My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10.2. SR 11-02-2020
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2020
>
11-02-2020
>
10.2. SR 11-02-2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2020 2:20:10 PM
Creation date
10/30/2020 11:43:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
11/2/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
Planning Commission Minutes <br />March 28, 2017 <br />Page 6 <br />asked what happens if an issue arises between inspections. Mr. Simon stated that any further <br />action would be complaint -driven or as noticed by staff. <br />Councilmember Wagner asked who would do the inspections. Mr. Carlton stated that <br />planning staff would make the first inspection and subsequent inspections would be handled <br />by code enforcement staff. Councilmember Wagner asked if any of the other cities that <br />were surveyed experienced an impact on property values by allowing chickens. Mr. Carlton <br />stated no, that was not mentioned. Councilmember Wagner stated that there are a number <br />of developments that have homeowners associations and asked if they could be more <br />restrictive than the city's ordinance. Mr. Carlton stated yes, they could be more restrictive, <br />but not less restrictive. <br />Councilmember Wagner asked if other cities passed on any information they have learned <br />since adopting their ordinances. Ms. Simon stated that a couple cities stated they had an <br />issue of animals running at large and had to involve animal control. Also, some of the cities <br />noted that initially there was high interest in raising chickens, but that the interest dropped <br />off quite a bit after a year or two. <br />Councilmember Wagner asked what happens when people lose interest. Ms. Simon stated <br />that they would prepare a one -page handout stating what people should expect. Mr. Carlton <br />noted that he is aware of a rescue site called Chicken Run in Minneapolis, so apparently this <br />can become an issue when people become tired of raising chickens. <br />Commissioner Thiel asked what would happen to the coops and runs when people lose <br />interest. He expressed concern that keeping chickens could attract wildlife/predators. He <br />felt odor would need to be addressed, depending upon the lot size. <br />Commissioner Rydberg stated that he felt that the proximity to pedestrian and public use <br />areas should be considered in the permitting process. <br />Chair Johnson stated that attracting predators could be a concern for the neighbors. He <br />asked if the permit fee was in line with other cities. Ms. Simon stated that the fees in the <br />cities surveyed ranged from $30 to $50. Chair Johnson suggested the chicken area be <br />screened with opaque fencing. <br />Commissioner Larson -Vito stated she opposed creating a financial burden to raise a few <br />chickens. Commissioner Nicholas stated that he did not feel the yard should require opaque <br />fencing. <br />Commissioner Rydberg asked if other cities noticed an effect on property values. Ms. Simon <br />stated she did not ask that specific question but she could ask the communities which were <br />surveyed. <br />Commissioner Feinstein asked if staff had concerns with compliance issues. Ms. Simon <br />stated that there are other sections of the city's ordinance that address enforcement. <br />Commissioner Rydberg asked what is the maximum number of chickens that would be <br />allowed on the smaller lots. Ms. Simon stated that the smallest lots could have 4 chickens. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.