Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br />It was noted that residents may choose to construct a coop that is greater than 20 square feet based <br />on available prefabricated structures or their specific needs. There were multiple recommendations <br />on this topic, including increasing the maximum coop size to 36 square feet to allow for a 6 foot <br />by 6 foot structure and removing the maximum coop size. <br /> <br />Staff reviewed the chicken ordinance language in 10 neighboring cities and found that, two cities <br />have an established maximum coop size, one at 60 square feet and one at 120 square feet. Four out <br />of the 10 cities establish a minimum coop size ranging from 3 to 4 square feet per bird. The UMN <br />Extension resource recommends having a minimum of 3 to 5 square feet of indoor space per bird <br />and the Urban Chickens resource recommends 4 square feet per bird. Staff has revised the drafted <br />language in Subd. 6 A 1.a. to allow for a coop size of up to 36 square feet. The Planning <br />Commission may consider further recommendations on the minimum and maximum coop sizes <br />permitted. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission recommended staff update the language related to a chicken keeping <br />area and its proximity to principal dwellings on abutting properties to mirror the language in the <br />ordinance for bee hives. The ordinance for bee hives establishes that they may be no closer than <br />twenty-five (25) feet to an occupied building on another lot and/or any public trail or walkway. <br />Staff has updated the language for coop structures to match the language for bee hives. <br /> <br />b. Modify language for climate control requirements <br /> <br />In the August draft, the proposed language included striking the specific temperature that would <br />be maintained in a chicken coop. In their review, the Planning Commission recommended further <br />modification to the language to make it less prescriptive to prospective licensees. Staff considered <br />the ordinance language of neighboring communities while drafting revisions to the climate control <br />regulations. Three out of 10 cities reviewed included language for coops to be maintained at a <br />specific temperature whereas the language for seven cities was more general for climate control, <br />referencing standards such as coops shall protect chickens from the weather and coops shall be <br />fully enclosed, wind proof, and have sufficient windows for natural light. <br /> <br />Staff has drafted updates to Subd. 6 A 1.f to remove specific requirements for a set temperature <br />and a lightbulb while keeping the reference to a licensee providing a plan for maintaining an <br />adequate temperature. Staff has also updated the language to clarify that the plan is required at the <br />time of the initial application for the keeping of chickens and installation of a chicken coop. The <br />Planning Commission may provide a recommendation for further revisions to this section. <br /> <br />c. Modify language for maintaining a nuisance-free area for chickens <br /> <br />Similar to the Planning Commission’s recommendation to modify language for climate control, <br />there was a recommendation to modify language for maintaining the chicken keeping <br />environments that is in alignment with City Code language for cats and dogs. The Planning <br />Commission requested that staff draft language for the maintenance of chickens that is in keeping <br />with the requirements for cats and dogs. City Code requires the owner of a cat or dog to be <br />responsible for cleaning up and disposing of animal feces in a sanitary manner. <br />