Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIX-1 & X-B-1 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: Resolution and Hold Public Hearing: City Code Amendment – Keeping of Chickens Council Action Requested: Consider 2nd Reading and hold 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 Approval requires a simple majority of the City Council. Background Information:  Please see the attached Planning Commission staff report from April 22 with recent updates, for a complete background.  At the May 6th City Council meeting additional information was requested relating to the number of inquiries, realtor feedback, administrative review, and notification. This information has been added to the attached staff report under the highlighted headings. 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. IX-1 & X-B-1 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 on a property. They later mentioned that the proposed fees are much higher than other communities for the same license. The Commission discussed the proposal with 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 from 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 worked 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  Citizen Letter of Support  Planning Committee of the City Council Meeting Summary- March 25, 2019  Planning Commission Memo with Updates - April 22 IX-1 & X-B-1 DRAFT 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 IX-1 & X-B-1 (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; 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. IX-1 & X-B-1 (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 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. IX-1 & X-B-1 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 IX-1 & X-B-1 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 IX-1 & X-B-1 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 IX-1 & X-B-1 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. It is likely well known by residents that backyard chickens are not allowed in Hastings, since the 2009 consideration was widely publicized. However, since that time, John and Justin in the Planning Department each received two to three calls annually asking if the City of Hastings allows them. A few calls are fielded by the Building Safety Department annually as well. A couple of city receptionists also report each answering the inquiry about once annually. The total number of request to city staff is between 7 and 10 annually. Others may look the code up online or ask around town. 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, Planning Commission Memorandum IX-1 & X-B-1 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 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 Shoreview St. Louis Park Orono Eden Prairie Golden Valley St. Paul Anoka Rochester Waconia Shakopee Monticello Minnetonka Robbinsdale Roseville Bayport Ham Lake Little Falls Dawson Frazee Brainerd Bloomington-(in Process) Otsego New Hope All of the 100 most populated cities in the country allow backyard chickens, except Plano, TX and Detroit, MI. IX-1 & X-B-1 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. They 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. Feedback from Realtors relating to property sales and chickens Staff reached out to several real-estate offices in the metro and asked if not allowing chickens can be a barrier to selling a property. The realtors generally said clients come to them with a city or cites they would consider purchasing in without knowing why some cities were not included. They said if their clients had or wanted chickens they assume they would only consider cities that allowed them, if possible. Planning Commissioner Lisa Siebenaler is a realtor with Coldwell Banker in Apple Valley, who stated at the April 11, 2019 Planning Commission meeting that 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. Kathy Anderson, GRI, ABR, CDPE, Broker/Salesperson with Coldwell Banker Nybo & Assc, in Cannon Falls said, We have had buyers that wanted to have chickens and wanted to make sure they would be allowed to have them in the community they selected. We have never had anyone that made a decision against moving to a community because it does allow chickens. Protea Toles, Real Estate Advisor for Edina Realty in Minneapolis said, As people are looking to become more health cautious, animal friendly and take control of foods they consume; backyard chickens are becoming more popular. About 6 months ago Brooklyn Center began allowing backyard chickens and have a Facebook group for tips, resources and ideas. She added that, I have not heard of any negative feedback from neighbors in these cities that allow chickens. Jamar Hardy, Managing Broker in the same office as Ms. Toles agreed with her comments. IX-1 & X-B-1 Kristy Crowley, Broker with Edina Realty in Apple Valley / New Prague said she had a client who did not buy a house on acreage partly because the neighbor had a large chicken coop near the property line. She added that many premier neighborhoods where owners may be opposed to chickens have covenants that would not allow them or their coops regardless of city codes. Christine Nelson, Realtor with Coldwell Banker Burnet in Eagan said, She has sold many houses adjacent to homes that kept chickens and this had never given any prospective buyers pause, like homes next to large dogs as they can be intimidating and possibly dangerous. She said she has not experienced any smells related to chickens, but has from large dog droppings on neighboring properties. Administrative Review It was asked at the May 6, 2019 City Council meeting if licenses can be approved administratively. Yes, this could be an administrative process. The process used by cities for regulating backyard chickens very greatly. Some cities do not require a licensee at all or only require one for more than a certain number of chickens. Some cities issue notification to immediate neighbors administratively and only require council review if opposition is received. About half seem to issue a license from the city council. Enforcement Complaints would result in contact with the owners by the planning department. This would generally be by phone since we would have their contact information on record. If the issue were not cleared up after the initial contact, a letter would be sent with a deadline indicating the intended action. This could include a citation, summons to appear in court, or revocation of license. Other city’s’ staff have indicated not having had any issues with nuisances or violations. Notification A 350’ notification was originally proposed because it lines up with a standard notification distance for rezoning and special use permits. No other cities have been found to notify this great of a distance for chickens. Depending on the size of properties and neighborhood layout, this could include as many as 55 properties and could notify people six properties away. The majority of cities that notify property owners notify adjacent properties only. This is the standard notification Hastings uses for variance requests. Staff with other cities pointed out based on site inspections that property owners more than one property away would likely not know there are chickens there. This appears accurate based on visits to the chickens kept at the LeDuc Estate, which number for than four. The Planning Commission stated that a 350’ notification was excessive and suggested no more than 200’ was necessary. A notification of 200’ would notify 25-35 properties, which includes the notification of owners three to four properties away. The Planning Commission did removed a 25’ setback provision between a coop and an adjacent home to assure that it would not restrict anyone with a small lot from proposing to keep chickens. In measuring even the smallest properties in town, staff does not IX-1 & X-B-1 believe this 25’ setback from adjacent homes would restrict anyone from keeping chickens. Staff believes this setback requirement is not overly restrictive and will lead to a beneficial placement on the lot. 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. 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. IX-1 & X-B-1 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. Predation Rich Baker with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources reported that backyard chickens would not increase the number of predators in a neighborhood. If the predator is close, and can hear or see the prey, then they will obviously move that short distance. He added that issues with predators can be addressed with a secured coup and fencing. Notification A legal notice was published in the Hastings Star Gazette along with KDWA and the Gazette reporting on the proposal. Staff has received a letter in support of the proposal (attached). IX-1 & X-B-1