My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-09-21-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
08-09-21-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/9/2021 8:38:27 AM
Creation date
8/9/2021 8:35:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
265
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION – JULY 12, 2021 2 <br /> <br />discussed by the Council that two Chapters of the city code be amended. Those applicable <br />Chapters and Sections are as follows: <br /> <br />• Municipal Code Chapter 4 – Animals and Pets <br />o Amend - Section 400.01, Definitions <br />o Add - Section 410.01 Subd. 3, Chickens License <br />• Zoning Code Chapter 1325 – General Regulations <br />o Amend – Section 1325.07 Subd. 7.A., Location for Buildings Housing Farm <br />Animals <br /> <br />Senior Planner Jagoe explained regarding coop setbacks, the general agreement of the Council <br />was to include language similar to the City of Lakeville which was “The coop and run shall be <br />located closer to the principal dwelling upon the property to which the administrative permit is <br />issued than any other residential dwelling on an abutting property.” The Council should discuss <br />further if there is a preference to add language more specific to require a license holder to <br />maintain a minimum setback. Additionally, there was deliberation at the work session on size of <br />the coop and should this structure count towards the maximum number of accessory structures. <br />There seemed to be general agreement that the coop should count as an accessory structure, but no <br />limitations (i.e. minimum or maximum) were set for size. These are two areas that the Council <br />may want to discuss further in review of draft ordinance language. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Jagoe reported otherwise, the draft ordinance language presented includes the <br />consensus of comments from the January work session. This is the first ordinance presented to the <br />Council for review. Staff is seeking direction on draft language and next steps. It should be noted <br />that an ordinance amendment to the Zoning Code does require a public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden questioned what the difference was between a run and a pen. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Jagoe stated a run and a pen were the same term. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensured regarding the minimum size for a run/pen and exercise yard. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant reported he would like to see the Council be specific as to what the size of the run <br />in order to keep the pen humane. He noted the minimum size at this time was 30 square feet for <br />three birds. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden asked how the City defined an exercise yard. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Jagoe reported an exercise yard was a fenced in area for birds to be in when <br />supervised. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden indicated this would allow for fenced in back yards to serve as exercise <br />yards. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant recommended the Council define how much space is required within the exercise <br />yard. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.