Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 2 <br /> <br />Regarding coop setbacks, the general agreement of the Council was to include language similar <br />to the City of Lakeville which was “The coop and run shall be located closer to the principal <br />dwelling upon the property to which the administrative permit is issued than any other <br />residential dwelling on an abutting property.” The Council should discuss further if there is a <br />preference to add language more specific to require a license holder to maintain a minimum <br />setback. Additionally, there was deliberation at the work session on size of the coop and should <br />this structure count towards the maximum number of accessory structures. There seemed to be <br />general agreement that the coop should count as an accessor y structure, but no limitations (i.e. <br />minimum or maximum) were set for size. These are two areas that the Council may want to <br />discuss further in review of draft ordinance language. <br /> <br />Otherwise, the draft ordinance language presented includes the consensus of comments from the <br />January work session. This is the first ordinance presented to the Council for review. Staff is <br />seeking direction on draft language and next steps. It should be noted that an ordinance <br />amendment to the Zoning Code does require a public hearing. <br /> <br />Budget Impact <br /> <br />N/A <br /> <br />Attachment <br /> <br />A. Draft Ordinance Language <br />B. Recommendations for Municipal Regulation of Urban Chickens <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />