HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05A3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100
Anoka, MN 55303
Phone: 763.231 .5840
Facsimile: 763.427.0520
TPCTPC,«, Plan ni ngCo. com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Daryl Morey
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 12 June 2014
RE: Lakeville — Zoning Ordinance; Chickens in Residential Districts
TPC FILE: 135.01 — 14.01
BACKGROUND
The City Council has initiated a review of the keeping of chickens in residential districts
based on a number of requests received by Councilmembers as well as the Planning
Department. Whether it is a desire to provide local sustainable agriculture or a desire to
raise hens as pets, there has been an increase in the number of people expressing
interest in keeping some farm animals on their single family home properties. Some
cities have seen increased interest from the public in allowing some farm animals,
including chickens, bees and other farm animals for pets or as a means of producing
food on single family residential lots. Most requests related to chickens are for four to
six hens. City staff presented a summary of regulatory issues and performance
standards adopted by other Twin Cities Metropolitan Area communities to the City
Council at their work session on 24 February 2014. The City Council directed that staff
prepare a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment for consideration by the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the survey information prepared by
staff at a work session on 20 March 2014 in advance of a formal process to amend the
Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibits:
A. Draft Zoning Ordinance amendment
B. Comparison Table of Other Cities Regulations
C. 24 February 2014 City Council work session minutes
D. 20 March 2014 Planning Commission work session minutes
E. Public comments recently submitted to the City
ANALYSIS
Existing Regulation. The Zoning Ordinance defines chickens as farm animals which
are allowed to be kept only on farm properties in the AP, Agricultural Preserve District,
RA, Rural Agricultural District or the RAO, Rural Agricultural Overlay District.
Community Survey. Associate Planner Frank Dempsey completed extensive research
of nine cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area that are adjacent to or similar in
character to Lakeville in regard to population and growth characteristics. His research
shows there are a variety of rules and regulations pertaining to the keeping of chickens
in residential areas. Of the nine cities studied, three do not allow the keeping of
chickens outside of rural residential or farm properties. Burnsville, Farmington and
Eagan now allow chickens in residential areas subject to minimum coop and run design
standards as well as requiring permits and regular inspections by city animal control
officers. None of the cities, except Eden Prairie, allow the keeping of bees (apiaries) on
residential zoned properties.
The cities that allow chickens in residential areas allow them by either an interim use
permit (requiring a public hearing), administrative permit or licensing (staff approvals) or
requiring no permit at all. Permits help ensure that persons keeping chickens submit
plans and provide confirmation that they understand the city's regulations for keeping
the animals. The non -permit approach relies solely on enforcement on a complaint
basis. Staff contacted the six cities that allow the keeping of chickens finding that none
of those cities have issued more than a small number of permits since amending their
ordinance to allow chickens in residential areas. None claimed any significant
complaints by neighbors in those cities.
Draft Amendment. The Minnesota Department of Health does not consider back yard
chicken flocks to be a health risk provided that the chickens are raised in a clean,
isolated and well maintained environment. Any change to the Zoning Ordinance to
allow the keeping of chickens must include regulations to prevent nuisances, protect the
health and well-being of the animals, and minimize any potential negative impact to
nearby properties. Based on the research prepared by Associate Planner Frank
Dempsey and discussion by the City Council and Planning Commission at separate
work sessions, City staff has drafted a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment for
allowing the keeping of chickens on single family lots as follows:
■ Keeping of chickens upon a single family property would be allowed by
administrative permit within the RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -4, RS -CBD, RSMH, RST -
1, RST -2, RM -1, RM -2, RHA and RH-2 Districts.
■ The administrative permit would be valid for one year and eligible for renewal
with an application submitted 30 days prior to expiration of the current permit.
■ The owner of the chickens must be an occupant of the property to which the
administrative permit is issued.
2
■ A maximum of two chickens are allowed and roosters are prohibited. The
chickens must be kept within a coop from sunset to sunrise to prevent attracting
predators and minimize nuisance noise issues.
■ A coop constructed out of wood materials with a minimum of two square feet of
area per chicken is required with a maximum size of 120 square feet. An
attached run enclosed by fencing must also be provided with a minimum of five
square feet of area per chicken and maximum area of 20 square feet.
■ The coop and run must be in a rear yard, setback 20 feet from all lot lines,
located closer to the owner's dwelling than any other dwelling, not within a
drainage and utility easement, and screened from view of adjacent properties.
■ Feed and waste must be maintained so as not to cause nuisance conditions,
attract vermin or create any other risk to public health safety and welfare.
■ Chickens cannot be kept for breeding purposes, eggs cannot be sold and the
chickens cannot be slaughtered.
■ The provisions include an inspection requirement allowing the City Community
Service Officer, Zoning Administrator or other official access to the property to
verify compliance.
CONCLUSION
A public hearing has been noticed for 19 June 2014 to consider amending the Zoning
Ordinance to allow keeping of chickens on single family residential lots by administrative
permit. City staff recommends the Planning Commission receive public input and make
a recommendation to the City Council.
C. Steven Mielke, City Administrator
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
3
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY CODE
RELATED TO THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 11-35-3.0 of the Lakeville City Code (Animals) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
CO. Farm Animals:
1. The keeping of farm animals in numbers or conditions not defined
as an "animal feedlot" is an allowed activity on all farm property and
as may be allowed by Section 11-35-3.B and 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
2. Farm animals may not be confined in a pen, feedlot or building
within one hundred feet (100') of any residential dwelling not owned
or leased by the farmer.
3. Uses defined as animal feedlots shall be regulated by section 11-
35-5 of this chapter.
Section 2. Section 11-35-3 of the Lakeville City Code (Animals) is
hereby amended to add the following provisions:
C. Keeping of Chickens:
1. Administrative Permit Required:
a. The keeping of chickens (defined as fowl of the genus Gallus
and species Gallus domesticus) may be allowed upon a
property developed with a single family dwelling within a
residential zoning district subject to approval of an
administrative permit in accordance with Section 8 of this
Title and the provisions of this Section.
1 EXHIBIT A
b. The application for an administrative permit shall include the
information required by Section 11-8-3.13 of this Title and the
following additional information:
(1) The number of chickens to be kept.
(2) A detailed sketch plan of the property drawn to scale
including, but not limited to, the location and
dimensions of the coop and run.
(3) Specifications for the coop and run including, but not
limited to, dimensions, exterior finish materials and
construction methods.
(4) Any other information the Zoning Administrator deems
necessary to evaluate the application for compliance
with the requirements of this Section and the City
Code.
C. An administrative permit approved in accordance with this
Section shall be valid for one (1) year from the date of
issuance. An application for permit renewal shall be filed
not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the
current permit.
d. An administrative permit approved in accordance with this
Section shall not be transferred to another owner upon the
sale change in occupancy of the property to which it is
issued and shall not be transferred to another property.
2. Performance Standards:
a. The owner of the chickens must occupy the premises for
which the administrative permit is issued.
b. Chickens:
(1) The maximum number of chickens allowed to be kept
on a property shall be two (2) chickens.
(2) The keeping of roosters is prohibited.
C. A structure for housing the chickens herein defined as a
coop and outdoor exercise area herein defined as a run shall
be provided for the keeping of chickens in accordance with
requirements for accessory buildings in Sections 11-18-7
2
and fences in 11-21-5 of this Title and the following
requirements:
(1) Area:
(a) The interior floor space of the coop shall
provide a minimum of two (2) square feet for
each chicken authorized by the administrative
permit.
(b) The coop shall not exceed one hundred twenty
(120) square feet in area.
(2) The exterior finish of the coop shall be wood provided
that the surfaces are finished for exterior use or the
wood is of proven durability for exterior use, such as
cedar, redwood or cypress.
(3) The coop shall be winterized so as to provide
protection for the chickens during winter.
(4) A run with sides and overhead fully enclosed by
fencing or wire mesh or netting with a minimum area
of five (5) square feet and maximum area of twenty
(20) square feet per chicken authorized by the
administrative permit shall be provided and attached
to the coop so as to provide controlled access
between the coop and run.
(5) The construction of and materials used for the coop
and run must be adequate to prevent access by
predators and vermin.
(6) Location:
(a) The coop and run shall be located only within a
rear yard as defined by this Title.
(b) The coop and run shall be setback a minimum
of twenty (20) feet from any lot line.
(c) The coop and run shall not be located within a
drainage and utility easement.
(d) The coop and run shall be located closer to the
principal dwelling upon the property to which
3
the administrative permit is issued than any
other residential dwelling on an abutting
property.
(7) Screening from all abutting residentially zoned
properties shall be provided in the form of a privacy
fence with a minimum height of four (4) feet and
subject to Section 11-21-5 of this Title.
d. Chickens shall be confined inside of a coop from sunset to
sunrise each day to prevent attracting predators and
minimize nuisance noise.
e. All feed for chickens shall be stored inside of an enclosed
structure or within a watertight and vermin proof container.
f. Waste:
(1) The chicken coop and run shall be kept in a sanitary
and odor free condition, including the regular and
frequent removal, storage in a leak proof container
and proper disposal of any accumulated feces or
waste that may create a hazard to public health,
safety and welfare.
(2) Feces, discarded feed and dead chickens may not be
composted or buried upon the property.
g. Prohibited Activities:
(1) No chicken shall be permitted to roam freely in any
area not on the premises to which an administrative
permit has been issued in accordance with this
Section.
(2) Chickens shall not be kept or allowed at any time
within a residential dwelling or accessory structure
other than a coop allowed by this Section.
(3) Eggs from chickens kept upon the property to which
the administrative permit is issued are for personal
use and consumption by the occupants and shall not
be offered for sale or sold.
(4) The slaughtering of chickens upon a residential
property is prohibited.
4
(5) Chickens shall not be kept for breeding purposes.
3. Administration and Enforcement:
a. The administrative permit shall be administered in
accordance with Section 11-8-3.D of this Title.
b. The premises, including the chicken coop and run, for which
a permit is issued in accordance with this Section shall at all
reasonable times be open to inspection by Community
Service Officers, the Zoning Administrator or other City
official to determine compliance with the requirements of the
permit, this Section or other provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and City Code relating to public health, safety and
welfare.
Section 3. Section 11-50-11 of the Lakeville City Code (RS -1 District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
G. Keeping of chickens as regulated by Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 4. Section 11-51-11 of the Lakeville City Code (RS -2 District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
G. Keeping of chickens as regulated by Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 5. Section 11-52-11 of the Lakeville City Code (RS -3 District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
G. Keeping of chickens as regulated by Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 6. Section 11-53-11 of the Lakeville City Code (RS -4 District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
G. Keeping of chickens as regulated by Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 7. Section 11-54-11 of the Lakeville City Code (RS -CBD
District Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
F. Keeping of chickens as regulated by Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 8. Section 11-55-11 of the Lakeville City Code (RSMH District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
F. Keening of chickens as regulated by Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 9. Section 11-56-11 of the Lakeville City Code (RST -1 District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
G. Keeping of chickens accessory to a single family dwelling reaulated by
Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 10. Section 11-57-11 of the Lakeville City Code (RST -2 District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
G. Keeping of chickens accessory to a single family dwelling reaulated by
Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 11. Section 11-58-13 of the Lakeville City Code (RM -1 District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
G. Keeping of chickens accessory to a single family dwelling regulated by
Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 12. Section 11-59-13 of the Lakeville City Code (RM -2 District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
G. Keeping of chickens accessory to a single family dwelling reaulated by
Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 13. Section 11-61-11 of the Lakeville City Code (RH-1 District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
F. Keening of chickens accessory to a single family dwelling regulated by
Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 14. Section 11-62-11 of the Lakeville City Code (RH-2 District
Uses by Administrative Permit) is hereby amended to add the following
provisions:
F. Keeping of chickens accessory to a single family dwelling reaulated by
Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title.
Section 15. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED this
of Lakeville, Minnesota.
ATTEST:
day of , 2014, by the City Council of the City
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
BY:
Matt Little, Mayor
Charlene Friedges, City Clerk
U)
LU
V
LU
J
CL
Q
LL
O
V)
0
Q
CL
O
z
1—
g
V
LU
ct
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT B
o
46
N
}
:3 upp}
Z
C C
a 0
z
L
z
Z
Z
Cgp
N C
N
C
�m
C
y=
0
lA
O
ar
mM
aa
O Q�� p�
t
O
2
� •+
CL
Z�
V
O
2 -
Tr C
C O
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
L
z
2
CL
IW
c_
N
C
N
Z
Z
zj6
O
z
z
Z
M "
�i._ O
r0 1� OO
CE p
QU
.•r
N �
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
mNNOC
N
C}�yy�j
0
'OC _
N
OAC
O r �j
N
C O
O
O
O
X L$
O1
p �+ N
O
O p N �i
C
}
0
z
z
2 TI: =IT
'��
Z
�,�$
N�
,�
g
a o c
g 0.0,
cc
,�
c,Eo
�,�°Z
c
W
a E
-6
g
�i
$
v
°Jity
o
a
y
°�'
c c
Z
z
�' 2 w
z
E.E ��
�o
y
a
o
Nm�°�
n�'i�aci
��b'��i
E
c
c Q
..
C tj -0 M
c ,r
C C W
a
Ln
o
E'Ca
L
C
z
2w c
2m�a°�
z
z
x
c
0
N
0
8
E Ez
,��.Q
Z
o c c
o
�i
��
E
O.
C.N
m
a
V
O
c o
�/j �j Of
C
g
C
$ C
C0
in
O
wY3
N O C tN
c aoi f �
u
__
•6 '1
ya
fv1
Z
c2 y
-
2 O CL �' C
Z
p
8�
8Ad
O
E
o
y
,�
,
x
E
m oC
.r E
c
c
k�
=
O
a
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
-,s
sw'k
'-
' - ,
+�'•
�:
� '_
s;s;.- _
'�-�'4
- - k,
_tJ, „rti: e.t�'-t.ib
•�. .a.:i.',�r ,.
. <�,', �.{
,�ti :��4 _'yr..'•�<:'te4
t
�''t :�f}
--'t; �'�•c
- - _ -_ 3
- :•iit! ':
_ - __
_
,✓:' .'-�M�h..j .
�`�''
''eS ._t�
�� _
;h`- -a"�.: s,�,
"nF X 'X.-
- 3:'P�..;.8. _
-
'1•'" -
.?�-(5..
f;�5
,�
is"�
-
-
• ��s
�
�'�.}. _ i �zRX-{'`'�Fl ..r b"'"'.,
::<,'. JXw'-t �'T<6
k.
•moi_
4. _F4
+�.r", 1' -'_YD
`-f v F_
`,�• -t"�; r._
``.-
r3K
'd.i -.
S��_ _
^�.e '.±t,
t�;-
-
o-- r _- -.+e _
_
; rig "5.
•'tel
'>-.•• _jE."`1i_
_ _
e'S}
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT B
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page -5-
an Licht of The Planning Company stated that the requirement for an administrative permit
a an enforcement tool for staff. Davis agrees that people should be able to do what they want
with eir property to a certain extent but also agrees with staffs recommendation to allow this
use wi administrative permit to help regulate. Boarders would be limited to two and must
rent for at t 30 days. Licht explained that the 30 day minimum provides a homeowner an
opportunity a non -family rental as a secondary income.
Anderson asked if ' would affect home trades and exchange programs and does not want the
amendment to re tri ese activities. He believes "boarding" needs to be more clearly defined
in the ordinance. Licht s ed that other provisions of the zoning ordinance exempt exchange
programs from this amen t. Anderson asked for information about other cities' ordinances.
LaBeau asked about short-term to rary housing needed for people in transit. This would only
apply if the room was being turned o r in less than 30 days. Morey stated that the definition of
"family" might also come into the situa in rental situations; however the ordinance's intent is
to not allow the commercial rental of resi tial homes which would impact existing neighbors.
Little stated there are several scenarios that don t and the ordinance is too broad. He would
support incidental rental of single-family homes bu of as a consistent long-term commercial
business. Anderson believes the current ordinance sh d be sufficient to not allow nightly
rental of single family homes when it is already restricte B&Bs in proper zoning with a CUP.
He believes the amendment will create unintended consequ ces. Swecker supports the
amendment and believes it resolves unintended consequence,es other language in the
ordinance, and provides additional protection for the homeowne d the neighbors.
Davis stated that it is not the intent to eliminate foreign exchange or hoN trades, but to provide
a stronger enforcement tool; however, he believes that further definition clarifications could
be added. Mr. Mielke asked if an exchange student or a situation where the ' y receives
compensation would be defined as a boarder. Licht believes the exception for fo r care in the
ordinance allows for that; however, an additional exception could be added.
Council directed staff to continue to review and refine the language of the proposed or ' ce
and to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to review revisions before bringing
amendment back to Council.
6. Chickens in Residential Zones
Council received information from Associate Planner Frank Dempsey outlining the question of
allowing residents to have chickens in an urban area, a topic which has come up for discussion
EXHIBIT C
Council Work Session Minutes
February 24, 2014
Page -6-
several times previously. Farm animals including chickens, goats, horses, bees, etc. are currently
only allowed in agricultural zoned areas, which are generally larger in size and where there is less
potential to impact a neighborhood. The Planning Commission's most recent discussion about
this was in 2011 when they reviewed several zoning ordinance items based on feedback from the
developers' forum. At that time the Planning Commission chose not to recommend a change.
Mayor Little stated that he has received requests to allow chickens in residential areas mostly as a
learning tool for children, as pets, and for urban farming. An online poll indicated stronger
support for allowing chickens, and the Mayor would support allowing up to two chickens - hens
only, not roosters - with some guidelines.
Council Member Anderson would also support up to two chickens, with standards including
eggs being for personal consumption only and not for commercial sale. Council Member
Swecker asked if there are regulations on rabbits or ducks. Morey stated that ducks are poultry
and would be a farm animal, but rabbits could be a domestic animal if contained in the principle
structure. Swecker would support a maximum two chickens (hens) and the owner must reside
on premises and produce is for their own consumption only. Council Member LaBeau is
concerned about use of police resources to resolve neighbor conflicts created by dogs and
chickens. Little wants the ordinance to be written to ensure that chickens do not infringe on
neighbors' rights to enjoy their property, including standards for cleanliness and setbacks.
Council Member Davis is not in favor of chickens in residential areas and believes it would open
up requests for other considerations and would be difficult to enforce. Council Member LaBeau
will discuss this with communities which have similar ordinances.
Council directed staff to bring this item back for discussion at a future Planning Commission
work session for the purpose of drafting performance standards, restrictions, etc. and return to
Council, possibly at the April work session.
Council Member Anderson signed off from the meeting.
=:::PTrails and
ar-
ks BreAltergott stated that at the January 21 meeting Council
requested an opportunity o issues or concerns prior to the Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources Committee's review o ails and Open Space Plan. Dan Licht of
The Planning Company has been working with the commi on the update. Council
is being asked to provide comments and concerns to be used as a basis for t i PC.
Committee to address issues that are of importance to Council.
Planning Commission Work Seamon MIndes - Manch 20, 2014
Chickens in Residential Districts
Page 2
Frank Dempsey indicated that City staff has received numerous requests over the past
few years to allow the keeping of chickens in residential zoning districts. He stated that
the City Council discussed allowing chickens in residential districts at their February 20
work session and referred the item to the Planning Commission for discussion. The
City Council's intent is that City staff will draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
allow chickens in residential zoning districts for consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council. He stated that chickens are defined in the Zoning
Ordinance as a farm animal and are allowed on farm properties in agricultural zoning
districts. He described the research he has conducted of other area cities that are
similar to Lakeville (the research findings are listed in Mr. Dempsey's March 14"' memo
to the Planning Commission).
Six of the seven Planning Commission members are opposed to allowing chickens in
residential districts because it could create land use conflicts. They stated that the
keeping of chickens is more appropriate in a rural setting than it is in an urban area.
They indicated that Lakeville is unique and they don't think we should allow chickens in
residential districts just because some of other cities are allowing them.
Commissioner Grenz stated if chickens are allowed in residential zoning districts the
performance standards should include a minimum setback from an adjoining house as
well as coop size and setbacks.
Daryl stated that there has been increased interest in the establishment of
brewpubs, oms and micro -breweries in the Twin Cities area since state legislation
was passed in allowing these types of uses. The legislation allows breweries to
sell pints of beer for sumption on the premises instead of the beer wholly being
shipped out for consume off the premises. He stated that these uses combine the
manufacturing of beer, esse an industrial use, with the on-site sale of beer, with or
without food, which is more of a U use. Since brewpubs and taprooms are not
specifically currently identified in the ng Ordinance, Planning Department and
Community and Economic Development artment staff are recommending the City
consider an ordinance amendment to address se uses before a request is received
from a potential business to locate in Lakeville. P ing Commission comments:
• Concern was expressed about the potential for odo m the beer
manufacturing process to impact adjacent residential us
• Concern was expressed about potential accessory uses, like bands, and
their compatibility with adjacent residential uses.
• The use seems more appropriate when food sales are included (like ite City
in Eagan). Suggested using kitchen size or number of seats as a food se
requirement instead of gross sales receipts when allowed in a commercial zo
district.
EXHIBIT D
Dempsey, Frank
From: Brevig, Penny
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 1:35 PM
To: Dempsey, Frank
Subject: FW: Chicken ordinance comments/questions
Penny Brevig
Planning & Economic Development Administrative Assistant
(952) 985-4420
-----Original Message -----
From: City of Lakeville website[mailto:webinfo@ci.lakeville.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 9:52 AM
To: Brevig, Penny
Subject: Chicken ordinance comments/questions
Name:
Street Address: 20755 Junco Trail
City: Lakeville
Phone:
E-mail address: daleandjeanne@hotmail.com
Comments: I'm just weighing in on this because I think it will hurt our city's image. Please don't allow
chickens on single family home properties unless there is a certain acreage available to separate from
neighbors... like maybe 2.5 acres. Protect Lakeville's image!
EXHIBIT E
Dempsey, Frank
From: Brevig, Penny
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 1:36 PM
To: Dempsey, Frank
Subject: FW: Chicken ordinance comments/questions
Penny Brevig
Planning & Economic Development Administrative Assistant
(952) 985-4420
-----Original Message -----
From: City of Lakeville website[mailto:webinfo@ci.lakeville.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 3:46 PM
To: Brevig, Penny
Subject: Chicken ordinance comments/questions
Name: Pam Arntson
Street Address: 16757 Fieldcrest Avenue
City: Farmington, 55024
Phone:
E-mail address: pamarntson@msn.com
Comments: Even though I have a Farmington mailing address, I am a resident of Lakeville. (We live
in what I call the Bermuda Triangle of Lakeville - ISD 196 schools, AV phone number exchange,
Farmington mailing address, but City of Lakeville for taxes, etc.) I am all for legalizing chickens in
Lakeville. Please pass the amendment to allow single family homes to have backyard chickens.
From: Web Inquiry [mailto:webinfo@ci.lakeville.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 1:20 PM
To: Laun, Barbara
Subject: Question/comment sent from the City website
Name: Mamie VonWald
E-mail: marnievwAfrontiernet.net
Phone: 952-220-4018
Your message: Please allow backyard chickens in Lakeville. Thank you.
Barbara Laun
Web Communications Specialist
(952) 985-4406
Morey, Daryl
From: Laun, Barbara
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 3:38 PM
To: Morey, Daryl; Dempsey, Frank
Subject: FW: Question/comment sent from the City website
FYI...
From: Web Inquiry (ma iIto: webinfo@ci.lakeville.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 1:42 PM
To: Laun, Barbara
Subject: Question/comment sent from the City website
Name: Laura Ubl
E-mail: ubl.lauraagmail.com
Phone:
Your message: I AM CONTACTING YOU TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I DO NOT WANT CHICKENS
IN LAKEVILLE. I think the only people who want them didn't grow up with them. They're dirty, noisy (hens
make a lot of noise too) and when they get into my neighborhood, I will move. I have lived and payed taxes
here for 27 years. There are other ways to teach children about productive animals. These are animals, not
toys.
Barbara Laun
Web Communications Specialist
(952) 985-4406
Dempsey, Frank
From: Jim McCarty <jimm535674@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 2:31 PM
To: Morey, Daryl
Cc: Dempsey, Frank
Subject: concern for bees and chickens
As discussed... I strongly advocate the promotion of limited beekeeping and the allowance of Chickens(no
roosters fine)in the city of Lakeville.
Please add me to the list of " concerned residents" and keep me informed of discussions and or forums.
I would be happy to help out in any way needed.
Jim McCarty
cell 952-454-0403
Morey, Daryl
From:
Hawkins, Judi
Sent:
Tuesday, March 04, 2014 1:53 PM
To:
Mielke, Steven; Morey, Daryl
Subject:
FW: Chickens in Lakeville
Judi Hawkins
Executive Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk
(952) 985-4403
From: Sue Braaten [mailto:braatenhome@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 1:25 PM
To: WEB CouncilInfo Email
Subject: Chickens in Lakeville
Dear Lakeville City Council,
Thank you so much for taking the time to discuss backyard chickens in Lakeville. I am thrilled that you are considering to
allow us to keep up to two hens. While this is a great opportunity for our children to learn more about where their food
comes from and how to properly care for chickens. Two hens are not enough to benefit a small family with their eggs.
Two hens depending on their breed would supply at most about 5-6 eggs per week. So about enough for one breakfast
per week. And in the fall and winter months it would be even less, maybe 1-2 eggs a week. I know my family of five uses
about 2 dozen eggs a week.
Also chickens are very social animals. They like to be around other chickens. If you only had two birds and one fell ill or
died, it would leave your remaining bird all alone. It is my recomendation that Lakeville allow up to five hens.( same as
Burnsville ordinance) This would give indviduals and families the opportunity to produce the amount of eggs they
need. And as stated in the Thisweek paper, there have been no complaints on this number of birds in Burnsville.
Again thank you for your consideration on this issue.
Sincerely,
Sue Braaten
Morey, Daryl
From:
Hawkins, Judi
Sent:
Monday, March 03, 2014 4:03 PM
To:
Mielke, Steven; Morey, Daryl
Subject:
FW: Chickens
Judi Hawkins
Executive Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk
(952) 985-4403
-----Original Message -----
From: Karen Benson fmailto:karen.brett.benson@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 3:54 PM
To: WEB Councillnfo Email
Subject: Chickens
Hello Council Members,
I read the article in the Lakeville Sun/Thisweek newspaper regarding the possible legalization of chickens in residential
neighborhoods and am concerned. I live on Woodland Road right behind Red Fox Tavern. My neighbor has chickens- lots
of them. They are noisy and smelly and dirty. Our neighbor also has roosters. We have been working with Scott County
zoning department to take care of this violation for over a year. They get rid of a couple roosters, hide the rest, hatch
more...
the understaffed with bigger problems county people do not check on them, cycle continues, etc. My concern is that
this is only one family breaking the rules and no one is stopping them. Our city is busy enough with dangerous crime -
why add one more thing to their plate. I would be so upset if I lived on less than an acre land and had to smell and hear
chickens next door- gross. I am dealing with this and have over 2 acres. If people want to raise farm animals they should
live on land zoned agricultural. Mayor Little stated "the policy should be strict enough so neighbors do not infringe on
each other's ability to enjoy their property." Sorry- you cannot regulate foul odor and hen's clucking. Council Members
Colleen La Beau and Bart Davis you are right to oppose- please stand up for me and my neighbors that do not live on
agricultural land and do not want to.
Thank you for your time,
Karen Benson
952-836-5675
Lakeville, MN