06-08-10 CM Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
June 8, 2010
6:30 pm
1. Possible 1-GV-461 Sanitary Sewer Reliever Routes
2. Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Section 11.72 - Fence Requirements in
Residential and Multiple Dwelling Zoning District
3. Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Height of Principal Structure in High Density
Residential Zoning District (R-4)
4. Access to Minnesota Department of Transportation Property at 1-394 and
Turner's Crossroad
5. Allowing Chickens
6. Domestic Partnership Registration
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed
for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and
provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The
public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
ailable in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
ge print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
alley
M ndu
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
June 8, 2010
Agenda Item
1. Discuss Possible 1-GV-461 Sanitary Sewer Reliever Routes
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Mitchell Hoeft, EIT, Engineer
Summary
As part of the preliminary design of the 1-GV-461 reliever project, the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) has currently been working on researching and selecting the
best possible route to install its new sanitary sewer forcemain through Golden Valley. MCES
has proposed two alternative routes between Golden Hills Drive and Glenwood Avenue. The
alignment of Alternative 1 follows Turners Crossroad north to Glenwood Avenue. The
alignment of Alternative 2 utilizes Golden Hills Drive westward to Xenia Avenue and then
north to Glenwood Avenue. Please refer to Attachment 1 - "Force Main Route" for an aerial
map showing the two alternatives.
MCES is currently concluding its routing research and would like to present its findings along
with a preferred route to the City Council for its consideration. More information on the
findings as well as a cost analysis can be found in the attachments. MCES staff will be
present at the Council/Manager meeting to discuss the results and answer any questions.
Attachments
Metropolitan Council Technical Services Memorandum, dated May 28, 2010 (2 pages)
Cost Estimate - Route Comparison Cost (1 page)
Attachment I - Force Main Route (1 page)
Attachment II - City Utility - Force Main Routing (1 page)
~ Metropolitan Councll
Technical Services Memorandum
DATE: May 28,2010
TO: Bill Cook
FROM: Jeff Schwarz
SUBJECT: I-GV-461 Relief Force Main and Lift Station Project 805700, Force Main Alignment
Selection Evaluation
Tpe "GV/SLP Regional Sanitary Sewer Improvements Facility Plan" dated February 2010 was approved
by the Metropolitan Council and supported by the City of Golden Valley in a February 16, 2010
resolution and submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on March 1, 2010.
Preliminary MPCA approval of the Facility Plan is anticipated in June 2010.
The Facility Plan recommended a new lift station and force main to redirect 5 MGD peak flow from the
I-GV-461 service area to the Plymouth Force Main. The Facility Plan identified two alternate force
main routes between Golden Hills Drive and Glenwood Ave. as shown on Attachment 1.
To select the most technically feasible and cost effective force main route the following information was
reviewed:
. Facility Plan.
. Existing geotechnical data provided by the City of Golden Valley.
. Existing utility locations in relation to the proposed force main alignments.
. Property owners and easement requirements.
. Residential and business traffic patterns, detour routes and accessibility issues.
. Constructability issues.
. Potential partnering opportunities.
. Estimated costs.
Results of this evaluation indicated the following:
Turner's Crossroad - Alterative 1:
1. Soils consist predominantly of clayey sand, sandy lean clay and/or organic clays.
2. One MPCA Leaking Underground Storage Tank site with contaminated soils is present at the
property formerly addressed as 800 Turners Crossroad South. Fuel oil contaminated soil may be
encountered during force main excavation activities.
3. During the Facility Plan public heirring process, concerns regarding access from Golden Valley
Fire Station #2 and installation of the force main through private property owned by the Golden
Valley Lutheran Church under City easement on the Turner's Crossroad route were raised.
4. Existing utilities in the entire Turners Crossroad route include sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water
main, a 12" gas main and related services as shown on Attachment 2. Multiple fiber optic lines
are present from Fire Station #2 to Turnpike Road. The Turner's Crossroad right of way is 60
feet wide.
5. To provide Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) required separation between the new force
main and the existing water main and stay within the right of way, the force main would be
installed between the existing sanitary and storm sewers as shown on Attachment 2. This
location would require removal and replacement of the east central portion of the road resulting
in full road closures and interruption of access to Fire Station #2, Golden Valley Lutheran
Church, an apartment building and approximately ten residences.
6. Partial removal and replacement of the existing 24" storm sewer on Turner's Crossroad may be
required where the storm sewer can't be properly supported adjacent to the force main
excavation or to provide adequate space for the force main.
7. The force main will have to cross storm, sanitary, and water main utilities at Radisson Road,
Turnpike Road, and Glenwood Avenue and sanitary sewer and water services at every residence
on the east side of Turner's Crossroad.
8. Constructability of this segment will be moderate to difficult given the high concentration of
utilities and the limited right of way.
9. The estimated cost of this alternate is approximately $480,000 as shown on Attachment 3.
Xenia Avenue - Alternative 2:
1. Soils consist predominantly of clayey sand, sandy lean clay and/or organic clays.
2. No contaminated properties were identified on the Xenia Ave. route.
3. Concerns regarding the heavier traffic on Xenia and the affect of detours on traffic, particularly
in the section of Xenia immediately south of Glenwood where bottle necks occur with minimal
disruption, were raised during the public hearing process.
4. There are few utilities on Golden Hills Drive. The force main could be installed on the north
side of the street leaving traffic open at all times.
5. Existing City utilities on Xenia Ave. between Golden Hills Drive and Laurel Ave. include
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main as shown on Attachment 2. Underground telephone
is also present. However, the right of way is 90 feet in this area and appears wide enough to
allow installation of the new force main on the east side of Xenia until the intersection with
Laurel Ave. as shown on Attachment 2. Two lanes of traffic should be possible for the entire
segment, including the crossing at Xenia and Laurel.
6. Only City storm sewer is present on Xenia Ave. from Laurel Ave. to Glenwood Ave. The right
of way under the bike trail on the west of Xenia should be wide enough to install the new force
main without affecting the road or traffic.
7. Constructability of this segment is more favorable than the Turner's Crossroad segment because
the low concentration of utilities and wider right of way but less favorable due to traffic volumes
and potential traffic disruption, particularly south of Glenwood Ave.
8. Installation of the force main under the bike path on Xenia Ave. south of Glenwood provides an
opportunity for MCES to partner with the City of Golden Valley on a site restoration design that
could alleviate traffic issues the City experiences and benefit the region as a whole.
9. The estimated cost of this alternative is approximately $440,000 as shown on Attachment 3.
Based on this information, MCES recommends the Xenia Avenue route.
1.GV-461 RELIEF FORCE MAIN AND LIFT STATION
PROJECT 805700
ROUTE COST COMPARISON
ATTACHMENT 3
NO. ITEM UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE EXTENSION UNIT PRICE EXTENSION
SCHEDULE I
1 MobilizationfDemobilization
LS **.* **** $10000.00 **** $10000.00
2 Traffic Control
LS **** **** $5,000.00 .... $10,000.00
3 18" PVC Pipe Sewer
LF 2,125 $55.00 $116875.00
4 18" PVC Pipe Sewer
LF 2,375 $55.00 $130,625.00
5 Air ReleasefClean Out Maintenance Holes
EA 5 $26 000.00 $130000.00 $26000.00 $130000.00
6 Water Service Corporation Stop, Curb Stop, and
Curb Box
EA 14 $400.00 $5,600.00
7 Water Service Corporation Stop, Curb Stop, and
Curb Box
EA 2 $400.00 $800.00
8 Sanitary Services
EA 14 $1,100.00 $15,400.00
9 Sanitary Services
EA 2 $1 100.00 $2 200.00
10 Remove 6" Pavement
SY 4,725 $4.00 $18,900.00
11 Remove 6" Pavement and Bike Trail
SY 2,850 $4.00 $11 400.00
12 Aggregate Base Class 5
TON 800 $22.00 $17,600.00
13 Aggregate Base Class 5
TON 400 $22.00 $8 800.00
14 Wear Course
TON 800 $56.00 $44,800.00
15 Base Course
TON 800 $50.00 $40 000.00
16 Wear Course Bike Trail
TON 100 $56.00 $5,600.00
17 Concrete Pavement
SY 2,200 $59.00 $129800.00
18 Contaminated Soil Handling and Disposal
LS ***.. ****. $30,000.00
19 Utility Relocation
LS ***** .**** $50 000.00 ***** $10000.00
TOTAL
$484 175.00 $439 225.00
Turners Crossroads
Xenia
09P066
Page 1 of 1
Bid Tab
AtI.eA"""f E
fi..'H~""
~t
o
,
I f- I
I.leni.J m-
.. 'Ie \
1
I. \
o .\
~d l
!
i ,
I " l
J ~1
- '- """: ;t\-+-
o . C$ ~
-
.
~
~
'I
,\ (,
- , · 51t...l J
- ~ '.. f
"
1- fIr"",.tJI
Fi,,,, ,Mill It
.,.
.r'
i
, ~I
alley
Me ora du
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
June 8, 2010
Agenda Item
2. Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Section 11.72 - Fence Requirements in Residential and
Multiple Dwelling Zoning District
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
In recent months, staff has noticed an increase in inquiries about city fence regulations. After
reviewing the current fence regulations in detail, as well as analyzing fence requirements of
neighboring municipalities, staff is proposing several minor changes to the existing code
language.
Currently, fences may be six feet in height in the back yard of a residential property and four
feet in height in the front yard of a residential property. The Zoning Code defines a front yard
as a space that is within 35 feet in distance from a property line adjacent to a public street.
Although staff recommends that residents obtain surveys prior to the construction of fences,
there is no requirement that a survey must be obtained. Therefore, in many instances it is
difficult to determine where a "front yard" ends and a "back yard" begins.
To eliminate confusion over where a six foot fence can and cannot be built, staff proposes to
amend the code language to allow a six foot fence to be built up to the front plane of the
house. In some instances, a house may have two front planes (if a garage extends outward
from the house, for example.) Incorporating this amendment would provide greater ease to
residents wishing to build fences, as well as to staff who must inspect the locations of fences
when a complaint occurs.
Additionally, staff proposes to strike language that allows residents living on A or B minor
arterial streets to construct six foot tall fences in the front yard. Staff believes that providing
consistent requirements for all residential properties in the City will provide greater clarity to
those wishing to construct fences. Residents who believe that unique circumstances exist on
their property would still be permitted to petition the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance.
Attachments
Underlined/Overscored Version - City Code Section 11.72: Fences, Subdivision 3(A)(1) and
4(C) (1 page)
Proposed Ordinance - Amending Section 11.72, Fence Requirements in Residential and
Multiple Dwelling Zoning Districts
9 11.72
Subdivision 3. Regulations by Zoning District
The following regulations apply to specific zoning districts.
A. Residential and Multiple Dwelling zoning districts.
1. Fences in the front yard shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. Fences in
side and rear yards shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. Fences of six
(6) feet in height shall extend no further than the front plane of the
house, which is a line parallel to the street extending along the front wall
of the house.
2. All exterior storage in the side or rear yards shall be screened by a wall or
fence not more than six (6) feet in height and not less than fifty percent
(50%) opacity, or by vegetation of not less than six (6) feet in height and
fifty percent (50%) opacity.
3. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street
right-of-way.
B. All other zoning districts.
1. Fences shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height.
2. All exterior storage shall be screened by a wall, fence, or vegetation not
less than six (6) feet in height and of ninety percent (90%) opacity.
3. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street
right-of-way.
4. Barbed wire fences are prohibited in all zoning districts except the
Industrial and Light Industrial zoning districts. No barbed wire shall be
erected upon any fence at a height lower than seven (7) feet.
Subdivision 4. Exceptions
Any deviation from this Section shall require a variance in accordance with Section
11.90 of this Chapter except the following:
A. Tennis and basketball courts in all zoning districts may have a single
perimeter fence no higher than ten (10) feet. Such fences shall be located to
the rear of the primary structure and shall require a minimum three (3) foot
strip of landscaping around the entire perimeter.
B. A fence not exceeding twelve (12) feet in height is permitted in Commercial,
Industrial, and Light Industrial zoning districts solely for the purpose of
screening exterior storage areas.
C. A fcnce not exceeding six (6) feet in height is permitted in thc front yord of
011 properties directly odjoining on A or B minor Arteriol Street, as designoted
in the City of Colden Volley Tronsportotion Pion.
ORDINANCE NO. ,2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 11.72, Fence Requirements in Residential
and Multiple Dwelling Zoning Districts
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 11.72, entitled "Fences" is amended by adding the
following sentence and the end of Subdivision 3(A)(1) as follows:
Fences of six (6) feet in height shall extend no further than the front plane of the
house, which is a line parallel to the street extending along the front wall of the
house.
Section 2. City Code Section 11.72, entitled "Fences" is amended by deleting
Subdivision 4(C) in its entirety.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2010.
IslLinda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
IslSusan M. Virniq
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
Hey
o dum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
June 8, 2010
Agenda Item
3. Proposed Ordinance - Building Height Requirements in High Density Residential Zoning
District (R-4)
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
The City currently has four residential zoning districts. The districts are categorized by
density. The High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4) allows for the highest density of
residential development in the City. Currently, the R-4 Zoning District permits structures up to
eight stories, or 96 feet in height. A Conditional Use Permit must be obtained to exceed the
specified height limits.
In the past, Council Members as well as Planning Commissioners have suggested that
greater control be given over the height of buildings in the R-4 Zoning District. For this
reason, staff is proposing that a Conditional Use Permit must be obtained for all structures
that exceed five stories, or 60 feet in height.
Currently, only four parcels are designated for R-4 zoning requirements. (See attached map.)
However, property owners may petition to rezone parcels at any time. Staff believes that
enhancing requirements for Conditional Use Permits in the R-4 Zoning District provides a
proactive approach in better controlling the quality and scale of high density housing
developments in the City.
Attachments
Underlined/Overscored Version - City Code Section 11.24: High Density Residential Zoning
District (R-4), Subdivision 5(C) (1 page)
Proposed Ordinance - Amending Section 11.24, Height of Principal Structure in High Density
Residential Zoning District (R-4)
Official Zoning Map (1 page)
9 11.24
A. Underground parking structures
B. Private indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to
swimming pools and tennis courts.
Subdivision S. Conditional Uses
The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning
Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures
set forth in this Chapter:
A. Residential facilities serving twenty-five (25) or more persons
B. Group Foster Homes
C. Principal structures in excess of eight (8) five (5) stories or ninety six (96)
sixty (60) feet in height.
D. Retail sales, Class I and II restaurant establishments, and professional offices
within principal structures containing twenty (20) or more dwelling units
when located upon any minor or major arterial street. Any such sales,
establishment or office shall be located only on the ground floor and have
direct access to the street.
Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots
In the R-4 Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of twenty thousand (20,000)
square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot width of
one hundred fifty (150) feet at the front setback line shall be required.
Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility
All structures in the R-4 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner
visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code.
Subdivision 8. Easements
No structures in the R-4 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public
easements.
Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Buildings and Impervious
Surfaces
Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than forty five
percent (45%) of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed
sixty percent (60%) of the lot area.
Subdivision 10. Principal Structures - Multiple-Family
Multiple-Family Dwellings in R-4 Zoning District shall be governed by the following
requirements:
A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for
principal structures in the R-4 Zoning District.
Golden Valley City Code
ORDINANCE NO. ,2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 11.24, Height of Principal Structure in
High Density Residential Zoning District (R-4)
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 11.24, entitled "High Density Residential Zoning
District (R-4)" is amended by changing Subdivision 5(C) Conditional Uses to read as
follows:
C. Principal structures in excess of five (5) stories or sixty (60) feet in height.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this day of , 2010.
Is/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Is/Susan M. Virniq
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
Hey
Official Zoning Map
CIty at Golden Val.,
Planning Oepartmeri
7800 Ga/den Val., Road
Gclden V."Y, M'4550121004588
7=3-6095
WNW.d.goIden-v"ey.lM.uI
Zoning Districts
D Single Family (R-l)
D Moderate Density (R-2) Residential
D Medium Density (R-3) Residential
_ High Density (R-4) Residential
~ 1-394 Mixed Use--,-~ Subdistrict A
: Low Rile. up to 3 storie.
_ Commercial ~-~ Subdistrict B
: MdRise-upto6storin
D Ught Industrial ~-_ Subdistrict C
H~ Rise - up 10 10 stori..
_ Industrial
_ Business & Professional Offices
Institutional ::=~':':'~~'::~R~=:-d:al.
_ (1-1) Sub-Disbictlchur"'...ochool.....1
D (1-2) Sub- District(fitnn... mu.eumund call..... ,'e)
r-I (1-3) Sub- Dis trict<n....n. hom... pri.... c1ube and
L-.J dini~ Me)
r-I (1-4) Su b- Dis trict<... com.... parks, p.,...un'" and
L-.J government offices. Me)
_ (1-5) Sub-Districtle.meten.., .tel
o Planned Unit Development (PUD)
;A'... 1-394 Overlay Zoning District (Zones A, 8, C)
""
..
o
If;
u
Flood Plain Management Zoning Overlay District
s..... -()IIcW Aaod Zorw Ph:JMt Md u.pe on" wilt! ttw CIty. n. dedIon of load ptOfiIe.
~...... Rood ~ Study, Vobne,t 012... 2 012.""'" Colny......,....,
~~ dIiIed s.p.mber 2, 3J04, incIl.I:ting h Aood~ Rate r.tar-bhl cay
at GoIdon _. _ 27ll53C0194" 2105JC021'" 27tlI53C0214" 21ll53C0332"
27Q!53C0351 E. 27053COJ52 E a1d 27053C0354 E. d.1Id Sepl:emb.r 2. 2004.
@
Shoreland Overlay Districtl;"'=~"==')
An Dele: 8I1f108 N
......., A
_"""""'......,...."""""""""."'.....(20081
CIy ofGoldM v...,. fOI''' ot/tM.)'MI
eoo
,-
,..,..
F...
Approved Amendments: Official Zoning Map
Ordinance Number I City Council I Cornnents
Adootion Dale
ORDINANCE NO. 271, 2ND SERIES
This Is to certify thaI this Is tho Official Zoning Map relorred 10 in Soctlon 11.11
01 tho Zoning Chaptor 01 tho City Code 01 tho City 01 Golden Valoy.
Adoptod this 22nd day 0' November 2002.
~~
ff (f /...--Z)~,<c."<.
j;. /. ib~~
;., ..... .Y.
~~ j .~...-'>'~t~ \~\
3(J) i . .'- - -{~
\...':::d./
4<tol;<A"c"U'it'
c/Vrdo.-I,f ~
UNOA R. LOOMIS, MAYOR
Attest" ~..P.~
DONALD G.TAYLOR, CITY CLERK
t_"-_
hlley
Moran urn
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
June 8, 2010
Agenda Item
4. Access to Minnesota Department of Transportation Property at 1-394 and Turner's
Crossroad
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
Summary
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has designated Global One Commercial as
developer of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) parcel east of Turner's
Crossroad and north of at 1-394. At the time of designation a number of commissioners
expressed concern with access to the site. MnDOT acquired a ten foot strip, which when
added to the existing alleyway, provides a 25 foot access drive to the property through the
middle of the former Golden Hills Shopping Center (currently the Metropolitan and the Good
Day Cafe). Staff has had discussions with the developer, MnDOT and the adjacent property
owners (David Webb and Dan Goldman) about options for providing access to the MnDOT
parcel.
Based on these discussions, MnDOT has determined that it would pursue one of two options,
1) turn the alley/drive over to the City as a public street, or 2) retain this access as a MnDOT
roadway. In the latter instance a MnDOT staff member has suggested that MnDOT would
provide no roadway maintenance. Sale to the developer is no longer an option MnDOT will
pursue.
Since the approach potentially involves City streets, staff is seeking Council direction on how
and whether to proceed. Possible options include:
1. Allow MnDOT to retain the access as a MnDOT road and require the developer to
maintain it as part of the development agreement and PUD.
2. Construct a substandard local street (25 foot right-of-way instead of 60 foot). It could
be maintained by the City or the developer. Staff does not recommend taking on the
maintenance.
3. Pursue construction of a street which meets local street standards, or at least provides
more right-of-way, through eminent domain. If this option is pursued, there are four
possible routes, including:
. Access road on the south of the shopping center parcel. MnDOT could provide the
former gas station site as a portion of this right-of-way.
. Access road in the existing location with further land acquisition to bring it up to or
closer to standard road specifications.
. Access road on the north side of the shopping center parking lot, next to the
current offices of Brown & Carlson.
. Access road north from the MnDOT parcel through the Goldman apartment
property and connecting to Circle Downs.
The developer appears willing to work with any of these options. Mr. Webb and Mr. Goldman
are not in favor of the options which impact their property. Staff recommends that pursuit of
the eminent domain options be contingent on the developer holding the City harmless in
terms of the cost of the right-of-way and related legal fees to acquire it. Staff can work to
provide more detailed information on any option the Council would like to consider in greater
detail.
alley
mo nd
City Administration/Council
763-593-8003/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
June 8, 2010
Agenda Item
5. Allowing Chickens
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
At a past Open Forum a number of residents requested the City Council to amend the City
Code to allow residents to keep chickens. The Council requested that this item be placed on
a future agenda.
Attachments
Material distributed to Council at Open Forum regarding the keeping of chickens (26 pages)
Below: Hatcheries such as
McMurray will ship 6-day-
old chicks, 25 to a box, via
the u.s. Postal Service.
Opposite: Photographer
Matthew Benson's coop is
thoughtfully decorated,
centrally heated (with a
heat lamp), and aptly named
La Cage aux Fowl.
f.... t""I r-: { .~
Best Backyard Breeds
Getting Started
Before purchasing birds or planning for a coop, it is important to
check local regulations and homeowner association rules. Many.
municipalities ban roosters (don't worry, hens lay eggs without
them) and limit the number othens a household can keep. Some
communities require signed agreements from neighbors, permits,
or an appearance before the zoning board, while others have
ordinances that restrict the size and placement of outbuildings.
Sometimes the rules are surprising-pleasantly. New York
City, for example, has never banned hens, says Owen Taylor, the
training and livestock coordinator for Just Food, a nonprofit that
works to improve access to fresh, healthy, locally grown food in
the city. "They're considered pets, like cats and dogs, so zoning
laws do not apply," Taylor says.
In communities that outlaw poultry, chicken activiSts are
joining together to challenge the laws. Tracy Halward formed
the Longmont Urban Chicken Coalition after her family was
cited for illegally keeping chickens in their Longmont; Colorado,
back yard. The coalition scored a victory when the. city council "
voted to allow a pilot backyard-chicken program, and in March
ZGl09 issued permits to 50 residents, including Halward. Similar
grassroots movements have overturned chicken bans in Madison,
Wisconsin; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Bozeman, Montana. So
backyard flocks may become common once again.
Choosing Breeds
A decided benefit of keeping chickens is the opportunity to raise
birds that have beautiful plumage and lay unusually colored eggs.
Many breeds come in two sizes: standard, also known as "large
breed, and bantam, which are typically one-quarter the size
of standard birds. Both do fine in back yards, though standard
chickens lay much larger eggs than bantams and, because they
weigh more, tend to be less flighty.
For dependable egg production, choose layers-lightweight
breeds, such a.sBla.ck Ausrralorps, that were bred tolay reliably.
Dual~purposebt'eeds (eggs and meat), such as BuffOrpingtons
and Silver LacedWyandotte~, ,are heavier than layers but have
better egg production than broilers, breeds used primarily for
Chickens are social creatures. It is wise to keep at least three hens, but they do not need to be of the same breed. The lour listed here were chosen for their
superior qualities as pets. All come in both bantam and standard sizes. do well in mixed flocks, and have lovely plumage.
--------------------------------------------~-------------------------------.-------------------------------------------------------------
Buff Orpington. Bred in England, these large,
gentle birds have beautiful orange feathers and
a docile disposition. They lay larg~, light brown
eggs and handle cold weather with aplomb. .
Black Australorp. Originally from Australia, they
have red combs offset by glossy black feathers
that shimmer in the sunshine with a hint of green.
Australorps are known for their curious nature
and sweet personalities. They mature early and
reliably lay large brown eggs.
Cochin. Introduced to the United States from
China in the early 1800s, Cachins look like balls
of feathers. They aren't known fOI- heavy egg
production, but the hens make an excellent addi-
tion to a flock, bottl'for their calm personality and
their fun feathered feet
Barred Plymouth Rock. A heritage American
breed with striking black-and-white "barred"
feathers. they lay large brown eggs that can
sometimes have a pinkish hue_ Very easy to
handle and friendly.
-----_._-----------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more about breeds. check out Storey's illus-
trated Guide to Poultry Breeds (Storey, 2007)
38 0 r g ani c Ga r den i n g Vol. 57: 4
meat. Many layer, broiler, and dual-purpose breeds are available as
standards or bantams.
Most breeds lay either white or brown eggs, though the tint
can vary. Welsummers, arare dual-purpose breed, lay dark brown
eggs. And both Araucanas and Ameraucanas lay blue-green eggs,
though many of the chickens sold as these breeds are actually
"Easter Eggers" -hybrid birds that may lay blue-green, olive, or
other tinted eggs.
When building a flock, consider the behavioral and physical
characteristics and climate suitability of each breed. Rhode Island
Reds are a popular dual-purpose breed that lay large, light brown
eggs, but they can be aggressive toward calmer birds such as
Brahmas. Breeds with thicker plumage do best in colddimates,
while those without a lot of extra insulation, such as Silkies, a
fabulously ornamental breed with feathers that look more like fur,
live comfortably in warmer climates.
Coop Criteria
A coop provides shelter for chickens, but it will also be a part 0'[
the landscape, so consider aesthetics as well as the chickens' needs
when planning for one. Debbie Hoffmann, who keeps chickens
in her suburban-Philadelphia back yard, paid a carpenter to
build a stylish gray-and:'white coop with a leaded stained-glass
window installedoverthe nesting boxes. "I had to go before the
zoning board to g~t permission to have the hens," says Hoffmann.
"They were really dazzled by the decorative window and I had no
. '.. trouble." A quiek search online will turn up loads of inspiration
: . for do-it~yourself coops. Several companies, including Wine
Country Coops and Henspa, sell premade henhouses.
. . At its most basic, a coop must protect chickens from drafts and
:; 'predatOrs and keep them' dry, warm in the winter, and cooHn the
;\~ummer. The coop itself should have wooden boxes tilled with ..
....."Straw in which the hens can lay their eggs (one boxfor every two
hens; because they will share), a place to roost off the ground, and
at leasti to 4 square feet of floor space per bird. "Crowding is-one
. thing they don't like," says Louisiana State University AgCenter
"poUltry expert Theresia Lavergne, Ph.D. "If they get stressed,
they will peck each other." Cover the floor of the coop with 2 to 3'
_ : inches 0 and dust the shavings with diatomaceous
" earth to stations oElice and mites. Replace the
.... . shavi . woo Attach an enclosed outdoor run
(8 tOI rd) to the coop to give the hens a place
to e:1'ercise while keep. them contained.
;. Even ina fenced back yard, it's not wise to allow chickens to
. . range free without supervision, both for their security and the
safety Qf your garden. Chickens love to scratch the ground looking
for wornl.s and seeds, without regard for what plants might be in
. their ,way. And in urban and suburban areas, predators come in all
: . shapes and sizes, from coyotes to raccoons to hawks. Danger can
. come from above and below, so cover the run and bury its fencing
..... adeas.t I foot deep. Use \4-inch hardware cloth for enclosures
. instead of chiCken wire, whidr raccoons can easily pull apart and
;' .... small rodents can squeeze through.
II
I
j.
II
tl
II
I
,
I
~,
r
11
jii
.,
,ii
j!
Ii
r
il
I.
,.
i'
.. ~
(-
if'
Ii!
I
i
p
I
I.
r
I
t
Clockwise from top
left:For aflock with
panache, include
bree.ds with striking
. pl'rnage, sUcha_~ 9
Golden Eolish hen,
a Blue Jersey -Giant
hen, a Silver Spangled
Hamburg-bantam hen,
a Spang let!- RUSSian
OrloffR.ullet~. a Blue
Mille Fleur d'Uccle
rooster, and a White
Silkie bantam rooster.
I
I
II
o r g ani c q a r den i n g . com 41
-~..
Starting a Flock
Deciding what should come first, a chicken or an egg, is not just a philosophical question. Choosing to start a flock with fertilized eggs,
chicks, or pullets (hens under I year old) is an important decision. Each option has pros and cons:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
are readily available from hatcheries ami at
feed stores in spring. The cost IS typically around
$2 per chick.
Cons: Hatcheries usually sell day-old chicks only
in lots of 25. which is more birds than most back.
yard chicken keepers want or can legally have.
The live birds are shipped via the US. Postal
Service. and you must pick them up the moment
they arrive. You ca'lPay extra for a female-only
batch. but roosters often find their way into
the mix anyway. The chicks must be kept in a
brooder for 5 weeks before they can move out
to their coop. so there is some upfront expense.
PULLETS
Pros: At this age. it is easier to tell male and
female chickens apart, which nearly eliminates
the risk of coming home with a rooster. Young
hens. called pullets. can live outside in a coop
immediately and will begin laying eggs within a
few weeks. if they aren.t already.
Cons: Pullets can be hard to find (local farmers
and 4-H clubs are a good bet. and some hatch-
eries offer them). and there is often a limited
selection of breeds. Pullets are also more expen-
sive to purchase and typically cost between
$5 and $10 per bird.
EGGS
Pros: Incubating fertilized eggs and watching
chicks hatch is a fascinating experience. espe-
cially for children.
Cons: It costs $40 or more to order 10 fertilized
eggs from a hatchery. The eggs need to be kept
in an incubator at a specific temperature and
turned three times a day until they hatch. Expect
a mix of roosters and hens.
CHICKS
Pros: Hand.raised chicks are often very gentle.
social. and bonded with their owners. Chicks
-------------------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
:;'''"'tv.:. .;r,~
42 Organic Gardening Vol. 57:4
Care and Feeding
Chickens will dig up part of their diet-insects, slugs and snails,
sand, and seeds-but you must also provide them with chicken
feed. "Chickens need a quality balanced diet that's 16 to 18
percent protein and made specifically for their needs," says Phillip
J. Clauer, a Penn State pouluy expert, who notes that there are
special diets for young chicks, growing birds, and layers. As a
treat, scatter scratch-a mixture of grains and seeds-into the
run, as well as organic grass clippings and vegetable scraps.
Plenty of water is especially important for consistent laying,
says Clauer. "If a laying chicken goes without water for more than
12 hours, it can go out of production for weeks." Special poultry
waterers ensure that chickens always have access to fresh water.
Chickens also appreciate human interaction. "This is going
to sound weird, but they become your friends," says Debbie
Edwards-Anderson, who, with her husband, tends a flock of hens
in Brooklyn. "When I get to my garden gate, I yell out, 'Hey,
ladies,' and one will run back and get all th~ others and they
crowd at the gate with all their 'awk, awk' greeting noises. 'They
are really affectionate in their own strange way."
Although hens can lay as long as they live (8 to 10 years isn't
uncommon), they start producing fewer eggs after 3 to 5 years.
When egg production drops to one or two a week, chicken owners
are forced to decide whether to keep the older hens as pets or
use them for meat. Edwards-Anderson's husband, Greg, who
grew up with hens in his hometown of Selma, Alabama, is not
squeamish about turning their hens, Hattie, Onyx, and Mildred,
into stew when the time comes. But he suspects his wife will have
a problem. "This is her first farm-animal experience," he explains.
"They're like my babies and I love them," she concurs. .
For more information, see Find It Here on page 78.
.~
.1.:.
,.,,..... {.'
I
Introduction
"[ can't say that [would have envisioned chickens as an issue, but I've heardfrom a lot of people
about them, and it seems like it's something maybe we ought to pay a little attention to. " 1
- Stacy Rye, Missoula City Councilwoman
It's happening right now in cities across the United States and Canada. Community
members are organizing themselves into groups and approaching their city councils about
an important urban planning issue: chicken keeping in the city.
This question of whether or not cities should allow backyard chicken keeping has
increased substantially over the past 5 years as citizens become more interested in
participating in their own food production. The issue has appeared recently before city
councils in Missoula2, Halifax3, and Madison4, and a case is currently pending in Ann
Arbor, Michigan5. In many cases this interest in backyard chicken keeping has been met
with much opposition and city councils often do riot know how to begin approaching the
Issue.
The recent increase in urban backyard chicken keeping has come about for three main
reasons. First, the local food movement itself has become very popular which has
sparked a new interest for many in backyard food production. Since chickens are one of
the smaller protein producers, theyJitwell into a backyard food production. model.
Second, rising energy and transportatloncosts have caused concern over increases in
food costs, and backyard eggs offer a cheaper solution as they do not have to travel far to
reach the plate. Lastly, many citizens are becoming increasingly concern~d about food
safety, and with meat recalls and other animal industry issues in the news, backyard
chickens offer many a safer solution. For these reasons, backyard chickens have become
1 Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a C~ntroversy in Missoula. . Available online at
http://www.missoula.comlnews/nodeI226
2 Medley, Ann and JonathaJl Stumph. Video: Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online
at http://www .newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban3hicken_squabble/C8/L8/
. 3 CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at
http://www.cbc.calconsumer/story/2008/02/12Ichicken-report.html
4 Harrison-Noonan, Dennis. Urban chicken keeper;Madison, Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8, 2008.
S Kunselman, Steve. City Councilor (ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. Interviewed on April 29, 2008.
4
increasingly popular, but not everyone likes the idea of chickens living in their
neighborhood.
There are generally two sides to the chicken keeping issue: those who are for allowing
Gallus domesticus in residential backyards, and those who are opposed. There are a
variety of reasons why people want to keep chickens, ranging from having a safe source
of protein to gaining a closer relationship to the food they consume. Those who are
opposed to backyard chickens however, often express concerns about noise, smells,
diseases, or the potential for chickens running loose. There is also debate between the
two sides as to the appropriateness of chickens in a city environment andif chickens
qualify as pets or livestock.
.C
Chicken keeping in urban environments is nothing new, but it is now something that
needs to be planned for in all major cities and small towns across the United States. As
the interest in the local food movement continues to increase, and as citizens become
more interested ingrowing their own food, municipalities will eventually be faced with
the issue of regulating backyard chicken keeping within their city limits. Planning for
chickens can either be pro-active on the part of the city council and planning staff, or
reactionary as citizens will eventually bring the issue to city hall. Municipalities often do
not know how to approach the chicken keeping issue, and this paper serves to provide
some insight through an analysis of urban chicken ordinances from across the United
States.
,.-,\0- r: .
Research Methods
The main goal of this paper was to analyze how residential backyard chicken keeping is
regulated through the examination of chicken ordinances from a variety of cities. To
achieve this, data was gathered through the examination of residential chicken
ordinances, as well as through a variety of interviews, newspaper articles, video footage,
and other resources.
Residential chicken ordinances from over 30 cities were gathered, however only 25 of the
cities allowed the keeping of chickens, so only those were used in the analysis (see
5
Appendix D: Greenhouse Gas Em.issions............24
. ...... ..... .............. ................ ..' .....'....... ... ....4
.........e.....e.... we a....e........ a.a.e .-.... ...... we iI... ........... ...... a.."" ....... .... II." ..IIi... .......... a.. we ...25
A endix E: Letters ofSu ort..................... .............................26
.. we".... tI........."........ w..e...... III...... ...".... III. ... III III III III ... III III III III III III III III" III III." III a... III III. III.,.'... .....'........... ..... III'. ..27
Appendix F: Property Values by Chicken Ordinance Type............28
Appendix G: History of Prohibitions on Chicken-Keeping............30
Appendix H: Successful Chicken Keeping in Montgomery in 2009.31
Introduction
In the post-WWII decades, many urban and suburban communities
around the country instituted laws intended to distance us from our
then-unfashionable rural roots. It was a time when neighborhoods
were built without sidewalks, "ChemLawn"seemed like a great name
for a business, and keeping chickens in the backyard served as an
uncomfortable reminder of the fact Grandma used to slaughter a hen
on the back porch every Sunday morning. Suburbanites seeded their
lots with grass, installed lawn sprinklers, sprayed and sprayed and
sprayed, and passed laws prohibiting chickens in urban and suburban
backyards.
t"-:'..... '.
In recent years, many of us have started to realize that maintaining a
close connection to our food is a positive, not a negative, and is a part
of living a more sustainable lifestyle. Farmers' Markets are
experiencing a reviva'l,peo.pleare gardening more, and communitie
around the nation are chan~gin~.dec;a.des-old laws forbidding the
keeping of chickens.
It should come as no>' :gUme resident of Cincinnati
that many suburbs< '. . .se capital of the world
never prohibited .'like Montgomery currently
does, most of our .. . ens. Most a.llow them on any
size lot. And herein many of the suburbs most
similar to us such as 'eira, people are indeed keeping
chickens without causing problems fer their neighbors, their
community, or their property values.
There are so many reasons to find a way to continue to allow rather
than prohibit chickens in the suburbs. Montgomery's proposed
"Ordinance Prohibiting Farm Animals Within The City" (Farm Animals
Ordinance) in effect prohibits them altogether, including those already
. present - and causing no problems -- here in Montgomery.
.C
3
Montgomery Currently Has Chickens With
No Problems .
There are currently chickens in Mantgamery. The Mirza/O'Keefe
hausehald an Schoolhause Lane, just a few hundred feet fram City Hall,
has faur laying hens (Appendix H). The city has received na
camplaints abaut these family pets,
The chickens are papular amang the family's neighbars. When .one
recently expressed an interest in raising chickens herself, Cati O'Keefe
decided she'd better check inta the legalities befare givihg any advice.
It casts quite a bit in bath maney and time ta get started, and while
she'd been willing ta risk it herself based an her awn perusal .of .online
.ordinances, she didn't want ta ta~e that risk far anyane else.
Her inquiry sparked this new .ordinance. The palice, far fram ~aving
received any complaints, were unaware there were chickens being
kept in Mantgamery. CFM has since learned .of another hausehald in a
neighba'rhoad nat far fram City Hall keeping chickens. They prefer ta
remain under the radar, thaugh, as they' and their neighbars are very
attached ta their hens. There are likely ather families quietly making
the same decisian right naw. The Farm Animals Ordinance will .outlaw
the Mirza/O'Keefe chickens and drive ather chicken-keeping
hausehalds uhdergraund.
.C
Laws in Nearby Suburbs
Appendix A lists ather cammunities here in Cincinnati which allaw
chickens, restriCt them, or essentially prahibit them. The list .of those
allawing them includes MadeirCil and Wyaming, both .of which have
grawing.cammunities .of Chicken-keepers and both .of which have had
na prablems associated with their chiCken-keeping residents,
accarding to city employeas.Bathre(;Juireanly that ChiCk~,hsbe
cantained, natcreateadarsor unsahT~aryconditions,and~.~tibe kept
far strictlycomm'ercial purposes.:.rsJ'eith~rcommunity is CO'l"}tempJating
changing their ordinances regardin~chiCken-keeping, whtch clasely
parallel Montgamery's current .ordinances.
,.-,1- r:
Glendale, Milfard, and Terrace Park alsahave essentially the same
.ordinance that Mantgamery currently has: Chickens must be contained
and must nat create a nuisance .or annayance. Indian Hill relies an the
Hamiltan Ca .ordinances. Laveland .only wants chickens nat ta create a
nuisance. Sharanville specifies lats sizes .of 20,000sf .or larger and that
. 'chickens be kept 50 feet fram the praperty line. Masan and Springdale
require large lats: chickens must be kept 100 feet fram the praperty
lines, which essentially prahibit chickens.
, ,
4
Only a few neighboring communities limit chickens in such a manner
as to essentially prohibit them within their boundaries. Most of. our
neighboring communities forbid problems that might arise with
chicken keeping, rather than forbidding chickens themselves. And this
has paid off for residents - those communities that allow chickens tend
to have on average the highest property values (Appendix F.)
Current ordinances in Montgomery already provide sufficient
protection to residents from possible problems with chicken-keeping.
These ordinances include 90.04(8), which requires animals to be
confined, 93.03, which forbids offensive animal odors, 93.04, which
requires property be maintained, and 132.14, which limits noise
between the hours of 10pm and 7am. (Of note: typical hens are closed
up in their coops between 8 and .9pm during summer months -- earlier
in winter --and do not emerge until midmorning to ensure they lay their
eggs in their nesting boxes before being released into their run for the
day. While closed up in their coops, hens sleep and are silent.)
.c
Chickens and the History of Suburban
Development
Why Were Chickens Prohibited by Earlier
Lawmaikers?
The birth of the modern suburb was a time when many of us were
seel<ingto d~Fi@eQurSelves as sophisticated and more like those in the
cosmopolitanci~)'thlanJikethose in unfashionable rural small towns
andfarmingC~I'11l'rn\l;J;rliti;es. The car was a symbol of that cosmopolitan
lifestyle, so weiel:i;minat!ed sidewalks - why, after all, would anyone
walk whocol;J!\di~'ftfordtodrive? The sidewalk became a symbol of
poverty and baCkwardness. Later generations regretted that decision
and many have..retrofitted sidewalks and streetlights in their
neighborhoods. '
,-,1- r:
The keeping of chickens and other food-producing animals was also
unfashionable during the decades immediately followingWOrlcl War II,
and for similar reasons. The problem wasn't one of chickens creating a
nuisance; it was one of wanting to seem modern, cosmopolitan, and
sophisticated. (Appendix G)
What About l:'Iomeowners' Association
Agreements?
Just as suburban communities sought to increase the desirability of
their area by prohibiting unfashionable food-producing animals,
developers sought to increase the relative desirability and exclusivity
of their subdivisions within their communities by drawing up
~;,.
5
agreements under which the residents of these subdivisienS would live.
The first such agreements specified what kinds of fences<and .
outbuildings could be erected and where on a property; by the 90s
some were including prohibitions of everything from vegetable gardens
to basketball hoops.
The suburban ideal is a dynamic con(ept; as more people become
interested in living a greener lifestyle in the suburbs, the idea of what
is 'ideal' evolves to reflect the community's values. What seemed
important in 1964 may seem counterproductive to achieving the 'ideal'
suburban lifestyle in 2009.
Many residents of subdivisions with HOAs drawn up years ago may find
that some of the rules are ones they'd like to change. Fortunately,
most of these agreements can be changed if the current residents wish
to make such changes. In addition, many residents of Montgomery do
not live under any kind of HOA Agreement.
In either of these cases, the city and/or police are not called upon to
enforce HOA agreements; enforcement is handled under civil law. And
no matter what the most restrictive of these covenants require,
Montgomery has no governmental need to reflect the requirements of
even the least restrictive of such agreements.
.l:"
ChlckensFor Montgomery's Proposed
Ordinance
We propose that chickens be removed from the Farm Anim~ls
Ordinance.
,.~)- ,.'
If the city feels chicken-ke~ping needs to be controlled more than is
already adequately addressed by current ordinances (90.Q4{B), which
requires animals to be confined, 93.03, which forbIds offensive animal
odors, 93.04, which requires property be maintained, and 132.14,
which limits noise between the hours of 10pm and 7am), we propose
that an ordinance pertaining only to chickens be created.
Chickens For Montgomery proposes the following (CFM's Proposed
Ordinance):
1. Single family homes within the City of Montgomery shall be
permitted to keep laying hens for household egg gathering.
2. Roosters are prohibited.
3. Chickens and their enclosures must be at least 15 feet from
property lines and not visible from the street.
4. Enclosures must be attractive and well-maintained.
6
5. Chickens and their enclosures must be kept in a neat, clean and
sanitary condition free from offensive odors, excessive noise, or
any other condition that would constitute a nuisance.
Backyard Chickens Are Not Farm Animals
For thousands of years) chickens, like dogs and cats, have lived
alongside people in backyards large and small in cities and small
towns. Unlike a half~ton bull or 400-pound hog, a six~pound hen is not
inherently a farm animal.
The typical laying hen starts to produce at four to six months, lays
nearly daily until she is 6, and then lives another two years. A crucial
point is that for backyard chicker:ls (unlike their counterparts on farms),
the end of productivity does not bring on the end of life. Commercial
chickens are bred to produc~ large numbers of eggs very quickly and
then to be culled and used for such things as animal food and fertilizer.
Suburban hens, however, are treated as individuals. They are typically
named,' and when around age 6 they stop producing eggs, they are
'retired' and treated as pets for the rem'aining year or two of their
lives.
. l.~
Chickens are friendly, social, intelligent, affectionate, entertaining, low~
maintenance, small, quiet, and inexpensive to keep. They are quieter
and cleaner th9~rryi~stdogs. They uniquely offer suburban and city~
dwellingchll~rerltheOlpportunitytounderstand a little more dearly
whe.rethe'irf(!)'~ldclome~from. And they offer all of us the opportunity
to produce lall~I'e of otlr own food.
,'""It- r.:
Backyard Coo,plsar.e.Attractive and Clean
Unlike large commercial poultry operations or rural farms, people in
cities and suburbs who keep chickens in their backyardste.nd to keep
them in attractive, well-maintained enclosures and treat their chickens
as pets. Backyard coops are no more of an inherent eyesore than a
trampoline, play structure, or hot tub, and in fact many are portable so
that the chickens are never in one place long. Appendix Bcontains
examples of backyard coops on suburban and city lots.
CFM's Proposed Ordinance requires that coops be attractive, well-
maintained, clean, sanitary, and free of odor or other conditions that
would cause a nuisance.
"
;.;;-,'.
7
Chickens Are Not a Nuisance
Chickens Are Not Smelly
Chickens themselves do not smell. Any possible odor would come from
their droppings, but 5 hens generate less manure than one medium-
sized dog. The average chicken keeper is also a gardener, and (unlike
the feces of dogs and cats, which carry pathogens and can't be
composted) chicken droppings represent an excellent source of free
organic fertilizer when composted. Unsanitary conditions can. result in
a buildup of ammonia in large~scale operations, which is why
commercial poultry facilities often smell. This is not the case for small
backyard flocks.
CFM's Proposed Ordinance requires that chickens and enclosures be
maintained in a sanitary condition free from offensive odors.
Chickens are Not Messy
Chicken enclosures used in city and urban settings tend to be
attractlve and are easily maintained. Small nocks are managed with a
minimum of time and energy on the pa'rt of their owners.
CFM's Proposed Ordinance requires that enclosures be attractive and
well-maintained.
Chickens Are Not Noisy
.c Hens are quiet birds. It's only roosters that are known for loud
,~, morning crowing, and roosters are not necessary for the production of
eggs. The occasional clucking of hens is generally not audible beyond
25 feet. Some hens give a few squawks while actually laying an egg or
bragging about it afterward, but this noise is very short-lived and much
quieter than barking dogs, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, passing trucks,
children playing, and other common neighborhood sounds.
CFM's Proposed Ordinance requires that chickens be maintained in a
manner free from excessive noise and that chickens and enclosures be
kept 15 feet from the property lines, a distance at which most normal
chicken noises are barely audible.
Chickens Do Not Annoy the Neighbors
Both Madeira and Wyoming have multiple households keeping
chickens, ordinances similar to Montgomery's current ordinance, and
have had no problems with their chicken-keeping residents. Madeira
reports no complaints.
Montgomery hasn't had a chicken....complaint since the 70s when a
family in the Shadowhill neighborhood kept a rooster. The chickens
currently being kept by Montgomery residents - we know there are at
8
least two such households, and in all likelihood ther~are more - have
caused so few problems that the Montgomery Police weren't aware
they existed.
Chickens Do Not Attract Predators to the Area
Chickens, if left unprotected, are vulnerable to predators. But as the
predators of chickens are the same as those of the wild rabbits,
squirrels, chipmunks, small birds, and other local wild prey animals
already present in our community, they do not themselves attract
predators to the area. Because chickens are penned up in the
backyard (unlike wild rabbits, for instance, which hide from predators
in tall grass, brush and shrubbery), the predators may be seen more
often. Coyotes, for instance, are seen more often when they take a cat
or small dog than when they take a rabbit. But the presence of
chickens does not attract predators to the area; predators are already
here.
.C
Many Residential Communities Allow Chickens
Without Causing A Nuisance
The more upscale the local community,'the more likely they are to
maintain relaxed ordinances pertaining to chickens. The Farm Animals
Ordinance currently being considered by the City of Montgomery is
more like the ordinancesforFairfield and Norwood than it is like the
ordinances for Wyoming,M)adeira, GI.endale, and Terrace Park, all of
which have current ordinances essentially identical to the current
Montgomery ordinance.
CFM's Proposed Ordinance offers Montgomery residents protection in
the unlikely case a neighbor would raise chickens in an irresponsible
manner, but still allows the greatest possible freedom for members of
our community.
n1- r.~ .
Chickens Do NQtPose a Public Health Risk
The type of Avianlnflu.enza that is contagiious to humans has not been
found in North America. Bird Flu is spread by contact with the
contaminated feces of Wild migratory waterfowl. So the key issues are
sanitation and contact with wild birds. Unlike rural farmibirds which
might co-mingle with migratory birds or drink from a sh<<ared pond,
backyard chickens are contained in an enclosure and watered inside
this enclosure.
As reported in Newsweek Magazine (Appendix C):
...as the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute (an
enVironmental research group) pointed out in a report last
month, experts including the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm
9
Animal Production have said that if we do see it, it'll be more
likely to be found in factory-farmed poultry than backyard
chickens. As GRAIN, an international sustainable agriculture
group, concluded in a 2006 report: "When it comes to bird flu,
diverse small-scale poultry farming is the solution, not the
problem."
Unlike cats and dogs which are prime vectors for rabies, parasites, and
tick-borne diseases, backyard chickens actually keep your yard
healthier for humans by eating ticks and other insects.
Salmonella, which has been associated with raw eggs, is a problem
with factory-farmed eggs, not with backyard chickens.
Chickens and the Environment
Water Quality and Runoff
According to the OSU Extension Service
(http://ohioline.osu.edu/b804/804_3.hthll) the average laying hen
produces .2 - .3 pound of droppings per day,' as compared to the
average dog which produces 1 pound (according to the National Pet
Alliance.)
.1.:'
Unlike dog and cat waste, chicken droppings can be com posted for use
on gardens and reduce the need for chemical fertilizers. Chickens
reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides by eating bugs and
weeds. By their very pres.ence,chickens discourage the use of
chemical lawn and garden sprays by their owners. Chicken keeping is
likely to represent a net improvement in water and runoff issues rather
than the opposite.
(-. t- {.~
Issues of manure runoff from egg-producing chickens are associated
with huge factory-style egg farms that generate tons of manure each
day in a very concentrated area. For those of us who wish to continue
to eat eggs. in a sustainable fashion, low-density backyard chicken
keeping is the solution to runoff issues, not the problem. Gardeners
using <;:ommercial organic fertilizers are very likely to be using chicken-
manure based products, and those keeping chickens will have less
need for even these. So keeping chickens won't increase even the net
amount of organic fertilizers used; chicken-keeping gardeners will
simply be producing it themselves rather than purchasing it.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2008 the City of Fort Collins, C910rado changed their city ordinance
to legalize backyard hens. At the time, a thorough investigation was
conducted on the environmental impact of residents keeping chickens.
10
At that time, Environmental Planners in Fort Collins' Departmeht of
Natural Resources concluded that backyard hens would not
significantly impact greenhouse gas emissions. (AppendiX D). There's
no reason to believe this would be any different here in MOhtgomery.
Living Sustainably
Increasing numbers of us are interested in living more sustainably, and
many communities, Montgomery included, are encouraging citizens to
reduce waste and consumption of resources. Backyard chickens allow
us to reduce our carbon footprint by producing some of our own food.
Every food item we can produce organically and on our own property _
just outside our back door - is one less item that must be shipped to us
and shopped for. Every item of food we raise ourselves represents a
step in Iiving--8 greener, more slLstainable, lifestyle.
People who have backyard chickens are less likely to use chemicals
and pesticides in their yards and gardens because it's healthier for
their chickens. In return the chickens eat weeds and bugs that
normaliy plague unsprayed yards.
Com posted chicken manure is one of the most efficient natural
fertilizers and is provided for free with no need for transport.
.';-"
Backyard chickens eat grass clippings which might otherwise end up in
the landfills and food scraps which might end up in the garbage and
sewage.
,'_"'~ f: .
Chickens and Property Values
Local Realtors say that the presence of an attractive, well-maintained
backyard chicken coop is no more likely to affect values for
neighboring properties than the presence of an attractive, well-
maintained backyard rabbit hutch. (Appendix E.)
In addition, some prospective home owners may be attracted to a
community with a progressive stance on green issues such as chicken
keeping. It's impossible to know which stance is more likely to attract
rather than repel the greater number of prospective home buyers - the
one that encourages conformity, or the one that encourages
sustainability.
In fact, the areas "Yith the fewest restrictions on the keeping of
chickens tended to have the highest property values. (Appendix F.)
Lot Size Doesn't Matter
Chickens require very little, space. Shelter for four or five hens does
11
not require any more space than that represented by many kitchen
tables, and a run of 4 square feet per hen is sufficienttOkeepthem
happy and healthy. Households all over the country are keeping
chickens on city and suburban lots. Whether a backyard chicken-
keeper has a quarter of an acre or three hundred, he is likely to keep
his hens in an enclosure with the same small footprint.
In order to assure the smallest of lots or unusual lot configuration
doesn't mean chickens can be near enough to neighboring properties
to cause an annoyance, CFM's Proposed Ordinance requires that
chickens and enclosures be 15 feet or more from property lines, which
is the distance at which most normal chicken noises are barely audible
and the distance required for other setbacks.
Chickens Are Educational
Chicken keeping offers suburban children the opportunity to learn
where their food really comes from and about healthy, sustainable,
nutritious food. They will see first hand how kitchen scraps become
garden fertilizer which in turn produces beautiful vegetables. Instead
of simply hearing, "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," they will actually
experience it. Suburban kidS can participate in 4H or FFA programs
through keeping chickens in a suburban yard.
.1':-
Chickens and Emergency Preparedness
Many governments are asking community members to prepare for
emergencies, whatever the cause. Many members of our community
recently experienced firsthand the effects of an areawide emergency
on food supplies. Backyard chickens provide a constant stream of
fresh eggs without regard to the availability of electricity or
refrigeration. Backyard hens will help our community be more food
self-sufficient under any circumstances.
:.'"'11- r.:
Chickens and the Economic Crisis
The cost of food has risen dramatically lately, including the cost of
high-quality protein..richnutrient-dense food such as pastured eggs.
Pastured organic eggs cost $4 a dozen at Pipkin's. In comparison, four
or five backyard hens will require a total of about $60 in feed each
year and lay about 120 dozen eggs between them, depending on
breed and age. That's a savings of over $400 a year. In addition, an
egg provides about 7 grams of protein, which means those 120 dozen
eggs - obtained at a cost of $60 per year -- will supply the complete
protein needs of the average woman. The ability to raise some of your
own food can help provide a greater sense of security in insecure
"
12
times.
Code Enforcement and Burdens on
Government
According to the Montgomery Police, Montgomery hasn't received a
chicken-related complaint since the 70s, when a family in the
Shadowhill neighborhood kept a rooster and the city received noise-
related complaints. We know that there are at least two families in
Montgomery keeping chickens currently; the police have received no
complaints.
Currently both Madeira and Wyo_ming allow chickens (under similar
ordinances to Montgomery's current ordinance), do have households
raising chickens, and have no complaints related to chickens. There is
no reason to believe that chickens in Montgomery will generate any
more complaints than those in Madeira and Wyoming.
CFM's Proposed Ordinance forbids roosters and doesn't require
inspections or permits. Such an ordinance will generate no si.gnificant
burden on government. In the. absence of complaints - which
experience both herein Montgomery and in similar communities such
as Wyoming and Madeira has shown is the likeliest outcome - will
generate NO burden on government.
,I:
,...,>- r:
The UrbanlSuburban Chicken Movement
Chicken keeping is very popular among those who are concerned
about the environment, among those concerned about food safety and
security, and among those interested in self-sufficiency and
preparedness. Dozens of newspaper and magazine accounts of
communities which have changed their laws to allow chIckens have
been written. Several environmental and educational organizations
here in Cincinnati are offering classes in Beginning Chicken-Keeping,
and these have proved popular.
Montgomery, never having prohibited c.hicken-
keeping, is one of an elite class of communities
leading the way in promoting sustainable
living. Let's not change our ordinances now to
prohibit chickens at the same time the rest of
the nation is doing the opposite.
13
- ----. -...." IVU, yt::ar~ lorcea tne slaughter of
more than 17 million birds.)
But avian flu has not shown up in wild birds, domestic poultry or people
in the United States. And, as the Washington-based Worldwatch
Institute (an environmental research group) pointed out in a report last
month, experts including the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm
Animal Production have said that if we do see it, it'll be more likely to
be found in factory-farmed poultry than backyard chickens. As GRAIN,
an international sustainable agriculture group, concluded in a 2006
report: "When it comes to bird flu, diverse small-scale poultry farming
is the_solutioQ, OQtthepl=oblem."- ~,_ .
Many urban farmers are taking that motto to heart. In New York, where
chickens (but not roosters, whose loud crowing can disturb neighbors)
are allowed in limitless quantities, there are at least 30 community
gardens raising them for eggs, and a City Chicken Project run by a
local nonprofit that aims to educate the community about their
benefits. In Madison, Wis., where members of a grass-roots chicken
movement, the Chicken Underground, successfully overturned a
residential chicken ban four years ago, there are now 81 registered
chicken owners, according to the city's animal-services department.
'There's definitely a growing movement, II says 33-year:-old Rob Ludlow,
the Bay Area operator of BackyardChickens.com and the owner of five
chickens of his own. "A lot of people really do call it an addiction.
Chickens are fun, they have a lot of personality. I think people are
starting to see that they're really easy pets-and they actually produce
something in return. II
20
which operates the New York Chicken Project. "Most of the world keeps
chickens, and they've been doing so for thousands of years." .
Historically, he's right. During the first and second world wars, the
government even encouraged urban farming by way of backyard
"Victory Gardens" in an effort to lessen the pressure on the public food
supply. (Until 1859, there were 50,000 hogs living in Manhattan,
according to Blecha.) "It's really only been over the last 50 years or so
that we1ve gotten the idea that modernity and success and urban
spaces don't involve these productive animals," Blecha says.
There are a host of reasons for the growing trend. "Locavores" hope to
avoid the carbon emissions and energy consumption that come with
transporting food. Chicken owners and poultry experts say eggs from
backyard chickens are tastier and can be more nutritious, with higher
levels of supplements like omega-3 fatty acids. Their production cost is
cheap: you can buy chickens for as little as a couple of dollars, and
three hens will likely average about two eggs a day. You can also use
their waste to help revitalize a garden. "There've been recalls on
everything from beef to spinach, and I think people want to have peace
of mind knowing their food is coming from a very trusted source," says
LaBadie. "As gas prices go up, and people realize how food is
connected to oil and transportation, they are bound to realize they can
get a higher quality product cheaper if they get it locally."
~,l-. ,.
Keeping a chicken is relatively easy, too-assuming you don't get too
attached. (That's a talk Mackin says she had with her kids early: these
chickens aren't pets.) They'll eat virtually anything-"pork products,
string cheese, even Chinese takeout," she laughs-and they feed on
bugs and pests that can ruin a garden. They can withstand harsh
weather conditions. (In one oft-told tale, a Maine woman lost her
chicken in a blizzard and found it, a day later, frozen solid with its feet
stuck straight in the air. She thawed it and administered CPR. The
chicken made a full recovery.) And much like New Yorkers, not much
bothers chickens grown in urban environments. "[Those] raised in a
really controlled environment like factory farms are very fragile, both
physically and emotionally," says Blecha, who lives in St. Paul, Minn.,
with her partner and six chickens. "My chickens, I mow the lawn a foot
away from them and they don't even look up from their pecking."
But even urban chickens, who can live more than five years, can die
easily: from predators like dogs or possums, catching a cold or
sometimes for no apparent reason at all. Once, one of Mackin's chicks
. got stuck in a glue trap. She drowned it, to put it out of its misery.
"That was really sad," she says. (Mackin doesn't name her chickens, for
that very reason.)
22
But the overall experience seems to be positive for everyone. "We
have people calling weekly to say, This is really cooll," says P~trick
Comfert, a spokesman for Madison's animal-services department,
where the chicken ban was reversed in 2004. "Chicken people love it,
the neighbors don1t care, we have no complaints." Minneapolis
enthusiast Albert Bourgeois sums up the appeal. "Chickens are really
fun pets," he says. His flock is named Cheney, Condi, Dragon, Fannie
and Freddie. The next one, he says, will be Obama.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/168740
23
Appendix D: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
f &
f ~
i .Iii
'~..l:ii
8...... ~.J '.........1... .......
0)' I 81
f I'f
; :3
~ a'
~. m
f I
I
lit
..
l'
,
i
:"
'lI
il. ii t
I~I ;
III I
o 110 il
.. rt
ig
..
24
\
\
\
'fI
I
H
t
'\ >-
~ .;
a .;
;..
i
!
.
i f
I "
..
Ie.
on
~.
H
e ...~ .CJ.. ..)
.,........ .~...g.........fi..............i.......
... ~.. .:1.
~ .." .
..0........ (1)...0...... "'"
~.' .z
I ..G)
if
~
::'l
I
'-I
o II
i ..
t
'::f
o
is:
l(
!'>i
I.:)
(11
13
I
i
.
~
'0
1
i
25
Appendix E: Letters of Support
.,.--
WM~.
To whom it may concern,
This letter is in response to the question of whether a home owner keeping chickens
affects the property values of adjoiniiig neighbors. It is true that the overall character of a
neighbo~ho~~! iJ]cludirlg the appearance and upkeep of the homes, affects property
values. Most home buyers will view poorly kept homes within a neighborhood as a
negative. This includes lack of maintenance, unpleasant odors and excessive noise
among other things.
Chickens or a chicken coop do not necessarily present any more problems than a dog/dog
house or a rabbit/rabbit hutch. The issue is the view from neighboring properties, noise
and odor. Assuming a chicken coop is kept clean and free of odors, is properly
maintained just as you would a garden shed or wood fence, and there is not excessive
noise, the situation should not negatively affect the neighboring properties. Any pet,
whether a dog, cat or chicken, can create a nuisance for the neighbors if the pet owner
does not control noise, contain the pet to their yard and properly dispose of waste.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or would like furtherinformation.
Sincerely,
Q)~jtd~
Deb LaFrance
Realtor@, Accredited Buyer Representative, Certified Relocation Professional,
Senior Housing Specialist
Member of the Cincinnati Area Board of Realtors
I~.~
~rt< Results Plus
5181 Natorp Boulevard, Suite 140
Mason, Ohio 45040
Office: (513) 229-5000
Fax: (513) 229-0010
Each Office Independently Owned and Operated
26
John. ,lV[.. J::>ucSo", cas
'1,"
r---
N
HousLnq ~alues should not be affected by a ~e11
rna.:i...nta.:L1."l.,ec:t,. attrac::t.:i.."V"'e bac:.k:yarci c.hick,en c:,oo'p _ The
on.1.y ,",,'ay a c:.h.i..C:.ken coop c.ou~ci affect. the v-a.1.l.:te of a
home .:La :l.;f the coop is .n.o.t::. talc,eLl. ca.re of and the
chickens are, not attended to on a regu2ar basis!
Howe~er, the same can be said for dogs in a
bac:.kyarcl 'LoIThat ,a.::t::e rl.c:>t 8.tteX::Ld..ed. to-a.nd h.a"V"$ o!!ll:
("J;.3..1.a..p.:i..d.ated. d,og-house J There are a.~read.ynu..:i...s.a..nce
~,C:i.",,",s and he-aJ...tl":l ord:::i..narlc,es in p~a..c.e to take c::a~.e of
s:Ltu-at.:i.ons t.hat ha.v-$ :fa.J..J..e.n ]o,e.J..o....-J" cornmu,n.:i.t.y
standard.s _
:en sl.:.:un:rnary, a 'W"e~~ t.aJcen, c<il!I-re o:E a.n,el ;.i!ll.t.t:.rac.t:.:i.v'e
oh.:i.cken c;;oop in and. of .:lts.ai-f sho,u,~d ha:ve, no effect
on hous~~g ~a1ues!
Du,J::..~so.. <:RS
C,?ro,e:y &: She..pherd ReaJ.:....to'J::'s
5:1..3-979-26:1..7
.271.6 Oh.e-.rva.tor:y .A'V'e;Du-e
Cinc:i:u..na-.:i.. OM 4.5208
n-.Lncss (.513) 321.-4343
Dir.ecc.' (5:1.3) '79~26:J.7
.E.--n:a.ail:: john@j-ohn.d"u.90.I(.."O:tt1
""CI(Ycbsi~.jo.hrid:u.....so.cozn.
,
Appendix A
25 Ordinances Analyzed
City/State # of birds Roosters Permit! Enclosure Nuisance Slaughter Property line Details or unique
oermitted allowed permit cost reauired clause permitted restrictions regulations
Los Angeles, unclear only if 100 unclear unclear Yes unclear 20 ft from owners
CA ft from home, 35 ft from
neiahbors neiahbors
Rogers, AK 4 No $5/yr Yes Yes inside only 25 ft from
neiahbors house
Keywest, FL unclear Yes None Yes Yes No No Can't use droppings as
fertilizer, feed must be
stored in rat proof
containers
Topeka, KS unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from
neiahbors house
South 6 No $25/yr Yes, Yes unclear Yes On trial basis till
Portland, ME building November 2008, only
permit 20 permits issued till
required yearly evaluation
Madison, WI 4 No $6/yr Yes Yes No 25 ft from
neiahbors house
New York, No limit No Yes No Yes unclear No
NY
Albuquerque, 15 1 per None No Yes Yes No
NM household
Portland, OR 3 without unclear $31 one time Yes Yes unclear unclear
Dermit fee for 4 +
Seattle, WA 3 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 10ft from property 1 additional chicken per
line 1,000 sq It of property
above minimum
Spokane, WA 1 per unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 90 ft from property Chickens allowed in
2,000 sq It line multi-family zoned areas
of land
San Antonio, property unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum 5 birds allowed 20 It
TX line from another from home, 12 birds at
dependent dwellina 50 It, 50 birds at 150 It
Honolulu, HI 2 unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear
Oakland, CA unclear No unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum
from another
dwellina
St. Louis, MO 4 max. unclear $40 permit unclear unclear unclear unclear
without for more than
oermit 4 birds
San Diego, 25 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 50 ft from Feed must be stored in
CA neiahbors house rat proof container
San Jose, CA dependent only permit Yes unclear unclear Ranges from 0 to <15 It = 0 birds allowed,
on coop to roosters < needed for 6 50 ft, determines 15 to 20 ft = 4 birds, etc,
property 4 months or more birds # of birds up to 50 It = 25 birds
line old
Austin, TX unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Yes 50 ft from
neiahbors house
Memphis, TN unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes Yes unclear Feed must be stored in
rat proof container
Ft. Worth, TX based on unclear No Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from <1/2 acre = 12 birds,
lot size neiahbors house >1/2 acre = 25 birds
Baltimore, 4 unclear Must register Yes Yes unclear 25 ft from Coops must be mobile
MD with animal neighbors house to prevent waste build
control and up, minimum 2 sq
DeDt of Aa. ft/bird,
Charlotte, NC based on unclear $40/yr Yes Yes unclear 25 ft from property minimum 4 sq. It/bird,
lot size line no more than 20/acre
Missoula, MT 6 No $15 permit Yes Yes unclear 20 It from Feed must be stored in
neiahbors house rat proof container
Boise, .10 3 No unclear Yes unclear unclear unclear
San 4 Unclear No Yes Yes unclear 20 feet from door
Francisco, or window of
CA residence
17
Chicken Ordinance bv City
City Regulations Contact
Anoka Permitted, 4 bird limit 763-576-2700
Arden Hills Permitted; must comply with building set-back code 651-792-7800
Blaine Chickens are permitted in aqricultural zoned areas 763-784-6700
Bloomingt<>n Permitted, must be 100 ft from neiqhborinq lot line 952-563-8973 .
---------_.~
Burnsv.llte Permitted,4bkd limit 952:-895-4400
Champlin Permitted in aqriqultural zoned areas 763421-8100
Chaska Chick~ns arep~rmitted in agricultural zOned areas 952-448-9200
Qoluml>ia Heights Permitted - nocitv ordinance gencerning chickens 't63406-3600 --
- Permitted in. aqricultural zoned areas 651-'675-5000
'Pefl:\t\'ttt,ed with .Iicense application 763-572-3592
~.- - -
Inver G~ve ~~!ght$ 'hrm,i~ted .in most zoning areas 651-450-2500
Little Canada ~~r:mitted, permit required 651-766-4029
Maple Grove. ___ f>ermlftedin. most zoninq areas - 763494-6000
-----.------ -
Minneapolis Permitted, neiqhbor consent, $30 annual license fee 612-3484250
Minnetcmka ,Permitted, 5 bird limit 952-939-8200
New Brkifl1ton Permitted - no city ordinance concerninq chickens 651-638-2100
New Hope 'Permitted, 4 bird limit 763-531-5100
Oakdale Permitted, permit reauired for more than t bird with neiqhbor consent 651-739-5086
Osseo Permitted - no city ordinance concernina chickens 763.,425-2624
Plymouth Permitted in most zenina areas 763-509-5000
Richfield Permitted, 3 bird limit 612-861-9700
Robbinsdale Permitted, permit reql.liredfor more than 2 birds with neiahbor consent 763-537-4534
Roseville ,Permitted 651-792-7000
Sha~0pee !Chic~ens.c:ltepermittedin agriCultural zoned areas 952-233-9300
.-~I- ':
Shoreview Permitted, 2 aCre minimum required for chickens 651-490-4600
St. Anthorty ReqUires City9-()~.r!CiL?lPproval 612-782-3301
~Q!~~Yalley
INot Permitted
1763-593-8000 I
'"",
alley
M 0 U
City Administration/Council
763-593-8003/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
June 8, 2010
Agenda Item
6. Domestic Partnership Registration
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
Council Member Pentel asked that this item be placed on the agenda.
Attachments
Email from Paula Pentel dated May 22, 2010 (7 pages)
Burt, Tom
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pentel, Paula
Saturday, May 22,20107:12 AM
Burt, Tom
FW:
Tom-
Could we discuss this at our next Council-Manager meeting?
-p
From: s.trost@comcast.net [s.trost@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 20109:26 AM
To: Pentel, Paula
Subject: Re:
Thanks for your prompt reply. I believe it is important for GV to have a gay rights ordinance on its books.
We are a progressive and inclusive city and it is imperative that all citizens and staff are treated equally.
We pay equal taxes and should have equal rights and responsibilities under our ordinances.
Sincerely,
Stephen Trost, RN
PS: We can't fall behind Edina!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pentel, Paula" <PPentel@cLgolden-valley.mn.us>
To: <s.trost@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 20106:11 AM
Subject: RE:
Stephen-
Thank you for your message. I will follow-up with our City manager to see what steps are needed.
-p
From: s.trost@comcast.net [s.trost@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 20104:55 PM
To: Pentel, Paula
Subject:
Dear Ms. Pentel,
I am writing to you to request that Golden Valley follow the example of Edina and introduce legislation to provide for
fair treatment for its many gay and lesbian citizens.
Edina has proposed fair treatment for its city employees as allowable under State law.
Golden Valley should have a gay rights ordinance and provide equal benefits for its staff.
GV has long been the home of many same-sex couples. I and my partner have resided in GV for 18 years. We are in the
Tyrol Hills South area of the city.
I request that you bring this issue forward and author ordinances that provide equal rights to all of its citizens.
1
If Edina can do it, Golden Valley should be as progressive.
Regards,
Stephen Trost
Bob Des Lauriers
1450 Natchez Ave South
Golden Valley, MN 55416
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use
only by the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you received this
in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
2
To: MA VOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item II. A.
Susan Howl [g] Action
From: Human Services Coordinator
D Discussion
Date: May 18, 2010 D Information
Subject: An Ordinance Amending Edina City Code
Concerning Domestic Partners
REPORT/RECOMMENDA TION
ACTION REQUESTED: Consider First Reading of this ordinance.
INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: On behalf of the Human Rights and Relations
Commission, the attached ordinance has been prepared for the City Council's
consideration at the public hearing on May 18, 2010. The purpose of the proposed
ordinance is to allow Domestic Partners registration rights and the same rights in public
venues as married couples, and to provide City employees Domestic Partner benefits.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance Amending Edina City Code Concerning Domestic Partners
2. Resolution Adopting Amendment to Employee Handbook
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-_
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDINA CITY CODE
CONCERNING DOMESTIC PARTNERS
THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS:
Section 1.
follows:
Chapter 1 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding Section 195 to provide as
195.01 Purpose.
The City of Edina authorizes and establishes a voluntary program of registration of domestic
partners. The domestic partnership registry is a means by which unmarried, committed couples
who reside or work in Edina and who share a life and home together may document their
relationship.
Edina's Domestic Partnership ordinance is a City ordinance and does not create rights,
privileges, or responsibilities that are available to married couples under state or federal law.
The City of Edina cannot provide legal advice concerning domestic partnerships. Applicants and
registrants may wish to consult with an attorney for such advice including but not limited to:
wills, medical matters, finances and powers of attorney, children and dependents, medical and
health care employment benefits.
195.02 Definitions.
The following words and phrases used in this Code have the meanings given in this Section.
Domestic Partner. Any two adults who meet all the following:
1. Are not related by blood closer than permitted under marriage laws of the state.
2. Are not married.
3. Are competent to enter into a contract.
4. Are jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life.
5. Are committed to one another to the same extent as married persons are to each other,
except for the traditional marital status and solemnities.
6. Do not have any other domestic partner(s).
7. Are both at least 18 years of age.
8. At least one of whom resides in Edina or is employed in Edina
Domestic Partnership. The term "domestic partnership" shall include, upon production of
valid, government-issued documentation, in addition to domestic partnerships registered with
the City of Edina, and regardless of whether partners in either circumstances have sought
further registration with the City of Edina:
A. Any persons who have a currently-registered domestic partnership with a governmental
body pursuant to state, local or other law authorizing such registration. The term domestic
partnership shall be construed liberally to include same-sex unions, regardless of title, in
which two same-sex individuals are committed to one another as married persons are
traditionally committed, except for the traditional marital status and solemnities.
B. Marriages between persons of the same-sex that would be legally recognized as a contract
of lawful marriage in another local, state or foreign jurisdiction, but for the operation of
Minnesota law.
195.03 Registration of Domestic Partnerships.
A. The City Clerk shall accept an application in a form provided by the City to register domestic
partners who state in such application that they meet the definition of domestic partners.
B. The City Clerk shall charge an application fee for the registration of domestic partners and
shall charge a fee for providing certified copies of registrations, amendments, or notices of
termination. The fees required by this Section shall be in the amount set forth in Section 185 of
this Code.
C. The City Clerk shall provide each domestic partner with a registration certificate. The
registration certificate shall not be issued prior to the third working day after the date of the
application.
D. This application and certificate may be used as evidence of the existence of a domestic
partner relationship.
E. The City Clerk shall keep a record of all registrations of domestic partnership, amendments to
registrations and notices of termination. The records shall be maintained so that amendments
and notices of termination are filed with the registration of domestic partnership to which they
pertain.
F. The application and amendments thereto, the registration certificate, and termination notices
shall constitute government data and will be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms of the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
195.04 Amendments.
The City Clerk may accept amendments for filing from persons who have domestic partnership
registrations on file, except amendments which would replace one of the registered partners with
another individual.
195.05 Termination of Domestic Partnership.
Domestic partnership registration terminates when the earliest ofthe following occurs:
1. One of the partners dies; or
2. Forty-five days after one partner sends the other partner written notice, on a form
provided by the City, that he or she is terminating the partnership and files the notice of
termination and an affidavit of service of the notice on the other partner with the City Clerk.
Section 2.
follows:
Chapter 1 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding Section 197 to provide as
197.01 Homestead designation. Eligibility for the designation of property as a
homestead, the application process and the verification process are set forth in State
Statutes. In administering the state homestead statutes the City will not impose any
additional requirements on domestic partners.
197.02 Fees. If the City offers a family fee, family membership or family registration,
domestic partners are entitled to the same family fee, family membership or family
registration.
Section 3.
Section 150.10, Subd. 3 of the Edina City Code is amended to provide as follows:
Subd. 3 Purpose. Sick leave with pay may be granted to employees entitled thereto
when the employee is unable to perform scheduled work duties due to illness/disability,
the necessity for medical, dental or chiropractic care, childbirth or pregnancy disability,
exposure to contagious disease where such exposure may endanger the health of others
with whom the employee would come in contact in the course of performing work duties.
Sick leave with pay may also be granted for a variety of other family and medical
circumstances. The amount and conditions under which sick leave with pay may be used
for such circumstances is provided in the family and medical leave policy adopted
pursuant to Subsection 150.13 ofthis Code. Sick leave with pay may be granted for a
maximum of five scheduled work days in the event of the death of an employee's spouse,
domestic partner, father, mother, spouse's father or mother or child or domestic partner's
father, mother or child and a maximum of three days in the event of the death of an
employee's grandparent, grandchild, brother or sister.
Section 4.
following:
Section 185.02 Schedule A of the Edina City Code is amended by adding the
SECTION SUBSECTION
PURPOSE OF FEE OR CHARGE AMOUNT
195
195.03
registration of domestic partners
$-
195
195.03
certified copies of registration,
amendments or notice of
termination of domestic partners
$-
Section 5.
This ordinance is effective upon passage and publication.
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
RECITALS
The City's Human Rights and Relations Commission has recommended to the City Council
adoption of an amendment to the City's Employee Handbook.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDINA, MINNESOTA:
1. The definition of "spouse" in the Family and Medical Leave policy in the City's
Employee Handbook is amended to provide:
"Spouse" - includes unmarried domestic partners.
ADOPTED by the Edina City Council this _ day of
,2010.
Attest:
Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk
James B. Hovland, Mayor