Laserfiche WebLink
SECONDARY SURVEY RESULTS <br />The purpose of the secondary survey, which was emailed personally to those who completed the <br />primary survey, was to further understand and engage resident feedback on potentially ordinance- <br />specific regulations. Eight additional questions were posed, with a final question allowing for open <br />open-ended response. <br />After analyzing initial feedback from the primary survey, staff posed a survey question to garner <br />feedback on considering residential fowl at a later date (but moving consideration forward for <br />residential chickens). 55% of respondents supported including chickens and visiting residential <br />fowl at a later date. As with the primary survey, residents were able to provide other comments. <br />For this particular question, twelve respondents provided additional feedback varying in topic. See <br />Attachment B. <br />Based on the Planning Commission meeting held on August 10, several other questions were <br />posed, including the type of residential chickens permitted (almost 57% supported allowing both <br />laying and meat hens) and the requirement of a license or application as a condition to have <br />residential chickens (over 62% support a license or application). Other comments were <br />additionally shared. See Attachment B. <br />Two questions asked for feedback regarding the prohibition of breeding and the prohibition of <br />culling. Staff did receive comments from respondents that these two particular questions (questions <br />four and six) were confusing. Staff wanted to be sure to share this feedback for purposes of <br />transparency and understanding the results. Question four asked for feedback regarding the city <br />prohibiting breeding. Based on the results, over 41% of respondents strongly support and support <br />the prohibition of breeding. Additionally, over 38% of respondents support the city prohibiting <br />culling (separating or killing an unwanted chicken). Both of these questions had over 10% <br />percentage of respondents providing “don’t know” as a response. Additionally, for both of these <br />questions, several comments were provided. See Attachment B. <br />Two questions posed were about residential property. Primary survey data outlined a majority of <br />respondents were in support of residential chickens being allowed in either a side or rear yard <br />depending on lot. Therefore, the secondary survey requested feedback on the setback for coop and <br />run structures from property lines. Almost 37% felt a minimum setback of five feet (similar to an <br />accessory structure) was appropriate. Other feedback was provided, with most comments outlining <br />that no (a 0 feet) setback regulation from a property line should be required. The final directed <br />question requested feedback on the requirement for additional privacy fencing being required as a <br />condition for keeping residential chickens. 55% of respondents opposed and strongly opposed the <br />requirement of additional privacy fencing. Additional comments for both questions can be found <br />in Attachment B. <br />Respondents shared additional feedback and comments through an open-ended text response. See <br />Attachment B. <br />FINDINGS <br />The current City Code in question of updating is 1103.020 where it states “…unlawful for any <br />person to keep, raise, breed, or feed poultry and/or pigeons within the City”. After conducting