PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Ordinance #15-12 Amending City Code Chapter 10 (Animals) and Section 117-111 (R-1 Residential District) Amending Approval Process for Certain Animals

The purpose of this case is to hold a Public Hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council for Ordinance #15-12. The intent of Ordinance #15-12 is to revise the approval process for the following requests:
 

1. Four (4) or more dogs
2. Horses on 1.5 to 2.99 acres
3. Beekeeping
4. Non-Traditional Domestic or Exotic Animals
5. Wild Animals

Each of these types of requests currently requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Based on a number of recent reviews with the Planning Commission and feedback from potential Applicants, the following Ordinance was developed to consider reducing the timeframe and costs to processing the requests above. With the exception of the wild animal category, the Ordinance would either streamline or eliminate the process for approval. Please note that the draft ordinance would remove the Planning Commission from the review process for the above requests, with the exception of wild animals.

A notification regarding the Public Hearing was published in the Anoka County UnionHerald.

Observations

Ordinance #15-12 recommends approval processes as follows:

1. Conditional Use Permit: Wild Animals
2. License: Four (4) or more dogs, Beekeeping, and Non-Traditional but domestic animals (exotic)
3. Administrative approval: Horses on lots of at least 1.5 acres.

When considering the appropriate process, Staff used the following assumptions for tools available to the City to process these requests:

1. Conditional Use Permit: used when the City desires the highest degree of public comment, flexibility in attaching reasonable conditions, and ultimate approval authority.
2. License: used when request is routine in nature but still desires some opportunity for public comment and City Council approval (non-administrative approvals). The Planning Commission would not be part of this review process.
3. Permitted use without license: when the request is so routine that public comment and City Council approval is not necessary.

The following definitions apply to the request:

1. Horse: any stallion, mare, gelding, foal, pony, donkey, ass, burro, mule, or animal of horse kind.
2. Non-Traditional or Exotic Animals: City Code definition; those animals that are not normally considered to be domesticated but are not wild animals as defined by code. Commentary; this category is established for those animals that are not traditionally considered as a domestic pet but do not necessarily possess the safety concern as a wild animal.
3. Wild Animal: a mammal, large or poisonous reptile and bird that, in their uncaptured wild state, have the physical capacity to be dangerous to the safety and welfare of any person or property.

Detailed performance standards and maximum number of animals allowed per parcel are included in the enclosed attachments.

Alternatives

Alternative #1 - Recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution #15-12. This ordinance is being brought forward based on Planning Commission and City Council suggestion. Staff recommends that some form of ordinance modifying the approval process should be adopted.

Alternative #2 - Recommend that the City Council adopt a revised Resolution #15-12. Potential revisions to the draft ordinance could include further modifications to the approval process. Staff would support the elimination of the license requirement for beekeeping if the Planning Commission felt that there are adequate safety measures in the City Code currently to provide confidence in administrative approval. Staff would not recommend the elimination of the Conditional Use Permit process for wild animals. Due to the perceived subjective nature of the definition of non-traditional or exotic animals, Staff would feel most comfortable with a City Council approval/confirmation of Staff's analysis of these requests.

Alternative #3 - Table action on this recommendation and provide Staff with additional direction to provide further modifications. As the ordinance is somewhat complex and this is the first time the Planning Commission has considered the ordinance, Staff would fully support this option as well.

Alternative #4 - Recommend that the City Council deny Resolution #15-12. Based on previous discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council, Staff does not recommend this option. However, if the Planning Commission desires to retain the conditional use permit process and is solely concerned about current rates and charges for these requests, the City could consider amending rates and charges to create thresholds of conditional use permit types and lower application fees. This could have a minimal impact to the general tax rate.
 

This case is being handled as part of normal Staff duties.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution #15-12.

Motion to recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution #15-12.