mean, what was the gist of
[48:05] the testimony and people that talked was
[48:08] it are they supportive?
[48:10] >> Yeah. Men, mayor and council. So during
[48:11] the public hearing, I would say there
[48:13] was five individuals who spoke. I would
[48:16] say three were in favor of the chickens.
[48:19] Um,
[48:21] and two had some concerns. Some wanted
[48:24] licensing. Of the concerns, that was
[48:26] probably the most common item that I
[48:28] heard that if you're going to do the
[48:29] ordinance, have a license to go with it.
[48:32] >> Okay.
[48:32] >> Uh, or permit, one of the two. And I
[48:35] think it was more geared towards a
[48:36] permit during that discussion.
[48:38] >> Okay.
[48:38] >> Um, but obviously the language wasn't
[48:39] worked out quite yet. Um, I would say
[48:42] the ones that spoke in favor of it, it
[48:45] was quite a learning experience. They
[48:47] had a lot of great information. I would
[48:49] say the especially one individual who
[48:51] spoke I would consider to be a very
[48:53] responsible owner and I learned a lot
[48:57] just by hearing him speak and I'd say
[48:59] some of those things influenced some of
[49:00] the language changes that we had.
[49:02] >> So I'd say it's generally positive after
[49:06] the meeting itself. There was a few
[49:08] individuals who emailed um which is one
[49:11] which changed that chick age of having
[49:14] to go out cuz there was things about
[49:17] chickens bullying each other if they're
[49:18] not the right size when they get
[49:20] introduced. So that was important to
[49:22] learn. And then another individual spoke
[49:24] out against the chickens, stated
[49:27] concerns. Um, I shared the ordinance
[49:29] with her and kind of highlighted the
[49:32] items of the ordinance for her concerns
[49:34] and after that she was generally fine
[49:36] with it. Um, so it kind of ranged, but I
[49:40] would say I've dealt with chickens in
[49:43] every city that I've ever worked for.
[49:46] It's always split. It will always be
[49:47] split. There are always going to be
[49:49] residents who don't want it. There are
[49:51] always going to be residents who do want
[49:52] it. say during the survey and through
[49:55] the process, I've seen more that do want
[49:58] it than I generally have seen in
[49:59] comparison to those opposed. Um, so we
[50:03] tried to kind of create an ordinance
[50:05] that hit a lot of different pieces to
[50:07] it, but in the end, this is a policy
[50:09] decision. It's up to council discretion
[50:12] if you want to move forward with it, if
[50:13] you want alterations to it, or if you
[50:15] don't want to move forward with it.
[50:18] on the neighbor. So the gentleman that
[50:20] spoke that had the chickens already, he
[50:23] did mention that he went to his
[50:24] neighbors ahead of time.
[50:27] >> Mor and councel, he I think it was
[50:29] during the enforcement of his chickens
[50:31] is when he went to his neighbors. And
[50:33] >> sure, but I mean the point is that he
[50:35] went to his neighbors, got a, you know,
[50:37] agreement from them that it was okay.
[50:39] And I'm not saying we want that in the
[50:41] ordinance cuz that's a burden, but it
[50:45] wouldn't hurt to say that's a best
[50:47] practice.
[50:47] >> Yeah. Metame and council that's a great
[50:49] point. I wouldn't ever recommend that to
[50:51] be a requirement as part of a license.
[50:53] Obviously, neighbors change, things
[50:55] happen, and it becomes a very tough
[50:59] enforcement piece. We will have that on
[51:02] the website as part of our best
[51:04] practices. We're going to have handouts
[51:06] that are a lot more detailed and cover a
[51:08] lot more than this ordinance does in
[51:09] terms of actual keeping of the chickens.
[51:12] As attorney Vos mentioned, this is very
[51:14] structured on where that placement is,
[51:16] how it's going to be set on the
[51:18] property, things of that nature. The
[51:20] best practices and the handouts we're
[51:22] going to have is really on the keeping
[51:23] of chickens, the care of chickens, the
[51:25] best practices, and with that being
[51:27] said, how to be a good neighbor. What
[51:30] talk to your neighbors about it,
[51:31] recommend we do that, but it's not part
[51:33] of the license process.
[51:37] So, I think I asked this question
[51:40] previously, but I'm going to ask it
[51:41] again. Um, for those point 2 acre
[51:44] properties, how many of those fall
[51:46] within HOAs? So, most likely there's a
[51:50] chance they wouldn't be able to have
[51:51] chickens in
[51:53] >> council. I I don't know the exact
[51:55] number. There are quite a few. And this
[51:58] ordinance is not going to super if an
[52:00] HOA has a rule, they can enforce that
[52:03] rule. If they don't allow chickens,
[52:04] that's the HOA. If they're in if someone
[52:08] gets chickens in violation of their HOA,
[52:10] it's up to the HOA to enforce it. We
[52:12] aren't going to enforce HOA bylaws on
[52:14] their behalf. We don't do that for
[52:16] anything. We enforce our rules. So, HOAs
[52:19] have the ability to restrict chickens or
[52:21] have higher restrictions than we have in
[52:24] this ordinance. So they
[52:26] >> you can have a coupe, but it has to be
[52:27] 50 ft from residential structures if
[52:30] they wanted to, but that's up to their
[52:32] HOA boards to decide.
[52:34] >> Okay. Thank you.
[52:40] I'm in favor, but the only thing that
[52:42] makes me uncomfortable is someone like
[52:44] the deck thing. If these decks in our
[52:47] neighborhood in some of the smaller
[52:50] lots, um, they're budding up to the
[52:53] they're taking up most of the art. So,
[52:57] I could see that becoming a problem.
[53:03] And I don't know if there's a way to
[53:04] word it so that
[53:06] it's just advised that you don't you
[53:09] take your neighbors into account like be
[53:12] respectful of your neighbors yard too,
[53:15] right?
[53:16] >> I mean I worry about that.
[53:18] >> That's a hard one.
[53:18] >> Madame Mayor and Council, if you want to
[53:20] go that route, I think we could easily
[53:22] make a slight alteration to the wording
[53:25] to just say
[53:27] dwelling structure including attached
[53:30] accessory. I like that
[53:31] >> items
[53:33] >> including decks.
[53:34] >> Yeah, I like that too. The attached
[53:36] accessory.
[53:37] >> Yeah, I'm good with attached because
[53:39] everything else I'm fine with. But
[53:45] » yeah, Madame Mayor Council, would you
[53:46] want it to be worded in a way that also
[53:48] includes patios?
[53:50] >> I would. Yeah. Yes.
[53:52] >> Thank you.
[54:02] Do you have any data on
[54:06] >> chicken coops reducing somebody's
[54:08] property value?
[54:12] Madame Marian Council, I do not um think
[54:15] and I don't
[54:16] >> I would say that comes up a lot for
[54:18] >> Well, it's always the car played is
[54:20] whatever it is I don't like is going to
[54:22] reduce my property value and I
[54:25] >> it's an old tired
[54:27] >> Yeah. Metamean council. That's actually
[54:29] one that I haven't heard in the past um
[54:32] in the [clears throat]
[54:33] four different three times I've looked
[54:34] at chicken ordinances. So, I'm not sure
[54:36] on that. I've never seen a study on that
[54:38] personally.
[54:39] >> Okay, Mr. reckoning.
[54:41] >> I would agree if as long as they're
[54:43] decent like in the picture here. I mean,
[54:46] this is
[54:47] >> almost could be mistaken for a backyard
[54:49] playet.
[54:50] >> Well, yeah. I mean,
[54:51] >> those kids can be pretty noisy.
[54:52] >> What I'm talking about, though, is
[54:53] that's a pretty ideal example. And I
[54:57] think to your point,
[54:58] >> this little
[55:01] >> But how do you how do you know that
[55:02] that's the exception to the rule?
[55:05] >> Yeah, maybe not.
[55:06] >> We don't we don't we don't know that.
[55:08] >> Past history.
[55:09] So
[55:10] >> I was in Ripon, Wisconsin. We had the
[55:13] same discussion.
[55:15] There was one chicken coupe that looked
[55:17] similar to this. Breast look like a
[55:20] cardboard box with a tin roof.
[55:22] >> That's not We're not going to allow
[55:24] that.
[55:24] >> Yeah, our ordinance specifies how it's
[55:26] supposed to look.
[55:27] >> That's what the ordinance said.
[55:28] >> I get what you're saying and I agree. We
[55:31] can't we have to be very specific about
[55:33] what we're going to allow because there
[55:34] will be people that will do the
[55:36] cardboard box thing if we let them.
[55:38] >> But that but that's not a durable
[55:40] material,
[55:41] >> right?
[55:44] And then you learn in the middle of
[55:46] winter that a cardboard box is not going
[55:48] to
[55:49] >> Right.
[55:52] I mean, we could easily find a whole
[55:54] bunch of reasons to to not do this.
[55:58] Right. Right. Any
[56:01] other questions,
[56:04] concerns?
[56:06] >> Um, I have a question about the
[56:08] licensing time because you mentioned it
[56:11] wouldn't take a lot of staff time. Do
[56:12] you kind of have an idea? Is that new
[56:15] permitting software going to have the
[56:17] residents enter most the info and you
[56:19] guys just review it or how does that
[56:20] work?
[56:20] >> Yeah, Madame Mayor and Council. So, IMS
[56:22] is an online permitting portal. We're
[56:24] actually transitioning all of our zoning
[56:26] and land use items into this portal.
[56:28] um when it gets unveiled. Um from a
[56:32] licensing perspective, as someone
[56:34] submits the items, they'll have it goes
[56:37] through a completeness check, which
[56:38] takes about five minutes knocking off to
[56:40] ensure that they have everything. They
[56:41] pay the fee up front. Um we review it
[56:45] usually based on what's the required
[56:48] info. It would probably take five to 10
[56:52] minutes for each one.
[56:55] And usually if there's like say they're
[56:58] missing something or they're not in
[57:00] violation through the IMS software, we
[57:03] can directly respond to the applicant.
[57:05] They'll get an email directly stating
[57:07] it. They'll have to re-upload with any
[57:09] changes. And so it's actually a very
[57:12] smooth permitting software. I don't
[57:14] anticipate this having
[57:17] even close to the amount of time that
[57:19] would be needed for a signed permit
[57:20] application.
[57:22] And and just to reiterate,
[57:24] you said you you require a plan,
[57:27] >> correct,
[57:28] >> for the design of the coupe and the run.
[57:30] >> Mhm.
[57:31] >> And which includes tell me the materials
[57:34] used, right?
[57:34] >> Yeah. We Yeah, we'll define everything
[57:38] into our permit. We haven't built out
[57:40] that permit. Obviously, we want to get
[57:41] the ordinance figured out first in case
[57:43] there were any changes, but yeah, we'll
[57:45] [clears throat] have all that info.
[57:49] something for residents to be working on
[57:51] now before 111
[57:54] goes into effect.
[57:55] >> And madame mayor and council, I'll just
[57:56] kind of note on the license, there is
[57:58] going to be a small fee for it to cover
[58:00] the staff time that it will take to
[58:02] administer this program. Um, but with
[58:05] that being said, and what I've seen in
[58:07] the past is having a fee also shows some
[58:09] seriousness that people are taking into
[58:11] account and actually want to go forward
[58:13] with this in a respectful manner. um
[58:15] free permits. Typically, people get a
[58:17] lot more kind of loose with how they go
[58:20] about it. So, I think the fee will show
[58:22] that commitment by the property owner,
[58:23] but also we'll cover the staff time that
[58:25] we're going to need for it.
[58:28] >> Y
[58:34] it was pretty clear what you see the the
[58:36] folks that are in favor of it. I mean,
[58:40] when I was a kid, I was in 4. you don't
[58:42] just don't see 4 anymore and I can just
[58:45] see parents really making an effort to
[58:48] uh use it as an opportunity with their
[58:51] kids and animal animal husbandry and and
[58:55] just teaching them responsibility and everything that goes with what we
[59:00] heard from the folks that participated
[59:02] in it. I just um
[59:07] to cut that off just because we're
[59:10] afraid of a complaint just doesn't make
[59:12] any sense to me. So, I'm I'm in favor of
[59:14] it.
[59:16] >> Yeah. I think when I got here, I'm not
[59:19] sure I was, but I my big concern was
[59:22] just making sure we were covered with
[59:23] the language. And I think sounds like we
[59:26] are. I just want to make sure,
[59:29] like I said, trying to balance the
[59:31] homeowners right to do it, but also the
[59:33] neighbors who might not care for it.
[59:35] But,
[59:37] um,
[59:39] sounds to me like we've got things
[59:40] covered. And I wasn't unfortunately able
[59:42] to make that last get together meeting.
[59:44] So, I rely on that what you're saying. I do I think there's value in having
[59:50] animals around, learning, and that's good stuff. So, I think I would
[59:56] go that way as well. And
[59:58] um you mentioned verbiage on
[1:00:02] I mean I'm sure you'll pick the right
[1:00:04] words but just to make it very clear and
[1:00:07] pretty assertive that
[1:00:10] um anybody considering it can save
[1:00:13] themselves a lot of headache if they do
[1:00:17] make the rounds and and discuss this
[1:00:20] with neighbors and they understand what
[1:00:22] kind of a position they're going to be
[1:00:23] in. Um,
[1:00:26] and then they can weigh whether or not
[1:00:28] they want to fight that battle.
[1:00:30] [laughter]
[1:00:30] And I think that'll go a long way and
[1:00:36] uh so I just would
[1:00:38] my suggestion [clears throat] or
[1:00:39] recommendation is to to make, you know,
[1:00:42] not only recommend that they go do that,
[1:00:45] but uh give them some of those reasons
[1:00:48] why. Just save yourself some headache.
[1:00:50] You know,
[1:00:53] >> madame mayor and council, I should also
[1:00:54] note on the license because we have this
[1:00:56] for some of the other IMS ones. When it
[1:00:58] does get built out, we're going to have
[1:00:59] an acknowledgement where they have to
[1:01:00] check the box and it links to the code.
[1:01:03] So, acknowledgement that I've read the
[1:01:05] ordinance related to this where they
[1:01:08] will have to check that box. So, now
[1:01:10] granted, they may not, but at least then
[1:01:13] they're actually stating that they have
[1:01:15] acknowledged that they've reviewed the
[1:01:16] code.
[1:01:17] >> So, yeah.
[1:01:18] >> Great. So they can't say they're unaware
[1:01:19] of the code later.
[1:01:21] >> Better Mary, that's correct.
[1:01:23] >> Yeah. Um I'm in favor. Um I'm neutral as
[1:01:26] far as chickens personally, but with the
[1:01:30] feedback from the survey and over the
[1:01:32] past few years people asking for this,
[1:01:35] so I'm thinking, yeah, I'm for it.
[1:01:42] » Great.
[1:01:45] You want to present a motion? I would uh
[1:01:49] make a motion to adopt ordinance
[1:01:51] 2026-14.
[1:01:55] » I'll second that.
[1:01:57] >> All right, we have a motion and a
[1:01:58] second. All in favor? I
[1:02:00] >> Oh,
[1:02:02] >> jeez.
[1:02:06] » Is that with the revision to add the
[1:02:09] 30-foot setback not just from dwellings
[1:02:12] but also from attached
[1:02:14] >> accessory stuff? Is that the intent of
[1:02:17] them?
[1:02:17] >> Yes, that's the intent of the
[1:02:20] >> Thank you.
[1:02:21] >> changes recommended through discussion.
[1:02:26] » Okay. And I'll second that. All right.
[1:02:28] We have a motion and a second. All in
[1:02:30] favor? I
[1:02:31] >> I
[1:02:32] >> opposed.
[1:02:33] >> All right. We have a that passes four to
[1:02:36] one.
[1:02:39] >> All right. We have correspondence and
[1:02:42] reports on are online and we are
[1:02:44] adjourned. Thank you.
[1:02:53] Seriously think a lot of people be