HomeMy WebLinkAboutUA Agenda Packet 042721
M eeting L ocation: M unicipal C enter
7100 147th S treet West
Apple Valley, M innesota 55124
Urban Af f airs Advisory Committee meetings have resumed at the Municipal
C enter and are open to the public with physical distancing restrictions. Attendee
procedures and access inf ormation are posted on the City's website.
April 27, 2021
URBA N A FFA IRS A D VISO RY C O MMIT T EE T EN TAT IVE A G EN D A
6:00 P M
C hambers
1.C all to Order
A.Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee members will be attending either in-
person or virtually. A Roll-call will be taken.
2.Approve Agenda
3.Approve Minutes
A.A pprove Minutes of March 23, 2021, Regular Meeting
4.Action Items
A.A nimal Ordinance Additional Discussion on Regulatory Aspects of
Keeping C hickens
5.Other Business
A.Tentative Schedule for Next UA C ommittee Meeting
Tuesday, May 25, 2021, at 6:00 p.m.
6.Adjourn
I T E M:
UR B A N A F FA I R S A D V I S O RY ME E T I NG D AT E :April 27, 2021
S E C T I O N:S pecial Notification
Description:
Urban Affairs Advisory Committee meetings have resumed at the Muni cipal Center and are
open to the publi c with physical distanci ng restrictions. Attendee procedures and access
information are posted on the City's websi te.
S taff Contact:
B reanna Vincent, P lanning Department A ssistant
D epartment / Division:
C ommunity D evelopment Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
Please let us know you have joined us by either signing in at the door or requesting to be an
attendee on-line.
S UM M ARY:
Note: Urban Affairs Advisory Committee meetings have resumed at the Municipal C enter
and are open to the public with physical distancing restrictions.
B AC K G RO UND :
Attendees who wish to ask questions and/or voice concerns will be able to register on-line
via the C ity of A pple Valley website a couple of days prior to the scheduled meeting.
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A
I T E M: 1.A .
UR B A N A F FA I R S A D V I S O RY ME E T I NG D AT E :April 27, 2021
S E C T I O N:Call to O rder
Description:
Urban Affairs A dvisory C ommittee members will be attending either in-person or virtually. A Roll-
call will be taken.
S taff Contact:
B reanna Vincent, P lanning Department A ssistant
D epartment / Division:
C ommunity D evelopment Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
S UM M ARY:
During the C O VID-19 Pandemic, the C onference Rooms in the Apple Valley Municipal
Building have been set up to allow for the C ommittee members to attend meetings either in-
person (observing social distancing in accordance with Emergency Executive Order 20-81)
or virtually (via GoToMeeting). A Roll-call will be taken.
B AC K G RO UND :
N/A
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A
I T E M: 3.A .
UR B A N A F FA I R S A D V I S O RY ME E T I NG D AT E :April 27, 2021
S E C T I O N:Approve Minutes
Description:
A pprove Minutes of March 23, 2021, Regular Meeting
S taff Contact:
B reanna Vincent, P lanning Department A ssistant
D epartment / Division:
C ommunity D evelopment Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
Approve minutes of regular meeting of March 23, 2021.
S UM M ARY:
T he minutes of the Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee meeting are attached for your review
and approval.
B AC K G RO UND :
State statute requires the creation and preservation of meeting minutes which document the
official actions and proceedings of public governing bodies.
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S:
Minutes
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
URBAN AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
March 23, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City of Apple Valley Urban Affairs Advisory Committee meeting was called to order by
Chair Sharon Schwartz at 6:00 p.m.
Members Present: Sharon Schwartz, Linda Blake, Sandy Breuer*, Pamela
Sohlberg*, Walton Mahlum, John Vegter, and Ann
Arens (arrived at 6:01 p.m.).
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, Planner/Economic
Development Specialist Alex Sharpe
*Virtual attendee
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Schwartz asked if there were any changes to the agenda.
MOTION: Breuer moved, seconded by Sohlberg, approving the agenda. Ayes - 6 -
Nays - 0.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 23, 2021
Chair Schwartz asked if there were any changes to the minutes.
Sohlberg advised that she was present virtually at the February 23, 2021 meeting but was not
able to participate in the votes due to technical difficulties.
MOTION: Mahlum moved, seconded by Breuer, approving the minutes of the
meeting of February 23, 2021. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0.
4. ACTION ITEMS
A. Approve Appointment of Officers
On February 25, 2021, the City Council reappointed Sharon Schwartz and Ann Arens to
the Urban Affairs Committee (UAC) for a term expiring March 1, 2024. The UAC is
recommended to nominate and elect for the positions of Chair and Secretary.
MOTION: Sohlberg moved, seconded by Mahlum, approving the appointment of
Sharon Schwartz as Chair and Sandy Breuer as Secretary. Ayes - 6 - Nays
- 0.
2
B. Animal Ordinance Considerations and Best Practices
City Planner Alex Sharpe presented a brief presentation.
Chair Schwartz raised the point of whether in the future the committee would need to
look at the animal ordinance for all types of animals, for example, rabbits being kept in
hutches.
Planner Sharpe advised that rabbits are considered domestic pets currently. He also
mentioned there have been questions about goats, ducks, and bees but at this time, the
City Council has only directed the committee to look at chickens and other fowl.
Chair Schwartz asked if keeping chickens is a current fad or is it something that is a long-
term hobby.
Planner Sharpe advised that the request has been around since 2014, though it has
increased since the pandemic began last year, but there is no way of predicting what may
occur in the future as the pandemic ends.
Committee Member Sohlberg raised the point that egg-laying only lasts about 2 years for
hens, so what would become of them afterwards? Would they become pets?
Chair Schwartz mentioned that butchering was considered when the ordinance was
looked at in 2014.
Planner Sharpe advised that there are some facilities that will do butchering in the event
that the City does not allow them on a residential lot. Some people will have interest in
replacing their hens and others will want to keep them for the life of the animal.
Committee Member Vegter said from experience that the egg production does slow down
drastically after two years though they do continue to lay some eggs afterwards.
Chair Schwartz mentioned that people that want the chickens for a food source would
need to have a larger herd of chickens since the production of eggs tends to be low.
Committee Member Vegter advised that it would depend on the size of the family and
how often they are consuming eggs and that it does seem to be a more common thing as
neighboring cities are allowing chickens.
Chair Schwartz mentioned that the city would need to provide instructions on chickens to
ensure proper care of the animals.
Committee Member Vegter advised that the care for chickens is not very difficult and is
even a quick tasks for kids to learn responsibility
Committee Member Sohlberg mentioned that Wayne Martin mentioned at the last
meeting that if bedding is wet it would need to make sure to be changed out every day so
as to prevent diseases. She also asked if an 11,000 sq. ft. lot could be shown with how
3
much square footage would be used for a chicken coop going by the recommendations
that Wayne Martin gave at the last meeting.
Planner Sharpe advised he would have the information at the next meeting.
Committee Member Blake thought that having residents take a course on keeping
chickens would be beneficial as some may not know the costs that go into it and it may
be a good resource before getting involved.
Committee Member Arens mentioned that it would also be beneficial for residents to be
able to ask questions to someone who is knowledgeable and has experience with
chickens.
Planner Sharpe said the U of M Extension does offer a class taught by Wayne Martin.
Committee Member Breuer advised that the City does not make residents take classes to
learn about raising a dog and that it may be too much to require residents to complete a
class in order to raise chickens.
Chair Schwartz asked whether the City has regulations on keeping dogs outside.
Planner Sharpe advised that there are restrictions against keeping dogs outside unless a
Conditional Use Permit for a dog run, breeding or kennel is granted.
Chair Schwartz mentioned that as a homeowner she would not want to have a neighbor
who kept chickens as there may be a smell and chickens could make potential buyers not
want to purchase her property.
Committee Member Sohlberg noted that Rebecca Weum mentioned at the last meeting
that property values had increased in the cities that allowed chickens but that adjacent
properties to chickens were not specifically mentioned.
Planner Sharpe advised that property values and chickens will be researched and
information brought forth to the next meeting.
Committee Member Vegter mentioned adding food storage to the considerations as it can
be attractive to other animals like squirrels and mice.
Committee Member Sohlberg asked about composting and disposal of waste that Wayne
Martin had spoken about in the last meeting.
Planner Sharpe advised that chicken waste is not currently an accepted compost material
but that it can be disposed of in the regular trash.
Committee Member Vegter mentioned that there are some community drop-off sites as
well.
Planner Sharpe said there are these sites but they do not currently accept chicken waste.
Chair Schwartz asked about on-site composting and whether that would cause a smell.
4
Planner Sharpe advised that there is no smell as long as you’re correctly composting.
Committee Member Vegter mentioned composting his vegetables and there not being any
smell.
Planner Sharpe advised that composting vegetative matter is different than animal
byproducts like bones and feces.
Committee Member Arens asked if it would be possible to have a list of neighboring
cities that allow chickens and how many permits have been issued.
Planner Sharpe said that many cities do not issue permits but staff could look into the
request.
Community Development Director Nordquist said that he agreed with Planner Sharpe on
not wanting to issue CUPs as it’s very rigid and runs with land use but that there is value
in having a permit/license that requires participation by adjacent neighbors and could
help with nuisance complaints in the future.
Committee Member Breuer mentioned that Planner Sharpe had looked into the number of
complaints relating to chickens by neighboring cities and that the numbers had been very
small.
Planner Sharpe advised that the Petitioner Rebecca Weum had collected the data but that
he did follow-up with the cities as well.
Planner Sharpe mentioned that the City does require all dogs to be licensed so that may
be something to look into with chickens as well. Cats do not require licenses as they are
considered completely indoor animals.
Planner Sharpe brought up that consideration of dangerous dogs relating to chickens and
looking at that aspect at the next meeting.
Chair Schwartz asked whether residents are required to have fences if they have
chickens.
Planner Sharpe advised that would be a consideration to be looked into otherwise could
also allow free-range chickens with supervision.
Community Development Director Nordquist mentioned we would likely not require
fenced yards for chickens as there would be a coop and a run for management and would
not allow free-range chickens.
Committee Member Schwartz asked how the chickens would be kept in the yard.
Committee Member Vegter advised that they would be kept in either the coop or the run
so they would not have access to leave a property.
Committee Member Sohlberg said that the run would be in addition to the coop and
would be an enclosed area that the chickens cannot leave.
5
Planner Sharpe mentioned that at the previous meeting, Wayne Martin discussed that
chickens are let out of their runs to free-roam for additional exercise, so that this may be
where the consideration of fenced yards comes in.
Chair Schwartz asked what is done with the chickens during the winters.
Planner Sharpe advised that electrical heaters are typically used on the coldest days but
that some may choose to bring them inside their homes.
Committee Member Breuer requested that staff bring forward a drawing showing a 350
ft. circle around a home in Apple Valley to see the requirement that Farmington currently
requires.
Committee Member Blake asked if adjacent property sign-offs could also be further
discussed at the next meeting.
Planner Sharpe advised that there were three ways this is typically done in other city
ordinances: no neighbor sign-offs, only adjacent neighbor sign-offs (usually 3-4 lots), or
the more extreme which is those in the 350 foot radius.
CD Director Nordquist brought up parking permits being similar, for example, in
household where they may have four children and each have a car, staff has the resident
ask neighbors about parking additional cars about accommodating more cars.
Committee Member Arens mentioned possibly just doing a flyer notifying neighbors and
not necessarily asking permission.
CD Director Nordquist and Planner Sharpe said that staff was not advocating for one
way or the other, just that the discussion on all possible methods needed to be had. They
also said that City Council may look at the Committees recommendations and then adjust
to an ordinance that the Council sees fit as was done when Bagster Bags were reviewed
previously.
Committee Member Mahlum agreed with Chair Schwartz’s point earlier about the change
in ordinance possibly opening the door for other residents to want to add other animals
like goats or bees in and that this should be made aware to the City Council.
Chair Schwartz asked if there was any information gathered regarding health issues and
chickens.
Planner Sharpe advised that most disease outbreaks are typically reduced to households
and occur from a family member not washing their hands after handling the chickens. In
the US, it is typically bacterial outbreaks.
CD Director Nordquist mentioned that there were some salmonella outbreaks that were
related to backyard chickens but noted that these risks do occur all the time, for example,
when the State Fair occurs.
6
Planner Sharpe mentioned that relating back to Committee Member Mahlum and
Schwartz’s point is that bees are likely the second most interested animal that residents
request information on.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Next Urban Affairs meeting is scheduled for April 27, 2021
CD Director Nordquist acknowledged Planner Sharpe’s work with the 2020 Census as well as
discussed steps taken to improve Apple Valley’s participation in the Census by use of postcards,
multi-family visits by staff with Census materials and advertisements in multiple languages.
From 2010, Apple Valley’s self-response rate increased by 4%.
6. ADJOURN
Hearing no further comments from the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee, Chair Schwartz
asked for a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: Vegter moved, seconded by Arens to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Ayes - 7- Nays - 0.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________ __
Breanna Vincent, Department Assistant
Approved by the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee
on 4/27/2021 . Sharon Schwartz, Chair
I T E M: 4.A .
UR B A N A F FA I R S A D V I S O RY ME E T I NG D AT E :April 27, 2021
S E C T I O N:Action I tems
Description:
A nimal Ordinance A dditional D iscussion on R egulatory Aspects of K eeping C hickens
S taff Contact:
A lex Sharpe, P lanning and E conomic Dev. S pec.
D epartment / Division:
C ommunity D evelopment Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
Receive information on Committee sought background and provide direction on regulatory
aspects.
S UM M ARY:
At the Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee (UA A C ) meeting of March 23, 2021, staff
provided a list of potential ordinance considerations and sought additional input from the
Committee. T he C ommittee directed staff to provide additional research and information on
items ranging from zoning to the care of chickens.
T he goal of this meeting is to ensure that the C ommittee has reviewed all of the background
required so that they can provide staff and the City A ttorney with ordinance
recommendations. As a reminder, Chapter 91 of the City Ordinance regulates animals and
Chickens are considered farm poultry and not permitted to be kept in residential areas. C ity
City C ouncil received a petition in support of keeping chickens and directed the Urban
Affairs A dvisory Committee to make a recommendation concerning the keeping of chickens.
T he UA A C recommended that chickens remain farm poultry in 2014 and has been
encouraged to consider an ordinance amendment to allow keeping chickens in 2020. A full
discussion therefore requires analysis and in the future the preparation of a draft ordinance,
conducting a public hearing and making an informed recommendation to C ity Council.
Urban Chickens History and P ermitting/Registering
T he Committee sought information on whether the keeping of chickens on residential
properties, or "back-yard chickens" was a recent trend due to the pandemic, or if there had
been significant demand prior to 2020. From staff's research the desire to keep chickens on
smaller lots in Minnesota began in the early to mid 2000's and has increased since that time.
T he pandemic may have affected or reinforced resident desires to keep chickens as several
cities in the Twin C ities metro have recently evaluated their ordinance and either permitted
chickens, or modified regulations. Examples of cities that have either permitted or amended
regulations include Plymouth, Woodbury, and Burnsville.
Staff researched surrounding cities to determine whether a permit or registration was required
in order to keep chickens and found that many have not required permits or if they did have
since removed this requirement. Of those cities that have required a permit or registration the
total number of permits was under 30 homes at any one time. Often these registrations are
one-time events, or have a yearly renewal which does not require additional review or fees.
City Regulations on the Caring for C hickens
Staff has researched how other cities have provided guidance or regulated the correct care of
chickens. T he three predominant trends were to provide an informational handout, often
created by the University of Minnesota Extension Service, require an educational course, or
remain silent on the correct care. T he C ommittee has hosted Mr. Martin with the University
of Minnesota Extension Service where he provided an overview for caring for chickens. T his
presentation is available online at the University of Minnesota Extension page which also
includes materials on many other resources about specific breeds, feed types, and spacing
recommendations.
If the C ommittee recommends that the ordinance include a course in the care of chickens this
information would likely be provided. If not, the City webpage can provide links to these
resources through.
Zoning and Sample L ots
Staff's presentation on March 23rd provided a brief overview of the single-family zoning
districts in Apple Valley. Due to the impacts a city-wide ordinance could have the
Committee sought a more in-depth review of the C ity's single-family zoning, it's history, and
average lot sizes which are detailed below. In addition, attached to the report are a series of
diagrams for sample lots that are zoned R-3 to allow the committee to better visualize the
size of the chicken coop/run, setbacks, easements, and potential impacts to neighbors. Staff
will present these diagrams at the meeting to facilitate discussion and clarify C ommissioner
questions. T he placement of the coop/run on these lots is intended to show their potential
scale and for discussion purposes on potential setback regulations. A copy of the C ity's
latest zoning map is attached to this report for reference. Residential lots are also within
many Planned D evelopment "PD" zones. T hese zones primarily use the R-3 regulations as
their underlying zoning.
T he following will provide basic information on the major single-family zoning designations,
their standard setbacks, lot size and the total number/percent of land within the community.
T he C ity's single-family zoning is broken down into five zoning districts.
R-1 - 40,000 sq. ft. lot minimum lot size - 2.1% of total city acreage - 167 lots
R-2 - 18,000 sq. ft. lot minimum lot size - 1.4% of total city acreage - 255 lots
R-3 - 11,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size - 25.2% of total city acreage - 7576 lots
R-C L (cluster development) - Lot size development dependent - 1.5% of total city acreage -
403 lots.
Setbacks within these zones vary, but the dominant zone, R-3 requires the following:
Primary Structure:
Front: 30'
Rear: 30' (decks may encroach 18' into rear setback)
Side: 10' house side 5' garage side
Due to the neighborhood and the era a home was constructed in, the average lot size within
the R-3 zoning district varies between 12,000 and 15,000 sq. ft. T he first single-family
development in town was developed by Orrin T hompson in the 1970's and is generally
located north of C S A H 42, bounded by Hayes Road on the east, Redwood Drive on the
west, and Alimagnet Park on the north. T his era of development had smaller lot sizes and
were constructed prior to the 11,000 minimum lot size requirement but are zoned R-3. R-3
lots created between 1980 and 2010 tended to be larger, often exceeding 15,000 sq. ft. T he
City's newest R-3 lots have followed national trends reducing with smaller lots, often just
above the 11,000 sq. ft. Much of this new single-single family housing, such as the C ortland
neighborhood, is zoned "PD" and utilize the R-3 as an underlying zoning designation.
P roperty Values in Relation to L and Use
A common inquiry for any new land use is what affect it will have on existing property
values. Property values are multi-faceted and are rarely affected by a single land use.
F eed Storage and F encing
An additional consideration introduced by the C ommittee was the storage of chicken feed as
it could attract nuisance animals. Staff has found that some communities have noted that
chicken feed shall be stored inside a structure or in a container which prevents access from
nuisance animals.
An item of discussion was whether chickens would be required to remain in the coop/run at
all times, or whether they would be permitted to roam the subject property. Staff has
researched other communities codes and found that fencing has been required if chickens are
permitted to roam in the yard, but that permanent fencing was not required if the animals were
under direct supervision. O ther cities have chosen to regulate the coop but have not required
fencing. T he Committee is encouraged to discuss options and provide direction to staff when
drafting an ordinance on how fencing/containment of the birds should be achieved.
Notice to N eighboring P roperties, P ermits, and Registration
At the meeting on March 23rd, staff recommended that a Conditional Use Permit process,
like the one in Farmington was not recommended, but that some communities still required
notice of properties within 350-feet of the subject residence while others only required
adjacent property notice. Attached to the report is a diagram of a sample home in the
community which shows a 350 foot radius versus the adjacent property notice. In the
example, if a 350-foot notice were required 34 homes would receive the notice where only 4
homes would require notice if the requirement were for adjacent parcels only.
Staff has noted that some communities have required neighboring properties to sign-off on a
permit application. However, this requirement was predominantly used by cities that were
initial adopters of chicken ordinances and has since been amended out of most ordinances
due to the complexity for enforcement.
Cities such as Burnsville, have chosen to further deregulate chickens, no longer requiring a
permit. Recent adopters, like Plymouth which adopted a chicken ordinance this year will
require a permit, a course on keeping chickens, registration every two years, and more
restrictive setbacks than other accessory structures.
Neighboring C ommunity Regulations
On November 12, 2020 the C ity C ouncil reviewed the resident petition to allow the keeping
of chickens in single-family zones. O ne of the materials provided at that time was an exhibit
sharing the neighboring city regulations as well as communities within the greater Twin C ities
metro. A t the March 23rd meeting, the C ommittee sought a list of cities that allow chickens
be provided for comparison. T he materials shared with the C ity C ouncil are attached for
reference and discussion. Since that time the C ity of Plymouth has adopted an ordinance
allowing chickens at single-family homes but will not be permitted until J uly 1, 2021. T heir
backyard chicken hand out and permit is attached for reference.
B AC K G RO UND :
On March 23, 2021, the Committee reviewed potential considerations for an ordinance,
provided staff with additional considerations to research, and began discussion on potential
recommendations for an ordinance.
At the UA A C 's prior meeting on February 23, 2021, the Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee
received presentations from a resident petitioner, and a representative from the University of
Minnesota Extension service. T his initial background information was sought to provide
context to the resident petition, and explain the resident's request.
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S:
Z oning Map
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
160th ST W (CO RD 46)160th ST W (CO RD 46)
R-5
NCC
NCC
NCCR-5
GB
6C
M-4CP
PD-
849
LONG LAKE
LAC LAVON
FARQUARLAKE
ALIMAGNETLAKE T.H #77CO RD 38
CO RD 38
C O R D 3 8 CO RD 38CEDAR AVECEDAR AVEDODD BLVDCEDAR AVE140th ST W
140th ST W
140th ST W140th ST WPalomino DrGALAXIE AVEPILOT KNOB RDPILOT KNOB RDDI
AMOND PATH WGARDEN VIEW DR150th ST (CO RD 42)JOHNNY CAKE RIDGE RD150th ST W (CO RD 42)PILOT KNOB RDP
P
P
A
A
AA
A
P
A
P
P A
P
P
P
PA
P
A
A
A
P
P
A
P
P A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
RB
LB
M-
8C
RB
LB
3C
RB
LB
RB
RB
RB
GB
RB
M-
LB
GB
RB
GB
RB
RB
GB
LB
LB
RB
RB
RB
LB
RB
LB
LB
LB
RB
BP
RB
RB
BP
RB
RB
SG
GB
244
PD-
244PD-
R-2
R-1
R-3
R-2
532
R-3R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
I-2
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-1
R-1
R-5
R-1
R-5
R-5
R-5
R-1
R-5
R-2
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
NCC
NCC
R-2
R-1
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-1
R-5
R-3
PD-
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3R-3
R-3
PD-
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
PD-
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-1
R-3
I-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3 R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3 R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
I-1
R-1
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3 R-3
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
I-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
I-1
R-3
R-3 R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-1
R-3 R-3
R-1
R-3
R-1
R-3
I-1
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
I-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-1
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-3
I-2
1025
1014
R-CL
M-4C
M-6B
M-4C
M-7C
M-3C
M-7C
R-CL
M-7C
M-7C
M-3C
M-7C
M-6C
M-7C
M-5C
M-7C
M-4C
M-4C
M-3C
M-6C
M-6C
R-CL
R-CL
R-CL
M-3C
M-3C
M-3C
M-7C
M-7C
M-7C
M-3A
M-3C
M-7C
M-4A
M-4C
M-4C
M-4C
M-3C
M-3B
M-3C
R-CL
M-8C
R-CL
R-CL
R-CL
R-CL
M-8C
R-CL
M-6B
M-2C
M-7CM-2C
R-CL
M-6C
M-4C
M-8C
M-5C
M-8C
R-CL
M-3C
M-6C
R-CL
M-6A
M-6B
R-CL
M-4C
M-3C
M-6C
R-CL
M-6B
M-4C
M-3C
M-2C
M-6C
M-3C
M-8A
R-CL
M-7C
R-CL
M-8C
M-3B
M-5C
M-3C
M-7C
M-4C
R-CL
R-CL
M-7C
M-8B PD-975
PD-975
PD-856
PD-739 PD-856
PD-681
PD-681
PD-746
PD-541
PD-739
PD-703
PD-703
PD-703
PD-580
PD-163
PD-290
PD-444
PD-409
PD-629PD-244
PD-290
PD-315
PD-400
M-8C
PD-342
PD-341
PD-144
PD-251
PD-254
PD-138
PD-144
PD-254
PD-507
PD-138
PD-170
PD-703
PD-290
PD-716
PD-409
PD-580
PD-144
PD-716
PD-244
PD-739
PD-507
PD-629
PD-681
PD-646
PD-679
PD-632PD-714
PD-975
PD-679
PD-632
PD-167MN Zoological Gardens
PD-168Valleywood Municipal GC
5
4
2
2
2
1
5
2
1
11
4
4 4
9
3
1
1
2
7
2
7
7
1
7
2
323
34
12
2
2
1
2
1
77
6 76
6
7
7
7
6
2
7
6
2
7 2
3
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
4
3
1
3
1 1
2
2
2
4
2
2
1
2211
2 44
1
1
2222
1
1
1
3
4
444 1
1
1
2
2 5
1
3
3
4
7
3
6
1
3
1
2
1
1
22
3
2
1
2
1
6
4
1
1
1
7
2
1
1
2
6
1
4
5
1
3
3
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
6
2
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
7
2
2
2
2
2
7
1
3
7
7
2
1
2
2
3
1
13
11
4
6
1
2
1
5
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
6
1
2
6
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
4
6
2
5
4
1
1
1
3
1
5
33
1
6
6
2
4
4
2
6
1
1
3
5
3
1
2A
7B7A
2A
4B
4A
11
22
1
1
2
§¨¦I-94
§¨¦I-35
§¨¦I-35E
§¨¦I-94
§¨¦I-494§¨¦I-35W
§¨¦I-494
§¨¦I-35
§¨¦I-35W
§¨¦I-35E
§¨¦I-94
§¨¦I-394
APPLE VALLEY
DAKOTA
ANOKA
HENNEPIN
SCOTT
CARVER
WASHINGTONRAMSEY
ACRES:PERCENT:DESIGNATIONS:
11,200.0 100.00%TOTALS:SH - Shoreland District
Zoning MapSources:
The Zoning Designations on this map are a representation of a combinationof maps and ordinances which make up the complete Apple Valley ZoningRegulations. All Zoning Designations are subject to change. Information on each Planned Development available at Apple Valley Municipal Center.Zoning district land areas are estimates based upon map elements.Latest Revision: Ordinance Number 1048 Date: 08/09/2018City of Apple Valley Planning DepartmentTelephone (952) 953-2575
APPLE VALLEYCity of
®
0 2,300 4,6001,150
Feet
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 inch = 2,500 feet
1:30,000RF =
Map Print Date: 9-18-18
Community DevelopmentDepartment
Dakota County GIS
Residential:238.7159.02,824.70.00173.045.5
2.1%1.4%25.2%0.00%1.5%0.4%
R-1 - Single Family 40,000 Sq. FtR-2 - Single Family 18,000 Sq. FtR-3 - Single Family 11,000 Sq. FtR-4 - Single Family (Reserved)R-CL Residential ClusterR-5 - Two Family 15,000 Sq. Ft
Multiple Family (A,B,C):M-1 - 3-4 Units/AcreM-2 - 3-5 Units/AcreM-3 - 3-6 Units/AcreM-4 - 6-8 Units/AcreM-5 - 6-10 Units/AcreM-6 - 6-12 Units/AcreM-7 - 12-20 Units/AcreM-8 - 12-24 Units/Acre
0.026.1136.382.929.182.3131.278.2
0.0%0.2%1.2%0.7%0.3%0.7%1.2%0.7%
Business:NCC - Neighborhood Convenience CenterLB & LB-1 - Limited BusinessGB & GB-1 - General BusinessRB - Retail BusinessSC - Regional Shopping CenterVB - Vistor Business
4.433.422.0136.90.000.00
0.04%0.3%0.2%1.2%0.00%0.00%
Industrial:BP - Business ParkI-1 - Limited IndustrialI-2 - General Industrial
34.479.2159.6
0.3%0.7%1.4%
Other:PD - Planned DevelopmentA - AgriculturalSG - Sand & GravelP - InstitutionalExisting Lakes/PondsRight-of-Way
2,608.353.4353.21,314.9362.22,026.7
23.3%0.5%3.2%11.7%3.2%18.1%
City Allowed Prohibited Under
Review
Permit
Req?
Setback
from
property
line
Setback
from
Neighboring
Structure
Setback from
Principal Structure
or All Structures?
Number
of Hens
Adopted -
If known Notes
Apple Valley X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2014
Burnsville X No 10'50'All 4 2009
Eagan X Yes 10' rear 5' side 25'Any Habitable Structure 5 2012
Farmington X X Yes 10'25'Principal 3 2014 10,000 sq. ft. lot min size. CUP
process with yearly renewal
Inver Grove
Heights X Yes 10 25'Any Structure 3 2014 Notice of properties within 350'
Lakeville X Yes 20'4 2018
Mendota Heights X Yes 10'N/A N/A 6 2017
One accessory structure
permitted plus one chicken
coop
Rosemount X 10'50'Principal 3 2011
West St. Paul X Yes 10'25'Principal 6 2020?
City Allowed Prohibited Under
Review
Permit
Req?
Setback
from
property
line
Setback
from
Neighboring
Structure
Setback from
Principal Structure
or All Structures?
Number
of Hens
Adopted -
If known Notes
Blaine X Yes 5'30'Principal 6 2016
Bloomington X Yes 30'50'Principal 4 2019
Brooklyn Park X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Only in Ag
Eden Prairie X Yes 10'50'All 4 2017
Edina X Yes 10'N/A N/A 4 adult + 18
chicks 2015 Chicks are only allowed for
educational purposes
MapleGrove X X No 10'N/A N/A 6 2010 Property must be at least 1 acre
and less than 1.5 acres
Minnetonka X No 10'* See note 2007 one animal per 1/10 acre of lot
size
Plymouth X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2008
Chicken is defined as a farm
animal and is not included in
other code sections
Shakopee X Yes 10'50 Any Structure 5 2019
St. Louis Park X Yes 10'4 2011 Extension every 2 years
Woodbury X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Suggested as far as possible
Must be closer to subject property dwelling
than any other dwelling
Chickens in Single-Family Residential Zones -Dakota County
Chickens in Single-Family Residential Zones - Major Metropolitan Area Suburban Cities
Must be closer to subject property dwelling
than any other dwelling
Home
Foundation 1,000 sq. ft.
Patio
12’ x 40’
Full Grown
Tree
75’ 134’
Lot Area: 10,050 Sq. ft.
Acres: .23 Acre
Lot Coverage: 3,245
Impervious Surface: 32%
Orrin Thompson Original Apple Valley
Front Easement: 10’
Side Easement: 5’
Single Car Garage
20’ 10’
Chicken Coop: 5’ x 5’ = 5 sq. ft./bird
Chicken Run: 10’ x 5’ = 10 sq. ft./bird
Total: 80 sq. ft. NORTH
59’
30’
Home
Foundation 1,200 sq. ft.
Deck
14’ x 30’
80’ 175’
Lot Area: 14,000 Sq. ft.
Acres: .32 Acre
Lot Coverage: 3,640
Impervious Surface: 26%
Standard R-3 Single-Family Lot
Front Easement: 10’
Side Easement: 5’
Two Car Garage
10’ 10’
Chicken Coop: 5’ x 5’ = 5 sq. ft./bird
Chicken Run: 10’ x 5’ = 10 sq. ft./bird
Total: 75 sq. ft. NORTH
Patio
90’
30’
Sample 25’ Setback from
Neighboring Principal Structure (Home)
Lot 1
Area: 15,852 Sq. Ft.
Coverage: 3,170
Impervious Surface: 20%
Lot 2
Area: 14,032 Sq. Ft
Coverage: 3,929
Impervious Surface: 28%
Corner Lot
Front Easement: 10’
Side Easement: 5’ Street Side Easement:10’
Front Setback 30’
Street Side Setback (red doted line) 20’
Two Car Garages
Chicken Coop: 5’ x 5’ = 5 sq. ft./bird
Chicken Run: 10’ x 5’ = 10 sq. ft./bird
Total: 75 sq. ft.
NORTH
30’
30’
Lot 2
23’
Keeping of Chickens for Single-Family Homes Planning Division (763) 509-5450
planning@plymouthmn.gov Community Development Department Building Division (763) 509-5430
inspections@plymouthmn.gov
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
A Coop and Attached Run:
An accessory structure for the keeping or
housing of chickens with a fully enclosed
and covered area attached to a coop where
the chickens can roam unsupervised.
Definitions:
Permits
Chicken Permit: is required prior to
having chickens and shall be re-applied
for every two years.
A one time permit fee is $100.
Evidence of completion of a chicken
keeping course from the University of
Minnesota or equivalent is required.
A Coop and Attached Run shall not exceed 120 square feet.
The height of a Coop and Attached Run is measured from the low-
est point of grade for that portion of the lot covered by the building to the
highest point of the roof for flat roofs, to the roof deck line of mansard
roofs, and to the mean height between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, and
gambrel roofs. The maximum height is 10 feet.
Coop and Attached Run shall be setback 20 feet from the
property line.
Must be located in the rear yard.
Cannot be placed within a drainage or utility easement or wetland, wet-
land buffer or wetland structure setback area.
Coop and attached Run Requirements
No more than two Detached Accessory Buildings are allowed
per property.
No more than one Detached Accessory Building that
contains over 200 square feet is allowed per propert y
Maximum Number of Detached Accessory Structures University of Minnesota Extension Service – email marti067@umn.edu
Online Chicken Courses:
Introduction of Backyard Poultry – University of Arkansas
Backyard Urban Chicken Class – University of Florida: IFAS Extension
Maintenance
Number of Hens:
A Maximum of 6 Hens are allowed in the
RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3 & SF-PUD’s.
No Roosters allowed.
All hens kept in the City shall be entirely con-
fined in a run, coop, building, or other enclosure
at all times unless supervised.
Educational Resources:
All coops and runs shall be thoroughly cleaned at least once
every week and all refuse shall be disposed of in a clean and
sanitary fashion
O:\INSP\BUILD\APPS HANDOUTS INFO\prmt app - chickens.docx Revised 3/21
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
General Information (763)509-5430
Inspection Scheduling (763) 509-5449
FAX (763) 509-5407
PID:
KEEPING OF CHICKENS
PERMIT APPLICATION
For Single Family Homes
(RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3, SF-PUD)
Please submit the following information to the Community Development Department:
1. A completed keeping of chickens permit application.
2. A side view drawing of the proposed coop and attached run, including construction materials and
proposed height of the coop and attached run from ground level.
3. A drawing of the proposed coop and attached run location on a survey or a scaled site plan.
4. Evidence of completion of a chicken keeping course.
5. $100 fee paid.
Property Owner Name:
Street Address: City: Zip
Phone Number: Email:
Zoning District:
Coop and Attached Run Height: Size:___________________________
Picture or sketch attached of proposed coop and attached run? Yes_____ No ____
Have the corner monuments been found and the property lines been defined? Yes No
Has evidence of completion of a chicken keeping course from the University of Minnesota or other comparable institution
been provided? Yes_____ No ____
Is the coop and attached run proposed to be within a wetland or wetland buffer, cross over a required rain garden, or
extend below the ordinary high water level of a lake, stream or pond? Yes_____ No ____
Note 1: Some properties in the city are governed by homeowner association covenants/bylaws that require
approval for certain property improvements. Please check to see whether this may apply to you.
Note 2: The coop and attached run must be installed within 180 days from issuance of a chicken permit.
Note 3: The chicken permit must be re-applied for every two-years (no fee for reapplication)
Note 4: If selling eggs etc. a home occupations license and any Stat of MN requirements apply.
I acknowledge that the above information is correct, and that I will ensure that the coop and attached run is constructed
and installed in accordance with the approved plans submitted and the regulations set forth in the City of Plymouth City
Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Applicant's Signature
Date Community Development
Department
FOR CITY USE ONLY
This keeping of chickens, coop and attached run permit has been APPROVED subject to the following:
1)
This keeping of chickens, coop and attached run has been DENIED for the following reasons:
1)
FLAGSTAFF AVEFLINT LN1 3 5 T H S T W
137T
H S
T W
FLEET
W
O
O
D AVE
FLAIR CT135TH STREET CTThis imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retainsownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under theterms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed toprovide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which thisimage services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capturedate, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in theirnormal course of business and must not be resold or distributed for the
SITE
Example 350' Radius & Adjacent Dwellings
Legend And Analysis
Immediately Adjacent Parcels
Committee Member Parcel
350' Buffer
Total Neighboring ParcelsWithin 350' Radius: 34Adjacent Parcels : 4
¯0 100 200 300 40050 Feet
I T E M: 5.A .
UR B A N A F FA I R S A D V I S O RY ME E T I NG D AT E:April 27, 2021
S E C T I O N:Other B usiness
Description:
Tentative Schedule f or Next UA Committee Meeting
S taff Contact:
B reanna Vincent, P lanning Department A ssistant
D epartment / Division:
C ommunity D evelopment Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
T he Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee will meet the fourth Tuesday of each month on an
as-needed basis.
S UM M ARY:
T he next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, May 25, 2021.
B AC K G RO UND :
N/A
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A