HomeMy WebLinkAboutUA Agenda Packet 052521
M eeting L ocation: M unicipal Center
7100 147th Street West
Apple Valley, M innesota 55124
Urban Af f airs Advisory C ommittee meetings have resumed at the Municipal
C enter and are open to the public with physical distancing restrictions. Attendee
procedures and access information are posted on the C ity's website.
May 25, 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
Chambers
1.Call 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.Approve Minutes of April 27, 2021, Regular Meeting
4.Action Items
A.Authorize Staff to Prepare a Draft Revised Animal Ordinance for Review
5.Other Business
A.Tentative Schedule for Next UA Committee Meeting
Tuesday, J une 22, 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:May 25, 2021
S E C T I O N:Special Notification
Description:
Urban Affairs Advisory Committee meetings have resumed at the Municipal Center and are
open to the public with physical distancing restrictions. Attendee procedures and access
information are posted on the City's website.
S taff Contact:
B reanna Vincent, Planning Department Assistant
Department / Division:
Community Development 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 A ffairs Advisory C ommittee meetings have resumed at the Municipal Center
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 Apple 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:May 25, 2021
S E C T I O N:Call to Order
Description:
Urban Affairs Advisory Committee members will be attending either in-person or virtually. A Roll-
call will be taken.
S taff Contact:
B reanna Vincent, Planning Department Assistant
Department / Division:
Community Development 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 Committee 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:May 25, 2021
S E C T I O N:A pprove Minutes
Description:
A pprove Minutes of A pril 27, 2021, Regular Meeting
S taff Contact:
B reanna Vincent, Planning Department Assistant
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
Approve minutes of regular meeting of April 27, 2021.
S UM M ARY:
T he minutes of the Urban A ffairs 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
April 27, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City of Apple Valley Urban Affairs Advisory Committee meeting was called to order by
Chair Sharon Schwartz at 6:02 p.m.
Members Present: Sharon Schwartz, Linda Blake, Sandy Breuer*, Pamela
Sohlberg*, Walton Mahlum, John Vegter, and Ann
Arens
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: Vegter moved, seconded by Mahlum, approving the agenda. Ayes - 7 -
Nays - 0.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – March 23, 2021
Chair Schwartz asked if there were any changes to the minutes.
MOTION: Breuer moved, seconded by Sohlberg, approving the minutes of the
meeting of March 23, 2021. Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0.
4. ACTION ITEMS
A.Animal Ordinance Additional Discussion on Regulatory Aspects of Keeping
Chickens
Planner Alex Sharpe presented a brief presentation.
Planner Sharpe advised that the committee begin discussion and provide some direction
so that staff can begin to draft an ordinance.
Committee Member Vegter commented that the committee should focus on chickens only
and not ducks, geese or other fowl as those may have other parameters.
Chair Schwartz asked if the ordinance would need to specifically state that it was for
chickens only.
2
Planner Sharpe responded that it would need to specifically state it was for chickens as a
definition would need to be created to show what is being permitted versus not.
CD Director Nordquist advised that staff would also need to provide a reason for why
other fowl, ducks, pigeons, etc. are not included and only chickens.
Committee Member Arens asked if it would make sense to state that other fowl would
have different needs than chickens do.
Committee Member Arens also asked if there have been any petitions to allow other
animals besides chickens.
Planner Sharpe stated that there have not been any signed petitions for other fowl.
Planner Sharpe advised that the definition would be decided between staff and the City
Attorney.
CD Director Nordquist stated that there are definitions already distinguishing between
farm animals and poultry.
Committee Member Sohlberg advised that she had spoken with a neighbor who had
chickens and provided some feedback such as a large amount of waste and that there is a
smell associated with chickens especially with those that do not adequately care for them.
Committee Member Sohlberg also stated that her neighbor suggested that suburban
homes would not be appropriate for chickens. Her neighbor also stated that with the cost
of feed and the upkeep, there is not much of cost savings for having your own eggs
versus purchasing in store as eggs are inexpensive.
Committee Member Vegter brought up that coops are also very expensive and a large
amount of eggs could be purchased with the cost of a coop but that some people enjoy
having fresh eggs as opposed to store bought.
Chair Schwartz advised that keeping chickens could be seen as more of a hobby as
opposed to a food source. She expressed concerns that people may see this as a fun
activity and not realize the amount of work that can go into keeping chickens.
Committee Member Arens commented that having residents take a class prior to keeping
chickens could help them with realizing what it entails.
Committee Member Vegter recommended that a permit be required along with attending
a class on what is involved.
Chair Schwartz agreed with Committee Member Vegter. She also stated that residents
have information on setting up a proper coop. Chair Schwartz also stated that the City
may want to have a permit procedure, similar to what is done for fences or sheds, for
building a coop and maintaining setback requirements.
Planner Sharpe advised that the City does not require permits for fences under 8’ tall or
sheds that are under 200 sq. ft. He expressed concerns that Planning staff would not be
3
able to look at chicken coops as they are not knowledgeable in Inspections aspects. The
Building Inspections department would not be able to inspect them either as they cannot
inspect below 200 sq. ft. by state law. He also advised that some cities, such as Plymouth,
provide their residents with a handout stating additional information such as checking
with your homeowner’s association to be sure what is allowed so that the responsibility is
put onto the resident and the City responds on a complaint basis. Staff would also want to
know if the Committee would want to require annual registration for the permit, a one-
time registration, etc.
Resident Andy Riesgraf was present virtually and commented that chicken owners are
informed enough to take care of backyard chickens. He also stated that residents are
allowed to have dogs without having to take a class. Going back to Committee Member
Sohlberg’s comment earlier regarding the smell of chickens and feedback received from
her neighbor, Andy stated that this was in reference to farm chickens which are not kept
the same as backyard chickens would be. Andy also stated that keeping chickens was not
necessarily done from an economic standpoint although chickens would be less
expensive than owning a dog.
Resident Colette Joncas was also present virtually and stated that raising a flock of 50
chickens on a farm is very different than raising 3-5 chickens in a backyard setting. She
also stated that most residents are not going to want to jump into keeping chickens
without any knowledge beforehand and would be more likely to adopt a cat or dog.
Colette also advised that the Committee and staff may want to provide a list to residents
of commercial coops that are available and that this cost could be seen as an adoption
cost and could show more of an economic stake in keeping chickens. Colette also stated
that their pests such as Japanese Beetles were reduced when she had her hobby farm in
Wisconsin.
Committee Member Vegter opined that the sample permit for Plymouth that was
provided in the agenda packet was a good reference for the types of information Apply
Valley may want to provide to residents.
Committee Member Blake asked whether a decision was going to be made on requiring a
permit or not. She also asked what would happen if someone decided to keep chickens
without going through the permit process and whether there would be compliance.
CD Director Nordquist replied that there is a hierarchy starting with registration so that
the City would know where the chickens are located and then a permit would be a step
further with requiring various conditions in order to keep chickens.
Committee Member Sohlberg asked whether the discussion was still open or if the
Committee had decided to allow chickens and parameters were just being decided
currently.
CD Director Nordquist advised that the meeting is to gather feedback currently as
opposed to making a motion on each action item. He stated a draft ordinance will be
4
created regardless of what the committee decides and will then move forward to Council
to make a decision.
Committee Member Vegter advised that the committee should make a decision on
whether or not to allow chickens, whether to require a permit, what parameters will be
included in the permit, etc.
Committee Member Sohlberg expressed support for Committee Member Vegter’s
comment.
Committee Member Mahlum asked whether the committee would need to set parameters
prior to moving to City Council such as permitting, etc. even though the Council may
make a different decision on whether chickens will be allowed.
CD Director Nordquist advised that the City would like to be responsive to the 300
residents that have petitioned for chickens. He advised that no action be taken this
evening.
Committee Member Mahlum clarified that he was questioning whether or not the
committee would need to provide additional information to the City Council in the event
that the committee makes a recommendation of not allowing chickens and Council does
not agree with it.
Committee Member Vegter advised that the committee would need to provide reasoning
on why they would not allow chickens and they would likely need to provide background
information if City Council decides to allow chickens against the committee’s
recommendation.
Committee Member Breuer stated that chickens should be allowed in the City and agreed
with resident Andy Riesgraf’s point regarding the City not requiring a class to have a
dog. She advised that the City should provide a rule sheet for residents on keeping
chickens but not require a permit.
Committee Member Blake agreed with Committee Member Breuer’s comments on not
requiring a class for keeping chickens. She stated it would be better to provide the
resources so that residents can make an informed decision.
Committee Member Arens added that she noticed most suburbs in the Twin Cities do
allow chickens and she also advised that providing rules and having a structure for
residents to follow when keeping chickens. Arens stated that the number of residents
keeping chickens would likely be very low.
Planner Sharpe stated in response to Colette Joncas’ comment on providing a list of
commercial coops that are available, that the City would not be able to provide a link on
our government website and would need to use a resource like the University of MN
Extension program to provide this information to those interested.
5
CD Director Nordquist recommended that a checklist be created so that the committee
can discuss and make a decision on the various items at the next meeting on May 25,
2021. He also advised that a public hearing would be held once a draft ordinance is
created, to get feedback from residents.
Chair Schwartz asked if a public hearing has been held since the pandemic began.
CD Director Nordquist advised that there was still participation in the public hearing
held, both in person and virtually.
Planner Sharpe advised that there have been 4-5 public hearings just this month.
Chair Schwartz restated her concerns regarding placement of coops and the proximity to
sources of water where contamination could occur. She also expressed concern over
having residents be sure that coops are located within property lines.
CD Director Nordquist stated the City likely would not require a survey be done.
Resident Colette Joncas responded to Chair Schwartz’ concern regarding water
contamination and feces and stated that there are more hazardous materials such as
lawn fertilizers that residents use that the City does not have control over.
CD Director Nordquist stated that contamination from feces likely would not be a
problem in residential areas but could be for those located on the shores of the
city’s lakes. He stated that further regulations could be included in the ordinance for these
unique properties.
Planner Sharpe advised that in the Shoreland Overlay District require the same setback
from the principal structure from the normal high-water line. There are very limited
properties within the Shoreland Overlay.
Committee Member Mahlum asked whether the public hearing would be looking at the
ordinance prior to it going to the City Council.
CD Director Nordquist responded that the feedback from the public would be gathered
before the City Council votes.
5.OTHER BUSINESS
A.Next Urban Affairs meeting is scheduled for May 25, 2021
6
6. ADJOURN
Hearing no further comments from the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee, Chair Schwartz
asked for a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: Breuer moved, seconded by Sohlberg to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Ayes - 7- Nays - 0.
Respectfully Submitted,
____________ __
Breanna Vincent, Department Assistant
Approved by the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee
on 5/25/2021 . 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:May 25, 2021
S E C T I O N:A ction I tems
Description:
A uthorize Staff to P repare a Draft Revised Animal Ordinance for Review
S taff Contact:
A lex Sharpe, Planning and Economic Dev. S pec.
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
Authorize staff to prepare a draft revised animal ordinance for review.
S UM M ARY:
T he Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee (UA A C ) has met for the last three months to
discuss amending C ity Ordinance to allow the keeping of chickens in single-family
residential zones. C hapter 91 of the C ity Ordinance regulates animals and chickens are
considered farm poultry and not permitted to be kept in residential areas. In November 2020,
the City C ouncil received a petition in support of keeping chickens and directed the Urban
Affairs Advisory C ommittee to research the issue and provide recommendations for a
potential ordinance. In 2014, the UA A C recommended that chickens be treated as farm
poultry. Upon preparation of a draft ordinance, further discussion including taking public
testimony will follow.
T he C ommittee has researched surrounding cities ordinances, heard best practices from the
University of Minnesota Extension service and the petition organizer, and learned more about
the C ity's single-family zoning. T he goal of this meeting is to direct staff to prepare a draft
ordinance to share.
An ordinance consideration/recommendations checklist has been created by staff to aid in
this discussion and is the first item attached to this report. T he checklist is intended to serve
as a guide and will not require motions for each topic. T he C ommittee is asked to discuss
each item to provide their reasoning related to the topic.
B AC K G RO UND:
T he Urban Affairs Committee has researched the keeping of chickens in single-family zones.
T his research has been conducted over the last three months and includes input from multiple
sources. Additional Urban Affairs meetings will coincide with the completion of the draft
ordinance; perhaps J une or J uly depending on the availability of legal counsel assistance.
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Memo
Z oning Map
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Memo
Memo
Memo
Urban Affairs Chicken Ordinance Considerations and Recommendations
Page 1
Ordinance
Considerations Sub Category Yes No Number Notes
R-1 - Large Lot
R1 and R-2 - Medium Lot
R-3 - Standard Lot/ all S.F
Zones
Prohibit Roosters?
Number of Hens:3 ,4,5
U of M Extension Recommended no less than 3
Allow Chickens in:
(State why or why
not)
N/A
N/A
Urban Affairs Chicken Ordinance Considerations and Recommendations
Page 2
Ordinance
Considerations Sub Category Yes No Number Notes
Butchering
Permitted?
Yearly, Biannual, Lifetime?
Educational Training
Requirement?
Neighbor Notification?
The Committee has discussed two options: 350' radius and
properties immediately adjacent
Require Permit or
Registration?N/A
Urban Affairs Chicken Ordinance Considerations and Recommendations
Page 3
Ordinance
Considerations Sub Category Yes No Number Notes
Setback from Rear Lot Line
The Committee has discussed 5' and 10' setbacks. All newly created
lots have 10' rear easements
Setback from Side Lot Line
The standard side easement in the City is 5' and is the setback
requirement for all accessory structures
Setback from Neighboring
Home?
Some ordinance require setbacks from neighbors home, or require
the coop closer to subject's home than neighbors
Setback from Neighboring
Building or Yard Amenities?
The Committee has discussed requiring a setback from neighboring
structures (pools, sheds, playgrounds, etc.)
Setbacks
Urban Affairs Chicken Ordinance Considerations and Recommendations
Page 4
Ordinance
Considerations Sub Category Yes No Number Notes
Include a required sq. ft. for
each bird?
Minimum size based on bird count?
Limit Total Size
The Committee has discussed 80, 100, and 120 sq. (City Code
allows small structure up to 120 sq. ft.)
Building Materials
The Committee has discussed "professionally constructed or of
similar standards and materials"
Require a Roof over Chicken
Run?
Cities have required a roof to protect the bird from aerial predators
and other animals entering the coop
Are Coops an Accessory
Structure
City allows 2 accessory structures per lot. Should the coop count
towards this total, or be added (allowing 2 structures and coop)
Chicken Coop Size,
Materials, etc.
Urban Affairs Chicken Ordinance Considerations and Recommendations
Page 5
Ordinance
Considerations Sub Category Yes No Number Notes
Require Coop Waste
to be Disposed with
Trash Hauler
Require Food to be Stored in
another Structure?
Other?
Other Notes
Food Storage
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/ASuggested 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’
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
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)
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:F ebruary 23, 2021
S E C T I O N:A ction I tems
Description:
I ntroduction to Animal Ordinance Review
S taff Contact:
A lex Sharpe, Planning and Economic Dev. S pec.
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
1. Receive information regarding a petition to amend the animal ordinance.
2. Receive information from the University of Minnesota Extension Service regarding the
keeping of chickens in residential areas.
S UM M ARY:
On November 12, 2020 the C ity C ouncil referred review of C hapter 91, the Animal
Ordinance and a resident petition to T he Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee. A C ity resident
petition expressing support for the keeping of chickens in residential area was presented to
the City C ouncil. T he C ommittee has been provided background materials at past meetings,
which are attached to this report. A "Sample A pple Valley C hicken Guidelines" document
created by the petitioner is also attached for reference as this material was presented to the
City C ouncil.
T he resident representing members of the petition will provide an overview of the petition,
methodology, and the requested amendment to the ordinance. T hey have also invited a
subject matter expert on chickens from the University of Minnesota Extension Service.
B AC K G RO UND:
T he C ity of Apple Valley Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee (UA A C) worked on the C ity's
animal ordinance in 2013-2014 at the direction of C ity C ouncil. Both the C ity C ouncil and
the UA C C unanimously recommended the provisions in current ordinance which was
finalized in February, 2014. T he C ity Council adopted the recommendations which define
chickens as farm poultry and do not permit them to be located in residential areas. T hey are
permitted in agricultural zoned properties, which in the 2040 C omprehensive Plan are
forecasted to be phased out of the City.
Apple Valley actions at the time were in advance of a trend toward support for residential
chickens by many cities in the Twin C ities metropolitan area. T he list of cities that prohibit
chickens in residential areas has declined to the following medium sized, approaching fully
developed, suburban locations positioned outside the I494/694 interstate: Apple Valley,
Woodbury, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove and Plymouth.
Best practices for proper animal care, lot placement for coops, distance from primary
structures, number of hens, avoidance of nuisance and sanitation issues, and quality of
life/property value considerations are likely part of the discussion. Modifications to the City
Code may also consider whether a permit process to care for chickens, and requiring adjacent
neighbor support, should be considered as a best practice. T here are multiple resources
available and one that staff and the UA C C have found useful in the past is the University of
Minnesota Agriculture Extension Service.
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Exhibit
Exhibit
L etter
Exhibit
Exhibit
I T E M: 4.B.
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:March 23, 2021
S E C T I O N:A ction I tems
Description:
A nimal Ordinance Considerations and Best P ractices
S taff Contact:
A lex Sharpe, Planning and Economic Dev. S pec.
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
Receive information on considerations and best practices and provide direction on additional
considerations for additional study.
S UM M ARY:
Staff has compiled potential considerations and best practices for the Urban Affairs
Committee to consider. T he committee is asked to provide additional considerations and
review the best practices to better understand potential ordinance points. T he following list
starts broad and moves into more detailed subjects as it proceeds. At the end of the list a
section titled "other considerations" is left blank to encourage direction and feedback from
the committee.
1. Should the C ity amend the ordinance to remove Chickens from Farm Poultry?
a. If so, should the zones where they are permitted be limited? R1, R2 (large lot
residential only?) If R3, do we also allow in P D developments like C obblestone where
there are smaller lots?
2. When cities discuss chickens other fowl are often discussed as well
a. Pigeons
b. Ducks – Apple Valley has had 2 residents ask for ducks. One resident stated that
prohibiting chickens is logical (due to smell) but that ducks have significantly less
impacts.
c. Other?
3. Roosters prohibited?
4. Number of hens?
a. Number of chicks in addition to hens? – Some cities allow full grown hens, and a
limited number of chicks as well.
5. Butchering prohibited?
6. Should a permit required?
a. Many cities require initial permit and then a renewal every X years.
b. Some cities have removed their permit requirement.
c. Others essentially have a Conditional Use Permit process but do not require a public
hearing.
7. Neighboring properties sign off required?
a. Cities have required that adjacent properties sign-off on chicken permit.
b. C ities have required a notice to all properties within 350 feet.
8. Setbacks
a. Setback from property line. Most accessory structures in the C ity have a minimum 5'
setback from the property line, larger structures require 10'.
b. Setback from neighboring structure – some cities have any neighboring structure
while others limit the setback to habitable structures. A concern could be proximity
pools and playground equipment.
c. C ities have required that the coop be closer to “subject dwelling” than any
neighboring structure.
9. Regulations on size of chicken coop
a. Total area required for each bird?
b. C hicken run and coop size?
c. Building materials –chicken wire is not a permitted material for other structures
d. Requirement for a covered chicken run? – Some cities have required a covered
chicken run to prevent predators such as hawks from being able to take chickens. Often
the materials are chain link.
e. Require yard to be fenced if chickens are outside of the chicken run?
10. Are chicken coops considered accessory structures and count towards lot total?
Current ordinance allows 2 accessory structures per lot. One can be up to 750 sq. ft.
and a second can be up to 144 sq. ft.
11. Should a building permit be required? (standard is structures under 200 sq. ft. do
not require a building permit, this is set by State Building Code.
12. Require owners to take a course on how to care for chickens?
a. Does the City select the courses allowed or allow any course and state that evidence
of course to be provided?
13. Composting of waste permitted on site?
a. C hicken waste is often used as fertilizer, but requires composting for up to a year
before it is viable.
b. Improper tending of compost can lead to odor and vermin issues.
14. How are enforcement of complaints handled?
a. Smell can be subjective and difficult to enforce.
b. If chickens get loose where/what does staff do with them?
c. How does staff determine if chickens are being kept in a humane/safe manner?
d. Noise complaints do occur, even with only hens being permitted. What is an
acceptable noise level? Chickens are kept outside at all times, unlike other animals
such as dogs.
15. Human health concerns
a. C hickens bring the risk of infectious diseases, what should the City regulate to help
prevent issues from occurring?
b. Diseases include H5N1 and avian flu.
c. What occurs to a flock if a disease is reported and how would the C ity become
aware?
16. Dogs and chickens interaction
a. A suggested inclusion to the ordinance from other states is the protection that dogs
not be labeled "dangerous animals" should they attack or kill a chicken. C hickens are
natural prey to dogs and dogs are often labeled the primary predator for backyard
chickens.
17. Accidental roosters
a. C hicken owners can accidentally receive roosters as chicks. What is the timeframe
for correction if a rooster is found?
18. Other considerations?
19.
20.
B AC K G RO UND:
On February 23rd, 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
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
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:May 25, 2021
S E C T I O N:Other Business
Description:
Tentative Schedule for Next UA Committee Meeting
S taff Contact:
B reanna Vincent, Planning Department Assistant
Department / Division:
Community Development 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, J une 22, 2021.
B AC K G RO UND:
N/A
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A