My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-09-25 WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
06-09-25 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2025 1:48:09 PM
Creation date
7/15/2025 1:47:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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 WORK SESSION — JUNE 9, 2025 16 <br />Councilmember Weber said most people are going to use their fenced in back yard. Those who <br />don't have a fenced in back yard will be at a disadvantage or not be able to have chickens. You <br />are talking about adding 6' fencing and a 10 x 20, you are cutting off a portion of a back yard for <br />everyone who gets chickens. Otherwise they would have to fence their whole yard and that is cost <br />prohibitive. He thinks the exercise yard should be optional. <br />Mayor Grant doesn't agree. <br />Councilmember Monson said she thinks it can be optional but if a resident chooses to have one <br />we can set a limit. The big items for her are the setbacks, neighbor approval and the screening. <br />She agrees that if someone has a fenced in yard, they may let them run. If a coyote or weasel gets <br />to it, that's part of it. <br />Councilmember Holden said we don't care about the health of the animal? <br />Councilmember Monson said we don't regulate people about their dogs. We don't tell them they <br />have to leave space for their dogs to exercise. <br />Councilmember Rousseau is fine with removing the exercise yard requirement. She still would <br />like the ordinance to require neighbor approval. She knows that her neighbors that have barking <br />dogs, don't ask for approval. She recognizes individual property rights, but she thinks for the <br />health of the community, we need to require consent from both neighbors. <br />Councilmember Monson asked for clarification that she wants approval vs. notification. <br />Mayor Grant said we can get back to that. He wanted to focus on the run language. <br />Councilmember Weber said he doesn't have any issue with the original language regarding <br />runs. He believes we have consensus that it be optional. <br />Mayor Grant said it is 3-2 so he agrees it is a consensus. <br />Councilmember Holden said if it's optional, why not just take it out. If we aren't requiring it, <br />why even mention it? <br />Councilmember Monson asked if we want to give a minimum size. She is okay cutting it out. <br />Mayor Grant said we could state it's optional but give a maximum size. <br />Councilmember Rousseau is for cutting it. When there are guidelines or other communications, <br />we could say that's best practice. <br />Mayor Grant said there are three of the five members in favor of cutting the run language out. <br />He wanted to discuss temperature. <br />Councilmember Holden agrees it is hard to monitor but a lot of people aren't going to read all of <br />this. They're just going to go get chickens. If they won't build a fence, they aren't going to <br />insulate the coop. She thinks we need to at least require a bulb in the coop. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.