Staff ReportsCITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 12-015
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 493 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, on 12 March 2012, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted
Ordinance No. 493 entitled "An Ordinance Amending Title 700 of the Municipal Code to Add
Chapter 700 — Farm and Other Animals;
WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a summary of Ordinance No. 493 as follows:
1. The amendment adds an entire new Chapter 704 to the Code.
2. The provisions of this ordinance establish regulations for the keeping of certain
animals in Shorewood.
3. The amendment sets forth the types of animals that may be kept, the number of
animals that may be kept and the manner in which they may be kept.
4. The amendment provides a system of permits and establishes enforcement measures
relative to the keeping of animals.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD:
The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. 493
clearly informs the public of intent and effect of the Ordinance.
2. The City Clerk is directed to publish Ordinance No. 493 by title and summary,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subdivision 4.
3. A full copy of the Ordinance is available at Shorewood City Hall.
ADOPTED by the Shorewood City Council on this 12th day of March, 2012.
ATTEST:
E i/t f C� Q, ,/'1 ,A 1---
Jelin Panchyshyn, De ' uty city Clerk
Christine Lizee, Mayor
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO.493
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 700 OF THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE
TO INCLUDE CHAPTER 704: FARM AND OTHER ANIMALS
Section 1. City Code Title 700 (Animal Regulations) is hereby amended to add:
"Chapter 704
FARM AND OTHER ANIMALS
704.01 PURPOSE.
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations and controls regarding the
keeping of animals other than domestic pets such as dogs and cats, within the city limits of the
City of Shorewood.
704.02 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context
clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
AUTHORIZED CITYPERSONNEL. The Chief of Police, the health authority, their designees,
and other personnel assisting in the enforcement of this chapter.
RURAL FARMANIMAL. Cattle, mules, sheep, goats, swine, llamas, ostriches, emus, and
including, but not limited to, other animals typically maintained in a farm setting but not in an
urban setting.
URBAN FARMANIMAL. Ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens, bees, and rabbits.
MALTREATED ANIMAL. An animal that has not been given adequate food, water, or proper
shelter from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering and with humane care
and treatment, or that has been subjected to the conduct prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 343.21.
NUISANCEANIMAL. An animal, conditions caused by an animal, or the improper care and
maintenance of an animal that result in running at large, offensive odor, excessive noise or
damage to property, so as to disturb the rights of or threaten the safety of a member of the
general public, or interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of their property.
OWNER A person owning, keeping, harboring or acting as custodian of an animal. All adult
occupants of the property where the animal resides or is kept are considered an owner or owners.
PERSON. An individual, firm, partnership, or corporation
PREMISES. A building, structure, shelter, or land where an animal is kept or confined.
UNDER RESTRAINT. An animal being within a private motor vehicle of a person, owning,
harboring or keeping the animal; or controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet in length.
VETERINARYHOSPITAL. A place for the treatment, hospitalization, surgery, care and
boarding of animals and birds, under the direction of one or more licensed veterinarians.
WILD ANIMAL. Any of the following:
a. Front -fanged venomous snakes, including the viperidae and elapidae families of
snakes, such as rattlesnakes and cobras;
b. Snakes over 8 feet in length;
c. Reptiles that have the physical ability as an adult to cause substantial bodily injury as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a, to humans and/or domestic animals, such as
python snakes and crocodilians;
d. Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies;
e. Mammals that as a breed are considered wild by nature because of breeding, history,
character, habit, or disposition; and
f. Mammals that have at least 25 percent of their heritage from mammals specified in
subparagraph e, above.
g. Specifically, such animals as a wolf, fox, skunk, raccoon, mink, bobcat, deer, and
monkey, but not including a fish, bird, ferret, hamster, or gerbil.
611' 900 si:1 Ll),I@) D13I Wo 1!
The Chief of Police or designees will enforce the provisions of this chapter, with the
assistance of other personnel when appropriate.
GhiKill 0R(e)CYIL1)asl�YY.4'/l
Authorized City personnel have the right to enter upon a premises at reasonable times for
the purpose of discharging their duties imposed by this chapter when there is reasonable belief
that a violation of this chapter has been committed.
2
704.05 IMPOUNDING OF ANIMALS.
Subd. 1. Seizure and impoundment. Authorized city personnel may seize and impound an
animal found to be in violation of this chapter. These personnel may enter onto
private property to seize and impound animals when:
a. They have a reasonable and immediate concern for the animal's health, safety or
welfare;
b. They have a reasonable and immediate concern for the health and safety of human
beings or other animals as a result of the animal's continued presence on the
property; or
C. They have reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred
or is occurring and that seizure is necessary to prevent further violation, but only
after a reasonable effort has been made to contact an occupant of the property.
Subd. 2. Interference. A person must not interfere with authorized city personnel
impounding an animal, nor refuse to surrender an animal to these personnel.
Subd. 3. Cost of impoundment. The animal owner is responsible for costs for the
impounding and housing of an impounded animal.
704.06 HEALTH AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS.
Subd. 1. Health standards. The owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the
following standards.
a. An animal kept outdoors or in an unheated enclosure must be provided with
adequate shelter and bedding to protect it from the sun, rain, snow, and
temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
The shelter must include a moisture proof and windproof structure of suitable size
to allow the animal to stand in an upright position and to lie down stretched out so
that no part of its body need touch the sides of the structure. The structure must be
made of durable material sufficient to allow retention of body heat with a solid floor
raised at least two inches from the ground and an entrance covered by a flexible
windproof material or self -closing swinging door. The structure must be provided
with sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar
shavings, blankets or the equivalent to provide insulation and protection against
cold and dampness and to promote retention of body heat. The structure must be
structurally sound and maintained in good repair.
C. In lieu of the requirements of paragraphs a. and b., an animal may be provided with
access to a barn with a sufficient quantity of loose hay or bedding and protection
against cold and dampness.
K
d. If an animal is confined by a chain, the chain must be so attached that it cannot
become entangled with the chains of other animals or other objects. A chain must
be of a size adequate to restrain the animal involved and must be attached to the
animal by means of a well fitted collar. The collar must be large enough to allow
free breathing but small enough to avoid being easily pulled over the animal's head.
A chain must be at least three times the length of the animal as measured from the
tip of his nose to the base of his tail.
e. An animal must be provided with sufficient food and water to meet necessary
nutritional requirements.
f. No person shall deposit or cause to be deposited upon any lot or in any street, alley,
lake, river or other body of water, sewer or manhole or bury or conceal in any way,
a dead animal or part thereof. The owner or other person having charge of an
animal at the time of its death shall remove or cause to be removed the dead body of
such animal within 24 hours after death to a crematory, sanitary landfill, rendering
factory or any other place approved by the Chief of Police or his designee.
Subd. 2. Maintenance standards. An owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with
the standards below. An action to enforce the provisions of this chapter shall follow
the procedures set forth in Chapter 104 of this Code.
a. An owner must maintain an animal and the area where it is kept so that no odor that
offends the senses of a reasonable person is detected, for more than one day, off the
property where the animal is kept.
b. An owner must maintain the property where the animal is kept so that there is no
erosion, and no drainage of water contaminated by the animal, onto adjacent
properties or into public waters or wetlands.
C. An owner must manage the feces and other bodily wastes from the animal in a
timely and sanitary manner that prevents health risks and prevents odors that are
prohibited under paragraph a. above.
d. All feed kept for animals shall be stored in animal -proof, galvanized containers.
Subd. 3. Veterinary clinic with indoor overnight care and indoor kennels. In addition to the
standards established under Subd. 1. above, veterinary clinics with indoor care and
indoor kennels, where allowed by zoning, must comply with Minnesota Rules
Chapter 9100, as may be amended.
704.07 WILD ANIMALS.
Subd. 1. Wild animals prohibited. A person must not keep, own, harbor, or otherwise
possess a wild animal within the city, except as provided in Subd. 2. below.
Subd. 2. Wild animals allowed. Wild animals may be brought into the city for the purpose
of entertainment, education, or display only by the following:
a. A zoo operated by a governmental agency or a tax-exempt, non-profit corporation;
b. The department of natural resources;
C. Other similar public educational or charitable organization;
d. A circus; or
e. A City -licensed pet shop.
An organization listed above may bring a wild animal or animals into the city
under this subdivision only if the organization can and does comply with the
standards contained in Subd. 3. below. No organization covered by this
subdivision may have wild animals within the city on more than 7 days in a
consecutive 12-month period, except that an organization listed above that has a
wild animal within the city on the effective date of this section may continue to
keep that animal as long as it lives if the organization obtains a permit from the
City and complies with the standards specified in Subd. 3. below.
Subd. 3. Standards for keeping of wild animals. An organization that has a wild animal
must comply with the following standards at all times that it possesses a wild
animal within the city.
a. A non -governmental organization must have liability insurance to cover potential
personal injury or property damage caused by the animal(s), in an amount of at
least $300,000 per person per occurrence.
b. The animal(s) must be kept in a locked cage or other secure enclosure at all times
when the public is allowed to be near them.
C. The cage or enclosure must be constructed of sufficient materials so that a person,
including a child, cannot put a finger, hand, or another portion of the body into the
cage or enclosure so that the animal(s) could touch it. Alternatively, structural
barriers may be used to keep the public away from the cage or enclosure.
d. Only personnel with adequate training or experience in handling wild animals may
have contact with the animal(s) while in the city.
5
e. The animal(s) must be transported to the display location in the city in a secure
enclosure sufficient to prohibit potential contact with humans or other animals,
except the personnel identified under subparagraph (d) above.
f. No sale of a wild animal(s) may occur, nor may orders for the sale of wild animals
be taken.
g. The display location must be inspected by authorized City personnel before the
wild animal(s) may be brought into the city.
h. Authorized City personnel must be allowed to periodically inspect the display
location during reasonable hours while the animal(s) is/are in the city.
If a wild animal bites a person, the animal must be forfeited immediately to
authorized City personnel for rabies testing.
704.08 FORFEITURE OF ANIMAL OWNERSHIP RIGHTS.
Subd. 1. Forfeiture of rights. The ownership rights of a person owning the following types
of animals may be forfeited to the City pursuant to the procedure in this section:
a. A public nuisance animal;
b. A wild animal; and
C. A maltreated animal.
In addition, the ownership rights with respect to other animals owned by the same
owner may be forfeited if he/she has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to
properly care for or control such animals in order to prevent any of them from
becoming a public nuisance animal or a maltreated animal.
Subd. 2. Notice. Authorized City personnel must notify the owner or apparent owner of the
animal sought to be forfeited that the city intends to forfeit his/her ownership
rights. The notice must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail.
The notice must be in writing and state the reasons why forfeiture is sought,
including a summary of applicable incidents. The notice must state that the owner
has a right, within 10 days after receiving the notice, to request a hearing before a
Hearing Officer appointed under City Code Chapter 104. The request for a hearing
must be in writing and must state the reason or reasons for the request. A failure to
request the hearing will constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the notice,
and the animal will be deemed forfeited to the City.
Subd. 3. Findings offact. If the owner requests a hearing, the hearing will be held in
accordance with City Code Chapter 104. The Hearing Officer must make written
findings of fact and reach a conclusion whether the allegations are true and whether
ld
the animal will be forfeited to the City. The findings and conclusions must be
made within 10 working days after the hearing and must be served on the owner
personally or by registered mail. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final but
may be appealed by a writ of certiorari to the District Court.
Subd. 4. Animal confinement. After receiving the forfeiture notice and during the forfeiture
proceedings, the owner must keep the subject animal confined within his/her home
or within a secure covered enclosure. If the owner fails to do so, or if there is an
immediate threat to public health or safety or to the animal's health or safety,
authorized City personnel may immediately impound the animal and keep it at the
impound facility at the owner's expense until a forfeiture determination has been
made.
Subd. 5. Forfeiture. If the animal is deemed or ordered forfeited, the owner must
immediately give the animal to authorized City personnel, and a failure or refusal
to do so is a misdemeanor. Authorized City personnel may use reasonable force
and go onto private property to take the animal into custody.
Subd. 6. Disposition of forfeited animal. Authorized City personnel will determine on a
case by case basis whether forfeited animals are destroyed or given to new owners
who will adequately care for and control the animal.
704.09 FARM ANIMALS.
Subd. 1. Rural farm animals. Unless otherwise provided for, a person shall not keep, own,
harbor, or otherwise possess a rural farm animal within the city.
Subd. 2. Urban farm animals. A person may own, keep, harbor, or otherwise possess urban
farm animals within the city in accordance with the provisions of this section.
a. An urban farm animal may only be kept in the buildable area of the rear yard of the
property, as defined by the Zoning Code.
b. An urban farm animal that is kept outside must be provided a shelter structure of
appropriate size, that is accessible to the animal at all times as provided in section
704.06 Subd. 1. of this chapter. The shelter structure and confinement areas shall
be adequately screened to the satisfaction of neighboring property owners as
provided in section i.(2) of this subdivision. Screening may be achieved by fencing
or landscaping, or a combination of both.
C. The urban farm animal must be contained on the property by the use of a fence or
other appropriate containment device or structure.
d. Roosters are not allowed.
7
e. An urban farm animal must not be kept on residentially -zoned property if it is
being used as part of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use
occurs on the residentially -zoned property.
f. The ground or floor of the area where an urban farm animal is kept must be
covered with vegetation, concrete, or other surface approved by the Shorewood
Planning Department, so that it can be, and is, sufficiently maintained to
adequately dissipate offensive odors, in compliance with section 704.06, Subd. 2.
a. and c. of this chapter.
g. The number of chickens, ducks, geese, turkey, guinea hens, or rabbits shall not
exceed six (6).
h. The number of bee hives shall not exceed four (4).
Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in
paragraphs g. and h. above, at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance shall not
replace animals in excess of those limitations.
i i. Pen -nit issuance; fees.
(1) No urban farm animal may be kept in the City of Shorewood until a permit to
do so has been approved by the Zoning Administrator and issued by the
office of the Building Official. No permit shall be granted until the necessary
fee has been paid and until the Building Official or staff representative has
made an inspection of the property and has ascertained that the premises
comply with all requirements of this chapter. Detailed plans and
specifications, accurate and drawn to scale, must be submitted with the
application including, but not limited to the following:
(a) Site plan showing the location and setbacks of existing and proposed
buildings, fences and structures on the subject property.
(b) Architectural plans showing floor plans, building elevations and
dimensions.
(c) Landscaping plan showing how the shelter structure and confinement
areas will be screened from adjoining properties.
(2) The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of this chapter
shall provide with the application the written consent of 75 percent of the
owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within 150
feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being
requested or, in the alternative, proof that the applicant's property lines are
150 feet or more from any structure. Where a street separates the premises
for which the permit is being requested from other neighboring property, no
consent is required from the owners or occupants of property located on the
opposite side of the street. Where a property within 150 feet consists of a
multiple dwelling, the applicant need only obtain the written consent of the
owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building.
(3) Fees:
(a) The permit fee and other fees and charges set forth in this chapter shall
be collected by the City before the issuance of any permits and the
Building Official, or other persons duly authorized to issue the permit
for which the payment of a fee is required under the provisions of this
chapter, may not issue a permit until the fees shall have been paid.
�kj� Ee'j The City Council shall, from time to time, establish a fee schedule by
ordinance."
Section 2. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the
Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood.
704.10 PENALTY.
Violation of this chapter shall be grounds for administrative enforcement pursuant to chapter
104.03 of this code.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12s' day of
March, 2012.
Christine Lizee, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy City Clerk
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject:
Animal Regulations — Farm and Other Animals
Meeting Date:
12 March 2012
Prepared by:
Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Patti Helgesen
Attachments:
I - Planning Director's Memo, dated 16 February 2012
11 — Draft Ordinance
III —Resolution Authorizing Summary Publication
#sc
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
Policy Consideration: Should the City adopt regulations regulating farm and other animals (not dogs or
horses) within Shorewood?
Background: The City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the current City Code and
make recommendations relative to the regulation of farm and other animals (dogs and horses are
addressed in other sections of the Code). The Commission spent the last few months reviewing five
drafts of a proposed ordinance addressing farm and other animals in Shorewood (see Attachment 1).
The proposed ordinance limits the types of animals that may be kept, addresses confinement and
shelter and prescribes enforcement measures for the keeping of animals. In its study, the Commission
was mindful of sustainability and the ability of residents to do some minimal "urban farming". In this
regard, chickens, fowl and bees were included in the list of allowable animals that could be kept on
residential property. The final draft of the Code Amendment (see Attachment II), adds an entire new
chapter to Title 700 of the City Code. Since the ordinance is rather lengthy for publication purposes, a
resolution authorizing publication of a summary of the ordinance has been included in your packet for
consideration (Attachment III). The Commission was unanimous in recommending the new chapter.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Negligible. The cost of permitting and enforcement is intended to
be covered by existing staff.
Options: Approve the amendment, modify the amendment, or deny the amendment.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Given the considerable amount of work done by the Planning
Commission, it is recommended that the ordinance and the summary ordinance for publication be
approved.
Next Steps and Timelines: The summary of the ordinance will be published in the official newspaper,
after which it will be in force.
Connection to Vision / Mission: The proposed draft is viewed as contributing to a healthy environment.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 21, 2012
Page 3 of 9 Excerpt
yard setback is 10 feet on each side. In response to another question from Hasek, Nielsen stated the
smallest rear yard setback is 35 feet. Hasek questioned why someone might need to have a ramp extend
30 feet into a rear yard setback. Hasek asked if anyone else finds that problematic.
Director Nielsen recommended that the encroachment into the rear yard setback for ramps be changed so
that setbacks of not less than 20 feet shall be maintained.
Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code Amendment pertaining
to allowable front yard encroachment subject to changing it to require a rear setback of 20 feet be
maintained. Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
2. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) — FINAL DRAFT
Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the fifth, and hopefully final, draft of an
amendment to Shorewood's Municipal Code Chapter 704 that will establish rules for the keeping of farm
and other animals. This draft includes the final two revisions recommended by the Planning Commission
during its February 8, 2012, meeting. The Commission asked to see the final draft before it was sent to
Council.
Commissioner Hutchins stated Section 704.09 Subd. 2.(1.) states "Any person having more than the
allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, shall not replace animals in excess
of those limitations." He asked if having more than the allowable number of animals means at the time the
ordinance is approved. Director Nielsen responded it does. Hutchins asked if it needs to say that. Hutchins
expressed concern that a person could buy more than the allowable after the ordinance goes into effect.
Nielsen stated the phrase "at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance" will be added to that provision.
Commissioner Arnst asked for confirmation that no one will be grandfathered in; everyone will have to
apply for a permit. Director Nielsen confirmed that.
Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the final draft of an amendment to
the Shorewood Municipal Code establishing rules for the keeping of farm and other animals
subject to amending Section 704.09 Subd. 2.(i.) to read "Any person having more than the allowable
number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, at the time of the adoption of this
Ordinance shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations." Motion passed 7/0.
3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — LIFE -CYCLE HOUSING — ACCESSORY APARTMENTS
Director Nielsen explained one of the topics on the Planning Commission's 2012 work program is life -
cycle housing. One potential aspect of this is what is referred to as "accessory apartments". The City's
Zoning Code limits the number of dwellings to one per property for single-family residential zoning
districts. The Code does not allow for accessory apartments in single-family homes. The proposed
amendment would allow people to create an apartment within a dwelling. Allowing accessory apartments
would address both ends of the life -cycle housing spectrum. It would support older parents moving in to
single-family homes with their adult children, or adult children moving in with their parents. The concept
of accessory apartments in single-family homes is not a new idea around the country. Cities in the eastern
part of the country have been addressing this for 20 or more years.
It
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 65331-8927 • (952) 960-7900
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us - cityhaI1@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 16 February 2012
RE: Farm and Other Animals Ordinance — Fifth Draft
FILE NO. City Code (Title 700)
Attached (Exhibit A) is the fifth draft of the ordinance amendment regulating farm and other animals
(but not dogs). The latest two revisions appear on page 10 in purple type. We have also attached a
(hopefully) final draft so you can see it in the form in which it will be published.
If there are any questions relative to this item, please feel free to contact me prior to the meeting.
Cc: Laura Hotvet
Brian Heck
Tun Keane
co
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Attachment I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 16 February 2012
RE: Farm and Other Animals Ordinance — Fifth Draft
FILE NO. City Code (Title 700)
Attached (Exhibit A) is the fifth draft of the ordinance amendment regulating farm and other animals
(but not dogs). The latest two revisions appear on page 10 in purple type. We have also attached a
(hopefully) final draft so you can see it in the form in which it will be published.
If there are any questions relative to this item, please feel free to contact me prior to the meeting.
Cc: Laura Hotvet
Brian Heck
Tim Keane
Attachment I
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 3 February 2012
RE: Animal Regulations — Fourth Draft
FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 700)
Attached is the fourth draft of an amendment to Shorewood's Municipal Code that would establish
rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. Changes from the third draft have been shown in
green lettering.
When we last left off, two main questions remained to be answered: 1) how many animals should
be allowed; and 2) what, if any, grandfather rights should be included. With respect to the number
of animals, based on our last discussion, it is recommended that this number be increased from four
to either six or eight. This would allow a family raising its own animals (e.g. chickens) to have four
active producers and two to four nonproducers.
Relative to grandfathering, it is recommended that all properties be subject to the permit
requirements. Anyone that currently has more animals than currently allowed would simply not
replace dead animals in excess of the six or eight allowed.
Cc: Brian Heck
Laura Hotvet
Cot
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 • (952) 960-7900
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us • c1tyha11@c1.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 1 December 2011
RE: Farm and Other Animals Ordinance — Revisions to Third Draft
FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 704)
At its 1 November meeting, the Planning Commission considered a third draft to a proposed
ordinance regulating farm and other animals (see staff report, dated 27 October 2011). In addition
to some minor formatting issues, staff was directed to address the shelter and screening
requirements for urban farm animals. Since the third draft of the ordinance already utilizes three
different colors of ink, and in order to not reprint the entire document, the proposed revisions are
listed below by section.
Section 704.06 Subd. 1. is amended to include:
"f. No person shall deposit or cause to be deposited upon any lot or in any street, alley, lake, river
or other body of water, sewer or manhole or bury or conceal in any way, a dead animal or part
thereof. The owner or other person having charge of an animal at the time of its death shall
remove or cause to be removed the dead body of such animal within 24 hours after death to a
crematory, sanitary landfill, rendering factory or any other place approved by the Chief of
Police or his designee."
Section 704.07 Subd. 1. is amended to include the title "Wild animals prohibited."
Section 704.07 Subd. 3. is amended to include the title "Standards for keeping of wild animals."
Section 704.08 is amended to read "FORFEITURE OF ANIMAL OWNERSHIP RIGHTS"
Section 704.09 Subd. 2 b. is amended entirely to read:
"b. An urban farm animal that is kept outside must be provided a shelter structure of appropriate
size, that is accessible to the animal at all times as provided in section 704.06 Subd. 1. of this
chapter. The shelter structure and confinement areas shall be adequately screened to the
0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Farm Animals Ordinance — Revisions to Third Draft
1 December 2011
satisfaction of neighboring property owners as provided in section i.(2) of this subdivision.
Screening may be achieved by fencing or landscaping, or a combination of both."
Section 704.10 is amended to read:
"704.10 PENALTY.
Violation of this chapter shall be grounds for administrative enforcement pursuant to chapter
104.03 of this code."
Please bring the 27 October staff report with you. Staff will have some extra copies at the meeting
for those who may have misplaced it.
Cc: Brian Heck
Tim Keane
-2-
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • eltyha116d.shorewood.mmus
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 27 October 2011
RE: Animal Regulations — Third Draft
FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 700)
Attached is the third draft of an amendment to Shorewood's Municipal Code that would establish
rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. Changes from the second draft have been shown in
blue lettering and blue strikeouts.
Please note that a couple of items remain to be resolved. The standards for the shelter facilities and
the required screening have not been completed as of this writing. We are doing additional research
to see what kind of space requirements animals other than chickens have. Also, we are checking to
see what, if any, requirements the State may have relative to the disposal of dead animals.
Cc: Brian Heck
Dick Woodruff
ON `� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING
18 October 2011
Page 4 of 10
and therefore it has to be in compliance with all regulations for outbuildings. A site plan has to be
included with the permit application.
Mr. Lies stated hens will typically stop laying eggs in the winter here because there is not enough light.
Therefore, people will typically heat the coop with a heat lamp or something with radiant heat. Chickens
do not need a lot of heat. They will keep each other warm.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Mr. Lies showed a picture of a few more elaborate
coops.
Commissioner Hasek asked if there is a requirement to visually screen coops from adjacent properties in
Minneapolis and St. Paul. Mr. Lies stated he doesn't know the answer to that. Hasek stated screening is
needed for people who put up an unsightly coop.
Mr. Lies stated he and his wife have a lot of personal experience about chickens. He noted he is just an
enthusiast.
Chair Geng thanked Mr. Lies for coming this evening and sharing his experiences.
Commissioner Hasek asked if chickens can live in the run area. Mr. Lies responded they could
2. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs)
Director Nielsen noted the Planning Commission had been provided with a copy of second draft of
Ordinance Chapter 704 Farm and Other Animals. This draft is in the City Code format and it includes
most of the suggestions made by the Commissioners. This draft does not include a permit process. The
Commission may want to consider adding that. It does not address dogs because they are addressed in
Chapter 701 of the City Code.
Commissioner Arnst asked if homeowner associations can prohibit any of the animals specifically
addressed in the Ordinance. Director Nielsen responded they can. Amst then asked why the Commission
was asked to address this. Nielsen explained the City doesn't have an ordinance addressing farm animals.
A property owner who believes their property is considered a faun had indicated they may raise farm
animals on their property. Today someone could raise chickens in the City because there is nothing
prohibiting them from doing that.
Director Nielsen noted the draft Ordinance divides faun animals into two classifications; rural and urban.
It does allow for keeping chickens, ducks, geese and so forth. He commented some residents raise bees
and the City does not have a regulation against doing that.
Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission discussed the base Ordinance during its October 4,
2011, meeting. During that meeting he solicited suggestions from the Commissioners and also asked to
send him their additional comments on it via email. He noted he received comments from two
Commissioners and those have been incorporated into the second draft as best as he could. He also noted
Commissioner Artist had suggested to him that it wasn't necessary to address wild animals in the
ordinance. He stated that is up to the Commission.
Director Nielsen stated the main purpose of the Ordinance is to address rural farm animals and to make
reasonable provisions for urban farm animals. He then stated it does tic into discussions the Planning
Commission has had about sustainability. He noted that after an article was published in a newspaper
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING
1S October 2011
Page 5 of 10
about raising chickens in urban areas the City received a fair number of calls about whether or not the
City allows that.
Commissioner Amst stated the Ordinance does speak to sustainability and that she is open to allowing
residents to raise small urban farm animals such as chickens, geese and ducks provided there are
restrictions on where a coop can be located. She stated coops should not be located in a front yard or in a
corner of the back yard next to an adjacent property. It should be up close to the property owner's house.
The animals need to be contained and quiet, and neighbors should not have to be exposed to the smell.
Director Nielsen explained Section 704.09 subd. 2(b) states "The shelter structure may not be located
closer to the boundary line of adjacent property than it is to the principal structure on the animal owner's
property, but in any event not less than 10 feet away from the boundary line of the adjacent property." He
noted that it applies to bees as well.
Commissioner Hasek asked if doves or pigeons are addressed in the Ordinance. Director Nielsen
responded they are not included in the definition of urban farm animal. Council Liaison Woodruff stated
that definition of rural farm animal states ".., and including, but not limited to other animals ...". The
urban farm animal definition does not include that and maybe something similar should be added.
Director Nielsen commented that pigeons are banned in the City of Brooklyn Park. Nielsen noted that he
purposefully kept the list of allowable urban farm animals limited to food producing type animals.
Commissioner Hasek asked if the Ordinance requires that neighbors must approve a permit. Director
Nielsen responded it does not. Hasek suggested it be added. He noted that Mr. Lies recommended the
Ordinance be very clear. Hasek recommended the Ordinance be more inclusive rather than less inclusive.
He recommended a permit process be added and that the permit fee cover associated administrative costs.
He recommended the coop be screened at the ground level, from a deck (independent of what story the
deck is on), and so forth. Nielsen stated some coops don't look any different than a shed so he questioned
having to screen them. Nielsen then stated the run area is something different. Hasek stated if the style of
the structure isn't going to be complimentary to the residential house he suggested it be screened. He
asked if the structure should have to fit with the character of the principal structure. Nielsen explained that
only applies to outbuildings that are over 1200 square feet in size. Hasek stated he doesn't care if his
neighbors want to raise urban farm animals. He just doesn't want to have that part of his life.
Commissioner Charbonnet suggested the Ordinance contain a provision to require animal feed be kept in G
an animal proof galvanized container to reduce the possibility of attracting predatory animals into the
area. He also suggested adding regulations regarding the disposal of dead farm animals.
Director Nielsen noted the draft Ordinance doesn't address nuisance animals. He questioned if predatory
animals could be addressed in that to -be -added area, but he wasn't sure how that could be enforced.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated there have to be some guidelines regarding where the animals will be
allowed to roam. Should they be confined to a fenced in area or should they be allowed to roam freely?
In response to a comment from Council Liaison Woodruff, Nielsen explained Section 704.09 subd. 2(e)
states "An urban farm animal must not be kept on residentially -zoned property if it is being used as part
of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use occurs on the residentially -zoned property."
Woodruff noted that would prohibit a bee keeper from selling honey.
There was ensuing discussion about the location provision in Section 704.09 subd. 2(a) which states "An
urban farm animal must not be kept or maintained on the front yard of the property, as defined by the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING
18 October2011
Page 6 of 10
Zoning Code." and in Section 704.09 subd. 2(b) which states "The shelter structure may not be located
closer to the boundary line of adjacent property than it is to the principal structure on the animal owner's
property, but in any event not less than 10 feet away from the boundary line of the adjacent property."
Director Nielsen stated "on the front yard" be changed to "in the front yard". He then stated he will refine
the location provision language to stipulate the shelter structure has to be located in the buildable area of
the back yard.
Commissioner Davis suggested the Ordinance allow some flexibility for location, noting her own lot
configuration and topography would not allow her to locate a structure in the buildable area of her
backyard. She stated a site plan review would provide additional information about a lot. Director Nielsen
stated he is not sure it's possible to accommodate every lot configuration in the Ordinance. Commissioner
Hasek suggested neighbors be given the opportunity to review site plans before they give their approval.
Commissioner Arnst suggested the Planning Commission consider limiting the size of the shelter
structure and run area to the sizes recommended by Mr. Lies.
Commissioners Arnst and Hasek suggested the number of chickens be limited to four. Commissioner
Davis said a number of chicken ordinances indicates almost all of them are for 3 — 5 birds.
Council Liaison Woodruff suggested Staff research chicken -only ordinances to see what they include.
Chair Geng cautioned against making the Ordinance expensive to comply with. If it's too expensive
people may be unlikely to apply for the permit. He stated that Mr. Lies indicated that high income people
generally don't have chicken coops. He clarified he was not against screening a shelter structure. He
stated making it too expensive seems to be contrary to sustainability objectives.
Commissioner Arrest stated she did not think there will be influx of permit applications to raise chickens
because of the expense associated with raising chickens. She suggested a solution should be put in place
before there is a need to address complaints from neighbors.
Chair Geng asked if there will be criteria for each type of farm animal. Tonight the focus has been on
chickens but there are other types of urban farm animals.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated today there is no recourse if a neighbor has issues with what someone is
doing. The Ordinance provides the City with a means for addressing complaints from neighbors. He then
stated he agreed that the Ordinance should not be that specific and/or onerous that no one can afford to do
it.
Director Nielsen asked if chickens should be allowed to run within a fenced in yard or if they should be
confined to a run area. Chair Geng stated to reduce attracting predatory animals it may be better to require
the entire yard to be fenced. Commissioner Davis explained predators are not the issue for a person living
in Duluth who raises chickens. Dogs are more of a problem. Chickens go into the shelter at night when
the sun goes down. Davis recommended chickens be kept in a fenced in and roofed area.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated requiring a fenced in area is a good idea. Chickens should not be
allowed to roam freely in a yard that does not have a fence around it. If birds fly over the fence, that
should be addressed as part of a nuisance provision.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING
18 October 2011
Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Amst asked if noise will be addressed in the nuisance ordinance. Director Nielsen
responded it would, as will odor.
Director Nielsen explained the draft Ordinance is trying to prevent rural farm animals and allow for urban
farm animals. He asked if the Commission had problems with the list of rural animals.
Commissioner Arnst stated the definitions for both rural farm animals and urban farm animals trouble her.
Someone will find away to work around them. She commented the distinction between them is size.
There was consensus that if someone wants to raise an urban farm animal that is not included in the
definition then can submit a request to amend the Ordinance.
Director Nielsen noted there is no need to have a public hearing on this Ordinance. He asked what the
Commission thought about the wild animal section of the Ordinance. He noted he doesn't think there is
any harm in including it.
Administrator Heck explained a few cities have Ordinances that prohibit keeping certain types of wild
animals.
Chair Geng suggested changing Item D in the definition of wild animal from "Animals that can transmit
rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies, except domestic animals such as cows" to "Animals that
can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies".
Director Nielsen stated this Ordinance needs the blessing from the South Lake Minnetonka Police
Department (SLMPD) because some of it must be enforced by the SLMPD.
Chair Geng asked who on City staff will be qualified to inspect this stuff. Director Nielsen explained if
it's a matter of the dimensional requirements the Building Official will. Other things will be enforced on a
complaint basis.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission chose to delete commercial kennels because they are
not allowed in the City. The City does allow veterinary clinics with over night care and indoor kennels.
He noted if there are State rules on this they will be adopted by reference in the Ordinance.
Chair Geng asked if pot belly pigs are considered to be a swine. Director Nielsen explained under the
draft Ordinance it would be considered a rural farm animal. Geng stated a lot of people in other parts of
the country have pot belly pigs and they have rescue groups for them.
Commissioner Hasek stated there are people who keep red tailed hawks and odd things like that. Council
Liaison Woodruff stated the definition of wild animals specifically excludes birds.
Director Nielsen stated he will make the revisions discussed. He noted that under Penalty he included
reference to Chapter 104 General Penalty and Enforcement and any violation of this Ordinance would be
a Class A Offence which carries a $100 fine. He asked the Commission if that seems fair. There was a
response that it does.
3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE
Director Nielsen stated during a Council discussion about various licenses the City issues the topic of
massage therapist licensing came up. Today the City licenses the individual therapist; not the business. He
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall•tici.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 29 September 2011
RE: Animal Regulations — Other Than Dogs
FILE NO. City Code (Title 700)
One of the items the City Council has forwarded to the Planning Commission is a discussion of
what, if anything should be done to address various animals in Shorewood other than dogs, which
we discussed at the last meeting. The attached very rough draft of ordinance language addresses
both farm animals and wild animals, and is intended to serve as a starting point for the discussion.
For example, any reference to dogs should be disregarded.
It is worth noting that Commissioner Davis has lined up a speaker for the 18 October meeting who
will talk to the Commission about urban farming, including the keeping of chickens.
Cc: Brian Heck
Dick Woodruff
c• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER