My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0417
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0417
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:37:18 AM
Creation date
5/15/2006 12:28:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/17/2006
Meeting Type
Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
<br />City Council Study Session - 04/17/06 <br />Minutes - Page 6 <br /> <br />purposes of raIsIng chickens to learn animal husbandry for <br />science and 4- H educational purposes; existing City Code <br />requirements related to raising and/or keeping animals in the <br />City and the need to clarify code; fencing of poultry; University <br />of Minnesota guidelines for raising poultry; number of chicks <br />based on size of lot or coop, with 3 square feet of area of coop <br />recommended per chicken as a guideline, but dependent on the <br />size of the bird; ways to create a "quiet house" coop for roosters <br />to diminish crowing; and the need to clarify the code procedure <br />for creating a nuisance as it relates to chickens. <br /> <br />Discussion and code clarification issues included whether <br />chickens could be slaughtered in the City; whether a Roseville <br />resident could raise game birds and release them in the City; <br />whether chickens could be raised for meat and eggs and whether <br />the food could be sold; state permits and licenses required; <br />property line setbacks for odor and/or noise considerations; <br />regulations regarding yard heat lights; chicken and bird diseases <br />and how Roseville birds are protected; runaway situations; and <br />applicable neighbor complaints. <br /> <br />Ms. Lindstrom concluded her report by requesting that the <br />Council make a separate ordinance specifically about chickens; <br />to make a separate process for reporting incidents with poultry; <br />and to make owners responsible for care of their poultry. <br /> <br />Further discussion included consensus of most poultry owners to <br />have fencing provisions in City Code; whether or not there was a <br />problem from the perception of poultry owners; following <br />University guidelines for keeping poultry and facilities clean; <br />and frequency of and rationale for neighbor opposition. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that she saw no adequate <br />justification to change rules and regulations or for changes to <br />current City Code if they adversely affected a resident's right to <br />raise chickens and/or bees and questioned whether current <br />nuisance laws may be adequate if enforced. <br /> <br />Regarding beekeeping, it was Council consensus that, given the <br />minimal complaints received, there was no need to pursue <br />additional regulations at this time. It was noted that the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.