before. >> Okay. All right. Welcome to our council meeting for August 13th. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> Algiance to the flag of the United States of America, >> to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Right. First up is open forum. Would you like to speak, Jim? >> [laughter] >> Assuming there's nothing on that sheet. We'll move on. There's no presentations tonight. Um move on to approve agenda. Council members may add items to the agenda for discussion purposes or staff direction only. The council will not normally take official action on items added to the agenda. >> Move to approve. I'll second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> All right, that motion passes. Consent agenda. These items are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests in which I event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. Anyone have anything? Um, I have an item uh item 5.8. Okay. Anything else? I think that'll be it. >> I'll move to approve. >> I'll move to approve the Go ahead. You need to run, brother council. You should >> Okay, quick. Jim, what do you have a question on? Madame Mayor and council members, the W Communities Program is a program offered through the Metropolitan Council. There's numerous different grant opportunities, one of which is policy related. The >> city was awarded a grant to pay for almost the entirety of a housing study. The housing study is not directed by the Metropolitan Council. It's directed by us. they just fund the program. So we have also on that item an agreement with Stantech to complete the housing study. The information from the housing study helps influence what goes into the comprehensive plan identifies our needs from a housing standpoint >> or some in the case if there was a case of being a certain product type overbuilt. So it's really giving us a background that we need for anything housing related for the community as we move forward. >> So it gives us a good inventory of existing housing in the city. >> Good. >> Thank you. >> I'd uh move to approve the consent agenda less item 5. >> Second. >> All right. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> I >> All right. 5.8 acceptance of a donation from Roger Rogers. >> I can't talk tonight. Rogers at Seigo Youth Baseball. Mainly I just wanted to highlight um and thank them for the donation. We always appreciate donations. And it was uh $10,000. So that's pretty impressive. Thank you. >> That's wonderful. Thank you so much. >> Indeed. >> And I'll move to approve 5.8. >> I'll second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. That motion passes. Thanks again, youth baseball. All right. We have no public hearings tonight, so we'll move on to general business. Consider amendments to city code and zoning code related to the keeping of animals and backyard chickens. Let's see. Uh are you able to see the PowerPoint that I'm attempting to share? Believe so. uh does only meeting organizers and presenters. Well, I pull this up. I can give some background on the item before turning it over to Zach. Um, over the past year or so, we've been spending quite a bit of time and discussion on backyard chickens. Uh we starting with an individual who came to open forum and through he was having active code enforcement case at that time. City council asked to look further into it at which point we did a [clears throat] um a larger survey which had over 550 responses to it to get a good baseline of what the general residents feel was to the item. Um the survey was really to see trends on a few different items that we wanted to see. And through that discussion, we presented to the city council the different items that we had received feedback on and that led to the council direction to draft an ordinance which was reviewed by the planning commission earlier this month. And Zach will go through some of the details on that ordinance. >> Thanks Brett. Uh madame mayor, counselors, good to see you again. Um, a lot of this presentation, uh, is going to be pretty similar to the one that we, uh, went over at the planning commission, but with just a lot of the recommendations that we got from both the planning commission, counselors, and, uh, some of the general public at that last meeting. So, just a summary to go through it again, just kind of what the ordinance is in its complete form, um, is it we're going to allow residents on smaller lots to keep backyard chickens. Uh, this will be under subsection F of backyard chickens. Uh the ordinance required us to create kind of a new section in our our zoning code which is uh going to be labeled 1-125-95 uh keeping of animals. So, it's going to keep um house the the backyard chickens as well as relocating some of our uh code, you know, regarding uh livestock and and kennel operations into this section uh just for clarity and um easier when people are trying to kind of figure out what the the regulations are on some of these things. Um so, that also required us to reumber some tables within section 125 just to maintain numeric consistency. and then uh the amendment uh to 125102 where we house all of our definitions for some of the new terms that are referenced in this backyard chickens ordinance just so there's uh clarity u when people are are reading the ordinance. So I kind of went over some of this already but um yep relocating uh animals and farming operations, livestock operations into this new 125-95. We also updated some of our language um surrounding feed lots just to make sure that we were compliant with MPCA requirements um and the state requirements with uh livestock operations. Just for kind of background, currently the way that our code was written um if we would have allowed uh backyard chickens without updating our uh feed lot language in our our amendment or in our code, it would have technically been a feed lot. So we basically just updated our definition of a feed lot to uh exempt smallcale operations uh similar to you know keeping backyard chickens. These are uh different from you know livestock uh large agricultural operations that would be considered a feed lot by the state. Um let's see here. I think all this I've kind of gone through already. Um so we'll get into kind of some of the feedback that we uh heard from the last uh planning commission meeting on uh August 3rd. So uh a big takeaway from that meeting was both the some of the people that spoke from the public as well as planning commissioners wanted to see some sort of permit process um before keeping check-ins. The original ordinance that we brought to the planning commission did not uh have a permit process. Um through discussion between counselors and planning uh uh commissioners, I think we kind of ca staff came to an agreement that uh an actual full-on permit would be very labor intensive and taxing on on staff. And that's would potentially even could have required adding a staff member for this. And so the uh what staff is recommending uh with this ordinance now is that it'll be a uh kind of a registration license process um but it won't have an inspection. So I'll get over or I'll go over the actual uh like what that license processing is going to look like in a couple slides here. But that's kind of where we're at is that we're not recommending a permit process, but we are recommending a license um for this uh keeping back our chickens at this time. Um there were concerns over the number of chickens being allowed. Uh the planning commission uh multiple commissioners made comments that they felt it was overly complicated. So we kind of simplified the table that we'll go over here in a second. Um staff was seeking feedback at that meeting on minimum lot size and just distances that these chicken coops or runs need to be um set back from neighbor neighboring residential dwellings. Um it seemed like uh that the initial recommendation of 0.2 acres being the minimum was uh was uh agreeable for most commissioners and so we're still recommending that and keeping the uh 30 foot setback although we did update some of the language to clarify that it needs to be 30 ft from a residential dwelling. Earlier it was just a residential structure. So, uh it doesn't necessarily have to be 30 ft from somebody's shed, but somebody's house uh dwelling um which is defined in our code. So, um and then we did get some community feedback on just uh some concerns about how early we should be requiring residents to move uh chicks out of the out of a dwelling or garage. Um, so we just kind of relaxed those standards a little bit by a couple of weeks just to um we were educated and did some research on that and a lot of sources were recommending that it takes a couple more weeks for chickens to reach the maturity where they can survive outside um especially if it's a colder spring or something like that. So, uh Brett kind of went through this already, but some backyard uh or background on kind of how we got to this point. So, the survey was sent out in late 2025 following some community uh feedback of of asking whether or not they can have chickens. Um, like Brett said, we received over 550 responses. Uh, 70% of the people that filled out the survey did want to allow for backyard chickens, but the majority did also want to have a minimum lot size restriction put in place. Um, 0.2 acres was the uh most commonly selected answer for minimum lot size. and uh staff directed were directed to draft an ordinance at the June 23rd of this year uh city council work session. So um we did some research into various cities in the region. Um most cities that do allow them are allowing anywhere from four to six are the are kind of the common numbers that we're seeing. Permit processes are pretty split. Some cities are allow are requiring them, others aren't. Um, and the most common complaint when staff reached out to other cities to kind of see, you know, how how it was going, what are the what's the feedback that you've gotten from citizens? Um, birds getting loose tends to be the most common issue that, uh, other cities see. [clears throat] Um, and as you would expect, the majority complaints in the spring, summer, um, when people are getting chickens in the first place. Um, a lot of cities do allow other birds other than chickens, such as ducks, geese. Uh the ordinance that staff is proposing tonight is only allowing chickens, not other uh fowl. So um as I stated before recommending 02 acres um a little bit of background on that one uh that seemed to be what kind of council and a lot of uh the general feedback from the survey uh was pushing staff towards and we did do some analysis on lots in the city and uh that 0.2 2 acres does seem to be a good number that staff feels good about if we were to increase that to 0.25 acres. Um we would be excluding around 730 homes. Um just analys analyzing lot sizes and uh things like that. Um this will be for single detach family only. This uh ordinance will not allow people in duplexes, town homes, things like that to to have backyard chickens. And as I stated before, based on the public feedback, we are now recommending that we'll have a license to be able to keep uh chickens. So, kind of some summary of what the ordinance actually has in it. So, on the top left there, this is the a simplified table. Before we had it broken out into more categories depending on what your lot size was. Feedback was just to simplify this. So, like I said, if you're on less than 0.2 acres, you won't be allowed. Um, and then it's going to kind of scale up until you get to that 3 acres or more area or size, which you'll be able to keep 20 hens. Or if you're in an A or R1 zone, um, you'll be able to keep, uh, the number of poultry as permitted by our livestock uh, units. So, um, the ordinance is drafted to, uh, prevent against, uh, you know, nuisance conditions hopefully. So, chicks, uh, coups and run areas will have to be kept in sanitary condition. Um the ordinance explicitly states that manure must be uh collected and stored until it can be disposed of and then um in order to prevent pests um collecting uh keeping feed in a rodent uh proof container um to try to reduce any type of uh pest coming in. Um and then as far as kind of setbacks and things like that. So we are requiring the coups and runs will have to be 10 ft from any property line and as I mentioned earlier we clarified the language 30 ft from any residential dwelling is how the ordinance is uh written at this point. Um some other feedback we got at that planning commission. It was in the uh ordinance already, but just uh wanted to make sure it's clear that we are requiring when somebody is going to uh want backyard chickens that when they submit their plans that they're going to have to have four square ft of minimum uh uh floor area per each bird and then 10 ft uh square feet per hen in the run area to uh make sure that they have enough room where there's not going to be, you know, less likely to have diseases or or other issues, things like that. Um, if the shelter, so the run area and the coupe is less than 200 feet, we will not be considering an accessory structure and it won't require a a building permit. They'll still have to have a license. But if they're over that 200 ft, then they will need a building permit in addition to the license and then that will count as an accessory structure, which depending on the zone that uh a resident is living in, we do have restrictions on, you know, the number of accessory structures that uh residents may have. So, um, other things, uh, the most, especially small lots that are in the city, they're going to have to have a privacy fence or similar landscaping for a coup and run. So, the way the ordinance is written currently, uh, if your chicken coupe or run is within 30 ft of a neighboring property line, then, uh, you'll have to have it screened. If you have, you know, a really wide lot or a bigger lot, um, you may be exempt from that. But, uh, most of the smaller lots that are in that, you know, 2 to 3 acre, uh, those are almost in all cases going to have to have a 6oot privacy fence or or similar landscaping just to kind of reduce the visual impact of these. Um, and then just some other things. Uh, this is roosters. Uh, roosters and crowing hens are not allowed on lots less than 3 acres. Um this is only hens just to reduce on the noise and we're not allowing uh water fowl, pee foul or any other uh similarly kept birds. So as far as the license process, this is something that staff uh worked on after the last planning commission. Um this, like I mentioned before, is not going to require an on on-site inspection unless the coupe is over 200 feet, which at that point it's into the building permit territory. Um, and as the ordinance is written, uh, when resident that wants to keep chickens, when they submit their application or for their license, they're going to have to have the name and contact information, the property address where the chickens will be kept. If it's a renter situation, they're going to need some kind of property ownership consent. Um, the number of hens that they're proposing to keep, and then as well as the location, size of the coupe and run, and showing that it meets setback requirements on their plan. Um, we also are viewing this license page as kind of a uh landing spot or one kind of stop for residents. So, um, we're going to have links to best practices. The University of Minnesota has a lot of really good information. There's a lot of other websites. I know uh um we've gotten some some good feedback from counselors and residents on on valuable information, you know, best practices. So, um we're hoping that residents will when they are applying for their license will be able to access this information and um learn more about it before maybe they jump into it. And as far as kind of the mechanics of it, the license will be a onetime process and valid for as long as chickens are kept on the property line. uh this license will not be able to be transferred if a resident moves or um uh yeah and then uh just due to us the the city switching over its permitting process to IMS um in 2027, this ordinance will not actually go into effect until January 1st because that's when we plan on launching this uh license portal as well. Um, so with that, I I think I'll uh open it up for for questions or um comments from counselors. Thanks. How far from the property line? How far from any dwelling? And what are we calling a dwelling? Like I don't want it near my deck. I don't want it near my kid's playground. I don't want it near my, you know what I mean? >> Cuz I've heard comments about that. Like I don't like I build a playground for my kid and then my neighbors put a coupe right next to it. So the way it's currently written is 10 feet from any property line um and 30 feet from a dwelling. So to your question that a dwelling would not include something like a a swing set or or something like that. But uh they would not be able to put the coupe or run area right up to the property line. They still had to have it 10 ft from the property line. and feeds like from here to there right to the podium >> right and then also I would consider like accessory structures also have their own setbacks so obviously it's going to depend on on the district but in most cases you're would probably have at least 15 feet just based on if you're you know your neighbor has their accessory structure cited where it's supposed to be if your neighbor got chickens that 10 ft plus whatever you're supposed to have your >> sure >> but to your point though yes it's not the way it's currently written it does can't build a playground right on my property line either, right? So, it would be it wouldn't be 10 ft. >> But just so that it's uh you're it's clear. Yeah. It's not uh the 30 ft only refers to the dwelling, not um not any structure in in a neighbor's yard. >> That too. >> Is a deck considered part of the dwelling? Madame Mayor and council, usually a deck is not considered part of the overall principal dwelling unit, but it really depends on how it's kind of laid out on the property. Usually decks have shorter setback, so they can encroach a little further than a house could on the sideyard. So typically, no. >> So even if they're attached, they're not considered part of the dwelling. >> It's not considered the principal dwelling. There are just similar how decks can encroach into your rear yard setback and other features that a principal dwelling couldn't. [clears throat and cough] >> So, oh, go ahead. >> The only question I had was on uh just to be clear on enforcement. So, we talked a little bit about it. You know, Brett, you mentioned there'd be a citation or maybe you could just describe again the how it escalates and then cuz my expectation is that you get to the end of that process. If you can't get conformance, then we have a means to say you're off the list. you have to uh get rid of the chickens and dismantle the coupe and you're done and you're on the list that of folks that are no longer allowed to have chickens. >> Yeah, madame council. So adding the license process as Zach mentioned adds a kind of a separate layer to what was discussed in the planning commission. So now if there is we're a complaint based city. So, if the city receives a complaint on someone's chicken keeping, whether it's loose or animals, waste, whatever it may be, smell, um, city would typically send a letter of violation to the property owner stating that they have x amount of time to rectify the issue. Um, if they don't, there could be with the licensing process a revocation of their license, which would then mean that they are no longer allowed to keep chickens. If they're in violation of that, then there's citations, which are typically a misdemeanor charge. Um, and they wouldn't be allowed to keep them. Everyone's going to need a license now to operate. And if there's violations, we can revoke those license. If there's ongoing issues, we can seek further enforcement action. Um, the license adds a little bit of an easier process from a stat. Well, it's more work upfront. It adds the ability to have all that contact info for each ownership right off the bat. Um, and it also means everyone has to comply and follow and should be reading the ordinance before they get the chicken. So, we have kind of a dual approach with the license. And the way Zach laid it out is was our preferred method. Um, because we're going to have a site plan. They're going to have to submit a site plan to us. So, we're going to see the actual distances from the property line, everything related to it. Um, without that license, it meant a lot of people probably get them without reading the ordinance or all the details of the ordinance. So, this gives us a little bit additional background to it. And being that it's a non-insspection license, it really drastically reduces that staff time that's needed. >> Um, the license itself as it is operated will be operated through the community development department. And so Alex's going to be the one reviewing all the license applications that comes in. >> So how is it different if someone just does it without a license? >> Well, then they're in violation of the ordinance and they can get a misdemeanor charge for being in violation of our ordinance. Usually we would send a letter stating, "Hey, you need to have a license to have chickens. You need to submit this, this, and this to come into compliance." But if they don't [clears throat] do that, then there's enforcement action we can take. >> Good. >> So, I have a question. Um, how does this affect like legally non-conforming properties at this point? >> Yeah, Madame Mayor and Council. So, the way that it's written is really pertains to all the districts. So, it's really looking at single family dwelling units as a specific use. So even if it's say the a home in the RC district, if it's a single family operated home and it's meeting all the standards, I should be able to get chickens still. So I'm [clears throat] thinking more along the lines um if you're let like your zoning changed, you own chickens, your zoning changed, you're legally non-conforming now. Um, does this force them to get in line with these numbers and stuff or how does that work? >> I would defer to Bob on that one. >> Leading the fifth. [laughter] >> Yeah, making council. It's a it's a it's a good question. Uh, I I think I'm agreeing with what staff is saying. Um, uh, yes. uh because this would be an accessory a permitted accessory use and it's a permitted accessory use in all districts as long as the use that exists is a single family home. Uh I think the the question you're raising counselor is could we make the argument could the city make the argument could other folks in the community make the argument that your non-conforming use your home in a district that doesn't allow homes is being expanded by the presence of chickens? And the answer to that is no. That argument wouldn't be available. Uh because it's an a permitted accessory use to a home and the home is legally non-conforming. You could have the coupe. However, to your point, you'd have to comply with all of the rules that are being created here. If you approve this, you'd have to comply with all those rules. There is no exception because it's a legally non-conforming use the house. There's no exception to what you could do with the coupe. you'd have to comply with everything with >> So, I'm thinking more along the lines like we have rural residential um properties that got then switched over to R2 >> and so they may have a higher number of birds. >> Mhm. >> Are they required now to go down to this number of birds? >> And I can actually hit that on that. So, I didn't quite understand what you're saying at first. Um the way that this ordinance is written is relaxing the standard. So the way that the existing code states is you have to be a minimum of 3 acres. So with this new code, if you're hitting that 3 acre mark, you're still following the same feed lot standards that we've had in the past. Okay? >> So anyone with their current operations that are meeting our current ordinance will be able to remain the same. There's the slight difference with the animal units, but I would be highly shocked if anyone at 4 acres actually has 200 chickens. The way our current ordinance is written. >> Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure we weren't coming through and saying, "Hey, you have to decrease that number now." Like, okay. Um then um I saw that the change in animal units and table 26 for egg one districts looked like it got cut in half. Is that kind of along the lines of the feed lot requirements or >> Yes, that is uh that's in line a little bit more closely in line with um some of the MPCA standards. So they have a range. It's all dependent on the way that the chickens are basically being fed. So there's different animal units for chickens, at least at the state level, if they're eating dry food, if they're free range or liquid manure, uh sorry, liquid feed. Um and so we're the number that we've updated our uh feed lot unit to is is a little bit more in line with what the the state and the MPCA is uh has. So that's the the reason for that. And then obviously if we're going to update the one for the chickens because fowl um things like ducks and geese also produce more we had to just you know increase their uh animal unit in in step with with chickens. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I had a couple questions if I could. Um it looks like it's in the notes. Those opposed typically cited concerns on odors, noise, and predators. I guess my concern is it sounds like if there's, you know, if a complaint comes along, the neighbor, one neighbor says there there any of those things. Um, the followup action from what I understand, we just send a letter. I mean, I think I'm afraid where this is, you know, what one person thinks is a nuisance, the others may not, and it could turn into us or kind of a mediator getting involved, going out there. I'm little concerned police might be out there. You're talking about a misdemeanor. is that [gasps] I just I'm a little worried we're opening the door to something that might be somewhat vague between neighbors and having a lot of problems between them and us getting dragged in to try and resolve that or not. Is that what's been the history at other cities? I mean, it just seems like it could potentially be a problem. >> Yeah, Metamean Council. So, there's I'm going to kind of have a three-part answer to this. The first part is we already get those calls. We there's neighbor disputes that happen all the time for various different reasons. Chickens have actually been some of those reasons in the past. Um so we do treat that the same as we would with any other call. There is that fine line of is this just a neighbor disagreement and a civil issue. If that's the case, we push it say this is a civil issue. It's not a violation of our code. If you want to pursue your own civil action, go ahead do that. But there's nothing from a ci city standpoint that we can do. um from a I think Zach kind of touched on the um piece of what other cities have seen and what I've seen in the past in my career. It tends to be in the summertime and it's usually those that are chickens that are getting free. I think that's one of the key factors of what that number and putting a limit on the number of six. It helps reduce the smell. That's kind of the big thing. Smells typically are generally tied to large quantities of the birds and on hot days with wind blowing. That's usually when you get the most of the smell to be transferred across property lines. With that being said, it's also very easy from a staff perspective to tell if that is the case. If there's a blatant violation like smell if they have a license and we can contact them. That's kind of the best thing with it. We will have their phone number. Well, we'll do a letter spec specifically if they don't have a license. The license grant us the ability to have the contact information for everyone. So, trying to reduce that number of days, especially on a smell type violation. Those are pretty easy. Um, from the rodent one, from the cities that I've talked to in the past, they didn't see an uptick in rodents in with the chickens coming in. Now, whether that's getting calls on it or not, usually a city's not going to be the one to get a ton of calls on that. Um, and then I would say just generally the way that the ordinance was written was to be as clear and straightforward as process. And kind of like we talked about in the work session when we did it, really bulking up on that nuisance section more than what I've seen other cities have just to have clear standards and clear enforcement ability for any nuisance conditions that come up. So, we tried to be I don't want to call it restrictive because it's not technically restrictive, but it's defined enough to where it's pretty easy from an enforcement standpoint to notice a violation and act upon that violation. >> And with regards to the P, if I read this right, the yard needs to be fenced. Is that correct? >> Yeah. Metamean Council. So, there's kind of two parts to that. The run has to be fully enclosed that the and that's really tied to predators. So when we say fully enclosed, it's with a mesh wiring, but that includes a top. So that means even at nighttime if they're not within the coupe, which usually they're going to be in the coupe, but if they're not, there's not the ability for a predator to go into the coupe. And they're also not ranging free for the whole day. So there's kind of the two pieces. There's a fence component, which would keep the first wave of predators out, you could say, and then the actual coupe standards would be one that would restrict any ability for a predator to come in. But the backyard has to be fully fenced. Is that correct >> in certain circumstances? Yes. >> Okay. >> That would be due to like proximity to neighbor property. So smaller smaller yards is the distance to the neighboring property. >> It's just if if you want them to roam the yard, the yard has to be fenced. >> Correct. >> They're still going to need to have a coupe and everything to go with it. Uh, yes. >> But if you keep them in the coupe, you don't have to have a fence. You're saying >> you would it? Well, it depends a lot size ties. I'll let Zach kind of expand on it, but >> I'm just trying to I want to be able to answer my neighbors questions when they ask me later tonight when I get home. >> Madame Mayor and counselors, uh, so a couple of things. So yes, in most cases, especially on small lots, a resident is going to have to have a fence anyways, even if they weren't going to let their chickens roam in that fenced area. And that's mostly due to the visual uh it's I guess it's two things. It's one to if they, you know, confines the chickens in a fenced area as well as reducing the visual impact of a neighbor having uh to, you know, to see the the chicken coupe. Um, as Brett touched on though, uh, the ordinance is kind of written to, uh, and have kind of two components. So, the chicken coupe, which is in our ordinance, going to be defined as like the actual, for lack of a better term, kind of the house that they would live in, right? And then the chicken run area which uh is the area that needs to be fully enclosed even from the top um with a w mesh wiring or if they choose to do a solid roof they they can but then it does count towards the actual size of the accessory structure which is um a consideration that residents will have to make. But uh yes, they will have to be either in the run area during the day in that enclosed mesh area or in a fully enclosed fenced yard. Um as well as the ordinance has a a section that does require residents to put the chickens in the actual coupe, not just the run area at night from sunset to sunrise. And that's we put that in staff put that in for two reasons. one to reduce potential noise issues, you know, late at night, as well as predators tend to, not always, but you know, predators tend to, especially a lot of suburban uh predators tend to strike more at night. And so having them actually in a house versus in that uh meshed area, um is part of the reason we have that in there. Um so yes, I hope that it kind of answered that. Just to be clear, your statement on fencing and size of the lot, it's not a perimeter fence, it's screening, right? That's the way I interpreted the way you described it. >> Yeah. So, it doesn't technically have to be a perimeter fence. If they want to fence an area for their chickens to roam, similar to what you some people have done with dogs, you could theoretically do that. But section seven of the ordinance is what Zach was kind of referring to. It states, "Men shall be confined in a coupe from sunrise to sunset during daylight." hours. Hens must be provided with access to the run area. Hens may range outside the Cooper run only within a fully fenced rear yard or or on the premise. So, it doesn't technically have to be perimeter fence. They could have a fenced area with an open top. >> So, when you say mesh, like how how small of an opening on mesh? Uh I believe let me I just want to I believe it's 1 inch is the standard that we actually have. Uh yes section 5D. Let me make sure here. Yep. Uh the run must be completely enclosed including from above by either a solid roofing or a mesh uh wire hardware cloth or something similar. Um no uh no openings larger than 1 in. Um, as well as it has to be sufficient enough to contain the hens and exclude predators such as uh wild birds. So, it's we're kind of leaving it up to residents on how they want to, you know, if they want to use a net or a wire mesh. Um, but it does have to be small enough that it's uh and and strong enough to um to exclude predators or other birds. Yeah, [clears throat] >> it's going to be problematic with heavy wet snow. Yeah. >> I mean, yeah, but they they're going to have to manage it. >> I guess my concern here is just that I mean, obviously there's support for it and there's those that maybe don't want it and they're going there'll be people living next door with different opinions. And if the ones against it just call up and say, "It's loud. I can smell it. I've seen predators around. What are you going to do about it?" I just don't want to get us drugged into a bunch of that. Either you're sending csos out or our staff's going out or we're spending an inordinate amount of time on it. I respect people's right to to use their backyard as they see fit. But I also think about the neighbors and want to make sure this isn't creating a bunch of headache for our staff and our residents and you know just we creating something that's going to be hard to deal with and I hate to be sitting here hearing well now we need some more staff to deal with it or whatever. I just I'm relying a lot on you saying we've got the adequate language in the licensing part of this that if those kinds of vague situations come up with we just are we going to be able to just put a stop to it or are we going to get dragged into legal things? That's my concern. Madame Mayor and Council, the one thing I will just note on this is we are at a position where a lot of cities have already allowed chickens when those cities have kind of taken the burden of dealing with unique situations and there's a lot of resources to aid in our city as we begin to take this step. Um, numerous cities that are even similar to us with the growing community. Lakeville just bumped their ordinance up to six chickens for the smallest lots I think two weeks ago. So we have ability to learn and get best practices from that which will ease the burden on staff time. The license while it does add some staff time. I'm not fearing that this is going to be suddenly that hey this is blowing out my department and we can't deal with what we have anymore. If it was an annual license, I would feel differently. Um, but being a onetime license, it really aids our benefit. Um, we will handle complaints how we always do. It's a code enforcement issue. License makes I think code enforcement actually easier for us. >> Mayor, >> if I may, just in response to the counselor's question, I'm going to say something staff. Tell me if I'm wrong because I haven't studied what you're proposing here nearly as much as you have. But to your point uh counselor about you know the concerns are smell sound predators my understanding of the ordinance is that you've got some objective standards setback requirements a cage requirement a run requirement a pen requirement and other objective requirements that are meant to address those things. But if a person is uh has a license and has a compliant facility, has the run and the coupe uh all compliant with the requirements, a neighbor's complaint that the chickens are too noisy, just is not something the staff is going to deal with. I mean, the question is whether the facilities are compliant or not. And that's an objective question. And you know, and the reality is that you could have a compliant coupe and the chickens may make noise. Um, and those noises could be heard, but that's just the consequence of allowing chickens. Um, and so, so it do I have that basically right, staff? >> Yeah, Madame Mayor Council. Uh, that's correct. That is a really good way to look at it. Um, in a lot of ways, it's a lot very similar to dogs. It's keeping of animals. there's dogs that we get calls on and there's a lot of times where we can't address those items related to dogs because it's not a violation of the ordinance. The intention of the license and the ordinance is to ensure that we have the best set of standards possible to ensure that everyone knows what they need to do, how it needs to operate, and we have enforceable measures that we can address if we need to. The only one other comment I have is just the aesthetics of the coupe. And again, [clears throat] I know you describe it in here, but can it be can someone just cobble something together out of scrap >> pallets? >> Pallets or not? I mean, what how does you know, how's that going to look in backyards? I guess >> madame mayor and councel if you look at section 5C of the ordinance that's what really tries to deal with the coupe itself it says coupe shall be constructed of durable material shall be winter rise to protect hens from extreme temperatures and shall be resistant um so and then it goes on to talk about ventilation insulation and a window related to it um so this is really trying to hit the coupe itself you can't just put a box in your yard and call it a coupe we're going to actually want to see that as part of the license application of what that coupe is going to be made of. So >> that's part of the license application, >> correct? Yeah. They're going to have to show details about the coupe. >> Oh, >> and isn't there a requirement too that it has to either be elevated or on slab for the coupe? >> Yeah. >> The mayor counselors Yes. Uh so the Yeah, the coupe floor um will have to be elevated at least 12 in, not more than 24 in above grade unless it's uh constructed on a concrete slab. or other rodent resistant um foundation. And the main reasoning for that is I mean the rodent part is in there, but uh additionally research into this um ventilation and just air flow can do a lot to reduce smells that uh can build up. And so, um, that's part of it as well as, uh, uh, rodent resistance, keeping it off the ground or on concrete, as well as, um, some air flow underneath that can can help reduce, uh, reduce smells. >> And there's a requirement too for like storage of waste and feed. >> That's correct. Yes. So, uh, waste will have to be, I believe, let's see what section is that in here. Um, I know it's it has to be contained in like a leak proof container is I believe how it's worded in the ordinance. Uh, as well as um until it can be disposed of properly, which in most cases I would imagine every any resident that's having trash services um they would have to wait until they can, you know, dispose of it then. Uh and then feed needs to be stored in uh just a road and proof container is how it's worded in the the ordinance. Um there was some discussion uh amongst planning commissioners of should we update this the language there to be a metal container. Uh but ultimately we I think staff feels and um having a conversation with the commissioner that raised that question that just leaving it rodent proof is probably the better way to go versus being so prescriptive that it has to be metal. I mean, there's other materials that somebody could um you know, build a container out of that's still road proof. So, >> Madam Mayor, >> yes, >> I've had several people in my area come to me and they said number one, the point 2 lots very encroachable and very unsightly, especially for people that have elevated decks that cover the whole neighborhood in the backyard. They're worried about loss of value because some neighbor has a chicken coupe. Might be a little petty, but it's a fact. They're also available that they cannot shield that from the neighbor and that they would still with the smallest lots that we do have don't have the room in the backyard to accommodate the chicken coupe and still have a sightly backyard. Another thing I don't like is the licensing practice. It was on sorry the licensing practice. I see a slippery slope non- inspection of the licenses. We want to trust people but a lot of people will push it to the envelope and if we get into enforcement then we get into cost. So I don't like that idea either. I think in my personal opinion I'm not in favor of this ordinance at all. So that's where I stand on it and we'll go from there. >> Thank you. >> Did those issues come up at the planning commission? I mean, what was the gist of the testimony and people that talked was it are they supportive? >> Yeah. Men, mayor and council. So during the public hearing, I would say there was five individuals who spoke. I would say three were in favor of the chickens. Um, and two had some concerns. Some wanted licensing. Of the concerns, that was probably the most common item that I heard that if you're going to do the ordinance, have a license to go with it. >> Okay. >> Uh, or permit, one of the two. And I think it was more geared towards a permit during that discussion. >> Okay. >> Um, but obviously the language wasn't worked out quite yet. Um, I would say the ones that spoke in favor of it, it was quite a learning experience. They had a lot of great information. I would say the especially one individual who spoke I would consider to be a very responsible owner and I learned a lot just by hearing him speak and I'd say some of those things influenced some of the language changes that we had. >> So I'd say it's generally positive after the meeting itself. There was a few individuals who emailed um which is one which changed that chick age of having to go out cuz there was things about chickens bullying each other if they're not the right size when they get introduced. So that was important to learn. And then another individual spoke out against the chickens, stated concerns. Um, I shared the ordinance with her and kind of highlighted the items of the ordinance for her concerns and after that she was generally fine with it. Um, so it kind of ranged, but I would say I've dealt with chickens in every city that I've ever worked for. It's always split. It will always be split. There are always going to be residents who don't want it. There are always going to be residents who do want it. say during the survey and through the process, I've seen more that do want it than I generally have seen in comparison to those opposed. Um, so we tried to kind of create an ordinance that hit a lot of different pieces to it, but in the end, this is a policy decision. It's up to council discretion if you want to move forward with it, if you want alterations to it, or if you don't want to move forward with it. on the neighbor. So the gentleman that spoke that had the chickens already, he did mention that he went to his neighbors ahead of time. >> Mor and councel, he I think it was during the enforcement of his chickens is when he went to his neighbors. And >> sure, but I mean the point is that he went to his neighbors, got a, you know, agreement from them that it was okay. And I'm not saying we want that in the ordinance cuz that's a burden, but it wouldn't hurt to say that's a best practice. >> Yeah. Metame and council that's a great point. I wouldn't ever recommend that to be a requirement as part of a license. Obviously, neighbors change, things happen, and it becomes a very tough enforcement piece. We will have that on the website as part of our best practices. We're going to have handouts that are a lot more detailed and cover a lot more than this ordinance does in terms of actual keeping of the chickens. As attorney Vos mentioned, this is very structured on where that placement is, how it's going to be set on the property, things of that nature. The best practices and the handouts we're going to have is really on the keeping of chickens, the care of chickens, the best practices, and with that being said, how to be a good neighbor. What talk to your neighbors about it, recommend we do that, but it's not part of the license process. So, I think I asked this question previously, but I'm going to ask it again. Um, for those point 2 acre properties, how many of those fall within HOAs? So, most likely there's a chance they wouldn't be able to have chickens in >> council. I I don't know the exact number. There are quite a few. And this ordinance is not going to super if an HOA has a rule, they can enforce that rule. If they don't allow chickens, that's the HOA. If they're in if someone gets chickens in violation of their HOA, it's up to the HOA to enforce it. We aren't going to enforce HOA bylaws on their behalf. We don't do that for anything. We enforce our rules. So, HOAs have the ability to restrict chickens or have higher restrictions than we have in this ordinance. So they >> you can have a coupe, but it has to be 50 ft from residential structures if they wanted to, but that's up to their HOA boards to decide. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm in favor, but the only thing that makes me uncomfortable is someone like the deck thing. If these decks in our neighborhood in some of the smaller lots, um, they're budding up to the they're taking up most of the art. So, I could see that becoming a problem. And I don't know if there's a way to word it so that it's just advised that you don't you take your neighbors into account like be respectful of your neighbors yard too, right? >> I mean I worry about that. >> That's a hard one. >> Madame Mayor and Council, if you want to go that route, I think we could easily make a slight alteration to the wording to just say dwelling structure including attached accessory. I like that >> items >> including decks. >> Yeah, I like that too. The attached accessory. >> Yeah, I'm good with attached because everything else I'm fine with. But >> yeah, Madame Mayor Council, would you want it to be worded in a way that also includes patios? >> I would. Yeah. Yes. >> Thank you. Do you have any data on >> chicken coops reducing somebody's property value? Madame Marian Council, I do not um think and I don't >> I would say that comes up a lot for >> Well, it's always the car played is whatever it is I don't like is going to reduce my property value and I >> it's an old tired >> Yeah. Metamean council. That's actually one that I haven't heard in the past um in the [clears throat] four different three times I've looked at chicken ordinances. So, I'm not sure on that. I've never seen a study on that personally. >> Okay, Mr. reckoning. >> I would agree if as long as they're decent like in the picture here. I mean, this is >> almost could be mistaken for a backyard playet. >> Well, yeah. I mean, >> those kids can be pretty noisy. >> What I'm talking about, though, is that's a pretty ideal example. And I think to your point, >> this little >> But how do you how do you know that that's the exception to the rule? >> Yeah, maybe not. >> We don't we don't we don't know that. >> Past history. So >> I was in Ripon, Wisconsin. We had the same discussion. There was one chicken coupe that looked similar to this. Breast look like a cardboard box with a tin roof. >> That's not We're not going to allow that. >> Yeah, our ordinance specifies how it's supposed to look. >> That's what the ordinance said. >> I get what you're saying and I agree. We can't we have to be very specific about what we're going to allow because there will be people that will do the cardboard box thing if we let them. >> But that but that's not a durable material, >> right? And then you learn in the middle of winter that a cardboard box is not going to >> Right. I mean, we could easily find a whole bunch of reasons to to not do this. Right. Right. Any other questions, concerns? >> Um, I have a question about the licensing time because you mentioned it wouldn't take a lot of staff time. Do you kind of have an idea? Is that new permitting software going to have the residents enter most the info and you guys just review it or how does that work? >> Yeah, Madame Mayor and Council. So, IMS is an online permitting portal. We're actually transitioning all of our zoning and land use items into this portal. um when it gets unveiled. Um from a licensing perspective, as someone submits the items, they'll have it goes through a completeness check, which takes about five minutes knocking off to ensure that they have everything. They pay the fee up front. Um we review it usually based on what's the required info. It would probably take five to 10 minutes for each one. And usually if there's like say they're missing something or they're not in violation through the IMS software, we can directly respond to the applicant. They'll get an email directly stating it. They'll have to re-upload with any changes. And so it's actually a very smooth permitting software. I don't anticipate this having even close to the amount of time that would be needed for a signed permit application. And and just to reiterate, you said you you require a plan, >> correct, >> for the design of the coupe and the run. >> Mhm. >> And which includes tell me the materials used, right? >> Yeah. We Yeah, we'll define everything into our permit. We haven't built out that permit. Obviously, we want to get the ordinance figured out first in case there were any changes, but yeah, we'll [clears throat] have all that info. something for residents to be working on now before 111 goes into effect. >> And madame mayor and council, I'll just kind of note on the license, there is going to be a small fee for it to cover the staff time that it will take to administer this program. Um, but with that being said, and what I've seen in the past is having a fee also shows some seriousness that people are taking into account and actually want to go forward with this in a respectful manner. um free permits. Typically, people get a lot more kind of loose with how they go about it. So, I think the fee will show that commitment by the property owner, but also we'll cover the staff time that we're going to need for it. >> Y it was pretty clear what you see the the folks that are in favor of it. I mean, when I was a kid, I was in 4. you don't just don't see 4 anymore and I can just see parents really making an effort to uh use it as an opportunity with their kids and animal animal husbandry and and just teaching them responsibility and and everything that goes with what we heard from the folks that participated in it. I just um to cut that off just because we're afraid of a complaint just doesn't make any sense to me. So, I'm I'm in favor of it. >> Yeah. I think when I got here, I'm not sure I was, but I my big concern was just making sure we were covered with the language. And I think sounds like we are. I just want to make sure, like I said, trying to balance the homeowners right to do it, but also the neighbors who might not care for it. But, um, sounds to me like we've got things covered. And I wasn't unfortunately able to make that last get together meeting. So, I rely on that what you're saying. I I do I think there's value in having animals around, learning, and that's that's good stuff. So, I think I would go that way as well. And um you mentioned verbiage on I mean I'm sure you'll pick the right words but just to make it very clear and pretty assertive that um anybody considering it can save themselves a lot of headache if they do make the rounds and and discuss this with neighbors and they understand what kind of a position they're going to be in. Um, and then they can weigh whether or not they want to fight that battle. [laughter] And I think that'll go a long way and and uh so I just would my suggestion [clears throat] or recommendation is to to make, you know, not only recommend that they go do that, but uh give them some of those reasons why. Just save yourself some headache. You know, >> madame mayor and council, I should also note on the license because we have this for some of the other IMS ones. When it does get built out, we're going to have an acknowledgement where they have to check the box and it links to the code. So, acknowledgement that I've read the ordinance related to this where they will have to check that box. So, now granted, they may not, but at least then they're actually stating that they have acknowledged that they've reviewed the code. >> So, yeah. >> Great. So they can't say they're unaware of the code later. >> Better Mary, that's correct. >> Yeah. Um I'm in favor. Um I'm neutral as far as chickens personally, but with the feedback from the survey and over the past few years people asking for this, so I'm thinking, yeah, I'm for it. >> Great. You want to present a motion? I would uh make a motion to adopt ordinance 2026-14. >> I'll second that. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> Oh, >> jeez. >> Is that with the revision to add the 30-foot setback not just from dwellings but also from attached >> accessory stuff? Is that the intent of them? >> Yes, that's the intent of the >> Thank you. >> changes recommended through discussion. >> Okay. And I'll second that. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. >> Opposed. >> All right. We have a that passes four to one. >> All right. We have correspondence and reports on are online and we are adjourned. Thank you. Seriously think a lot of people be