|
| Information |
| TITLE: |
| Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2019-53 and Ordinance No. 2019-36: A resolution of the Flagstaff City Council declaring as a public record that certain document filed with the City Clerk and entitled "Animal Keeping Code Amendments;" and an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 6, Police Regulations, Chapter 3, Animal Keeping, by referencing that certain document entitled "Animal Keeping Code Amendments"; providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, authority for clerical corrections, and establishing an effective date. |
| STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: |
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-53
2) Read Ordinance No. 2019-36 by title only for the final time
3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2019-36 by title only (if approved above)
4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2019-36
|
| Executive Summary: |
In 2016, the Animal Keeping Code was revised to clarify rules, reduce barriers for animal keeping on small lot sizes within City limits and incorporate animal welfare considerations. As part of that process, staff committed to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the revisions and return to Council with any necessary updates.
Revisions to the Code are designed reduce nuisances for neighbors and make enforcement easier, while still allowing for backyard livestock to be raised in City limits. The proposed revisions to the Animal Keeping Code are in response to feedback from residents, City staff, and direction from City Council. The revisions also address inconsistencies within the Zoning Code. Key revisions include:
- A permitting system modeled after the existing Minor Improvement Permit process
- Prohibiting pygmy and miniature goats in zones other than estate residential and rural residential
- Adjusting setback requirements, including a 20-foot distance requirement between livestock shelters and neighboring dwellings
- Containing livestock in shelters from sunset until sunrise
- Requiring wings of winged animals be clipped to ensure containment
- Guidelines for reducing nuisances, including the proper location for feed and water, as well as disposal of waste
|
| Financial Impact: |
Staff is seeking guidance from City Council on what the cost of the animal keeping permit and level of cost recovery for City staff labor. At 100% cost recovery, Community Development staff can process an animal keeping permit application at a cost of $80.
If City Council would prefer to offer a more affordable permit fee, such as $20, the permit could be processed by Sustainability staff. In either scenario, staff will evaluate the impacts over the first year and propose adjustments to costs and components as necessary. |
| Policy Impact: |
| Backyard animal keeping supports the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan by increasing access to healthy, affordable food that also has a lower carbon footprint. |
| Connection to Council Goal, Regional Plan and/or Team Flagstaff Strategic Plan: |
Council Goals:
- Take meaningful climate change action
- Actively manage and protect all environmental and natural resources
- Achieve comprehensive and equitable code compliance
Regional Plan:
- Goal E&C.2. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
- Goal E&C.3. Strengthen community and natural environment resiliency through climate adaptation efforts
|
| Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: |
| Yes. In 2016, City Council approved amendments to Animal Keeping Code that made it feasible to practice animal keeping on small lot sizes within City limits. |
| Options and Alternatives: |
- Approve the ordinance amending the Animal Keeping Code as proposed on November 19th, 2019.
- Approve the ordinance amending the Animal Keeping Code with revisions as detailed below.
- Do not approve the ordinance.
Additional Options for Consideration
Based on City Council’s request for additional options, staff have outlined revisions for consideration:
1. Permitting
Option A – Proposed robust permitting requirements:
- Permit fee – likely to cost $80 at 100% cost recovery
- A signed statement acknowledging requirements of the code
- Short questionnaire
- Plot drawing with location of animal shelter
- Site inspection
Pros: Improved data tracking and evaluation of animal keeping activity. It provides an opportunity for basic education prior to receiving a permit. It also allows the City to verify plot drawings and reduce potential nuisances.
Cons: Significant financial and time investment for applicants.
Option B – Proposed robust permitting requirement with a reduced permit fee
Pros: Improved data tracking and evaluation of animal keeping activity. It provides an opportunity for basic education prior to receiving a permit. It also allows the City to verify plot drawings and reduce potential nuisances.
Cons: Financial and time investment for applicants.
Option C – Free and streamlined permit that limits processing costs and can be offered for free. This option would include:
- No permit fee
- Short questionnaire and acknowledgement of code requirements
- Plot drawing with location of animal shelter
- Inspection only in the case of neighbor complaints and suspected violations
Pros: Property would be on record, which improves data collection and evaluation of animal keeping activity. It provides the opportunity for basic education on animal keeping best-practices. The City could also reserve the right to inspect the property in the case of complaints from neighbors.
Cons: Without an inspection, staff would not be able to verify adequate setback requirements and preempt possible violations or nuisances.
Option D – No permitting requirements
Pros: No staff time required for processing
Cons: No data on animal keeping activity other than through complaints. No opportunity to preempt nuisances through basic education. No ability to inspect unless property owners allow staff to do so.
2. Setback Requirements for Animal Shelters
Option A – The proposed setback requirements for shelters are:
- At least 10 feet from shelter to property line abutting a residential lot
- May extend up to the property line abutting an alley
- At least 20 feet from shelter to neighboring dwelling
Option B – Allow shelters to be located up to 5 feet from property lines abutting residential lots.
3. Goats
Option A – Prohibit miniature and pygmy goats in all residential zones other than Estate and Rural Residential.
Option B – Limit goat keeping by lot size rather than zoning.
- For example, the City could allow miniature goats on lot sizes greater than 20,000 square feet. This would allow for more property owners to consider keeping goats, while still prohibiting on small lot sizes where it may be difficult to limit nuisances.
Option C – Create longer setback requirements for goat shelters.
- For example, if keeping miniature goats, shelters must be located 15 feet from the property line and 30 feet from neighboring dwelling.
|
| Background/History: |
In 2016, the Animal Keeping Code was revised to clarify rules, reduce barriers for animal keeping on small lot sizes within City limits and incorporate animal welfare considerations. As part of that process, staff committed to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the revisions and return to Council with any necessary updates.
Allowing animal keeping in urban areas has multiple benefits, including increasing access to locally grown food and an inexpensive source of eggs, meat, and dairy. Yet, without proper regulations, backyard animal keeping can create nuisances for the surrounding neighborhood that are difficult to address.
Community Feedback
A community-wide satisfaction survey was conducted in December 2018 through January 2019 and received 233 responses. The results indicate that the majority (58% of respondents) are satisfied with the existing code. The survey also indicated that 46% of residents aware of animal keeping by their neighbors experienced some nuisance. Noise and odor were the most common complaints. While many respondents recommended shortening the existing set back requirements for animal shelters (10 feet from the property line), the restrictiveness and setback requirements of the code were mentioned only five times out of 153 comments.
City Personnel Feedback
When discussing the animal keeping code with Code Compliance and Animal Control personnel, they are receiving calls for service for noise and odor nuisances which can be difficult to enforce, animals escaping owner's property, kept animals becoming prey to predators, attraction of rodents and/or other pests, and increasing number of kept animals due to yearlings.
|
| Key Considerations: |
Currently, livestock are allowed to roam up to the property line, as well as in the side and front yards, which can lead to containment issues and the creation of odor and noise near neighboring houses.
Currently, the setback requirements for animal shelters are inconsistent with similar requirements stipulated in the Zoning Code. Staff recommend modeling these requirements after accessory structure setbacks in the Zoning Code, with the additional requirement that shelters be at least 20 feet from the neighboring dwelling residence.
The current code also allows for pygmy and miniature goats, which can create significant nuisances and do not provide as large of a food security benefit. |
| Expanded Financial Considerations: |
| If the City Council is interested in 100% cost recovery for the permit application process, Community Development staff would process permits. If City Council desires a lower permit fee, Sustainability staff will handle the permitting process, which will have a financial impact. The processing of permits and inspection efforts will be absorbed by existing Sustainability staff. The impacts to existing workload are unknown at this time. |
| Community Benefits and Considerations: |
| The proposed revisions are designed to reduce nuisances experienced by neighbors. The permitting process requires additional effort on the part of residents interested in keeping livestock and will allow staff to educate residents on key best-practices. |
| Community Involvement: |
| Consult: A community-wide satisfaction survey was conducted in December 2018 through January 2019 and received 233 responses. |
|
|
|