[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

August 13, 2026 | Rogers City Council Meeting

Transcript