The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 08.aJuly 2, 2014 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT JULY 7, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item No. Proposed Action Staff recommends denial of the following motion: Move to approve an ordinance amending Title 11 of the City Code (the Zoning Ordinance) and a summary ordinance for publication concerning the keeping of chickens on single family residential properties. Passage of this motion would allow the keeping of chickens on single family residential properties. Denial of this motion would result no change to the current Zoning Ordinance regulations that allow the keeping of chickens on farm property in agricultural districts. Overview The Planning Commission and Planning Department staff recommends denial of the attached ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow the keeping of chickens on single family residential properties. This amendment was discussed at the February 24th Council work session. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment at their June 19, 2014 meeting and unanimously recommended denial. Comments were made by four residents at the public hearing and written comments were received from 11 residents prior to the public hearing and from one other resident following the public hearing. Primary Issues to Consider Why did the Planning Commission recommend denial of this amendment? Why is the recommended City Council motion for approval of the amendment? Supporting Information Staff analysis of primary issues Ordinance amending Title 11 of the City Code and summary ordinance for publication June 19, 2014 draft Planning Commission meeting minutes and public comment submittals Jum, including a redlined version of the amendment Financial Impact: $ None Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Zoning Ordinance Notes: Zoning Ordinance Amendment July 7, 2014 City Council Meeting Page 2 Staff Analysis of Primary Issues • Why did the Planning Commission recommend denial of this amendment? As stated in their draft June 19th meeting minutes, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment for the following reasons: • Chickens should be kept on farms and not in single family neighborhoods. • Chickens are more appropriate for a country lifestyle. • Concerns were expressed regarding noise and odor. • Now is not the appropriate time to allow the keeping of chickens in single family neighborhoods. In the future when the city is built -out, the issue could be re -visited. • The opportunity to keep chickens exists today since approximately 12% of the land in the city is zoned agricultural. Planning Department staff concurs with the Planning Commission's reasons for recommending denial of this amendment. • Why is the recommended City Council motion for approval of the amendment? In the past, the City Attorney's office has recommended that motions be made in the affirmative. If the majority of Council members vote "No" on the motion to approve this Zoning Ordinance amendment, then the amendment would not pass and the current Zoning Ordinance regulations on the keeping of chickens would not change. If a Council member votes "No" on the amendment, they should state the reason for their "No" vote. 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: D. 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. 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. 5 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. Keeping 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 regulated 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 regulated 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 regulated by Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title. G 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. Keeping 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 regulated by Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title. Section 15. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 2014, by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota. ATTEST: CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: Matt Little, Mayor Charlene Friedges, City Clerk SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA, COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY CODE This ordinance amends Title 11 of the Lakeville City Code. Amendments have been made to the following sections of Title 11 (the Zoning Ordinance) concerning the keeping of chickens on single family residential properties: Title 11 (Zoning Ordinance) Chapter 35-3 (Keeping Animals) Chapter 50-11 (RS -1 District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 51-11 (RS -2 District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 52-11 (RS -3 District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 53-11 (RS -4 District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 54-11 (RS -CBD District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 55-11 (RSMH District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 56-11 (RST -1 District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 57-11 (RST -2 District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 58-13 (RM -1 District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 59-13 (RM -2 District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 61-11 (RH-I District Uses By Administrative Permit) Chapter 62-11 (RH-2 District Uses By Administrative Permit) A printed copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the City Clerk's regular office hours. Approved for publication by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota this 7t' day of July, 2014. CITY OF LAKEVILLE Matt Little, Mayor ATTEST: Charlene Friedges, City Clerk CITY OF LAKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 19, 2014 air Lillehei called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Half.he pledge of allegiance to the flag was given. Members esent: Linda Maguire, Vice Chair Bob Boerschel, Chair Brooks Lillehei, Paul Reuvers,-officio member Nic Stevens J. Members Absent: Drotning, Jason Swenson 4_` Others Present: Daryl Mo , Planning Director;,Associate Planner; Daniel Licht, The Planning Com ny; and Penny lrig, Recordi cretary 3. Approval of the Meeting Minutes The June 5, 2014 Planning Comm presented. The June 5, 2014 Planning C work presented. 4. Announcements were approved as minutes were approved as Planning Dire c , aryl Mora stated e-mails were distributed 'to,4he Planning Commission were rec ' d from r ents regarding the keeping chickens after the Plannin mmi is w -.out last Friday. Mr. th a July 3, 2 4 Planning Commission meeting will b . 5. Ci L Lakeville y�L' Chair MAIei opene4he public hearing to consider amendments to several chaptemtle 11 4 ing Ordinance) of the Lakeville City Code concerning: A. The k x kin &ckens on single family residential properties; B. Brew ob`: remises brewery,small micro - distillery, brewery, brewpub, distillery, micro distillery, farm winery, tap room, and tasting room uses in certain agricultural, commercial or industrial districts. Mr. Licht stated that the City Council asked for a review of the keeping of chickens in residential districts based on inquiries received from residents. Mr. Licht indicated that City staff presented a summary of regulatory issues and performance standards that have been adopted by other communities in the Twin Cities area to the City Council at their work session on February 24, 2014. The City Council directed staff to prepare a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment for consideration by the Planning Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, lune 19, 2014 Page 2 Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the survey information prepared by staff at their March 20, 2014 work session. Mr. Licht explained that currently 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. Mr. Licht summarized the results of Associate Planner Frank Dempsey's extensive research of nine cities that are similar to Lakeville with r ect to population and growth characteristics to see how those cities address eeping of chickens on r, single family residential properties. Mr. Dempsey's gs are described in Mr. Licht's June 12, 2014 planning report. E Mr. Licht stated that any change to the chickens must include regulations to pre being of the animals, and minimize properties. Mr. Licht reviewed the propos d Zoning keeping of chickens on single fit esidi June 12, 2014 planning report. Mr. Licht stated that Cit staff reco comment and make endat Chair. Lillehei d the he g to Ordinance a ment c rninc residential distric .Y ."U.,:yl, :)n' ordinance td w the keeping of sances, protect ealth and well - potential negative i t to nearby a, O . amendment for allowing the ntial erties, which are included in his IZommission receive public I. is for comment on the proposed Zoning eeping of chickens in single family Stewart, 1 5 Ital . nue ie thanked t ity fo I the research that went into the preparation of the Zen pages o , e draft amendment. He stated the residents will be safer se of this • He is thatf-rules for the keeping of chickens are already covered under the nu h06tion of the City Code. • He state �,6t chickens don't bark, bite or leave large piles of poop like dogs 9 and there are not seven pages of rules for the keeping of dogs. • He stated the easiest way to allow the keeping of chickens on single family residential properties is to remove chickens from the list of farm animals. • He felt that people should not have to give up their privacy for City inspections of their property just to have chickens. Bob Hagen, 17135 Isleton Avenue • Asked for a copy of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2014 Page 3 • He felt the size allowance for the chicken coop is too large. • He felt that anyone who wants to keep chickens should get approval from their neighbors. • He would like to see that the chickens are enclosed at night due to cats and raccoons that roam the neighborhoods at night. Sam Lucido, 16539 Imperial Circle that when he contacted City staff he was informed ;t allowed on single family residential properties and on a complaint basis. He then contacted his n o not object, began keeping chickens on his sin lily Lakeville (This is a violation of Zoning Ordin #r He handed a copy of his speech, which i es s p e, proposed ordinance, to the recording ary. They a part of the minutes from tonight's m James Braaten, 9665 Upper 2051n He stated that if enforcement is to into the ordinance. yl . He expressed coni be a limiting factor. Motion was m hearing at 6:27 Ayes: Maguire Nays: 0 14 Chair Lakeville. He stated hat chickens were not City enforcement was rs and, when they did residential property in ions). He has had two years of experience raising chickens in about the hereto as be written This could the public Discussion asked staff to respond to the size of the coop, the and whether neighbors should be required to give 3 of chickens. %=.yLicht stated at the intent of the maximum size of the structure was to tie it i the acce -ry building regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.y soak! that the City's Administrative Permit application fee is $100. This ap -to all Administrative Permits. He indicated that it is generally intended ® cover the cost of staffs time to process the permit. Mr. Morey commented that, if this Zoning Ordinance amendment is approved, an annual re -inspection fee is not proposed at this time. The Planning Commission had a discussion regarding neighbor consent as part of the Administrative Permit. Mr. Licht commented that the neighbor consent could tum into a variance application if even only one neighbor objected to the permit. Commissioner Boerschel asked what would happen if a new neighbor moved in and objected to the keeping of chickens after an Administrative Permit was approved by the City. Mr. Licht indicated that the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2014 Page 4 keeping of chickens would be grandfathered under the initial approved Administrative Permit. Mr. Morey stated that the City Attorney has in the past advised against establishing land use approvals that require neighbor consent. He stated that if the Planning Commission is considering adding neighbor consent to this ordinance amendment that they defer action on the amendment until after an opinion is obtained from the City Attorney's office. • Regarding the inspection/privacy concerns, Mr. Licht stated that City staff would need to determine compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements as part of an Administrative Permit application or a complaint. • Commissioner Reuvers stated he cannot because there is a place for chickens residential neighborhoods. He stated amendment, he recommends that the all and that neighbor consent be required. • Commissioner Maguire stated that chid lifestyle. She cannot support the a associated with the keeping of appropriate number of chickens th • Commissioner Boerschel stated the is in the long term best i erests of has received input that ing properties would be detri agree with this input. Hes d h to police t^prseddegul ns aprobably te. propertieborhoo a violatio ity ordin � and the pro ` K_ d ordin would property. e support proposed amendment and q ,Is on farms and not in if t e: =k Council approves the 3w;W limited to two chickens s are approp3 nt because of and because she Id beAbwed. for the country oise and smell nsure of the i mission has to look at what th unity. He stated that the City of c ns on single family residential e image akeville and that he tends to Khe t _ e City has the resources 0 ministrative Permit fee will s of single family residential t have chickens, including roosters, in is a lack of enforcement now. He stated je upon a neighbor's right to enjoy their 61 support the proposed amendment. 'llehei - a there WfiffVW time and place for urban chicken coops. tha cause 12% of land in Lakeville is currently zoned agricultur ere opportunity to keep chickens and other farm animals in the city to In - . #uture, when the city is built out, this issue could be Chair LillI P-1 explain fiat the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the propos`-amego , dint to the City Council and the City Council takes final action on the ame� is Mr. Morey indicated that the amendment will likely be scheduled for tha July 7, 2014 City Council meeting. Motion was made by Reuvers, seconded by Maguire to recommend to City Council denial of the Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow the keeping of chickens on single family residential lots by administrative permit, as presented. Ayes: Maguire, Boerschel, Lillehei, Reuvers. Nays: 0 Mr. Mayor, members of the Planning Commission, I have 2 years experience as a responsible urban chicken owner. Prior to obtaining chickens, I discussed the lack of ordinance with City of Lakeville staff, and verified that chickens were not permitted by City Code but that enforcement would be on a complaint basis. Based on that understanding, I discussed my interest in keeping chickens with my neighbors. Both neighbors raised no objections. I further encouraged them to notify me immediately if any concerns arose. Several weeks after my starting my chicken run and coop with 3 hens, I contacted both of my neighbors again to ask them if they had any concerns. Both neighbors were surprised as they hadn't even noticed that I'd started the chicken run. I have statements from both neighbors to provide. Also prior to my starting a chicken coop, I met with several dozen urban chicken coop owners in 6 metro area cities. I explored their practices, numbers and types of birds, design and construction of coops and runs, practices in all 4 seasons, concerns and issues. My opinion at that time, and still held today, was that responsible urban chicken management would not be a public nuisance and would not impinge on the rights of other's enjoyment of their property. And responsible urban chicken management could provide a good source of healthy organic food, great educational and enjoyment opportunities for children and adults, and chickens can be pets loved by all. My only recommendation to the members of this Planning Commission is that any ordinance be restricted to the following philosophy. That philosophy is: rPSr�-rS v 79u 1. All conditions in the ordinance should be necessary for protection off&publie. If any conditions are restrictive without truly protective value, those restrictions are not only inappropriate but are inconsistent with the values all residents of Lakeville should assume. 2. The conditions should be consistent with societal norms. A reasonable comparison of societal norms is acceptance of dogs. Like many in this room, l have experienced sleepless nights due to the barking of dogs, sometimes several houses awey. 1 too have experienced stepping in dog manure which is dramatically larger and more offensive than chicken manure. I too have experienced the risk to the safety of my children and myself due to the illegal but accepted practice of dogs running off leash in public areas? Based on this philosophy, and lots of practical experience with responsible urban chicken ownership as well as witnessing irresponsible chicken ownership, I have the following specific comments on the draft ordinance. Draft Ordinance comments: it should be noted that if I have not commented on a proposed provision, it can be assumed that feel the provision is at least acceptable. Section 2 Part C 2 b() maximum of 2 chickens I see no reason for this restriction. I have 3 hens with very little maintenance requirements and NO impact to neighbors. Our limitation of 3 hens was based solely on the number of eggs we wanted for our consumption. A reasonable limitation would be 4 or 5. Section 2. Part C.2.b(2) no roosters I agree with this restriction. Section 2 Part C 2 c (l)(b) coop shall not exceed 120 square feet Seems excessively large to me. W coop is 16 square feet and is spacious for my 3 birds. Based on the previous condition in C.2.c(1)(a), a 120 SF coop could house 60 birds. This condition is reasonable if it is consistent with requirements for dogs, as dogs are much louder and more intrusive than chickens. Section 2 Part C 2 c(7) phyacy fence screening required This condition is reasonable if it is consistent with requirements for dogs. This condition is unnecessary as chickens always go to sleep inside from dusk to dawn. I'd like to hear what evidence there is of noisy chickens at night. While unnecessary, I have no objection to this condition since it is irrelevant. Section 2 Part C 2 g(2) chickens not allowed in a residential dwelling Again what is the reason for this restriction? Why would it not apply to dogs? I know of several folks who raise chickens from young chicks and they are loved pets. I am an adjacent neighbor of Sam Lucido at 16359 Imperial Circle. Sam has had a small urban chicken coop for 2+ years. During this time, I have experienced no negative consequences from this chicken coop. Steve and Shari Kuefler 16549 Imperial Circle C4 'Z�4-p- I am an adjacent neighbor of Sam Lucido at 16359 Imperial Circle. Sam has had a small urban chicken coop for 2+ years. During this time, I have experienced no negative consequences from this chicken coop. J�-' � e 6 7- 4�� '-/3 �/ Fred and Sue Guzman 16536 Imperial Circle t�D.. da - � Brevig, Penny From: City of Lakeville website <webinfo@ci.lakeville.mn.us> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 11:34 AM To: pbrevig@lakevillemn.gov Subject: Chicken ordinance comments/questions Name: Mary Johnson Street Address: 20532 Jupiter Ave City: Lakeville Phone:9528955400 E-mail address: mary@mnpirtek.com Comments: Please do not change the ordinance to allow chickens on residential properties. Chickens are dirty, and if they get out of the chicken coop they will sometimes attack people. I have grandchildren that come over to my house and I do not want to worry about the neighbors chickens! I understand the concept of raising and producing your own food. Thus the reason for farmer's market and organic choices in supermarkets. If someone wants to raise chickens they should purchase property in a rural area that will allow their lifestyle choices. PLEASE VOTE NO Brevig, Penny From: City of Lakeville website <webinfo@ci.lakeville.mn.us> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 9:20 AM To: pbrevig@lakevillemn.gov Subject: Chicken ordinance comments/questions Name: Peggy Edwards Street Address: 7700 Upper 167th St W City: Lakeville 55044 Phone: E-mail address: -- var prefix ='ma' +'il' +'to'; var path ='hr' +'ef' +'='; var addy46432='asfc5pje' +'@'; addy46432 = addy46432 +'charter' +'.' +'net'; document.write('<a />'); document.write(addy46432); document.write("); //-->\n -- document.write(''); //--> This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. -- document.write("); //--> Comments: Chickens should only be allowed on properties that have at least an acre or more. I live in an area with smaller lots. I do not want to live next to chickens. Brevig, Penny From: City of Lakeville website <webinfo@ci.lakeville.mn.us> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 5:04 PM To: Brevig, Penny Subject: Chicken ordinance comments/questions Name: Keith Witte Street Address: 17276 Glencoe Ave City: Lakeville, 55044 Phone: E-mail address: -- var prefix ='ma' +'il' +'to'; var path ='hr' +'ef' +'_'; var addy28823='Witteone' +'@'; addy28823 = addy28823 +'msn' +'.' +'com'; document.write('<a />'); document.write(addy28823); document.write("); //-->\n -- document.write(''); //--> This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. -- document.write("); //--> Comments: After following the proposed chicken ordinance change I have some comments. Why such a exsorbanent fee to keep the chickens? In checking with Lakeviille PD/CSO they respond to very few complaints about chickens now. And yes there are chickens in Lakeville now. There are far more dog related calls and there is not an administrative charge for dogs. I just don't see a huge problem. If part of the cost is to cover the initial inspection, like a building permit, then put it in line with that cost. And then the annual renewal there after should be less. The four foot privacy fencing on top of the coop structure requirements seems restrictive. I would like to see the city approve an ordnance that alllows backyard chickens. But, this proposed ordnance is very restrictive and almost deters residence from having chickens. If that is your plan than why pass it? If the people want it then let then have it. This would never have come before the council if The People did't want it. Thanks you for your service to our community. Keith Witte Brevig, Penny From: City of Lakeville website <webinfo@ci.lakeville.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:18 PM To: Brevig, Penny Subject: Chicken ordinance comments/questions Name: Diane Henriksen Street Address: 10105 205th Street W. City: Lakeville Phone: (952) 469-5968 E-mail address: dihenri@aol.com Comments: Please do NOT pass this ordinance.... if certain people want to have chickens, they need to live in the country where there is plenty of open space. I grew up in a rural area and believe me, chickens are not something you want in a urban setting. Chickens are messy, smelly and can be a real nuisance. Think about the strong ammonia smell their waste has. People who live in the city do so for many reasons. One of those reasons is to get away from the smells that are produced by barnyard animals, and that does include chickens. Please NO NOT DO THIS Morey, Daryl From: Hawkins, Judi Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 10:32 AM To: Morey, Daryl Subject: FW: Chickens Judi Hawkins Executive Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk (952) 985-4403 -----Original Message ----- From: Kim Elsen [mailto:kimelsen8@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 201410:29 AM To: WEB Councillnfo Email Subject: Chickens Would love the opportunity to consider adding chickens - they do no harm to the image of Lakeville - having a city council that does not go with the will of the people does. 3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 763.231 .5840 Facsimile: 763.427.0520 TPCTPC@PlanningCo.com MEMORANDUM TO: Daryl Morey FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP DATE: 12 June 2014 Item No. 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, RH-1 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: GD. Farm Animals: 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 11-35-3.13 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. Keening of Chickens: 1. Administrative Permit Reguired: a. The keening 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 zonina district subject to approval of an administrative permit in accordance with Section 8 of this Title and the provisions of this Section. EXHIBIT A b. The application for an administrative permit shall include the inf rmation required by Section 11-8-3.B of this Title and the followina additional information: (1) The number of chickens to bekept. 2) A detailed sketch plan of the property drawn to scale includina, but not limited to. the location and dimensions of the coop and run. 3) Specifications for the coop and run includina, 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 chanae 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 e provided for the keeping of chickens in accordance with re uirements for accessory buildings in Sections 11-18-7 and fences in 11-21-5 of this Title and the following requirements: 1) Area: Lal -The interior floor space of the coop shall provide a minimum of two (2) square feet for each chicken authorized by the administrative �r (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 durabilitv 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 fencina or wire mesh or nettina 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 onlv 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 drainaae and utility easement. (d) The coop and run shall be located closer to the principal dwelling upon the property to which the administrative permit is issued than any other residential dwellina on an abutting property. 7) Screenina from all abuttina 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 watertiaht and vermin proof container. f. Waste: 1 The chicken coop and run shall be kept in a sanita and odor free condition, includina the reaular 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. a. Prohibited Activities: (1) No chicken shall be permitted to roam freely in any area not on thepremises 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 dwellina 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. 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 _includina the chicken coop and run. for which a permit is issued in accordance with this Section shall at all r asonable times be open to inspection by Community Service Officers. the Zonina Administrator or other Cit - official to determine compliance with the requirements of the permit. this Section or other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Citv Code relatina to Dublic health. safetv 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 reaulated 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. Keening 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 reaulated 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 reaulated 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 regulated by Section 11-35-3.0 of this Title. 6 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 reaulated 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 L' -Uv Matt Little, Mayor Charlene Friedges, City Clerk V W E V 0 W J d Q U- 0 V) O o� a O z O P D r V W I L EXHIBIT B An be y N•�},��++y N y o-0 r0 -0 C C p ¢ m N Q O O a �' N N Z O T O m A C c Z r- Z Z Z N O 1p w Ln Ny _ L •p m c _ d ma i o ¢>>t O L° CL z i o c T �c z o z z z z z z z z L �, z (] G Va 0):E � g N z Z Z p Z Z Z QE t5 'D 02 N L c ¢ f CJ O ¢ a ¢ a a a a a a a a z z z z z z z z z z z z N g N Cy.N-�a.+ p tm N a p C C 20 y 0 o GNJ ++ w X&L g oB w o _ 0 o ani pN Z Z 2 �� y L m Z �T> 'ZC N,0 Oj C C Q f0 C_ C y LLI 0 "' U) `8 � 2. Eo i\r O'i ,, L c c 1O 9iso o z z �2�m z c9 r oa a c ��c°� r-4 E �� a E.�m0E c 12 �v, � m r E m E Cl. 15 tic 90 W8 �g� �M I � g r o z >. = aa�T o z o z ff' BE 3 EcE159 cYc � z E X C_7_ C A Q O a 'c C L O� M N N g C_ C N Oe C U_ C yy 2 C C '0 C - - m N fh C- p E0 2 �pj V C Q y ,p0 V_ �C _ C T O z } fT0 •O Q1 L a'g'`° a`c Z O o O tG aX O 7 cE oLL m �� .� m ifs w E a� x f= E c L fu £ _� c o¢ o ¢ a a a a a a a a z z z z z z z z z z z z "jt ,� .y '-R: - a�. - - ":a.:. - s-'� � {'"a£=S Vi``'a - ,r .T` •f':'�.i, - .:.-�':`, -'�',"" :4 �!, ;:.a• •'. -_,. .,' ..k."- s'�:-�y�_, >' ,.: - ��;�- <�'..�-_ fix°-,�,_�": =�j _- ,�•' -'-:rf�e1� � � ��:'r `.. _ �',•1 Cis, �.'�`�"` `='d�"`�:' - �s- .. p an� 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\to rcement tool for staff. Davis agrees that people should be able to do what they want woperty to a certain extent but also agrees with staffs recommendation to allow this udministrative permit to help regulate. Boarders would be limited to two and must rt 30 days. Licht explained that the 30 day minimum provides a homeowner an oa non -family rental as a secondary income. Aked if would affect home trades and exchange programs and does not want the ato restri ese activities. He believes "boarding" needs to be more clearly defined in the ordinance. Licht sired that other provisions of the zoning ordinance exempt exchange programs from this amenditnt. 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\proposedord' ons could be added. Mr. Mielke asked if an exchange student or a situation where tives compensation would be defined as a boarder. Licht believes the exceptiore in the ordinance allows for that; however, an additional exception could be add Council directed staff to continue to review and refine the language of thi ceand to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to review revisioning 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. Trails and A=ector acePnParks an Brett Altergott 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 ec. Committee to address issues that are of importance to Council. Planning Commmion Work Semm Minutes - Marsh 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 24th 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 Re 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@hotmaii.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, 20141:36 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(a)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 [mailto:webinfoOci.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.laura(a),gmail.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, 20141:53 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:braatenhomeCc)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[mailto:karen.brett.benson@email.comj Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 3:54 PM To: WEB Councilinfo 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