HomeMy WebLinkAboutVIII-10 1st Reading Order Public Hearing Amend City Code to Allow Chickens in Residential Areas
City Council Memorandum
To: Mayor Fasbender & City Councilmembers
From: Justin Fortney, City Planner
Date: May 20, 2019
Item: 1st Reading\Order Public Hearing: City Code Amendment – Keeping of Chickens
Council Action Requested:
Consider 1st Reading and schedule a public hearing of the attached amendment to the following
Hastings City Code Chapters
- Animal Ordinance, 91 (currently no changes proposed to this section)
- Zoning, 155.07 (I) Keeping of chickens
- Zoning, 155.22, 155.24 & 155.36 affecting the R-1, R-1L, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts
Upon action by the City Council, the public hearing, 2nd reading, and final action would be
scheduled for the May 20, 2019 City Council Meeting. Approval requires a simple majority of
the City Council.
Background Information:
Please see the attached Planning Commission staff report from April 22 with updates, for
a complete background.
Financial Impact:
N\A
Advisory Commission Discussion:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the amendment at the April 22,
2019 meeting. They voted to recommend approval 3-2 (Martin & Alpaugh opposed)
One citizen spoke against the proposal citing staff time devoted to enforcement, work to keep
sanitary conditions, eight outbreaks of salmonella linked to backyard poultry, raising chickens is
more expensive than people think, and it may lead to additional animal requests. They added
that animals and farming is a rural land use and not one that should be done in a city.
Another citizen spoke in favor of the proposal, discussing the success of similar ordinances in
suburban and urban areas and countered some of the arguments made by a previous speaker.
They stated that people seek to raise backyard chickens as pets and like any pet, they take care to
keep them clean, healthy and safe. They said that Hastings has always identified itself as far
more of an agricultural community than all the other metro cities that already allow backyard
chickens and that the city of Minneapolis allows up to 30 chickens. They later mentioned that the
proposed fees are much higher than other communities’ for the same license.
VIII-10
The Commission discussed the proposal and had commissioners on both sides of the discussion.
Commissioner Siebenaler said this proposal would allow for local access to cage free organic
high-protein food source that are often donated to others in need. She added that as a realtor, she
and her colleagues are highly aware of which communities allow backyard chickens because
clients often bring it up as a requisite or an added bonus for a particular community. She
discussed that the required 25-foot setback for a neighbor’s house may be too restrictive in the
core of the city and added that there are already setback requirements for accessory buildings
that would still apply. Siebenaler said Hastings smallest lots are still much larger than the
smallest lots in St. Paul and Minneapolis where this has work for many years.
Commissioner Johnson said he believes there should be a minimum coop size requirement per
chicken to assure ethical treatment. He also mentioned the fee does seem high and hoped it could
be reconsidered in light of the reduced notification distance.
Commissioner Martin commented on the differences between the chicken and dog ordinances.
He also mentioned that chickens take daily care. He stated that the ordinance requirements
related to nuisances could be subjective and hard to regulate. Martin added that if people want
to raise chickens they can move out into the country.
Commissioner Alpaugh said he is concerned that if someone is raising chickens because they
cannot afford food, they may cut corners on operating in compliance with the ordinance. He also
commented that he is concerned there are some small lots in Hastings that cannot provide a
reasonable distance separation from their neighbors.
Council Committee Discussion:
The Planning Committee of the City Council (Chair Vaughan, Balsanek and Leifeld) met on
March 25, 2019 to discuss the proposal. Council members voted 2 to 1 (Vaughan opposed) to
bring forward a proposed amendment allowing backyard chickens. Council members
commented on some aspects of the existing ordinance that staff should review for changes.
(Meeting summary attached)
Attachments:
Draft Ordinance Amendment
Planning Committee of the City Council Meeting Summary- March 25, 2019
Planning Commission Memo with Updates - April 22
VIII-10
DRAFT
To be considered at the May 20, 2019 City Council Meeting
ORDINANCE NO. 2019- , THIRD SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS, MINNESOTA
AMENDING HASTINGS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS
IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Hastings as follows:
Chapter of the Hastings City Code –Zoning Code is hereby amended as follows (Additions to the
ordinance are underlined, and section numbers may be renumbered):
§ 155.07 APPLICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
(I) Keeping of chickens.
(1) Purpose. The purpose of this division is to provide a means, through the
establishment of specific standards and procedures, by which chickens can be kept in areas
that are principally not used for agricultural. It is recognized that the keeping of chickens is
clearly incidental and subordinate to the primary use and will not be allowed to negatively
affect the character, health, safety or general welfare of the surrounding area.
(2) Notice. Consult your Home Owners Association if applicable, as they may
prohibit the keeping of chickens or the improvements required by this ordinance to keep
them. Pursuant to City Code Chapter § 91.33 Cruelty to Animals, no person shall torture, kill,
neglect, injure or abandon any animal.
(3) Regulations. The keeping of chickens requires a license to be granted by the
City Council. The following conditions are requirements of the license:
(a) Allowed in specified zoning districts. as an accessory use to a
school or museum;
(b) No roosters permitted.
(c) Four chickens are allowed per parcel, and an additional four per
acre over the first acre. acre Chickens are prohibited on properties less than 1 acre; and
(d) Confinement restrictions. Chickens must be kept and confined as
follows:
1. Fenced area to keep the chickens contained on the
property at all times with a minimum area of 8 Square feet per chicken;
VIII-10
2. Food containers and Feeders must not be accessible to
rodents and wild birds;
3. Food storage containers must be kept from access by
rodents
4. Sanitary conditions must be maintained;
5. Fecal matter shall not accumulate in a manner that causes
odor;
6. Injury or annoyance to others. No chicken may be kept or
raised in a manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons or other animals on
other property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor or filth;
7. Impounding chicken. Any chicken at large or in violation of
this section may be impounded by the city, and after being impounded for 5 business
days or more without being reclaimed by the owner, may be humanely euthanized or
sold without notice. Failure to claim an impounded chicken may result in the
revocation of the license. A person reclaiming any impounded chicken shall pay the
cost of impounding and keeping the same; and
8. Covered enclosure (coop) must be provided to protect
chickens from the elements and predators. The required enclosure must meet the
following requirements:
(a) All accessory building regulations under § 155.05(D);
(b) Completely covered, secured and with a solid floor; and
(c) Setback 25 feet from homes on adjoining lots. (removed by the
Planning Commission)
(d) Any device used for heating must be rated for that use and properly
secured.
(e) The enclosure must provide at least four square feet per chicken.
(3) License. Keeping chickens requires a license to be granted by the City Council.
(a) Staff shall notify property owners within 350 200 feet of the subject
property at least seven days prior to the hearing Planning Commission meeting, at which a
VIII-10
recommendation will be made to the City Council for granting of a license. Failure of a
property owner to receive the notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth
within this code.
(b) The license shall not run with the land and shall not be transferable.
(c) If the license is approved by the City Council, staff shall inspect the
property to determine if all of the provisions of this section are met prior to issuing the
license.
(d) Licenses shall be issued for a 1 one year probationary period from the date
of City Council approval. The City Council shall consider issuance of a full license at the end of
the probationary period.
(e) Licenses shall be renewed every five years
(f) The City Council may revoke the license if the conditions of this
section is are not followed or if unresolved nuisances arise.
(g) An annual license and renewal fee shall be paid to the city prior to issuance
of the license. The annual license fee shall be established by ordinance ($100 and $50
respectively proposed). (Prior Code, § 10.14) (Am. Ord. 2007-05, 3rd Series, passed 9-4-2007;
Am. Ord. 2008-6, 3rd Series, passed 3-17-2008; Am. Ord. 2009-08, 3rd Series, passed 9-21-
2009; Am. Ord. 2010-08, 3rd Series, Passed 6-21-2010) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 155.22 R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENCE.
(B) Uses Permitted
(8) Keeping chickens pursuant to 155.07. (This automatically carries to R-1L and R-2)
§ 155.24 R-3 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENCE.
(B) Uses Permitted
(6) Keeping chickens pursuant to 155.07.
VIII-10
From the Animal Ordinance 91, no changes proposed:
§ 91.02 KEEPING.
It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal, not in transit, in any part of the city not
zoned for agricultural purposes.
(A) Exceptions.
(1) Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) subject to § 155.07.
(Prior Code, § 9.29) (Am. Ord. 2009-08, 3rd Series, passed 9-21-2009) Penalty, see
§ 10.99
(2) Temporary Keeping of Goats subject to §91. 35.
All other sections shall remain unchanged.
ADOPTED by the Hastings City Council on this 20th day of May, 2019
_________________________________
Mary Fasbender, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________________
Julie Flaten, City Clerk
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a true and correct copy of an ordinance presented to and
adopted by the City of Hastings, County of Dakota, Minnesota, on the 20th day of May, 2019, as
disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the office.
_____________________________________________
Julie Flaten, City Clerk
(SEAL)
This instrument drafted by:
City of Hastings (JJF)
101 4th St. East
Hastings, MN 55033
VIII-10
MEETING SUMMARY
Planning Committee of the City Council
March 25, 2019 – 6:00pm
Hastings City Hall Volunteer Room
Planning Committee Members Present: Chair Vaughan, Balsanek and Leifeld
Staff Present: Interim City Administrator Flaten, Community Development Director Hinzman, City Planner Fortney
1. Keeping of Chickens
Staff provided a summary of a request to consider an amendment to the City Code to allow the keeping of
chickens in residential areas. The Council voted against similar changes in 2009. Staff reviewed a
history of the 2009 request along with a draft version of a code amendment to allow chickens.
Committee members discussed the following:
Areas where chickens are currently allowed (Public Institution and Ag Districts).
The number of people asking to keep chickens; how broad is the support.
Actions and time committed by staff on chicken complaints.
Potential changes to the 2009 draft ordinance including:
o Prohibit the slaughter of chickens
o Provide notice that Home Owners Associations may prohibit chickens even if the city allows.
o Clarify rodent proof containers
o Reduce notification distance from 350 feet.
o Consider a multi-year license.
o Clarify setback of coops to structures on neighboring properties.
Action: Motion by Balsanek, Second by Leifeld to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow chickens in
residential areas for review by the Planning Commission. Upon vote taken ayes 2 (Balsanek and Leifeld),
nays 1 (Vaughan).
2. Planning Commission Meeting Schedule
Staff provided a summary of a proposal to reduce the number of regularly scheduled Planning
Commission Meetings from twice a month to once a month. The changes is being considered due to the
large number of cancelled Commission meetings. The Committee discussed the possibility of reducing
meetings during the winter when development activity is slower.
Meeting adjourned at 6:55pm
Meeting summary transcribed by John Hinzman
VIII-10
To: Planning Commission
From: Justin Fortney, City Planner
Date: April 22, 2019
Item: Ordinance Amendment #2019-09 – Amend Ordinances: 155.07, 155.22, 155.24 &
155.36- Keeping of Chickens
Planning Commission Action Requested
Hold a public hearing and review a proposed amendment to Hastings City Code Chapter 155.07
- Special Provisions, R-1 Low Density Residence, 155.22.5 – R1L Low Density Residence Large Lot,
155.22 – R-3 Medium High Density Residence, and 155.36 – PI (Public Institutional).
The amendment would continue to allow the keeping of chickens in the Public Institutional
district and only modify the existing ordinance slightly. The principle change proposed to the
ordinance would allow the potential use in most residential single-family districts of the city.
History
In 2009, the Dakota County Historical Society made a request for the City to modify the
ordinance to allow the keeping of chickens at the LeDuc Estate to interpret the agricultural
aspect of William G. LeDuc’s life. Additionally, residents had requested the proposed ordinance
be amended to allow chickens in residential areas. The Planning Commission had
recommended approval of the proposal and the City Council had only approved the use in the
Public Institutional district. There were some citizens who spoke for and against the proposal.
Since that time, the City has received one to three calls per year asking if keeping chickens is
allowed in the city. Recently, some residents have reached out to elected officials asking for the
matter to be reconsidered. The City Council Planning Committee met recently and authorized
staff to bring the request forward for consideration.
OTHER COMMUNITIES
Many Cities like Hastings adopted their first zoning codes in the first half of the 20th century and
limited traditional farm animals to agricultural districts. In the last two decades, many cities have
modified their ordinances to allow chickens in nonagricultural districts. This is for a variety of
reasons including recent immigration of diverse cultures, increased focus on local organic food,
concerns about the treatment of production chickens, as pets, or in the case of the LeDuc Estate,
as part of an interpretive museum. Staff has found that the number of cities that allow residential
chickens has quadrupled in the decade since this was last reviewed in Hastings. Some cities that
previously allowed residential chickens have gone back and reduced restrictions previously
Planning Commission Memorandum
VIII-10
imposed on them, mostly relating to renewals and neighbor approval. Maplewood created a new
set of ordinances aimed at embracing urban farming.
In 2009, staff found 45 major cities in the country that allow urban chickens. Now a decade later
staff has identified over 200 of them. Below are the first 67 from states A thru D:
Huntsville, AL
Birmingham
Mobile
Montgomery
Anchorage, AK
Juneau
Chandler, AZ
Gilbert
Glendale
Mesa
Peoria
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Tempe
Tucson
Little Rock, AK
Anaheim, CA
Bakersfield
Chula Vista
Elk Grove
Fremont
Fresno
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Huntington
Beach
Irvine
Lancaster
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orange
Pasadena
Rancho-
Cucamonga
Riverside
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Ana
Santa Clarita
Santa Rosa
Stockton
Sunnyvale
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orange
Pasadena
Rancho
Cucamonga
Riverside
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Ana
Santa Clarita
Santa Rosa
Stockton
Sunnyvale
Co. Springs, CO
Denver
Fort Collins
Longmont
Bridgeport, CT
New Haven
Washington, DC
Some local cities that allow chickens in residential zoning districts include:
Burnsville
Farmington
Inver Grove-
Heights
Mendota Heights
Eagan
West St. Paul
South St. Paul
Rosemount
Lakeville-(in
Process)
Dakota County
Edina
Richfield
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
Savage
Elko New Market
Otsego
Maplewood
Fergus Falls
Duluth
Orono
Eden Prairie
Golden Valley
St. Paul
Anoka
Rochester
Waconia
Shakopee
Monticello
Minnetonka
Roseville
Bayport
Ham Lake
Little Falls
Dawson
Frazee
Brainerd
Bloomington-(in
Process)
Otsego
All of the 100 most populated cities in the country allow backyard chickens, except Plano, TX and
Detroit, MI.
VIII-10
While there are some outliers that have virtually no restrictions or permits required. The
above cities regulate chickens with different ordinances, but the following are common
inclusions: Up to four or five hens, no roosters, some require 60%-80% of neighbor
approval, fenced containment, secure coops, administrative or Council permits, and
setbacks.
Feedback from cities that allow chickens in residential areas
Staff has spoken to staff from the following cities: Rosemount, Anoka, South St. Paul,
Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights, and Farmington.
They all reported they have not had any issues or complaints with the permitted chicken
owners. The have between three and fifteen permit holders with the average number
being about nine.
Knowing all their ordinances are different, staff asked them in general what they would
change about their ordinance. Most of them said nothing, but those with yearly renewals
said they regret that aspect. They said no issues are found during the renewal and it
creates an additional fee for the permit holders. When asked if they have had any
complaints, they all responded that there has been none.
HEALTH RISKS TO HUMANS
There are two know types of afflictions that could be carried by chickens and
transmitted to humans. The first is the Avian Flu and the second is bacteria. Neither
appears to be a risk to the community.
Avian Flu
There have only been a few cases reported in North America. The Avian Flu is not easily
transferred to humans or between humans. The CDC has released the following
statement: “In the United States there is no need at present to remove a flock of
chickens because of concerns regarding avian influenza. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture monitors potential infection of poultry and poultry products by avian
influenza viruses and other infectious disease agents.”
Bacteria
According to the CDC, the most common bacteria to be carried by chickens is
Salmonella, for dogs it is Campylobacter, but does include Salmonella. Both types of
bacteria have similar symptoms and risks; The result of contracting these bacteria
include abdominal cramps, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, chills, fever and/or headache. In
2018, there were 334 Salmonella infections possibly linked with backyard poultry in the
country compared to 113 Campylobacter infections possibly linked to contact with
puppies. Hand washing and sanitary conditions will generally stop the passage of
bacteria. The CDC says it is avoidable by properly handling and cooking food and
washing hands with soap after handling reptiles, birds, or after contact with pet feces.
VIII-10
Staff spoke to the Dakota County Public Health Department in 2009 and they said there
is no concern to public health from backyard chickens in the numbers proposed (4).
They added that owners should maintain the same hand washing practice as they would
for any pet.
Fire risks
Coop fires do occur nationally every year. Investigations find these fires are most often
linked to chickens knocking over heat lamps in the winter that were not securely
mounted or installed in a heat lamp rated device. Most chicken breeds no not need
supplemental heat, but drinking water must be kept from freezing. Heat lamps are the
most common method of warming the coop/ drinking water. However, in the last
several years, safer alternatives have been developed including, infrared pet heaters,
ceramic infrared heat emitters, flat panel chicken coop heaters, heated waterer bases
and heated waterers.
In 2018, the Hastings Fire Department responded to four structure fires in buildings
designed to contain animals: One of the fires – the cause was determined to be related
to a heating appliance for chickens, the other three building fires were too badly
damaged to rule an exact cause of origin, however, heating appliances for small animals
were suspected.
The 2017 MN State Fire Marshal’s Annual Report for fires at residential home properties
showed fixed and portable heating appliances account for 15% of fires and accounted
for 55% of dollar loss to residential properties.
Residential home fires in general account for 80% of fire deaths and 74% of fire injuries
nationally.
Applicants would be required to show their proposed chicken housing plan including any
heating devices.
Notification
A legal notice was published in the Hastings Star Gazette along with KDWA reporting on
the proposal. Staff has received one letter in support of the proposal (attached).
Attachments:
Letter of Support
VIII-10
From: Timothy Lowing
To: Justin Fortney
Subject: Chickens
Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:08:06 PM
I am writing in support of allowing residents to keep a small number of chickens in
residential areas, without unnecessary restrictions or permits. Small backyard flocks
play an important role in sustainable, organic gardening. They naturally provide
fertilizer, reduce weeds, and help to control damaging insects, including Japanese
beetles.
Although some have opposed the idea in the past, I don’t believe any of the fears
expressed will become an issue for the city. A small number of hens are not noisy. I
certainly don’t call the city whenever the neighborhood erupts with dogs barking at
night, so their soft purring and clucking is not likely to cause any problems. As for the
concerns with odor or attracting rodents, the small numbers will keep those issues in
check. With proper care and cleaning, they will generate less problems than dogs,
cats, and bird feeders.
I am hopeful that our new mayor and city council members look at this issue with an
open mind, and look to the success of so many other cities that have allowed chickens
for many years.
Sincerely,
Tim Lowing
VIII-10