Introduce Ordinance to Amend City Code Chapter 10 (Animals) Related to Keeping of Non-Domestic Animals on Parcels Less Than Three (3) Acres in Size

Over the past several months, Staff has fielded an increased number of calls regarding the keeping of certain non-domestic animals on parcels less than three (3) acres in size. A majority of the questions fielded are in regard to chickens, with a few also related others such as beekeeping, pot-bellied pigs and alpacas. Along with many other non-domestic animals permitted in City Code, at least three (3) acres are needed to be eligible to maintain chickens.  Others, including alpacas, pot-bellied pigs and honeybees, are not addressed presently in City Code at all.  A case was presented at the May 8, 2012 regular City Council meeting to introduce an ordinance that would permit up to four (4) chickens on parcels between 0.25 acres and three 2.99 acres.  However, City Council directed Staff to incorporate more of a sliding scale according to lot size rather than a one size fits all approach and bring the matter back for introduction at a subsequent meeting. 

No notification is required at this time. The City Council may direct Staff to prepare a Public Hearing for the case to adopt the ordinance amending City Code should they choose to proceed.

As directed at the May 8, 2012 City Council meeting, the ordinance amendment bases the permitted number of chickens on lot size, with an increase of four (4) chickens per quarter acre in size, up to the existing three (3) acre threshold.  It should be noted that this would only be applicable in the R-1 zoning district (single family zoning).  Staff has also prepared an exhibit indicating the increase of allowable chickens by two (2) and one (1) per quarter acre for comparison purposes.  The ordinance amendment specifies that no roosters (only hens) are permitted on lots less than three (3) acres; once at three (3) or more acres, it reverts to the existing regulations which do not specifically prohibit roosters (on larger acreage, it may be possible that animal owners are more interested in breeding, which requires a rooster, rather than just egg production, which does not require fertilization by a rooster.   No changes are being proposed for parcels three (3) acres in size or greater other than to include alpacas in the table of animals and animal units (similar to a llama).
 
The ordinance amendment does also incorporate standards or provisions for beekeeping within the community, which is something that City Code does not presently address.  These standards include requiring a conditional use permit to keep up to six (6) hives on a property, as well as requiring fly-ways, setbacks from property lines and habitable structures, and concerns with possible swarming or aggressiveness.

Staff is still seeking clarification about various animals such as goats and pot-bellied pigs, both of which had been mentioned in the May 8 discussion.  It seemed clear from the May 8 discussion that allowing chickens on smaller lots needed to be permitted, which is what this amendment mostly focuses on.  However, there also seemed to be at least some support for other types of animals (fowl, poultry, goats and pot-bellied pigs) on smaller lots.  In the current amendment, the provisions for animals on less than three (3) acres still prohibits turkeys, ducks, geese, and goats and doesn't address pot-bellied pigs at all.  However, under the maintenance standards for enclosures, it includes those types of animals.  Finally, a question was raised in regards to rabbits. The current ordinance would consider these animals as domestic animals, and Staff has interpreted City Code to state that these animals are already allowed. Should the ordinance be introduced this evening, these discrepancies can be addressed based on the discussion prior to adoption of the ordinance.

Chapter 10 of the City Code (Animals) is not found as part of the Zoning or Subdivision Code, and therefore is not required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. In addition, the proposed amendments do not appear to impact applications under purview of the Planning Commission (other than beekeeping via a conditional use permit), and therefore, Staff is not recommending to bring forward this item through the Planning Commission at this time. The City Council could direct Staff to forward the ordinance to the Planning Commission (or possibly the Environmental Policy Board) for review and comment if it chose.

Staff recommends that the City Council introduce the ordinance to amend City Code Chapter 10 (Animals) to reduce the minimum lot size threshold for certain non-domestic animals and provide proper standards for allowing for bee keeping in certain circumstances.

Preparation of the Ordinance is being handled as part of regular Staff duties.

Motion to introduce the ordinance to amend City Code Chapter 10 (Animals) to reduce the minimum lot size threshold for certain non-domestic animals and provide proper standards for allowing for bee keeping in certain circumstances.