HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-08 Planning & Zoning Packet - Work SessionKenai Planning & Zoning Commission —
Work Session
' February 8, 2023 — 5:30 p.m.
Kenai City Council Chambers
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska
www.kenai.city
**Telephonic/Virtual Info Below**
Agenda
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. INTRODUCTION — Linda Mitchell, Planning Director
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
(Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
D. COMMISSION DISCUSSION
1. Ordinance No. 3332-2023 - Amending Kenai Municipal Code Section 3.10.070-Livestock
within the City Limits, to Allow a Maximum of Twelve (12) Chicken Hens to be Kept on Certain
Lots Less than 40,000 Square Feet within the City of Kenai.
E. PUBLIC COMMENT
(Public comment limited to three (5) minutes per speaker, thirty (30) minutes aggregated)
F. ADJOURNMENT
The agenda and supporting documents are posted on the City's website at www.kenai.city. Copies of
resolutions and ordinances are available at the City Clerk's Office or outside the Council Chamber prior
to the meeting. For additional information, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 907-283-8231.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84608991657
Meeting ID: 846 0899 1657 Passcode: 349304
OR Call: (253) 215-8782 or (301) 715-8592
Meeting ID: 846 0899 1657 Passcode: 349304
Kenai Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1
Work Session
February 8, 2023
Sponsored by: Council Members Douthit and Winger
KENAI
CITY OF KENAI
ORDINANCE NO. 3332-2023
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.10.070-LIVESTOCK WITHIN
THE CITY LIMITS, TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF TWELVE (12) CHICKEN HENS TO BE KEPT ON
CERTAIN LOTS LESS THAN 40,000 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE CITY OF KENAI.
WHEREAS, the keeping of chicken hens within the City of Kenai on lots less than forty thousand (40,000)
square feet and in the Urban Residential (RU), Suburban Residential 1 (RS1) Suburban Residential 2
(RS2), and Townsite Historic (TSH) zoning districts is currently prohibited; and,
WHEREAS, residents have expressed an interest in keeping chicken hens on lots less than forty
thousand (40,000) square feet for personal use; and,
WHEREAS, outside the RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH zoning districts, a relatively small number of chicken
hens may be kept within populated areas of the City without causing an unreasonable risk of nuisance
or wild animal attractant if the hens are properly located, contained, managed and maintained; and,
WHEREAS, twelve (12) chicken hens or less is a reasonable number to provide a household with eggs
without having too high a density of chickens, which could increase the likelihood of causing a nuisance
or wild animal attractant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amendment of Section 3.10.070 of Kenai Municipal Code: That Kenai Municipal Code,
Section 3.10.070, Livestock within the city limits, is hereby amended as follows:
3.10.070 Livestock within the city limits.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall keep or maintain livestock within the
City of Kenai.
(b) No livestock shall be allowed in the RU, RS1, RS2 or TSH zones.
([B]c) Except in the RU, RS1, RS2, or TSH zones, [L]livestock, other than bees, may be kept on lots of
forty thousand (40,000) square feet or greater. [NO LIVESTOCK SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE
RU, RS1, RS2 OR TSH ZONES. ANIMALS RAISED FOR A FUR -BEARING PURPOSE ARE
NOT ALLOWED IN ANY ZONE. BEEKEEPING WILL BE RESTRICTED AS DESCRIBED IN
SUBSECTION (G).]
(1) The keeping of chicken hens on lots less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet will be
subject to the standards in subsection (k).
(2) Animals raised for a fur -bearing purpose are prohibited within the city limits.
(3) Beekeeping will be restricted as described in subsection (1).
([c]d) In this section "livestock" is defined as the following animals:
(1) Cow
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
2
Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Page 2 of 4
(2)
Horse
(3)
American bison
(4)
Llama
(5) Alpaca
(6) Sheep
(7) Swine
(8) Goat
(9) Mule
(10) Donkey
(11) Ratite
(12) Duck
(13) Goose
(14) Chicken
(15) Turkey
(16) Rabbit
(17) Honey bees (Apis mellifera)
([D]e) (1) Except for the RS1, RS2, RU, TSH zone(s), the Chief Animal Control Officer may issue
temporary permits of not more than fourteen (14) days for the keeping of livestock not otherwise
allowed for public exhibitions or entertainment events. The Chief Animal Control Officer may
impose conditions on the permits as reasonably necessary for sanitation, safety, or hygiene.
The permit may be revoked for a violation of the conditions of the permit or pertinent section of
the Kenai Municipal Code. The City may charge a permit fee, which fee shall be as set forth in
the City's schedule of fees adopted by the City Council.
(2) Except in the RU zone, the Chief Animal Control Officer may, after notifying adjoining property
owners in writing and allowing reasonable time for comment, issue a permit for the keeping of
livestock for educational or youth activities, such as 4-H, Future Farmers of America, or Boy/Girl
Scouts on lots not otherwise eligible under this section. The permit shall state the duration of
the permit, which shall not exceed two (2) years, and the type and number of livestock to be
kept. The Chief Animal Control Officer may impose conditions on the permits as reasonably
necessary for sanitation, safety, or hygiene. The permit may be revoked for a violation of the
conditions of the permit or Title 3 of the Kenai Municipal Code. Appeal of issuance or revocation
of a permit may be made in writing to the board of adjustment. A permit may be renewed
following written notice and reasonable time for comment to the adjoining property owners. The
City may charge a permit fee, which fee shall be as set forth in the City's schedule of fees
adopted by the City Council.
([E]f) Lots on which livestock are kept on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section
which are not eligible for the keeping of livestock under this section shall be considered a non-
conforming use of land under KMC 14.20.050. No new or replacement livestock may be kept or
introduced on such lots after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section. Offspring
of livestock allowed as a non -conforming use under this section may be kept on such lots only
until they are old enough to be relocated to a site conforming to this section or outside of the
city limits.
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
3
Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Page 3 of 4
([F]q) Except as set forth in subsections ([G]h) and i , below, corrals, pens, hutches, coops, fences or
other animal containment structures must have a minimum setback of twenty-five feet (25') from
the property's side yards, fifty feet (50') from the front yard, and ten feet (10') from the back yard.
All animal containment structures must be secure and in good repair.
(h) The keeping of chicken hens on lots less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet is allowed,
except in the RU, RS1, RSL, and TSH zoning districts, subject to the following standards:
1) A maximum of twelve (12) chicken hens may be keDt on lots with a Dermitted DrinciDal
structure.
(2) Chicken hens must be kept in an enclosed shelter or fully fenced -in at all times.
(3) Chicken coops, hutches or other fully enclosed shelters may not be located in a front yard
or side yard that abuts a street in a residential zoning district and must have a minimum
setback of fifteen feet (15') from the side yards, ten feet (10') from the rear yard, and twenty-
five feet (25') from residential dwellings on neighboring lots.
(4) Fences, corral, pen, or other similar containment structures must have a minimum setback
of fifteen feet (15') from the side yards, twenty-five feet (25) from the front yard, ten feet
(10') from the rear yard, and twenty-five feet (25') from residential dwellings on neighboring
lots.
(5) All shelters or containment structures must be constructed of durable weather resistant
materials, secured, and kept in good repair.
(6) No person may slaughter chickens on -site except when in an area of the property not visible
to the public or adjoining properties.
(7) Chicken hens may not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance as
defined by Kenai Municipal Code.
(8) The keeping of chicken hens must be consistent with terms of this title and does not in or
of itself constitute a nuisance or a disturbance.
([G]i) No person may keep honey bees, Apis mellifera, in a manner that is inconsistent with the
following requirements or that is inconsistent with any other section of this code.
(1) Colonies shall be managed in such a manner that the flight path of bees to and from the
hive will not bring the bees into contact with people on adjacent property. To that end,
colonies shall be situated at least twenty-five feet (25') from any lot line not in common
ownership; or oriented with entrances facing away from adjacent property; or placed at
least eight feet (8') above ground level; or placed behind a fence at least six feet (6') in
height and extending at least ten feet (10') beyond each hive in both directions.
(2) No person shall keep more than four (4) hives on a lot of ten thousand (10,000) square feet
or smaller, nor shall any person keep more than one (1) additional hive for each additional
two thousand four hundred (2,400) square feet over ten thousand (10,000) on lots larger
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
(3) It shall be a violation for any beekeeper to keep a colony or colonies in such a manner or
in such a disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition to humans or animals.
(4) Beekeepers shall take appropriate care according to best management practices when
transporting hives of bees. Bees being transported shall have entrance screens or be
secured under netting.
(5) The term "hive" as used in this section means the single structure intended for the housing
of a single bee colony. The term "colony" as used in this section means a hive and its
equipment and appurtenances, including bees, comb, honey, pollen, and brood.
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
4
Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Page 4 of 4
[(H) A PERSON SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION MAY APPLY FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT UNDER KMC 14.20.150.]
Section 2. Severability: That if any part or provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any
person or circumstances is adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall
be confined in its operation to the part, provision, or application directly involved in all controversy in
which this judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder
of this title or application thereof to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have enacted the remainder of this ordinance even without such part, provision, or
application.
Section 3. Effective Date: That pursuant to KMC 1.15.070(f), this ordinance shall take effect 30 days
after enactment.
ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, THIS 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023.
ATTEST:
Michelle M. Saner, MMC, City Clerk
Brian Gabriel Sr., Mayor
Introduced: January 4, 2023
Enacted: February 1, 2023
Effective: March 3, 2023
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
5
City of Kenai 1 210 Fidalgo Ave, Kenai, AK 99611-7794 1907.283.75351 www.kenai.city
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Council Member Alex Douthit
DATE: December 29, 2022
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3332-2023 Amending KMC Section 3.10.070-Livestock
Within the City Limits
This Ordinance addresses proposed changes to KMC Section 3.10.070 that will allow a relatively
small number of chicken hens to be kept on certain lots within the city limits. Under the current
ordinance, the keeping of chicken hens on lots less than 40,000 square feet is prohibited.
Residents have expressed an interest in keeping chicken hens on lots less than 40,000 square
feet to provide a supply of fresh eggs. The raising of chicken hens for their eggs helps to promote
food security in our community.
The proposed changes will allow a maximum of 12 chicken hens to be kept on lots less than
40,000 square feet except for the following zones: RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH, these four zones
uniquely prohibit the keeping of any livestock regardless of lot size. Attached is a map of where
chicken hens will be permitted under the proposed amendment. The proposed changes also
includes specific conditions under which the keeping of chicken hens will be permitted.
Your consideration is appreciated.
6
City of Kenai
KMC 3.10.070-Livestock within city limits
Proposed Amendment to Allow
Chicken Hens on Certain Lots
Less than 40,000 Square Feet
Proposed Amendment to Allow Chicken Hen!
Lots Less Than 40,000 SF (3,307)
=Livestock are Permitted
=Prohibited Zones (RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH)
0
0.5 ] 1
2 Miles
This map is for graphic representation
only and the City of Kenai assumes no
responsibility for errors on this map.
0
N
1A\G �y
�i
City of Kenai 210 Fidalgo Ave, Kenai, AK 99611-7794 1907.283.75351 www.kenai.city
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Shellie Saner, City Clerk
DATE: January 23, 2023
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3332-2023 Requested Technical Amendment
The purpose of this memo is to request technical amendment to Ordinance No. 3332-2023.
The following technical amendments are respectfully requested.
Motion
Amend Section 1, paragraph c. 1. by replacing the reference to subsection (k), with reference
subsection (h); and
Amend Section1, paragraph c. 3. By replacing the reference to subsection (L), with reference
to subsection (i); and
Amend Section 1, paragraph h. by removing RSL from the listed exceptions and replacing
with RS2.
And renumber the current Sections 2 and 3 to 3 and 4.
Thank you for your consideration.
8
1A\G �y
�i
City of Kenai 1 210 Fidalgo Ave, Kenai, AK 99611-7794 1907.283.75351 www.kenai.city
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Meghan Thibodeau, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: January 26, 2023
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3332-2023 Requested Amendment
The purpose of this memo is to request an amendment to Ordinance No. 3332-2023 based on
the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations.
The following amendment is respectfully requested.
Motion
Add a final WHEREAS that reads:
At its meeting on January 25, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
enactment of this Ordinance with the following conditions:
• That a Planning & Zoning and/or City Council Work Session be scheduled prior to
enactment.
• Include provisions that containment of chickens be restricted to the back of the
house in the rear yard.
Thank you for your consideration.
9
City of Kenai 1 210 Fidalgo Ave, Kenai, AK 99611-7794 1907.283.75351 www.kenai.city
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Victoria Askin, Council Member
DATE: January 26, 2023
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3332-2023 Requested Amendment
Ordinance 3332-2023 should be amended to address the number of chicken hens allowed based
on the geographic zone. The keeping of 12 chicken hens on smaller lots within denser areas is
excessive for providing eggs for the average household or as household pets. The raising of
chicken hens could affect or benefit the community and it is important to balance the number of
chicken hens accordingly.
The following amendment is proposed.
1) 3.10.070(h)(1) Allow a maximum of 12 chicken hens in the Rural Residential (RR) zone
and allow a maximum of six (6) chicken hens in the other zones, except in the prohibited
zones.
The RR zone is generally located in the outlying and rural areas. Most of lots in the RR zone
are surrounded by lots greater than 40,000 square feet where livestock are generally
permitted. The keeping of 12 chicken hens would be better suited for lots within the RR zone
based how it is dispersed away from the centrally developed area, where it would not
significantly affect the surrounding neighbors.
The keeping of six (6) chicken hens is a reasonable amount for other zones since it is
estimated that three (3) chickens per two (2) household members is the rule of thumb to
support egg consumption needs. The other zones, specifically the residential zones are
generally located in the dense residential neighborhoods and limiting the number of chicken
hens to six (6) would balance the benefits and minimize the potential nuisance.
Attached is a map of the proposed amendment.
Motion
Amend Section 1, paragraph h. 1. that reads:
A maximum of twelve (12) chicken hens may be kept on lots in the Rural Residential (RR)
zone and a maximum of six (6) chicken hens on lots in other allowed zones with a permitted
principal structure.
Thank you for your consideration.
New Text Underlined
10
City of Kenai
KMC 3.10.070-Livestock within city limits
Proposed Amendment to Allow Up to 12
Chicken Hens in the Rural Residential (RR)
Zone and Up to 6 Chicken Hens in other zones
on Certain Lots Less than 40,000 Square Feet
17
' ........J E ,
Proposed Amendment to Allow Up to 12 Chicken
Hens on Lots Less Than 40,000 SF in the Rural
Residential (RR) Zone
Proposed Amendment to Allow Up to b Chicken
Hens on Lots Less Than 40,000 SF in Other Zones
Livestock are Permitted
_Prohibited Zones (RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH)
�j
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
This map is for graphic representation
only and the City of Kenai assumes no
responsi6ility for errors on this map,
Id
1
City of Kenai 1 210 Fidalgo Ave, Kenai, AK 99611-7794 1907.283.75351 www.kenai.city
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Gabriel and Council Members
FROM: Henry Knackstedt, Council Member
DATE: January 26, 2023
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3332-2023 Comments and Proposed Amendments
Ordinance 3332-2023, an amendment to KMC 3.10.070-Livestock within City Limits should be
more restrictive to provide low visibility and minimize impacts on the surrounding neighbors and
community.
The following are my proposed amendments to the Ordinance:
1) 3.10.070(h) Add the Airport Light Industrial (ALI) Zone to the list of zoning districts that
prohibits the keeping of any chicken hens.
Lots within the Airport Light Industrial Zone are reserved for aviation -related commercial and
industrial uses. The keeping of chicken hens should be prohibited in the ALI Zone to be
consistent with the intent of the zone.
2) 3.10.070(h)(1) Reduce the number of permitted chicken hens from 12 to 6.
The allowance of raising 12 chicken hens would provide a surplus of eggs for the average
household. Additionally, fewer chicken hens would produce less waste and may be generally
more acceptable to neighbors.
3) 3.10.070(h)(3) and (4) Restrict the location of the enclosed shelters and containment
structures to the rear yard.
The ordinance provides lenient setback requirements for the location of housing and fencing
of chicken hens that may detract from the neighborhood appearance. The Ordinance would
potentially allow fencing of chicken hens in the front yard if a house has a setback greater
than 25 feet from the front property line; therefore, chicken hens may roam in the front yard
under the Ordinance. The potential of unobscured chicken hens in the front yard would
diminish the neighborhood streetscape. To minimize the visual impact and nuisance
complaints, the location of the housing and fencing for the chicken hens should be limited to
the back yard.
Attached is a map of the proposed amendment.
W
Motion
Amend Section 1, paragraph h as follows:
(h) The keeping of chicken hens on lots less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet is
allowed, except in the ALI, RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH zoning districts, subject to the
following standards:
Amend Section 1, paragraph h. 1. that reads:
(1) A maximum of six 6 [TWELVE (12)] chicken hens may be kept on lots with a permitted
principal structure.
Amend Section 1, paragraphs h. 3. And h. 4. that reads:
(3) Chicken coops, hutches or other fully enclosed shelters must be located in the rear yard
[MAY NOT BE LOCATED IN A FRONT YARD OR SIDE YARD THAT ABUTS A STREET
IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT] and must have a minimum setback of fifteen
feet (15') from the side yards, ten feet (10') from the rear yard, and twenty-five feet (25')
from residential dwellings on neighboring lots.
(4) Fences, corral, pen, or other similar containment structures must be located in the rear
yard and have a minimum setback of fifteen feet (15') from the side yards, [TWENTY-
FIVE FEET (25') FROM THE FRONT YARD,] ten feet (10') from the rear yard, and twenty-
five feet (25') from residential dwellings on neighboring lots.
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
Thank you for your consideration.
Page 2 of 2
The City of Kenai I www.kenai.city
13
City of Kenai N
KINK 3.10.070-Livestock within city limits
Proposed Amendment to Allow
Up to 6 Chicken Hens on Certain
Lots Less than 40,000 Square Feet,
a
Proposed Amendment to Allow Up to 6 Chicki
Hens on Lots Less Than 40,000 SF
=Livestock are Permitted
_ Prohibited Zone far Chicken Hens in the ALI .
=Prohibited Zones (RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH)
I.P
0 0.5
3
1 2 Miles
This map is fer graphic representation
only and the City of Kenai assumes no
responsiftly for errors on this map.
January 18, 2023
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, AK 99611
Re: Opposition to Ordinance No. 3332-2023
To: Mayor Gabriel and Kenai City Council
Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission
Thank you to the City Council for referring this sweeping ordinance (affecting 3,307 parcels) to
the Planning and Zoning Commission. This will give the public more opportunity for notice and
comment. We wish to express our strong opposition to the passage of ❑rdinance No. 3332-
2023. Passage of this ordinance will dramatically change the character of our neighborhoods.
ft severely limits the properties for residents who don't want to reside near chickens. Our
guess is the majority of Kenai residents would oppose it if they were aware of it and of the
impacts.
Most of the City Council was present for the June 20, 2022 Board of Adjustment Hearing (Case
No. BA-22-01) where we and others expressed our opposition to our adjacent neighbor's
Livestock Permit for Chickens. We purchased our home in Woodland Subdivision in 1988
(zoned Suburban Residential) because we wanted to live in a residential neighborhood. For
over two years we witnessed blatant violation of the terms of our neighbor's 2020 permit. It
wasn't until a "renewal" was applied for did Animal Control perform inspections in April 2022
and found the applicant violated not only the original permit but also the requested new
permit. In addition, fencing and structures violating the setback requirements still have not
been removed. This is a prime example of where residents did not comply with their permit. if
the current laws can't be managed, new and broader allowances won't be enforced either.
Fresh eggs can be purchased locally. We buy eggs at local businesses where sales tax is
collected to help support our community. As far as the increased cost of eggs, there is also an
increasing cost to have proper chicken coops, fencing, feed, electricity and other expenses.
It seems this ordinance intends to satisfy a few residents at the expense of many. A similar
ordinance failed in 2015.
1
15
We can attest that a dozen chickens, or several dozen chickens, are a nuisance in a densely
populated subdivision on lots smaller than 40,000 square feet. Along with elevated noise,
odors and spread of disease, there is an increased potential for predators, wild and domestic.
We think most homeowners affected by this Ordinance bought their property knowing that
chickens were not a permitted land use and had an expectation that their neighbors wouldn't
have chickens either. Passage of this ordinance will pit neighbor against neighbor.
Please reject this ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
/J 4d440
Kim and Dave Howard
P.Q. Box 2823
Kenai, AK 99611
Attachment: Photo from our side yard window, 3/29/22
2
16
4Rt
J
i''1•.. j^'� �-- k Ku
TZ
s
��y svl •` -
-3
jW
January 19, 2023
Mayor Brian Gabriel and Council Members
Planning & Zoning Commission Members
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, AK 99611
RE: ORDINANCE NO. 3332-2023 -- Amending Kenai Municipal Code Section
3.10.070-Livestock Within the City Limits, to Allow a Maximum of Twelve (12)
Chicken Hens to be Kept on Certain Lots Less Than 40,000 Square Feet Within
the City of Kenai.
Thank you for reviewing and considering amendments to Kenai Municipal Code
3.10.070, Livestock. I live in Woodland Subdivision, and due to personal experience
during 2022 as well as a neighbor's encounter with the ins and outs of the existing
ordinance, it is very apparent the Livestock ordinance sorely needs attention, as well
as monitoring of the ordinance.
My concerns with Ordinance No. 3332-2023 are listed below:
(d) -- In the listing of animals defined as "livestock," should (14) Chicken be
amended to read "(14) Chicken Hens?"
(d) -- Should "roosters" be added to animals defined as "livestock?" Definition of
chickens, i.e., the difference between chicken hens and roosters, was pointed
out during the appeal for extending a permit for keeping chickens at Hansen
Heritage Homestead during 2022.
(g) -- "All animal containment structures must be secure and in good repair."
Fairly subjective. Who will be policing these requirements?
(h)(1 ) -- "A maximum of twelve (12) chickens may be kept on lots with a permitted
principal structure." Add "hens" to "chickens"; perhaps reference where in
the Code "permitted principal stricture" is defined to assist the public; and,
identify whether it would be the Animal Control Officer or Building Official
who would be approving the structure.
(h) (3)
& (4) -- Happy to see setbacks included, but concerned with the statement "and
twenty-five feet (251 from residential dwellings on neighboring lots," Should a
statement be included that requires a setback of containment structures
from neighboring property lines/fences? Also, who will be
inspecting/ monitoring where and if containment structures have been placed
according to Code?
18
Mayor and Council Member
Planning & Zoning Commission Members
January 19, 2023
Page 2
(h)(S) -- "All shelters or containment structures must be constructed of durable
weather -resistant materials, secured, and kept in good repair." Who will be
policing whether these requirements are followed? If it is to be the Chief
Animal Control Officer or Building Official, then include that information.
(h) (7) -- "Chicken hens may not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public
nuisance as defirt.ed by Kenai Municipal Code." Should where in the Code
public nuisance is defined be added? Who decides if a public nuisance is
taking place?
Add as
(h) (9) -- No keeping of chicken hens, roosters, coops, fences, containment shelters,
etc. may be situated on city -owned property without a City -approved permit
(which could require a survey taken to identify property corners and whether
any of the above are trespassing on city -owned property). (This was an issue
raised during the Hansen Homestead appeal.)
During the Hansen appeal, it was apparent follow-up was lacking as to the permitted
number of chickens (six (6) were permitted on the Hansen property and I believe it was
reported approximately 30+ were actually counted by City officials existing on the
property). Woodland Subdivision is a fairly highly populated subdivision.. Even if half
of the properties decide to raise chicken hens, that a huge amount of chicken hens in
one area of the city. If passed as it is, for Animal Control to properly police the
potential amount of chickened properties in Woodland Subdivision, along with the
number of other under 40,000 sq. ft. properties within the city this ordinance will
affect, plus responsibilities already assigned, I am not sure if tighter restrictions would
be needed. And, whether additional staff will be needed which will affect the City's
overall and year -around budget.
For someone to say, "I want to raise chicken hens in my backyard" takes on year -
around responsibilities and issues. Having livestock affects more than just that
property. Not everyone lives in a subdivision within the city to now have livestock
living next door. City budgetary issues, property values; neighbors with allergies to
livestock; avian flu; predatory animals; errant neighborhood dogs; foul/fowl odors, etc.
are factors of concern to evaluate when considering Ordinance No. 3332-2023.
Ik yo
609 Maple Drive
Kenai, AK 99611
19
Linda Mitchell
From: Kristine Schmidt <kristine@kenaialaska.us>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:49 PM
To: Linda Mitchell
Subject: Chicken Ordinance 3332-2023: for January 25, 2023 P&Z Commission Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Planning & Zoning Commissioners:
I am opposed to the chicken ordinance, Ordinance No. 3332-2023, as written. I agree with the three letters in your
1/25/23 meeting packet opposing this ordinance.
This ordinance is a major disruption to City of Kenai land use rules, and has the potential to harm our (Kenai residents')
quality of life very greatly. Our family lives in Woodland Subdivision, on a very small lot (less than 1/3 acre). Our lot has
5 lots right next to us, and under this ordinance there could be as many as 60 chickens kept right next to our backyard.
Kenai residents went through a divisive process on chickens just a few years ago, and the two chicken ordinances were
both failed, even the second one, which had only 2 chickens. Ordinance 3332-2023 allows 12 chickens — that is a
chicken farm, not just "backyard chickens."
There are many many other problems with this ordinance. Just one example: there is a bird flu epidemic across the
United States, including Alaska, killing millions of birds, especially wild birds, and much of the infection comes from
backyard chickens! Do we really want to destroy the wild bird population in Kenai?
I will be sending a second letter detailing the many problems with this ordinance before your 1/25/23 meeting.
I am also extremely disappointed with the City's process for consideration of this ordinance. With no notice to Kenai
residents, the ordinance was introduced ONE DAY after the Christmas/New Year's holidays, in the dead of winter, when
many Kenai residents are out of town. It was put on the fast track to be heard and enacted within 2 weeks of
introduction. Call me cynical, but this process seems designed to ensure that the public who might oppose the
ordinance get as little time and input as possible. Luckily, Councilman Knackstedt convinced the City Council to send it
to the Planning & Zoning Commission first.
However, there is no work session at either City Council or Planning & Zoning Commission scheduled to consider this
ordinance and changes to it. Most if not all major ordinance changes like this one go through at least one work session,
which allows the public and Council/Commission members to consider amendments.
I request that the Planning & Zoning Commission postpone action on Ordinance 3332-2023 and schedule a work session
on it.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Kristine Schmidt
513 Ash Avenue
Kenai, Alaska 99611
(907) 283-7373 (work)
1
20
From: Rachael Gaedeke
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public comment regarding chicken rearing in Kenai city limits
Date: Sunday, January 22, 2023 6:02:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To Whom it May Concern:
I'm writing to express my support in allowing the citizens of Kenai to be allowed to keep chickens in
their backyards.
Keeping a small flock of chickens in your own backyard has many benefits from supplying you with
fresh, healthy eggs from well -cared -for animals, to giving you great fertilizer for gardening, to
providing lively pets —as well as being part of the drive to local, sustainable food systems.
Sustainable food systems have always been a top priority for Alaskans. Now more than ever, we
need to be able to count on reliable, nutritious food sources.
Eggs laid from healthy chickens provide a much needed kitchen staple. Currently the price of eggs
is skyrocketing and many grocery stores have empty shelves where their eggs used to be plentiful.
Home -raised hens produce eggs that are fresher, better tasting and often more nutritious than their
commercially farmed counterparts.
Millions of people keep backyard chickens responsibly. Let our children have the opportunity to
understand where food comes from and contribute to its production.
Please include this email in public comment for the upcoming meeting.
Sincerely,
Rachael Gaedeke
rgaedeke@gmail.com
21
January 24, 2023
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, AK 99611
Dear Commissioners:
RE: Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Amending KMC 3.10.070 to Allow a Maximum of Twelve (12) Chickens to Be Kept on Lots
Less Than 40,000 Square Feet - Except for RU, RS-1, RS-2 and TSHZoning Districts
I oppose ordinance No. 3332-2023 as written and ask that the Commission recommend to
Council that: (1) this ordinance not be enacted as written; (2) the ordinance be amended to also
except the RS Zone from its scope; and (3) the Council otherwise postpone action and refer the
ordinance back to the Commission for a public work session or sessions for consideration.
My spouse and I purchased our home on Ash Avenue in Woodland Subdivision, Kenai, Alaska,
in 1985. When we bought our home in 1985, our property in Woodland Subdivision was zoned
Suburban Residential (RS). We specifically chose to purchase a home in Woodland Subdivision
because there were covenants restricting use to residential and there were the protections of the
RS Zone. We raised our daughter there and have lived there for the last thirty-eight (38) years.
Land Use Inequity in Suburban Residential Zones.
The Suburban Residential Zone is intended to provide for medium density residential
development and to prohibit uses which would violate the residential character of the
environment. The Suburban Residential Zone includes the RS, RS-1, and RS-2 Zones.
Our lot is a small lot, 0.31 acre, which is approximately 13,504 s.f. The majority of lots in
Woodland Subdivision, properties zoned RS, are of similar size. Some lots in Inlet View
Subdivision, property zoned RS-1, are of slightly larger size, approximately 16,500 s.f., but are
still small lots. The RS-2 Zone also has small lots.
The raising of chickens will have similar impacts on all of these RS Zones, but only properties in
RS Zone are subject to the impacts that will be caused by this ordinance as written. There is no
explanation of the policy reason supporting excepting all properties in the RS-1 and RS-2 Zones
while including all properties in the RS Zone. This is arbitrary.
As you know, the City's Land Use Table establishes the land uses in the RS Zone (like the other
zones) that are Permitted (P), Conditional (C), Secondary (S), and Not Permitted (N).
"Chickens" are defined to be "livestock", and "agriculture" includes "raising livestock." The
Land Use Table for RS, RS-1 and RS-2 Zones all have a "N" for Not Permitted for "general
agriculture." Raising 12 chicken hens in small lots can qualify as "general agriculture " in a
small lot, and would violate the residential character of the environment.
22
Even if the Commission and the Council deem raising 12 chicken hens on a small lot to be not
"general agriculture," this ordinance does not distinguish between raising chickens for personal
use and for commercial use. There is at least one tenant in Woodland Subdivision who offers
eggs for sale, and chicks for individuals who want to raise chickens, through use of social media.
That is a retail business.
Retail business and wholesale business are both "N" in RS-1 and RS-2, but are a C in RS Zone.
But this ordinance does not provide that commercial use is prohibited, nor does it require a
conditional use permit or any application at all for any use, or the written consent of the property
owner who has leased the property to the tenant who is raising livestock.
The ordinance should be amended to add the RS Zone to the exceptions, or to limit the lot sizes
to lots greater than 20,000 s.f., while also limiting the maximum number of chicken hens to six
(6) hens.
Other issues.
There are many other issues not addressed in this ordinance, such as:
- Nothing limits containment areas to back yards;
- Nothing about setbacks from streams and other waters;
- Free range within a fence is allowed, since enclosed shelters such as coops are optional;
- Nothing specific about standards for the dimensions, materials, and appearance of a
"containment structure" such as a coop, or for protections against bears and other
predators;
- Nothing requiring the containment area to be kept clean and sanitary, and nothing about
removal of waste or other issues regarding odor;
- Nothing about enforcement and resources for enforcement.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bo Molloy
23
Jeremy & Bridget Grieme
PO Box 2066
Kenai, AK 99611
bhgrieme@gmail.com
January 24, 2023
City of Kenai Planning & Zoning Members and Kenai City Council Members
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing to express our support for City Ordinance No. 3332-2023a to allow
residents on properties less than 40,000 square feet in size to own up to twelve laying
hens to address food security issues.
The cost of a dozen eggs has increased sixty -percent in the last few months. This is on
top of consistent and drastic rising food costs over the last three years. At last check, a
dozen fresh local eggs was selling for $10. Eggs are not isolated in these drastic
increases. Allowing residents to keep up to twelve hens on their property to provide eggs
for their family would help alleviate the financial burden that rising food costs have on
Kenai residents.
Chickens require a small amount of space to be healthy and happy. Three square feet
per chicken is recommended by Rural Living Today. That means that a thirty-six square
foot coop could easily accommodate up to twelve chickens. That equates to a relatively
small (6'x6') coop, which is smaller than most backyard sheds in Kenai neighborhoods.
Chickens, unlike dogs and other animals, do not need to be outside and have room to
roam — and actually are quite content to not be outside in the winter months. To this end,
giving residents the option to keep up to twelve laying hens will not create an eye sore,
or reduce the aesthetic appearance of our neighborhoods and homes.
Some may raise concerns about the potential noise nuisance that chickens could create
in residential neighborhoods. People, such as myself, who choose to live in residential
neighborhoods accept the noise that comes with living in close proximity to others. These
sources of noise are often dogs, loud vehicles, and even children. A dozen laying hens
would not create additional noise pollution or raise it to an unbearable level. Not unlike
homeowners who have multiple dogs, it would be chicken owners' responsibility to be
considerate of others and be sure their pets are not interfering with the quality of life for
their neighbors. Homeowners who have pets have to perform "poop patrol" to clean up
after their pets in their yards. Similarly, chicken owners would clean up after their
chickens. Spring time in Alaska is an odorific experience — with or without chickens. I
feel confident that home owners can and will do this in a responsible and appropriate way,
no different than other pet owners.
Alaskans pride themselves on being self-sufficient and providing for themselves and their
families. How many members of the council or committee have proudly announced to
24
friends and family that they harvested a moose or filled the freezer with salmon to feed
their family all winter. Eggs are no different, and allowing up to twelve hens reinforces
the Alaskan way of life that we are proud of and what sets us apart from other parts of
the country.
Amending the current ordinance to allow up to twelve laying hens for residents of Kenai
would be beneficial for families to provide for themselves and to share with their
neighbors. Being an Alaskan is also about never knowing a stranger. Through this
amendment, chicken owners will have the opportunity to share eggs with others who are
also struggling to make ends meet due to the current economic climate we are
experiencing.
Mr. Douthit's proposed amendment is fair, reasonable, and attainable. It is a small
change in policy that has the potential to make a huge change for residents. For these
reasons, and those outlined above, I urge you to pass this ordinance.
Respectfully,
Jeremy & Bridget Grieme
25
January 24, 2023
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Chicken Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Dear Commissioners:
I do not support Ordinance 3332-2023, which would allow keeping of 12 chickens in RS
(Suburban Residential) zones with very little regulation of this practice to protect the neighbors.
Currently, chickens are not allowed on property in RS zones. For some reason, the ordinance
singles out RS zones to allow chickens, while keeping a no chicken rule in RU, RS-1, RS-2 and
TSH zones, with no explanation. Also, the RS zone currently does not permit agriculture such as
chicken raising without a conditional use permit, in the Land Use Table. I
My neighborhood, Woodland Subdivision, is zoned RS. My family has lived in the
subdivision since 1985. Our subdivision consists of small lots of one -quarter to one-third acre.
Allowing large flocks of unregulated chickens would be a nuisance -- noise, odor, unsightly sheds
and pens -- and disturb the quality of life in our neighborhood. There is little to nothing in the
ordinance to address these concerns. Just take a look at the photo in your packet (page 38) of
what one Woodland Subdivision owner gets to look at out their side window, and ask yourself if
this is iphal you would ivant to see on five sides around you.2
Here is a partial list of reasons why you should give this ordinance a "no"
recommendation if you have to vote on it Wednesday 1 /25/2023. It would be better if you had a
work session on the ordinance, to bring out all the issues with it, and address them.
1. The Planning Commission and City Council Voted Down Chicken
Ordinances in 2013 and 2015, and Nothing Has Changed. The Planning Commission (6-0)
and the Kenai City Council (4-3) voted down a similar unregulated 12-chicken ordinance in 2013,
even when the ordinance sponsor agreed to reduce the number of chickens to 6. The City
Council also voted down a similar ordinance two years later, in 2015.3 Nothing has changed since
2013 and 2015 that would make this chicken ordinance any more acceptable. The Commission
really needs to review what happened in 2013 and 2015, and the reasons why these ordinances
failed.
1 The ordinance does not address the conflict with the land use table.
2 Woodland Subdivision lots are staggered, so there could be five lots with chickens around a lot
such as our lot, for a total of 60 chickens. See attached photo; our lot has yellow borders.
3 See, "Kenai Chicken Ordinance Fails Again," Peninsula Clarion 111612015.
26
2. Chickens Are A Nuisance And Ordinance 3332-2023 Does Nothing To
Reduce Or Prevent the Nuisance. There is nothing in the ordinance that reduces or prevents
the well known nuisances of barnyard animals, such as noise, odor, open waste, close proximity
to residences, and attractiveness to dangerous predators such as bears. The setbacks are not
sufficient. The ordinance merely recites that chicken keeping should not be a public nuisance
(undefined). That is not enough.
3. Ordinance 3332-2023 Is Discriminatory, In Ways That Do Not Make Sense.
For some unexplained reason, this ordinance singles out the RS zone to allow chickens, but
excepts the RU, RS-1, RS-2 and TSH zones — why? The ordinance does not distinguish between
large lots in the RS zone, where keeping chickens might be less burdensome on the neighbors, and
small lots such as those in Woodland Subdivision — why not? Traditionally the City of Kenai
has recognized that there can be more negative impacts on high density subdivisions versus lower
density subdivisions in land use decisions — why is this not a consideration in this ordinance?4
The Animal Control Code, Title 3, has substantial regulations on keeping more than 3
dogs, or keeping bees, but few regulations on keeping chickens, which doesn't make sense. I
can't see how bees in the summer are more of a problem than having up to 60 chickens Iiving
around you, year round.
4. The Price Or Scarcity of Eggs Are Red Herrings. You will no doubt hear that
the price or scarcity of eggs are factors in favor of the ordinance. However, the reason for the
increase in price or scarcity of eggs involves several factors, all of which are temporary, such as
the bird flu pandemic (spread by backyard chickens), and egg farmers holding back product
because retailers won't pay the prices they want. These temporary issues will resolve in a short
period of time, but the ordinance, if passed, could have a very negative effect on people owning
homes in Kenai, over the long term.
5. The Ordinance Has Insufficient Protection For
Homeowners/Neighborhoods. This ordinance has little to no regulation to protect adjacent
homeowners or neighborhoods from the negative effects of chickens. Even Wasilla, Alaska has
chicken keeping regulations that provide some protections, including requiring administrative
approval or permits. Some examples of regulations that should be in the ordinance:
(a) Prohibit keeping chickens in front yards (allowed under Ord. 332-2023);
(b) Require licenses, like dogs (currently required in the Animal Code);
(c) Require that the chickens be kept for personal use only, and that the chicken farming
can't be spread over multiple lots;
(d) Require the homeowner's written consent for tenants keeping chickens;
(e) Regulate the location, number and materials of pens or sheds to reduce nuisances such
as noise, odor, waste and unsightliness;
(f) Stiff fines for roosters, because of course chicken farmers will keep them too.
4 See, "Kenai Chicken Ordinance Fails Again," Peninsula Clarion 111612015.
-2-
27
Also, the ordinance is written to be self -enforcing, or complaint -driven. That won't
work, especially when you are allowing 3,000+ more lots to have chicken farms, but no more
funding for enforcement. The days when most people recognized a responsibility to be good
citizens and obey municipal laws and regulations are over. Now people do what they want until
they are caught. That is why permits should be required; so that the Animal Control Office has a
handle on where potential problems may arise.
6. The Ordinance Does Not Protect Public Safety. In 2013, Larry Lewis from
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game testified that backyard chickens were bear attractants.
Brett Reid, Kenai Animal Control officer, testified that backyard chickens caused bear and other
problems. There is nothing different now.
Now there is also a bird flu epidemic worldwide, that is killing millions of birds,
especially wild birds. Backyard chickens are a major reason for the spread of bird flu. Many
Kenai residents enjoy the wild birds that live here, and Kenai is known throughout Alaska and
Outside for its wild birding — we even built a platform on the Kenai River Flats for better binding.
It doesn't make sense to risk more bird flu infection by opening up 3,000+ more Kenai lots to
infection.
These are just a few reasons why Ordinance 3332-2023 is a bad fit for Kenai as written.
Please vote "no" on this ordinance.
Sincerely,
Kristine A. Schmidt
513 Ash Avenue
Kenai, Alaska 99611
(907) 283-7373
-3-
2s
EA 01 F S WAY'
"N (-,I L.5 I
z
>
N FORES1 DR
'A WA
>111 off" PNI
4-7
FIR DR•
At
Roo �pv I
14
IT I
I'INFIICIR f
t$p
ji, UJIL X L DRP
t
-A - Ill
A"
17
47 00
7 19112
�a
0.
M
V!SV(--.AM ORE 5 1
ORLTIR Z
-
I
OL
>
73 :74 L
1p, 0
"No
R
I ,NA' tj ~�-
�U ------ ....... ----------- ------------------ ............... ----------
, .Wg , Jill
29
I�r
I
- ff;�P,4
ya
Kenai chicken ordinance Fails again I Peninsula Clarion https:liwww.peiiinsulaclarion.cominewslkenai-chicken-ordinance-fails
Mews Sports Outdoors and Recreation Opinion Life Arts and Entertainment jobs Obituaries
Marketplace
Kenai chicken ordinance fails AdVER715EMENi
again
By Ben Boettger
Friday, November 6, 2015 6:07pm I NEWS KENAI
Kenai city council members Terry Bookey and Ryan Marquis
introduced an ordinance allowing up to twelve hens to be kept on
Kenai residential properties under 40,000 square feet — an activity
that currently violates city code. At Wednesday's council meeting, the
council voted down the ordinance 4-3. A similar chicken ordinance,
introduced by then -member Mike Boyle, failed in 2013.
Marquis, who declined to run in the recent election and will soon leave
the council after two terms, said that voting against the 2013 chicken
ordinance was one of his few regrets.
"At that time, my primary reason for voting against it was bears being
attracted to residential areas because of the chickens," Marquis said.
"Since then, I've spent a lot of time walking through residential
neighborhoods, and I realize how many people have chickens within
the city — I'm assuming illegally — and I haven't heard much about
any increased bear activity within the city."
Mayor Pat Porter was the first to oppose the ordinance.
"I live within 15 feet of my neighbor," Porter said. "The subdivision I live in
is really tight quarters, and I cannot imagine having to live next door to
chickens. Particularly where they don't have to be fenced off where I can't
see them, or they can get loose."
Asked about bear activity by Porter, Kenai Police Chief Gus Sandahl said that
bear reports in Kenai have been "significantly lower in the past two
summers." When Porter asked again at a later point, Sandahl said bear
encounters in Kenai have been "]minimal."
"Maybe it's because we don't have any chickens," Porter said.
Chickens can be legally kept in Kenai — on lots greater than 40,000 square
feet, or if the owner applies for and receives a conditional use permit from
the Planning and Zoning Commission. Kenai City Manager Rick Koch said
no chicken permits had been applied for in his nine years as City Manager.
Council member Henry Knackstedt is a legal Kenai chicken owner — he said
he keeps about 3o egg -laying hens on about 30 acres.
"I really haven't had any problems with bears..." Knackstedt said. "I haven't
had any problems with my neighbors because of the size of the lot. The
zoning works, because I'm greater than 40,000 square feet."
1 of 3 1123123, 4:40 PM
30
Kenai chicken ordinance fails a-ain I Peninsula Clarion h[tps:/Iwww.peninsulaclarion.cominewslkenai-chicken-ordinance-fails-...
Knackstedt said he "spent a lot of time" with the 2013 chicken ordinance as
a then -member of the Planning and Zoning commission, According to
previous Clarion reporting, the 2013 chicken ordinance was debated by the
city council and Planning and Zoning for y months.
"If it's done right, I don't think anyone would have a problem with (hen --
keeping)," Knackstedt said. "And I think there are people who should have
conditional use permits, but don't. It goes on just fine, just like a lot of other
things. But when I look at this, it looks like it has Planning and Zoning
written all over it... the way it should be managed, supervised. I think
neighbors should have a say if they don't want to have chickens next door.
I'm conflicted because I think it can be done, but not the way it's written at
this point."
Knackstedt encouraged Marquis and Bookey to send the ordinance to the
Planning and Zoning commission, pointing out that "it's a different
planning and zoning than we had a few years ago."
Council member Tim Navarre said he opposed allowing hen -keeping, not
because of bears but because of "health issues that come with chickens."
Council member Brian Gabriel said the present permit allowance was
sufficient to allow hen -keeping where appropriate.
"The fact is that when you get into smaller lot sizes, you run into issues that
aren't really relevant to larger lot sizes," Gabriel said. "Such as proximity to
your neighbors. Your neighbors might have dogs on several sides of your
chicken coop. The effect on them could be pretty dramatic... I don't have an
objection to chickens, but the idea of having neighbors weigh in on the
effects it might have on them in high -density neighborhoods, there's a
value to that I don't think we should overlook."
Bookey responded to Gabriel.
"To address the dogs, I think that's more an issue of property -owners
having dogs and not controlling them," Bookey said. "I understand the
reasoning and the need for zoning and planning and things like that. But
when we continually reference `your neighbors should have a say in what
you do on your property,' I think that's true to some extent. But in many,
many cases we're putting more value on what the neighbors think I should
do on the parcel of land that I own than what I think I should do on the
parcel of land that I own."
Council members Gabriel, Knackstedt, Navarre, and Mayor Porter voted
against chicken legalization.
Reach Ben Boettger at ben. boettger@peninsulaclarion.com
2 of 3 1123123, 4:4o PM
31
Linda Mitchell
From: Deni Oren <mrsoren23@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 6:19 PM
To: City of Kenai Planning Department
Subject: Ordinance No. 3332-2023a
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To whom it may concern,
Good evening, I am writing to express my support in favor of City of Kenai's Ordinance No. 3332-2023a; in
regards to allowing residents on properties less than 40k square feet in size to own up to 12 laying hens.
As a City of Kenai resident I think this is a great idea to help offset some of the food supply issues and food
insecurities my fellow neighbors and myself are starting to face in regards to inflation and supply chain issues lately. I
do understand the concerns of some when it relates to how the city will pass this in a manner that doesn't create
neighborhood nuisances. But as homeowners, I think this can be done in a responsible and appropriate way just as we
are expected to do with any of our pets.
I think passing this ordinance would be so beneficial for local residents, not only for just each individual
property/homeowner, but as well as for our neighbors who may benefit from receiving or purchasing fresh local eggs
when our local stores are depleted. With rising costs of food, lack of food on shelves, it would be a world of difference
to be able to offset some of these worries by having a more sustainable way to provide food for our families. I have
read through the expectations listed and I find them to be very fair, and do believe it would help to reduce any issues in
regards to having the hens. I also believe the allowance of up to 12 hens is perfect for a majority of the properties in the
City of Kenai.
Thank you for your time and I hope that the City of Kenai takes my support into consideration.
Respectfully,
Mr. & Mrs. Oren
32
1
From:
Nathan Smith
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Date:
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 1:37:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Afternoon,
I send you this due to the email address posted( city_council@kenai.city)to send any support
or concern continues to reject mine and my wife's email in support of this email. It comes up
with a 550 code which is due to a spam blocker the city uses. This is concerning of itself as
how many people attempt to have their voices heard but are met with this Code when
attempting to email city council.
It would be foolish to not pass this ordinance and allow the citizens of kenai to raise Chickens.
This could help provide food to low income families as well as teach children a valuable skill
of raising and harvesting their own food.
I encourage the council to pass this ordnance and look forward to being allowed to raise my
own chickens within city limits.
Thank you,
Nathan Smith
33
From: Amanda Smith
To: City Clerk
Subject: Comment for Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 2:56:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Good Afternoon,
As a resident who would be directly impacted by the proposed amendment of Kenai Municipal Code Section
3.10.070, I am writing to express my support.
Removing barriers to individual food security and self-reliance only serves to improve the lives of residents of the
City of Kenai. When individuals are able to provide for themselves, their family, and friends, the entire community
becomes more economically resilient. This is always important, but has become especially critical during the
economic crises that have continued to impact various sectors since the start of Covid-19.
With no end in sight for the current economic downturn, I implore you to allow Kenai residents the freedom to feed
their families.
Sincerely,
Amanda Smith
34
January 26, 2023
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, AK 99611
City Council, and Mayor Gabriel,
Subject: Opposition to Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Allowing for Chickens to be Kept on Lots Less Than 40,000 s.f.
I urge the city council to NOT support Ordinance No. 3332-2023. 1 am opposed to
Ordinance No. 3332-2023 which would allow chickens to be kept on lots less than 40,000 s.f. in a
densely populated residential zone. I live in a residential neighborhood that is zoned IRS (Woodland
Subdivision, Part 4). 1 would like the city council to continue to preserve the character and integrity of
our residential neighborhoods. Allowing chickens to be kept in a residential neighborhood like the
Woodland Subdivision would cause great angst among neighbors. When I bought my house in 1988 1
deliberately chose a lot in a residential neighborhood because I didn't want to live next to farm animals,
a pack of sled dogs, a gravel pit, or other disruptive nuisances and I certainly didn't want to live next
door to where chickens could be slaughtered. If I wanted to live in an area with less regulations, I could
have bought property outside city limits as there is plenty of lots to pick from. I enjoy the amenities that
the City of Kenai has to offer and I don't want to see the character and integrity our residential
neighborhoods compromised.
In a memorandum from Council Member Alex Douthit, dated December 29, 2022 two reasons were
given for the proposed code changes: 1) Provide a supply of fresh eggs, and 2) Promote food security.
I have never had a problem with buying fresh eggs from the local grocery stores, until recently, but the
current egg shortage in all likelihood is just temporary. As for food security we first need to understand
what it is. One definition of food security is this: "The state of having reliable access to a sufficient
quantity of affordable, nutritious food." By that definition I don't see a problem in our community. We
have four grocery stores in the City of Kenai which seem to provide reliable access to a sufficient
quantity of food. If the City of Kenai wants to address food security then maybe it would be better to
establish a Food Security Task Force to recommend the best ways to address it. It seems that there are
better ways to address this issue without compromising the integrity of our peaceful residential
neighborhoods. One way to address food security without impacting one's neighbors is to grow a
garden.
To bring further clarity to this issue we need to ask the right question. If you ask the question: Do you
want fresh eggs and food security then the answer is yes. But if you ask the question: Are the proposed
changes to the city code appropriate for lots less than 40,000 s.f. in a residential zone (IRS zone) then the
answer is No.
The second Whereas in Ordinance 3332-2023 is also misleading. It states that residents have expressed
an interest in keeping chickens hens on lots less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet for personal
use. While this statement may be technically true it's really just a few residents that have expressed this
interest. There is no massive demand by the residents to raise chickens in residential neighborhoods.
This ordinance aims to satisfy the interest of a few residents at the expense of all others. This ordinance
reeks of an agenda to be satisfied and appears to be retaliatory in nature due to the last incident
involving chickens kept on a residential lot when neighbors expressed opposition to a Livestock Permit
for Chickens (Case No. BA-22-01, Board of Adjustment Hearing of June 20, 2022).
Page 1 of 3
35
The sponsor of this ordinance has clearly demonstrated that he does not know how to balance the
interests of residents in the Kenai community. The agenda that is driving this ordinance is simply bias.
Ordinance No. 3332-2023, as written, is not a balanced proposal
Currently the city code allows for chickens to be raised on 28% of the city's lots but if this ordinance
passes, then it would allow for chickens to be raised on 96% of the city's lots. This would create a
complete imbalance for those who want chickens in their residential neighborhood and those who
don't.
Facts and Fi&ures
Total number of Kenai city lots is 4,895
Current number of lots allowed to raise chickens is 1,384 (28%)
The proposed ordinance would allow an additional 3,307 (68%) lots for raising chickens
The result of the proposed ordinance would allow a total of 4,691 (96%) lots for raising chickens
These facts and figures can be verified with City Planning Director, Linda Mitchell
Inequity Among Subdivisions
The Inlet View Subdivision (Rogers Road area) is zoned RS1 and does not allow for raising chickens. But I
live in the Woodland Subdivision, Part 4 which is zoned RS and this ordinance would allow for the raising
of chickens. However, these two subdivisions have similar profiles (lot sizes, densely populated, street
widths, etc.) but yet they are treated differently when it comes to raising chickens. The lot sizes in both
of these subdivisions are too small to provide adequate buffers or practical setbacks to protect adjacent
neighbors from nuisance activities. The proposed ordinance, as written, would create further inequity
among subdivisions with similar profiles.
(To create equity among similar subdivisions, see Alternative 1 and 2 below)
Reasons not to change the code:
1) The current code already allows for the raising of chickens on and is adequate.
2) There are plenty of parcels outside city limits to raise chickens.
3) The city has no practical way to monitor properties for compliance. A complaint -driven system only
pits neighbor against neighbor. This type of system only invites conflict and angst among neighbors.
4) Setback requirement are based on the property lines, which means that the city would need to hire
a surveyor before it could determine compliance. This would be cost -prohibitive for the city or any
property owner to do.
5) Ordinance No. 3332-2023 is not a balanced proposal. It only considers the will of those who want to
raise chickens in a residential area.
6) Ordinance No. 3332-2023 creates a situation where the raising of chickens it is likely to be a
breeding place for flies, mosquitoes, vermin, or disease. See KMC 12.10.010 (L)
7) Ordinance No. 3332-2023 invites the potential for more nuisance in our residential neighborhoods.
8) Ordinance No. 3332-2023 would change the character and integrity of our residential
neighborhoods that are currently zoned RS.
9) Ordinance No. 3332-2023 creates a situation of competing interest among neighbors, inviting angst
and conflict in our neighborhoods.
10) Ordinance No. 3332-2023 invites the potential to attract predators and rodents into our residential
neighborhoods.
11) Ordinance No. 3332-2023 invites the potential to attract domestic cats and dogs to prey on
neighborhood chickens causing more conflict among neighbors.
12) Ordinance No. 3332-2023 will circumvent the conditional use process. The conditional use process
helps to decide if a particular parcel has merit for raising chickens. The proposed ordinance is a
blanket proposal which would allow chickens to be raised on almost any lot without consideration.
Page 2 of 3
36
City of Soldotna
The City of Soldotna prohibits the raising of chickens in all residential zones that are less than 1% acres.
City of Soldotna Municipal Code 17.10.365 —Animals: "In the Single, Single-Family/Two-Family and
Multi -Family Residential Districts and on properties in the Rural Residential District 1% acres or less in
size, the keeping of farm or wild animals shall be prohibited..."
I urge the Kenai City Council to NOT support Ordinance No. 3332-2023 as written and consider some
compromise between those who want chickens in their residential neighborhood and those who don't.
I ask the City Council to consider some alternatives.
Alternative 1: Amend the proposed ordinance as follows:
Prohibit the raising of chickens in Parts 2, 3, and 4 of the Woodland Subdivision. This would be a
more balanced proposal and preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhoods.
Parts 2, 3, and 4 have a profile that is on par with the Inlet View Subdivision (Rogers Road area)
which is zoned RS1 and prohibits the raising of chickens. (See Exhibit A, attached)
Alternative 2: It would make more sense to amend the proposed ordinance to prohibit the raising of
chickens in IRS Zones (Suburban Residential) by inserting the RS Zone into the language
below. Also striking the RU Zone from the language below will allow for the raising of
chickens in the RU Zones (Rural Residential) as follows:
Please amend Section 1, part (b) to read as follows:
(b) No livestock shall be allowed in the IRS, F614, RS1, RS2 or TSH zones.
Please amend Section 1, part (h) to read as follows:
(h) The keeping of chickens hens on lots less than 40,000 square feet is allowed, except in
the IRS, FFU, RS1, RS2 and TSH zoning districts, subject to the following standards:
Including the IRS zone into Section 1, part (b) and part (h) above will help to preserve the
character and integrity of our residential neighborhoods and removing the RU zone above
allows for those who want to raise chickens in a rural residential area.
Alternative 3: Amend the proposed ordinance as follows:
Add language that would establish a minimum lot size of 20,000 s.f. to raise chickens.
Lots that are 20,000 s.f. will be large enough to sustain more impactful activities while buffering
neighboring properties. Such lots are large enough to provide natural buffers and practical
setbacks to protect neighboring properties from impactful activities.
Any of the above alternatives would seem to be a reasonable balance between those who want chickens
in their densely populated residential neighborhood and those who don't. If no compromise can be
made then I urge the city council to NOT support Ordinance No. 3332-2023.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Conetta
Page 3 of 3
37
*J0
WNorthSimAloy eet, St�ldotna, Alaska 94669
Legend
• Mileposts
Highways
Major Roads
Roads
Town Medium Volume
--d Town Low/Seasonal; Other
Proposed
Parcels
WOODLAND ,SUS
PART 1
849Ta 2� 4 „
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not
be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable, it is not to be used for navigation. Notes
DATE PRINTED: 1/25/2023
38
January 26, 2023
Kenai City Council
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Opposition To Chicken Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Dear Council Members:
Please vote NO on Ordinance No. 3332-2023 as written. It will be harmful to my small
lot (high density) subdivision neighborhood, and has many problems which were brought up
during the January 25, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting last night.' A majority of
Commissioners were going to vote against the ordinance because of the problems with it, but
then they were convinced by the City Attorney and City Planner to vote for it, on condition that
their, be a Council/Commission work session, and an amendment for backyard chickens only.
Please honor these requests of the Commission: postpone action on the ordinance, hold a work
session with the Commission, and adopt amendments to protect homeowners. Last night's
Commission meeting proved that this ordinance affects 96% of City lots, There is no reason to
rush this problematic ordinance through.
Dan Conetta made an important point (in his letter and testimony last night): let's have
some balance between protecting the quality of life in high density residential subdivisions, and
allowing incompatible uses like barnyard animals. At the Commission meeting last night, the
only people who testified in favor of the ordinance were renters, and a woman who lives in the
RR zone.2 All except one of those who wrote to the Commission in favor of the ordinance were
renters. There hasn't been a stampede of actual homeowners in the RS zone advocating for this
ordinance, while several actual homeowners who would be adversely affected have written and
testified against the ordinance as written. We Kenai homeowners who live here, located our
businesses here, and paid property and sales taxes for decades deserve more consideration than
renters, most of whom will be here a short time, and have nothing at stake like a home.
I put together a list of problems and potential solutions discussed last night for your
information; see next page. I am also providing the Wasilla ordinance. Thank you for
considering my comments and materials.
Kristine A. Schmidt
513 Ash Avenue ,Kenai, Alaska 99611
(907) 283-7373
' My letters to the Planning & Zoning Commission have details of some problems.
2 I am assuming that people who didn't provide physical addresses or telephone numbers in their
letters and emails are renters; as they aren't listed in the Borough property owner database.
39
ORDINANCE 3332-2023
■ Problem: The ordinance allows lots in the RS (Suburban Residential) zone to have 12
chickens, but exempts RS-1 and RS-2 zones, even though the size and density of lots, and land
uses in the three zones are very similar. No property owner living in an RS zone testified or
wrote in favor of this before the Commission last night.
-- Solutions: Exempt the RS zone from the ordinance, but leave in the rural residential
(RR) zone; or reduce incompatible uses by limiting lot sizes to 20,000+ s.f. or limiting number of
chickens: for example, no more than 4.
• Problem: The ordinance allows chickens to be kept in front yards, which would destroy
the residential character of a neighborhood.
--Solution: Restrict chickens to the back yard, defined according the City Planner as the
area behind the primary residence.
• Problem: The ordinance does not state that keeping chickens is for personal use only,
not commercial use, although that is supposedly the intent. We are supposed to figure this out by
referring to Title 14, the Zoning Code. This is confusing.
-- Solution: Add specific language that restricts chickens to "personal use only."
• Problem: The ordinance does not require an application/license to have chickens,
however, City Code does require a license to have a dog. This makes no sense; licensing is
simple, easy and would give Animal Control information about where problems could arise.
-- Solution: add "chicken hens" to KMC 3.20 (requiring dog licenses).
• Problem: The ordinance appears to allow free range within an existing fenced yard, but
then has setbacks for "enclosed shelters" or "containment structures, which are optional. There
are no standards for "enclosed shelters" or "containment structures" such as location, materials,
dimensions, appearance, protection against bears and other predators.
-- Solutions: Require containment within the setbacks, add standards for shelters and
structures to avoid eyesores.
• Problem: The ordinance does not require proof of homeowner consent; the homeowner
may have no idea that their renter is keeping chickens.
-- Solution: Require written homeowner consent for application/license.
3 Even Wasilla, Alaska requires some kind of permit for keeping chickens. See Wasilla
ordinance attached.
-2-
40
Code Ordinance By: Planning
Introduced: March 12, 2018
Public Hearing: April 9, 2018
Amended: April 9, 2018
Adopted: April 9, 2018
Yes: Dryden, Graham, Harvey, Ledford, O'Barr
No: None
Absent: Burney
City of Wasilla
Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
An Ordinance Of The Wasilla City Council Amending Wasilla Municipal Code Section
16.04.070, Definitions, To Add Definitions For "Beehives", "Exotic Animal", "Pet Animal",
"Poultry", And "Wild Animal"; Amending Section 16.04.070, Definitions, To Revise The
Definitions For "Agriculture", "Animal Husbandry", And "Farm Animal"; Amending
Section 16-16.060, Specific Approval Criteria, To Revise The Criteria That Regulates Farm
Animals, Poultry, And Beehives; Amending Section 16.20.020, District Use Chart, To
Identify The Appropriate Zoning Districts And Permit Types For Beehives, Exotic
Animals, Poultry, And Wild Animals; And Other Minor Revisions.
Section 1. Classification. This ordinance is of a general and permanent nature and shall
become part of the city code.
Section 2. Amendment of section. WMC 16.04.070, Definitions, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Apiculture" is a use involving the commercial growing of vegetation or
the raising, controlled breeding, management, or keeping of beehives, farm
animals, or poultry. Animals may be bred and raised for utility (e.g. meat,
milk, eggs, fur), sport, pleasure, or research.
"Beehive" means a man-made housing structure for the keeping of
bee colonies and production of honey.
Sold & Underlines added. St4kethFough, deleted
City of Wasilla Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 1 of It
41
"Exotic animal" means any animal not other►vise identified in the
definitions provided in this section that is native to a foreign country or of
foreign oritzin or character, or was introduced from abroad and is not native
to the state of Alaska. This term specifically includes animals such as, but not
limited to, [ions, tigers, leopards, elephants, camels, antelope, anteaters,
kangaroos, all[ ators, and water buffalo, and species of foreign domestic
cattle, such as Ankole. Gaval, and Yak and any animals regulated by the
State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Exotic animals that are
typically kept as indoor pets are exempt from this definition.
"Farm animal" means
.:V.:�i�fS.�V�,�l l.lif V�V�,�Ls lii l�J l�f t�JVL I:lfl�l�fR.lt�.V lid JlYl li Si�Sill�Sll s"1'1�V\�J1V�I�V1
arr�,a,�iiiai.i ����iin�a u�ris:lt,i�ia:■:i �i�,fiif:�i�i%�iR�•�•�a�iii►�•�vf�sa
anifnal any domestic species of cattle, sheep, swine, goat, horse, mule, donkew
llama, and alpaca, which are normally and have historically been kept and
raised on farms in the United States and used or intended for use as food or
fiber, or for 'improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or
iroduction efficiency. This term also includes animals such as rabbits, mink.
and chinchilla, when they are used solely for purposes of meat or fur.
"Pet animal" means any animal that has commonly been kept as a pet
in family households in the United States, such as, but not limited to, dogs,
Bald & Underline, added. c., tr�gT, deleted
City of Wasilla Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 2 of 11
42
cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters. This term excludes farm, exotic, and
wild animals as defined in this section.
"Poultry" means chickens, doves, ducks, geese, grouse, ptarmigan,
pigeons, quail, swans, guinea fowl, peacocks, and turkeys.
"Wild animal" means any animal which is now or historically has
been found in the wild, or in the wild state, within the boundaries of the
United States, its territories, or possessions. This term includes, but is not
limited to, animals such as: Moose, caribou, elk, mink, Dail sheep, deer, hear,
coyote, squirrel, fox, and wolf. Also included are any animals regulated by
the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Section 3. Amendment of subsection. WMC 16.16.060(E), within Specific approval
criteria, is hereby amended to read as follows-
E. Farm Animals, Poultry, and Beehives. Farm animals are allowed
f'ellewing. Farm animals, poultry, and beehives are allowed as indicated in
the District Use Chart in Section 16.20.020(A), as an accessory use subject to
the standards below. The uses identified in this section are not subject to the
provisions in Title 7. The keeping of these uses consistent with the terms of
this Title does not in and of itself constitute a nuisance or a disturbance.
Bold & Underline, added. &Fikegffetth, deleted
City of Wasilla Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 3 of 11
43
. ■ . ■
q��llTll�l9�■■l.[l.Sll �l.�1.11111R!\R<Vl���l�lwll�lR!•��[. ■'lf�l�l 1. l�l
� a �
■
[i1��1 Sill lR�lll�s l"L��J�I�Yf<L S��i�l!\'RRI�I J��til�fl'S�l.�li'+l�l��
1. Farm animals. The keeping of farm animals is subject
to the following standards:
a. Farm animals are prohibited on lots with a total
lot area of less than 40,000 square feet;
Bald & Underline, added. S4ikethrettgh, deleted
City of Wasilla Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 4 of 11
44
b. A suitable fence must be provided to safely
contain the farm animal(s),
C. Stables or buildings used as shelter or storage of
food for farm animals must be a minimum of 25 feet from any exterior lot
line,
d. All fenced areas, pens, enclosures, stables,
shelters, or other similar buildings or uses for a farm animal must be a
minimum of 75 feet from the high-water mark of any water course or body of
water, excluding man-made12onds on private property;
C. All facilities shall be _ kept in good repair,
maintained in a clean and sanitaKy condition and be free of vermin
obnoxious smells and substances, to the greatest extent feasible. The facilities
may not create a nuisance or disturb neighboring residents due to excessive
noise, odor, damage, or threats to public health. No storage of manure or
other waste materials shall be permitted_ within 50 feet of any exterior lot
line,
f. On lots with a minimum lot area of 40,000
square feet or more in the RR, Rl, or R2 zoning districts, the following farm
animals are allowed. Additional_ farm animals in the quantities indicated
below may be allowed for each additional 20,000 square feet of lot area:
i. One farm animal {with an adult weight of
250 pounds or greater}for
Bold & Underline, added. &Fike4ffeugh, deleted
City of Wasiila Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 5 of 11
45
farm animals; or
ii. Ten or fewer rabbits or similarly sized
iii. Three or fewer animals with an adult
weight less than 250 pounds.
g-- In the Industrial zoning district, farm animals are only
allowed as an accessory use to a primary industrial use; and
h. if the applicant does not own the property, written
proof of the owner's consent must be submitted with the application.
2. Poultry. The keeping of poultry is allowed as an accessory
use to a residential dwelling and must meet the following standards:
a. Excessively noisy poultry including, but not limited to,
roosters, turkeys. guinea fowl peacocks, or geese are prohibited unless the
total lot area is a minimum of 80,000 square feet and the animals and
supporting structures and pens are a minimum of 100 feet from an adjoining
lot;
b. All poultry must be contained by a suitable structure,
fenced enclosure, pen, and/or fenced area that safely contains the poultry at
all times. All structures, enclosures, and pens must meet the following
dimensional standards:
L Maximum height of structures, coops,
enclosures or runs is 15 feet in hei ht•
H. All facilities shall be kept in good repair,
maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, and be free of vermin,
Bold & Underline, added. �1�1�, deleted
City of Wasilla Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 6 of 11
46
obnoxious smells and substances to the greatest extent feasible. The facility
will not create a nuisance or disturb neighboring residents due to excessive,
noise, odor, damage, or threats to public health, and
iii. Chicken coops or other shelters may not be
located in a front yard or side yard that abuts a street in the RI, R2, and RM
/.onina districts.
C. No storage of manure shall be permitted within 50 feet
of the exterior lot line; and
d. if the applicant does not own the property, written
proof of the owner's consent must be submitted with the application.
e. All structures, runs, and enclosures must be a minimum
of 25 feet from residential dwellings on neighboring lots. For lots with more
than one dwelling on the same lot, the structures, runs, ,and enclosures must
also be a minimum of 25 feet from all other dwellings on the lot except the
poultry owners' dwellimy.
f. On lots with a total area less than 40,000 square feet,
the following additional standards apply,
i. Maximum of sixppultry on lots up to 20,000
square feet and_a maximum of 12 poultry on lots greater than 20,000 square
feet and less than 40,000 square feet. Poultry under the age of six months do
not count towards the allowed numbers,
ii. Free -ranging within fenced yards is only allowed
under direct supervision by the poultry owner and with consent of all tenants
Bold_& Underline, added. 94ikegwaugh, deleted
City of Wasilla Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 7 of 11
47
and/or property owners who have legal access to the premises at the time of
permit application;
& On lots with a total area of 40,000 square feet or
greater, the following additional standards apply:
Maximum of 15 poultry on lots between 40,000
square but less than 50,000 square feet; an additional three poultry are
allowed for each additional full 10,000 square_ feet of lot area. No proration
of the number of poultry is allowed for lots with less than a full 10,000 square
feet of lot area. Poultry under the age of six months do not count towards the
allowed numbers.
h. In the Industrial zoning district, poultry is only allowed
as an accessory use to a primary industrial use.
3. Beehives. The following_ standards apply:
accessory use;
a. Beehives are allowed_ in all zoning_ districts _ as an
b. Four beehives are allowed per 10,000 square feet of lot
area. No proration of the number of beehives is allowed for lots with less
than a full 10,000 square feet of lot area;
C. Colonies shall be managed in such a manner that the
flight path of bees to and from the hive will not bring the bees into contact
with people on adjacent property. To that end, colonies shall:
Be situated at least twenty-five feet from any lot fine not
in common ownership; or
Bold & Underline, added. deleted
City of Wasilla Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 8 of 11
48
ro er • or
ii. Oriented with entrances facing awam from adjacent
iii. Placed at least eight feet above ground level; or
iv. Placed behind a fence at least six feet in height and
extending at least ten feet beyond each hive in both directions.
d. The maximum height for a beehive at ground level is
eight feet measured from the base of the beehive, inclusive of any temporary
or permanent stand or foundation. Beehives are permitted on roofto s or
elevated decks provided that the beehive does not exceed five feet in hei ht
above the surface of the rooftop or deck and the rooftop or deck is a
minimum of eight feet above ground level;
e. If the applicant does not own the property, written
proof of the owner's consent must be submitted with the application; and
f. All beekeeping shall comply with applicable laws and
regulations.
Section 4. Amendment of subsection. WMC 16.20.020(A), within District use chart, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
A. The following chart summarizes the uses allowed and the standard of
review for each use. In the commercial and industrial districts, more than one building
housing a permissible principal use may be erected on a single lot; provided, that each
building and use shall comply with all applicable requirements of this chapter and other
borough, state or federal regulations.
Sold & Underline, added. StMwthfeuo, deleted
City of Wasilla Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 9 of 11
49
AA = Administrative approval UP = Use permit CU = Conditional use
EX = Excluded Blank = No city approval necessary
Districts
RR
Rtiral
Rl
Single -
Single-
Family
Residential
RM
Mutt
Multi-
Y
Commercial
1
[ndustrial
1
Public
Uses
Accessory Uses
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
UP
AA
Agriculture
UP
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
Ulu
€X
UP
EX
£X
EX
Beehives;
AA
AA
AA
UP
UP
UP
EX
Exotic Animals
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
Fann Animals'
AA
UP
UP
EX
EX
AA
EX
Poultry'
AA
AA
AA
UP
UP
Cu
EX
Wild Animals
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
EX
'Must comply with specific approval criteria in Section 16.16.060.
Bold & Underline, added. lc�, deleted
City of Wasilla Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 10 of 11
50
Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon adoption by the Wasilla
City Council.
ADOPTED by the Wasilla City Council on April 9, 2018.
BW Le,60TTLE, Mayor
ATTEST:
[SEAL]
JAMIE NEWMAN, MMC, City Clerk
Bold & Underline —added. &Fikegw-f�, deleted
City of Wasilla Ordinance Serial No. 18-12 (AM)
Page 11 of 11
51
From:
BreAnna Hamman
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
Ordinance 3332-2023
Date:
Monday, January 30, 2023 10:38:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello,
My name is BreAnna Hamman and I am a homeowner in the Woodland subdivision. I
would like to voice my support for the passing of the city ordinance 3332-2023. I have a
neighbor directly next to us, who under a permit has chickens. The chickens have caused no
disturbances and are not bothersome. I have been bothered more by the dogs that get left out to
bark by my other neighbor. I have had problems with dogs and cats coming onto our property,
I have yet had a chicken do so. I believe people should also have access to fresh eggs and
poultry. The uncertainty with food shipments these days has added an extra need for local
people to harvest their own eggs. All of these reasons and more contribute to why I think the
ordinance needs to be passed. Thank you for your time.
-BreAnna Hamman
52
From:
Deni Oren
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
Ordinance No. 3332-2023a
Date:
Tuesday, January 31, 2023 10:46:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To whom it may concern,
Good evening, I am writing to express my support in favor of City of Kenai's Ordinance No.
3332-2023a; in regards to allowing residents on properties less than 40k square feet in size to
own up to 12 laying hens.
As a City of Kenai resident I think this is a great idea to help offset some of the food supply
issues and food insecurities my fellow neighbors and myself are starting to face in regards to
inflation and supply chain issues lately. I do understand the concerns of some when it relates
to how the city will pass this in a manner that doesn't create neighborhood nuisances. But as
homeowners, I think this can be done in a responsible and appropriate way just as we are
expected to do with any of our pets.
I think passing this ordinance would be so beneficial for local residents, not only for just each
individual property/homeowner, but as well as for our neighbors who may benefit from
receiving or purchasing fresh local eggs when our local stores are depleted. With rising costs
of food, lack of food on shelves, it would be a world of difference to be able to offset some of
these worries by having a more sustainable way to provide food for our families. I have read
through the expectations listed and I find them to be very fair, and do believe it would help to
reduce any issues in regards to having the hens. I also believe the allowance of up to 12 hens is
perfect for a majority of the properties in the City of Kenai.
Thank you for your time and I hope that the City of Kenai takes my support into
consideration.
Respectfully,
Mr. & Mrs. Oren
53
Glenn & Charlotte Yamada
1806 4t" Ave
Kenai, AK 99611
907-398-4170
To Whom It May Concern;
Hello. Our names are Glenn & Charlotte Yamada, we would like to share our enthusiasm for
Ordinance No. 3332-2023! We are most definitely in support of property owners being allowed (a
maximum) of 12 chickens on lots less than 40,000 square feet. With the current state of the nation, and
so many food shortages, combine that with shipping costs to us- we think it prudent that property
owners not be restricted with regards to chickens. So, please pass/amend the Kenai Municipal Code
Section 3.10.070-Livestock within the City Limits, to Allow a Maximum of 12 Chicken Hens to be Kept on
Certain Lots Less than 40,000 Square Feet within the City of Kenai.
In closing, again please pass/amend this code to allow for chickens in city limits.
Sincerely,
Glenn & Charlotte Yamada
54
From:
Alice Waarvik
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
Chickens in city limits
Date:
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 3:07:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello,
I'm writing in support of Kenai city residents keeping chickens. I'd like to request this email to be included in the
public lay down and forwarded to all council members.
• The number 1 reason people like chickens: Chickens provide a valuable low-cost food source. Home
raised eggs are fresher, better tasting, and more nutritious than commercially farmed eggs.
• Chickens provide value as pets and also teach kids about responsibility through caring for an animal.
Raising chickens also promotes the humane treatment of food producing animals.
• Chickens divert waste from landfills. Lots of household waste is compostable and chickens are happy to
eat much of that waste.
I've researched common complaints that people have about keeping chickens and would like to address a few of
those.
• A hen's laying song is about 60 decibels so it would take 12 hens producing noise at the exact same time
to produce more noise than 1 dog. I believe our city allows for 3 dogs per household.
• A chicken's manure should not smell if it's processed properly. Cat and dog manure are not advised to add
to compost because of the risk of spreading disease to a garden, whereas chicken manure is recommended by the US
Extension Colleges for use in composting when it is has been aged for 6 months before application.
• Backyard chickens can present a health risk to humans from salmonella infections, although not as great
as simply preparing a meal with chicken in your kitchen. Wild birds also present this risk as do reptiles like turtles
and geckos. Dogs transfer diseases to humans such as worms but we are so used to dogs in our lives that we do not
normally think of it as a risk.
Before we moved to Kenai, we kept a small backyard flock of chickens. Our chickens not only nourished us with
their eggs but enriched our lives in the same way cats and dogs do. They are not just livestock. Chickens are a
wonderful hobby that provides companionship, entertainment, comic relief, and food! I look forward to the day we
can share our lives with chickens again.
Thanks so much!
Alice Waarvik
Sent from my iPhone
55
From:
Bill Vedders
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
No to chickens
Date:
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 12:23:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please distribute this to all council members.
I chose to live in the city for a reason. Chickens are loud, stinky, and a bear attractant. If this passes I could
potentially live between 24 chickens! This is not why I decided to live inside the city limits of the peaceful city of
Kenai.
Bill Vedders
504 Ash Avenue
Kenai
907-690-1884
56
From:
Chelsey Merriman
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
Chicken Ordinance
Date:
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 12:49:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To whom it may concern,
I support the ordinance on the basis of basic human rights. Anyone should be able to supply
food for themselves and/or their family. To deny people the right to supply food for their
family is abhorrent. With the supply and demand issues the nation is facing, it would be
unwise to deny the ordinance.
Thank you for your time and concideration,
Chelsey
57
From:
Christina Wood
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
Chicken ordinance
Date:
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 11:35:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
12 chickens is not that many.
Not everyone is going to get chickens.
I have lived on the Peninsula for 19 years and have always had chickens.
Nowadays, it's good to provide for yourself (eggs/meat) since we cannot rely on America's
availability. I love my fresh eggs and am thankful on this day that we have no issues in
obtaining eggs for meals like most people here in AK.
Living here... isn't that we take pride in? Being self-reliant?
Sincerely,
Mrs. Wood
58
M Gmail
Question Re Ordinance 3332-2023
1 message
JoeGoogle GoogleJoe <julietthotelml@gmail.com>
JoeGoogle GoogleJoe <juiietthotelml[7a gmail.com> Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:15 PM
To: adouthit@kenal.city
Hello Kenai City Council Member Alex Douthit, Kenai resident Joseph Huard here ...
I have a question about your Ordinance 3332-2023 that I would like you to answer. In your 12/29/2022 letter introducing
this Ordinance to Mayor Gabriel and City Council Members, you stated:
"The proposed changes will allow a maximum of 12 chicken hens to be kept on lots less than 40,000 square feet except
for the following zones: RU, RS1, RS2. and TSH, these four zones uniquely prohibit the keeping of any livestock
regardless of lot size."
I searched but was unable to corroborate your assertion that the "... RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH ... zones uniquely prohibit
the keeping of any livestock regardless of lot size." Specifically, I searched the Land Use Table found in Kenai Municipal
Code KMC Section 14.22.010, and came up empty. I don't know where else to look.
Would you please cite for me the source or sources that support your view that zones RU, RS1, RS2, And TSH uniquely
prohibit the keeping of any livestock.
Thanks ...
59
M Gmail
JoeGoogle GoogleJoe <juiietthotelml@gmail.com>
Additional Ordinance 3332-2023 Comments and Attachment from Joseph Huard
1 message
JoeGoogle GoogleJoe <julietthotelml@gmail.com> Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 2:05 PM
To: cityclerk@kenai.city
Hello Kenai City Clerk, Kenai City resident Joseph Huard here ...
Attached is a document I printed off the Woodland Subdivision Facebook site today. The highlighted post within this
document-- authored by chicken expert and former Woodland Estates resident Lisa Marie Hansen-- discusses the level of
noise that chicken hens are capable of versus the level of noise chicken roosters are capable of. At the 01/25 Planning
and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting discussion of Ordinance 3332-2023 there was at least one Commission
member (Glendening?) who was of the misunderstanding that chicken hens are substantially less noisy than chicken
roosters. Lisa Marie Hansen's 'expert testimony` clears up that misunderstanding.
By the way, 'egg songs' isn't an invented phrase, it is indeed a'real thing'!!!
Please include this email, along with its attachment in tonight's City Council Meeting packet ...
Hen Noise Vs Rooster Noise.pdf
596K
gU�rRD
I
Kelsey Robertson
I got eggs at Walmart in kenai two days ago for regular price ! They did have a limited
selection but the prices were not raised any thank goodness.
Like Reply 3w
Carly MacDonald
$6 ? Lol more like $10
Like Reply 3w ` 3
Sarah Rigsby
People need to get on board with chickens they are not that bad unless y u have
roosters honestly
Like Reply iw 04
° Lisa Marie Hansen
Sarah Rigsby I mean "egg songs" by hens can be just as loud if not louder than
rooster crows. However folks just need to accept animals make noise. Dogs bark,
�-- cats meow, etc. these are natural noises. Folks have become so desensitized by
what used to be normal. Back in the day almost every backyard had a garden and
chickens.
Like Reply 3* 5
Miranda Martin
They're even more expensive if you want the cage free, ranch raised (or whatever you
call it) kind.
Like Reply 3w
Camy Snyder
4. air i� •;i'
Like Reply 3w
Sean Seyler
Walmart this evening.
L,a
L-�) \\)
Like Reply 3w •; 3
ALL Phoebe Ruiz'
Vff It's the city people that move here that don' s. They apparently don't
know Alaska is a survival state an some point we will have live s ck on our
properties
Like Reply 44m �j
!I
0 LJA-t� 'VD
From:
Holly Ward
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
Woodland subdivision
Date:
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 6:20:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I support having chickens in the woodland subdivision.
I live in woodland for accumulative 8 years and have children. Please allow us to have
chickens.
62
From:
Kristina Hamilton
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
Chicken vote
Date:
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 4:31:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello! I live in soldotna off gaswell, I'm aware that chickens are allowed only in certain areas
of gaswell meaning I could keep chickens where I live, but my friends 2 minutes away from
me cannot.
I ask that there's a law passed allowing people to keep live chickens on the kenai peninsula
considering the egg shortage.
please consider including my email in the public lay down and to send my email to all council
members.
Thank you for your time,
Anonymous chicken lover
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
63
From:
Miranda Lee
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
Please Include Public Lay down
Date:
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 6:22:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Due to lack of childcare I could not attend the meeting regarding a city ordinance to allow
backyard chickens.
I would like this included in the public lay down and forwarded to all council members.
Please let it be mentioned that in our multigenerational household of 10 people, we support the
allowance of keeping live chickens on residential property. The importance of a continuous
and sustainable food source is more critical now than ever, as providing basic sustenance for a
family has become especially difficult when relying solely on buying food. The eggs provided
by the chickens will offer a critical protein source for growing children and adults alike when
other proteins (like meats) cannot be purchased at an amount that would adequately nourish a
family.
We live in the Woodland Subdivision and hope to see household in the neighborhood
becoming more sustainable with their their food through chickens and gardens. Thank you for
your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
The household of Levi Wanstall, Miranda Martin, Myron Martin, Cindy Martin, Kris Giles,
Kalli Martin, and Chayton Martin (all the adults of our household)
64
From:
Miranda Lee
To:
City Clerk; City Council
Subject:
Ordinance No 3332-2023
Date:
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 7:44:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am writing in regards to the ordinance number 3332-2023 pertaining to allowing chickens
on residential property within city limits.
My name is Miranda Martin and I represent our household within the Woodland
Subdivision, (home -owners) which in comparison to a wide variety of living conditions is not
actually that "crowded" as previously mentioned. "Crowded" is subjective... not fact. If you
have never had a yard smaller than a tenth of an acre, of course the lot sizes can be
considered small and crowded. However, that does not apply to many people. The lot sizes
not only can easily sustain a dozen small animals, like chickens, but can even grow
substantial food gardens. Space is not a feasible issue. I feel this distinction is important
based on previous testimony regarding chickens within our neighborhoods.
Please let it be mentioned that in our multigenerational household of 10 people, we support
the allowance of keeping live chickens on residential property. The importance of a
continuous and sustainable food source is more critical now than ever, as providing basic
sustenance for a family has become especially difficult when relying solely on purchasing
food. We aren't asking to slaughter chickens on a residential property. We are asking to
peacefully raise chickens with love and attention as to harvest their eggs. Eggs to feed to
our children in the many forms possible. For french toast, for scrambled eggs for my
toddler, for extra protein in pancakes, to mix in fried rice.
It's easy for members of the community that have the means to make a significant
purchase of a large piece of land outside of city limits to offer that as a solution to the need
to raise chickens, however, for the general public, such expectations aren't realistic.
Chickens won't serve the community members that don't have any financial concerns. This
is not who the ordinance pertains to, as such, perhaps their opinions should be considered
as such. Opinions on a matter that does not, in fact, negatively affect them in the least.
It is probably a safe assumption that these community members have never had to worry
about where they or their children were going to get their nourishment from.
The eggs provided by the chickens will offer a critical protein source for growing children
and adults alike when other proteins (like meats) cannot be purchased at an amount that
would adequately nourish a family. When all things are considered, basic physiological
needs of our children should NOT be overshadowed by entitled community members who
have full bellies, thick wallets and no young children to feed.
65
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Miranda Martin and household.
..,
From:
mrskwork(caaol.com
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
Tonight's meeting regarding chickens
Date:
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 5:15:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
The full City council meeting on chickens
I'm asking that it's included in the public lay down and forwarded to all council members.
Hope to see the chamber full
Hi. We are in full support of allowing chickens inside city limits especially for the Woodland
Estates neighborhood. Chickens that lay eggs and/or can be raised for meat In limited
numbers (say 12) should be allowed. Not only does it help families help raise awareness to
providing food for themselves and neighbors, it's a wonderful lesson of how to care for and
where food comes from for children. Residents should have to provide some form of
covered enclosure for chickens to protect from predators and escapement.
I hope all those involved in the voting to pass this, remember why we love the freedoms
Alaska provides us and why we live here.
(We own 5 homes in Woodland Estates so please consider this as 5 yes's for having chickens)
Thank you,
Randy and Karen Work
Sent from the all new AOL app for 10S
67
February 8, 2023 Work Session
Planning & Zoning Commission Members
Subject: Opposition to Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Allowing for Chickens to be Kept on Lots Less Than 40,000 s.f.
I am not opposed to the raising chickens or harvesting fresh eggs but I am not supportive of this
Ordinance as written which would allow chickens to be raise in a densely populated
neighborhood like the Woodland Subdivision and would expand the raising of chickens from
28% to 96% of all lots within the city. This ordinance is not a balanced proposal as it only
considers the will of those who want to raise chickens in a residential area at the expense of
others. There are more equitable ways to accomplish such changes.
To bring further clarity to this issue we need to ask the right question.
If you ask the question: Do you want fresh eggs and food security then the answer is yes.
But if you ask the question: Are the proposed changes to the city code appropriate for lots less
than 40,000 s.f. in a residential zone (IRS zone) then the answer is No.
When I bought my house in 1988 1 deliberately chose a lot in a residential neighborhood
because I didn't want to live next to farm animals, a pack of sled dogs, a gravel pit, or other
disruptive nuisances and I certainly didn't want to live next door to where chickens could be
slaughtered. If I wanted to live in an area with less regulations I could have bought property
outside city limits as there is plenty of lots to choose from. I enjoy the amenities that the City of
Kenai has to offer and I don't want to see the character and integrity our residential
neighborhoods compromised.
l feel that this ordinance, as written, is a violation of public trust. And here's why:
When I bought my house I trusted the zoning to protect the values and integrity of the Woodland
Subdivision and I trusted the Land Uses within those zones to be up upheld but I'm now finding
out how easily those values can be compromised by an ordinance and a small group of people.
Ordinance No. 3332-2023, as written, is not a balanced proposal
Currently the city code allows for chickens to be raised on 28% of the city's lots but if this
ordinance passes, then it would allow for chickens to be raised on 96% of the city's lots. This
would create a complete imbalance for those who want chickens in their residential
neighborhood and those who don't.
Facts and Figures for Number of Lots
Total number of Kenai city lots is 4,895
Current number of lots allowed to raise chickens is 1,384 (28%)
The proposed ordinance would allow an additional 3,307 (68%) lots for raising chickens
The result of the proposed ordinance would allow a total of 4,691 (96%) lots for raising chickens
Facts and Figures for Acreage
Total number of acres within the city is 18,536
Current number of acres where chickens can be raised in the city is 16,682 (90%)
Facts and figures can be verified with City Planning Director, Linda Mitchell
Page 1 of 2
68
I ask the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend to the City Council one of the following
amendments.
Alternative A: Amend the proposed ordinance to prohibit the raising of chickens in
RS Zones (Suburban Residential) as follows.,
Please amend Section 1, part (b) to read as follows:
(b) No livestock shall be allowed in the RS, RU, RS1, RS2, TSH, and ALI zones.
Please amend Section 1, part (h) to read as follows:
(h) The keeping of chickens hens on lots less than 40,000 square feet is allowed,
except in the RS RU RS1 RS2 TSH and ALI zoning districts subject to the
followinq standards...:
Including the RS zone (Suburban Residential) into Section 1, part (b) and part (h) above
will help to preserve the character and integrity of our residential neighborhoods. And
because the RR Zone (Rural Residential) is not included in the above language it will
expand the raising of chickens in the RR zone from lots that are 40,000 s.f. or greater to
lots that are less than 40,000 s.f. This would seem to be a reasonable compromise as
the RR Zone accounts for 72% of Kenai's total land mass.
Alternative 13: Amend the proposed ordinance to establish a minimum lot size of 20,000 s.f. to
raise chickens. Lots that are 20,000 s.f, or greater will be large enough to provide
natural buffers and practical setbacks to protect neighboring properties from
impactful activities.
Please amend Section 1, part (h) to read as follows:
h The keeping of chickens hens shall be allowed on lots 20,000 square feet or
greater, subject to the following standards...:
Alternative B would reduce the minimum lot size for raising chickens from 40,000 s.f.
down to 20,000 s.f. This would add an additional 617 lots for raising chickens. In other
words this would increase the number of lots to raise chickens from 1,384 lots (28%) to
2001 lots (41 %).
Both Alternatives A & B would seem to be a reasonable compromise between those who want to
raise chickens and those who don't want chickens to be raised in their densely populated
residential neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Conetta
Page 2 of 2
69
February 2, 2023
City Council
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, AK 99611
Dear Councilors and Commissioners:
RE: Ordinance No. 3332-2023
Amending KMC 3.10.070 to Allow a Maximum of Twelve (12) Chickens to Be Kept on Lots
Less Than 40,000 Square Feet - Except for RU, RS-1, RS-2 and TSH Zoning Districts
I am a property owner with my home in Woodland Subdivision Part I. At the minimum, please
consider these items for amendments to this ordinance:
Except out the RS Zone, just like RS-1 and RS-2 Zones, by adding this exception to
proposed 3.10.070(b) and (c); or;
Alternatively, except out Woodland Subdivision, or at least Parts I and IV, by adding this
exception to proposed 3.10.070(b) and (c); or
Allow chicken hens to be kept on lots of 20,000 s.f. or greater, by amending proposed
paragraph (c)(1) such as:
- "The keeping of chicken hens on lots between twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and
forty thousand (40,000) square feet will be subject the standards in subsection (h)"
- And also modify proposed subsection (h) accordingly.
-1-
Provide that the keeping of chickens on lots less than 40,000 square feet is for personal
use only, and not for commercial use, by adding that text to the standards listed in
subsection (h)
Modify proposed paragraph (h)(3) to locate containment structures only in the back yard
with appropriate setbacks per code, which was an original recommendation of the
Commission;
Add more specific standards for the dimensions, materials, and appearance of a
"containment structure" such as a coop, including standards for protections against bears
and other predators, by adding to proposed subsection (5) of paragraph (h) or adding
another subsection;
Put the Burden of Proof on the chicken keeper to show that his or her containment
structure complies with the standards for a "containment structure." Do not put the
burden on the adjacent property owners or on the City.
70
Require an application, for lots less than 40,000 square feet;
If the applicant is a tenant, require the applicant to submit proof of the owner's consent;
or at a minimum, require proof of owner's consent if the City receives a complaint;
3.10.040 doesn't require a person who keeps chickens to destroy diseased chickens
infected with diseases like bird flu, and that should be required. Add a standard to
paragraph (h) that requires the chicken keeper to destroy chickens infected with disease
like bird flu.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob Molloy
-2-
71
FEBRUARY 8, 2023
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS/REVISIONS
REQUESTED REVISIONS TO THE PACKET
ACTION ITEM REQUESTED BY
Add to item D Commission Discussion — Ordinance No. 3332-2023 Planning Director
• Public Comments
From: Kiley Hansen
To: City Clerk
Subject: Allowing chickens in Kenai
Date: Friday, February 3, 2023 9:34:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello! I understand that there's currently an ongoing discussion about whether chickens
(specifically hens) should be allowed in city limits in Kenai. I live on Fathom dr. and with the
cost of eggs and poultry, being able to keep chickens would help those who really need to
budget their groceries. Having chickens has a lot of benefits and I believe it would help the
community immensely. Thank you so much for considering it.
Kiley Hardesty
February 2, 2023
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Avenue
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Ordinance No. 3332-2023 (Chickens)
Dear Commissioners:
I do not support Ordinance 3332-2023 — it is too broad: "anything goes." This ordinance
as written does not provide sufficient limitations to protect the residential character of our
neighborhoods in the RS zone. Please adopt reasonable standards that would maintain the
quality of life in our neighborhoods. Several amendments have been offered and discussed; many
I agree with. Please consider and adopt the following standards.
-- Remove the RS zone from the ordinance, or have a lot size minimum such as 20,000
square feet (112 acre);
-- Reduce the number of hens from 12 to 6 in the RS zone (I would prefer more like 4);
-- Don't allow keeping chickens in front yards (allowed under Ord. 3332-2023);
-- Require licenses, like dogs (currently required in the Animal Code);
-- Limit chickens for personal use only; and provide that chicken farming can't be spread
over multiple lots;
-- Require the homeowner's written consent for tenants keeping chickens;
-- Provide standards for the location, number and materials of pens or sheds to reduce
nuisances such as noise, odor, waste and eyesores;
-- Require that chicken waste be removed promptly.
One argument for Ordinance 3332-2023 is that other cities in Alaska allow chickens, such
as Wasilla, Juneau, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Palmer. However, those cities have many more
regulations regarding chickens than Ordinance 3332-2023. For example, both Juneau and Wasilla
require administrative approval or a license to keep chickens. Please review these city code
regulations, and find out what works and what doesn't work. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kristine A. Schmidt
513 Ash Avenue
Kenai, Alaska 99611
(907)283-7373
i1
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORD. 3332-2023
(from City Council/P&Z Commission/Public Comments)
1. Zoning.
• Remove Airport Light Industrial zone from allowed zones. (Knackstedt 2/l/23 p. 14).
• Remove RS (Suburban residential) zone from allowed zones.
-- Many subdivisions in this zone have small lot sizes (1/3 acre or less) and restrictive
covenants banning poultry: Central Heights (off Walker Lane), Woodland Parts I -II -
III -IV (off North Forest Drive), Redoubt Terrace (off South Forest Drive), Inlet
Woods (off Redoubt Ave).
• Add to land use table (see Wasilla ordinance).
2. Lot Size/Configuration.
• Minimum lot size 20,000 s.f. (1/2 acre).
-- Avoids conflict between ordinance and numerous subdivisions with small lot sizes
and covenants banning poultry.
• Limit to lots with no more than 3 adjacent lots or a maximum number of chickens on
adjacent lots (first come first served).
-- Because subdivisions with staggered lots may have 5 adjacent lots (60 chickens).
• Maximum of one lot/owner — avoid "chicken farm."
3. Number/Gender.
• Limit to 12 in RR zone, reduce to 6 in other zones (Askin-2/l/23 p. 12).1
• Reduce to 6 hens Knackstedt-2/l/23 p. 14).
• Reduce from 12 to 4-6.
• Specify that roosters are prohibited.
4. Land Use.
• Limit to back of house in rear yard (PZC 2/l/23 p. 11).
• Limit housing or fencing to rear yard (Knackstedt 2/l/23 pp. 14-15).
• Setbacks, not free range with fences.
• Limit to personal use, not commercial use.
• Setbacks from water bodies (see Wasilla ordinance).
• Prohibit storage of manure or waste outside containment structure.
5. Other.
• No killing chickens on site.
• No keeping chickens or containment structures/fences on City -owned property.
• Property owner written consent required.
• Standards for containment area/structures (see Wasilla ordinance).
6. Enforcement/Public Safety.
• Burden of proof on owner to prove accessory structure setbacks.
• Require license (like dogs) or registration with administration like Wasilla.
• Require removal of chickens with bird flu.
1 Compiled by Kristine Schmidt, 513 Ash Ave, Kenai 99611
➢ECLARATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS FOR
WOODLAND SUBDIVISION, PART IV, KENAI, ALASKA
This Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Hestrictions,
and Charges is made thin lot day of June, 1978, by Hall Conetrue-
tion Company, Inc., an Alaskan Corporation, hereinafter referred
to for the purpose of convenience an "Declarant".
WiJEREAS, Declarant is owner of the real property situated
in the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Kenai Recording
District, legally deecribed as set forth in the attached "Exhibit
A" which is incorporated herein by reference: and
WHEREAS, Declarant has oetablished a general plan for
the improvement and development of said real property and desires
to create covenants, conditions and restrictions upon which and
subject to which that portion of said real property shown and
legally described in "Hxhibit B", incorporated herein by refer-
ence, shall be improved, or sold and conveyed by it, as owner
thereof.
NOT `PHEREFOHE, Declarant does hereby establish and
Impose upon said Lots described in said "Exhibit B", provrsinBB.
conditions, restrictions, covenants, easements and reservatione
upon and subject to which each and all of said Lots as provided
for herein shall be held, occupied, leaded, sold, and/or con-
veyed by Declarant or beclarant's successors. Said covenants
shall run.with said lots for the benefit of said Subdivision
and each and every such lot, and for the benefit of each owner
of one or more tote therein, and their assigns and successors
In interest, and shall apply to and bind the respective succes-
sors in interest of Declarant and the owners of each and every
lot in said Subdivision from and after the recordation of these
Declarationa. Said provisions, conditions# restrictions, coven-
ants, easements and reservatione now made applicable to said
lots are as fcllowai
1. LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE
No lot or other portion of the real property des-
cribed shall be used for any purpose other than desoribed in
the following paragraph.
Y
Block li
Lots it through 21, single family.
Block N
Late it through 20, single family.
Block T
Lots 1 through 9, single family.
Block U
Lots 1 through 20, single family.
2, DWELLING COST AND QUALITY
No dwelling shall De permitted on any lot at a
cost of less than $45,000.00 based upon cost levels prevall-
Ing on the date these conditions, restrictions, and covenants
are recorded, it being the intention and purpose of such con-
ditions. restrictions, and covenants to assure that all dwel-
lings shall be of a quality of workmanship and materials sub-
stantially the same or better than that which can be produced
on the date such conditions, restrictions, and covenants are
recorded at'the minimum cost stated herein,
3, BUILDING LOCATION
(a) No building shall be located on any lot
nearer to the front line or nearer to the side street line
than the minimum setback lines shown on the recorded plat.
In any event, no building shall be located on any lot nearer
than 25 feet to the front line, or nearer than 20 feet to any
side street line.
(b) No building shall be located nearer than 5
feet to an interior lot line, except that no side yard shall
be required for a garage or other permitted acceasory build-
ing located 60 feet or more from the minimum building setback
line.
(c) No dwelling shall be located on any lot
nearer than 15 feet to the rear lot line.
(d) For the purpose of these conditions, reatric-
tions and covenants, eaves, steps, and open porches shall not
be considered an a part of the building, provided, however,
that this shall not be construed to permit any portion of a
building on a lot to encroach upon another lot.
6
vcn6i l:ccur:iax Dictrici
4. TIME FOX CONSTRUCTION
Any and all improvements erected upon any lot in
said Subdivision shall be completed with reasonable diligence.
j. EASEMENTS
Easements for installation and maintenance of util-
ities, drainage facilities, and natural vegetation screening,
are reserved an shown on the recorded plat. Within these ease-
mente no structure, planting or other material shall be placed
or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the
installation and maintenance of the utilities, or, which may
change the direction of flow of drainage channels in thu ease-
ments, or which may obstruct or retard the flow of water through
drainage channels in the easements. The easement area of each
lot and all improvements in it shall be maintained continuously
by the owner of the lot, except for those improvements for which
a public authority or utility company is responsible.
6. NUISANCSS
No noxious or offensive activities shall be carried
on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may
be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. ,.
7. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
No structure of a temporary character, trailer,
basement, tent, shack, garage, barn, or other outbuilding shall
be used on any lot at any time as a residence either temporarily
or permanently.
8. SIGNS
No signs of any kind shall be displayed to the
public view on any lot except one professional sign o1' not more
than one square foot, one sign of not more than five square
feet advertisingg, the property for sale or rent, or signs used
by owner or a builder to advertise the property durine the con-
struction and/or sales period for marketing Subdivision lots.
9. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY
No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall
be raised, brad, or kept on any lot, except that dogs, cats,
or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not
kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purpose. And
7
40CJ,
further provided that no more than one dog of sled type breed
may be maintained, and all dogs shall be restrained os necee--
sary, to prevent their becoming nuioances.
10, GARBAGE AND REFUSE DISPOSAL
No lot shall. be used or maintained as a dumping
ground for rubbish. Trash or other waste shall not be kept
except in sanitary containers. All incinerators or other
equipment for the disposal or storage of such material shall
be kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
It. WATER SUPPLY
No individual water supply system shall be perml6
ted on any lot.
12. SEWAGE DISPOSAL
No individual sewage disposal system shall be per-
mitted on any lot,
13. SIGHT DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS
No fence, walk, hedge or shrub pl.antinrs which
obstruct sight lines at elevations of between 2 and 6 feet
above the roadways shall be placed or permitted to remain on
any corner lot within the triangular area formed by the street
property line and a line connecting them at points 25 feet
from the intersection of the street lines, or in the case of a
rounded property corner-, from the intersection of the street
property line extended. The same eight line limitations shall
apply to any lot within 10 feet from the intersection of a
street property line with the edge of a driveway. No tree
shall be permitted to remain within such distances of such
intersections unless the foliage line is maintained at suf-
ficient height to prevent obstruction of such sight lines,
14. TRESS
No owner shall be permitted to completely clear
a lot on which stu.nding trees of size and beauty exist. Space
may be cleared for construction, and trees may be thinned so
long as maximum natural beauty and esthetic values of such
trees are retained,
15, 8ESUeDIVISION
The area of the lots herein described shall not be
.AMR 8
HQIDT%_L3 _PAGE��
[ zzsi I;rreurding Diz"ict
reduced in size by resubdivision. except that ownerr; of three
(3) contiguous lots may divide the inner lot, or middle lot,
thus increasing the site of the two remaininpr lots whlch shall
then be treated for all purposes pertinent to these conditions,
restrictions and covenants, as enlarged aingle lots.
16. TERM
These conditions, restrictions and covenants are
to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and
all persons claiming under them for a period of thirty (30)
years from the date these conditions, restrictions and cove-
nants are recorded, after which time said conditions, restric-
tions shall be automatically extended for successive periods
of trn (10) years unless an inutrument signed by a majority
of the then owners of the lots has boon recorded, agreeinp to
change said conditions, restrictions and covenants in whole
or in part.
M !iEN,EDIUS FOR VIOLATIONS - INVALIDATIONS
(a) Declarant may abate Violation. For a viola-
tion or breach of any of these conditions, restrictions or
covenants by any person claiming by, through, or under the
Declarant, or by virtue of any judicial proceedinKs. the Dealer -
ant, and the lot owners, or any of them severally shall have
the right to proceed at law or in equity to compel a compliance
with the terms hereof or to prevent the violation or breach or
any of them. In addition to the foregoing right, the Declarant
shall have the right whenever there shall have been built on
any lot any structure which is in violation of these restric-
tions, to enter uppon the property where such violation 01' these
conditions, reatrictions and covenants exists and summarily
abate or remove the same at the expense of the owner, and any
such entry and abatement or removal shall not be deemed a tren-
pass, The failure to promptly enforce any of these condit.Jona,
restrictions or covenants shall not bar their enforcement,
(b) Record Notice. Notwithstanding anythinr
contained in this article, there shall bp no right of re-entry
as provided thoreinabove, nor shall thero by any right to en-
force any remedies set forth in these Declarations until ten
(10) days after there is recorded with the Aecorder of Kenai
District a Notice of Breach of this Declaration, which Notice
shall mtatei The provisions hereon which have been breached,
a description of the lot, the name of the person who has
breached these restrictions, the name of the record owner or
said lot, and an affidavit that a copy of said notice was
served on any person present, if any, on the lot, and a copy
tlaQ?C f� VA C9
Road ►i.curdiGg 6141rict
of said notice posted on a stake in a conspicuous place on
said lot or common area. Any such Notice must be signed by
Declarant, or the record owner of one or more lots in the
Subdivision.
(c) Attorneys Fees and Costs. Whenever the
Declarant. or any person entitled to enforce any rights here-
under, enjages in legal pproceedings to enforce the same, and
prevails in said proceedingo, the person violating said res-
trictions by acceptance of the title to said lot does hereby
agree to pay to the prevailing party such reasonable attor
ney's fees and court coats as are awarded by any court.
18. RESERVATIONS
Declarant, its successors and assigns, for the
purpose of further insuring the development of the real pro-
perty which is the subject of these conditions, restrictions
and covenants, as an area of high standards, reserves the right,
(1) to change, lay out a new, or discontinue any
street, avenue or way shown on a riled plat
which is not necessary for ingress or ogress
to or from an owner's premises, subject to
the approval of the City of Kenai, or the
platting authority, or both, if required,
(2) to make such further exceptions, amendments
and additions to these conditions, restric-
tions and covenants as it shall deem reason-
ably necessary and proper,
19. ASSIGNMENT OF RIOHTS AND POWERS
Any and all of the rights and powers and reserva-
tions of the Declarant herein contained may be deeded, conveyed
and/or assigned to any other corporation or association which
is now organised, or which may hereafter be organized, and
which will assume the duties of Declarant hereunder pertaining
to the particular rights and powers and reservations assigned,
and upon any such corporation or association evidencing its
consent in writing to accept such assignment and assume such
duties, it shall, to the extent of such deed, conveyance or
assignment, have the same rights and powers and be subject to
the name obligations and duties as are given to and assumed by
Declarant hereini and thereafter. upon the sale by Declarant
of all lots in the Subdivision covered herein, Declarant shall
be relieved from that time on of the performance of any further
duty and/or obligation hereunder.
10
L
BOOK— 11aPAGE
Kvrti Racal-�
dinR i crict
20. WAIVER
Any delay or omission on the part of the VOCiarant,
or its successors or assigns. or the owners of other lots or
parcels in the Woodland Subdivision, in exercising any rights.
powers, remedy or remedivu provided by law or herein, in the
event of avy breach of the Condit, one. restrictions and coven-
ants herein contained, shall not be construed as a waiver there-
of or acquiescence therein, and no right of action shall accrue
nor shall any action be brought or maintained by anyone whatso-
ever against the Declarant for on account of its failure to
bring any action on account of the breach of these conditions,
restrictions and covenants, or for imposing restrictiono here-
in which may be unenforceable.
la r,lltw'r Y tMgal I %"b s►1 s,y %BM md'arrif
1 1 ..
14G1,1r,,
�Crc'4 Fill. U."
STATE OF ALASKA
JUDICIAL DISTRICT )
.U. C and
appeared be re a the undersigned Notary Public in and for Alaska, on this
day of 19_'I , at AaeWmweo, Alaska, i know tliem to be
the
C andd'hrCc of
tC' ids r,{i �q an Alarkan corporation.
They said that they knew the c6ntenO of the foregoing inetrument and aeknowladgod
the same to be the act of said corporation, done uy authority of its Doord•of Directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
3 9 Notary Public in end'ra� p.. i . a ;
17f my commission expires: ,r
3 34 PH
tit)f7�ESS'At;MUR {
11
Hello, long-time City of Kenai and Woodland Subdivision (1078 Walnut Ave) resident
Joseph Huard here.
I strongly oppose the disaster otherwise known as Ordinace No. 3332-2023 ...
Some random thoughts ...
Question: Why are there RS1 and RS2 zones in the City of Kenai?
Answer: Because the residents of the R51 and RS2 zones said 'enough is enough' with the
perennial attempts at getting chickens crammed down their throats, so they organized to get
rezoned as chicken -free areas.
Question: If chickens in the city are so great, why are they banned in the RS1 and RS2 zones?
Answer: Maybe because chickens in the city are not so great?
If I wanted to live among chickens, I would have purchased a home in an area that allowed
chickens. But I didn't want to live among chickens, so in 1997 1 purchased my home in Kenai
in an area that didn't allow chickens. It's a betrayal if I will now be forced to live among
chickens. It's not what I signed up for.
I know from bitter experience how easily a mismanaged chicken operation can adversely
impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. I live right around the corner from the chicken
fiasco on Poplar Circle that is now, blessedly, gone. All that remains of the operation is the
blue tarp eyesore they left behind. Keep in mind, that enterprise was run by a chicken'pro'; I
can only imagine how badly things might end up when amateurs set up shop around here.
I live next door to the smallest lot in the entire Woodland Subdivision at 7,288 sq ft. My lot,
at 7,350 sq ft is the second smallest in Woodland. The largest lot contiguous to my lot is
11,278 sq ft. I share a corner post with four other lots. That's five lots sharing one corner
post. From my backyard I have a view of six backyards besides my own. Yes I said six. Six
backyards with 12 chickens per back yard equals 72 chicken hens. That's a lot of those
adorable little mother cluckers I may have to live with. There'll be quite the cloud of bloody
chicken feathers floating in the air if all six of my neighbors decide at the same time to start
chopping the heads off their adorable chickens.
Some people might dismiss the idea that what I describe (72 chickens) could actually happen.
These same people tell us how popular chickens would be if only they were allowed in the
city. If chickens end up being as popular as they tell us, I could very well end up looking at
100 hens, due to a lack of enforcement of what are, essentially, unenforceable requirements.
They say it won't happen, but what if it does happen? Where does that leave me?
Barbara Kennedy, in her January 25 testimony in front of the Kenai Planning and Zoning
Commission, said where she lives, on North Lupine Ave, 'there are chickens everywhere'. The
same thing could happen in Woodland Subdivision. I don't want to see'chickens everywhere'.
It's the Woodland Subdivision, not the Woodland Zoo.
`v:
Predators like the taste of chicken, I'm not sure why, maybe because it tastes like chicken. No
chickens means less predators.
Dogs bark at chickens. No chickens = less barking.
What is it about blue tarps and chicken wire? They always seem to go together (see photo on
page 6).
Don't like looking at your neighbor's dirty, disgusting chickens? Do you consider them to be a
nuisance? Chicken owners refuse to put up privacy fencing? Remember, chickens in and of
themselves can not be considered a nuisance if the Ordinance passes. Your option: Put up a
tarp (preferably blue).
If I decide to sell and I have chickens on either or both sides of me, my property will likely
take much longer to sell and I will likely have to settle for a lower amount than I could get
otherwise. That's despite all the starry-eyed claims of chicken popularity; most people, if
given a choice, simply do not want to live next door to a freaking chicken coop. Chickens have
never been a selling point. Anywhere. You don't find real estate agents using chickens as a
selling point in their listings. And we all know why.
Woodland Subdivision could easily end up having many more chickens than people. And
that's with just a few coops. If I wanted to live in an area with more chickens than people I
would have bought a farm outside of town. A farm is a place where farmers grow crops and
raise livestock, such as chickens. You know. A farm. Not a Woodland Subdivision back yard.
We aren't living in the food -insecure Bush. We've got plenty of food security around here.
It's called IGA, Walmart, Safeway, Fred Meyer, Arby's, McDonald's, Subway, and most
importantly, Taco Bell. I've worked in the Bush. The Bush has food insecurity. The Bush
would love to have to suffer under the jack boot heel of our so-called 'food insecurity'. You
want food security? Plant a garden. Tomatoes, cucumbers, rhubarb. Just don't plant
eggplant. I hate eggplant.
First marijuana moves in, next the chickens move in, then it will be the potheads chasing their
loose chickens around the neighborhood (and scaring the moose) because they were too
stoned to remember to close the door to their chicken pen.
instead of a mere seven politicians deciding on whether to destroy the character of the city,
why not instead let we the people decide. Let's vote on it! Or you could instead do what all
the previous City Councils did when this issue popped up-- they killed it in its cradle.
Let's keep the status quo. If people are keeping chickens under the table, they know they'll
have to be discreet, and they'll be more likely to want to keep their neighbors happy. If
chickens are made legal, unscrupulous people will be able to say EFF OFF to their neighbors,
secure in the knowledge that the law is unenforceable.
However, if you insist on going forward with this fiasco:
N
13
A permitting process is an absolute must. That way, at least initial compliance with the law is
ensured. It won't change the reality that the law will be unenforceable after initial complance
is achieved, but at least it's something.
The clause in the proposed law that says, 'The keeping of chicken hens ... does not in or of
itself constitute a nuisance or a disturbance' needs to be carefully looked at. It was included
for a reason. I don't believe dogs and cats enjoy that same kind of protection, I wonder why
chickens get that protection and dogs and cats don't. Why are thickens granted 'protected
class' status? There has to be a reason.
The Kenai City Attorney is tasked with looking out for the City of Kenai's best interests.
Among his duties is one that commits him to ensure that any law passed by the City Council
has minimal adverse financial impact on the City's coffers. The successful EXCLUSION from
the Ordinance of the expensive, time-consuming, logistically night-marish permitting process
will be a tremendous victory for the City Attorney and will make the City of Kenai very happy.
With a permit process excluded from the Ordinance, the City Attorney will have done a good
Job in _looking out}or the interests of his boss, the City of Kenai.
The Kenai City Council is tasked with looking out for the residents of the City of Kenai's best
interests. Among its duties is one that commits it to ensure that any law passed by the City
Council has minimal adverse quality -of -life impact on the City's residents. The successful
INCLUSION in the Ordinance of the quality -of -life -enhancing permitting process will be a
tremendous victory for the City Council and will make the residents of the City of Kenai very
happy. With a permit process included in the Ordinance, the City Council will have done a
good job in looking out for the interests of its boss, the residents of the City of Kenai.
With the Ordinate soon to be in City Council's hands for final decision, now all the slick, fast -
talking City Attorney has to do is relax and play the waiting game to find out if he was able to
successfully sneak one past a majority of those gullible rubes on the City Council ...
If the City Council wants to make the vast majority of the residents of the City of Kenai
supremely ecstatic, then with extreme prejudice they will proceed to nuke from orbit the
entire Ordinance, or if not from orbit, at least from the tip of the spire of the Holy Assumption
Russian Orthodox Church. It's the only way to be sure ...
Let me tell you about the fever dream I had the other night ...
Kenai City Council Member Alex Douthit ambles into Kenai City Attorney Scott Bloom's office
on a blustery December 2022 morning and says, 7 want chickens, can you help me write up an
Ordinance?'
Bloom says, 'Sure, I'll help, but keep in mind, I represent the City, and my goal will be to
ensure the financial burden on the City is kept to a minimum. Do you want a permitting
process?'
14
Douthit says, 'Permitting process? Good God no, not if I can get away without one.'
Bloom responds, 'Whoopee! You just saved the City a ton of expense and headache.'
Bloom then asks, 'How many chickens do you want?'
Douthit says, 'Put me in for twelve. I'll get the City Council to settle for six. The City Council
will then be able to tell the hayseed constituents that they were able to win a tremendous
victory for them, by fighting hard to whittle down the chicken count by fifty percent. Heck, it
won't matter anyway-- without a permitting process, the entire law will be pretty much
completely unenforceable. Am I right, or am I right? BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Bloom joins in, 'BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Douthit asks, 'When can you get on this?'
Bloom replies, 'I'll start to work on this bad -boy as soon as I'm done with my three-hour
lunch.'
Douthit says, 'Okay, 1 don't care how you go about it, I just want me some of them thor
chickens!'
Bloom says, 'Oh by the way, congrats on your getting elected to the City Council. I saw that
you attended your first Council meeting on October 19th. Here it is December, and you're
working on your first piece of legislation. Chickens. 1 don't recall you having run on the
Chickens in Every Backyard platform. or did I miss something?'
Douthit replies, 'What, are you kidding? If 1 tried running on the chicken platform, I would
have been defeated in a landslide at the polls. And then 1 probably would have been tarred
and feathered and run out of town on a rail. No, the chickens are for me.'
Bloom says, 'Tarred and feathered? You mean like with chicken feathers?'
Douthit says, 'Yea, like with chicken feathers. BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!'
Bloom joins in, 'BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!'
Bloom then says, 'So you're one of those 'self-serving politicians' I've heard so much about.'
Douthit says, 'Yup, that's me! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!'
Bloom once again joins in, 'BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!'
After the exchange of a vigorous series of 'high fives, Douthit proceeded on his way and
Bloom commenced to grapple with his three-hour lunch.
4
15
I woke up screaming, my sheets drenched in sweat, my heart pounding, body trembling. And
so my fever dream came to it's frightening end. You will not be surprised when I tell you that
I've been afraid to go to sleep ever since ...
Update with a twist:
The update:
At the 02/01 Kenai City Council meeting my letter to Council, addressing Ordinance
3332-2023, along with its attachment, was placed on the laydown table for public perusal.
Included in today's package is said letter, along with it's attachment (see pages 8 and 9). That
night, after the City Council meeting was adjourned, the author of the Facebook post shown
in the attachment went on Facebook and edited her post by removing the post's first
sentence, which had read:
"1 mean 'egg songs' by hens can be just as loud if not louder than rooster crows."
The 'Edit History' of her post can be found on page 7 .
The twist:
I said all that to say this: By her removing the first sentence, it focused my attention on the
second sentence, which I never really noticed before, what with the shock I felt when I read
her 'admission accablante' in her first sentence that CHICKEN HENS CAN BE JUST AS LOUD IF
NOT LOUDER THAN ROOSTER CROWS. Her second sentence reads as follows:
"Folks just need to accept animals make noise."
Here we have another damning admission. I believe what the author is implying is, 'I don't
mind the chicken noise, and neither should you. So you might as well get used to it, because
chickens make a LOT of noise.'
I'm confident I speak for many when I say this:
I accept that animals make noise, I just don't want to have to start getting used to being
surrounded by constant noise from my neighbors' chickens. I enjoy my peace and quiet. I
don't want to have to hear a bunch of chicken hens at times squawking LOUDER than roosters
can crow.
In conclusion:
At the 01/25 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting, the City of Kenai Chief
Animal Control Officer was asked for is opinion on what kind of impact the passing of
Ordinance 3332-2023 might have on his ability to do his jab, His response:
7 don't have an answer to that ... 1 don't know what the future holds.'
Yikes. Methinks we're about to find ourselves in some big trouble around here. In the words
of the immortal Bette Davis,
in
'FASTEN
YOUR
SEA TB EL Ts,
IT'S GOING TO
BEA BUMPY
RIDE '
17
F7�
,0 f. I 41 PA L
[h
Edit History
Lisa Marie Hansen
Sarah Rigsby I mean "egg songs" by hens can be just as loud if not
louder than rooster crows. However folks just need to accept animals
make noise. Dogs bark, cats meow, etc. these are natural noises.
Folks have become so desensitized by what used to be normal. Back
in the day almost every backyard had a garden and chickens.
January 9 at 11:32 AM
Lisa Marie Hansen
Sarah Rigsby Folks just need to accept animals make noise. Dogs
bark, cats meow, etc. these are natural noises. Folks have become so
desensitized by what used to be normal. Back in the day almost
every backyard had a garden and chickens.
February 1 at 10:06 PM
fits to comments are visible to everyone who can see this comment.
V e945 I ON
M Gmail
JoeGoogle GoogleJoe <julietthotelml@gmail.com>
Additional Ordinance 3332-2023 Comments and Attachment from Joseph Huard
1 message
JoeGoogle GoogleJoe <}ulietthotelml@gmail.com> Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 2:05 PM
To: cityclerk@kenai.city
Hello Kenai City Clerk, Kenai City resident Joseph Huard here ...
Attached is a document I printed off the Woodland Subdivision Facebook site today. The highlighted post within this
document-- authored by chicken expert and former Woodland Estates resident Lisa Marie Hansen-- discusses the level of
noise that chicken hens are capable of versus the level of noise chicken roosters are capable of. At the 01125 Planning
and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting discussion of Ordinance 3332-2023 there was at least one Commission
member (Glendening?) who was of the misunderstanding that chicken hens are substantially less noisy than chicken
roosters. Lisa Marie Hansen's 'expert testimony' clears up that misunderstanding.
By the way, 'egg songs' isn't an invented phrase, it is indeed a 'real thing'!!!
Please include this email, along with its attachment in tonight's City Council Meeting packet ...
Hen Noise Vs Rooster Noise.pdf
596K
V
�11
FL -1
M
Kelsey Robertson
I got eggs at Walmart in kenai two days ago for regular price! They did have a limited
selection but the prices were not raised any thank goodness.
Like Reply iw
Carty MacDonald
S6 ? Lol more like $10
Like Reply 3:ti 0
Sarah Rigsby
People need to get on board with chickens they are not that bad unless Fhave
roosters honestly
Like Reply iw 104
Lisa Marie Hansen
Sarah Rigsby I mean "egg songs' by hens can be just as toud if not louder than
rooster crows. However folks just need to accept animals make noise. bags bark,
cats meow, etc. these are natural noises. Folks have become so desensitized by
what used to be normal. Back in the day almost every backyard had a garden and
chickens.
Like Reply 0:)
Miranda Martin
They're even more expensive if you want the cage free, ranch raised or whatever you
call it) kind.
Like Reply .v
Cary Snyder
Like Reply v
i
Sean Sey ler 1
� 1
tnlalmart this evening.1
0
Like Reply 3w
Phoebe Ruiz -
It's the city people that move here that don't want chickens. They apparently don't
know Alaska is a survival state and at some point we will have live stock back on our
properties
Like Reply 44sr
`I
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Ordinance No. 3332-2023 — Amending KMC Section 3.10.070
Livestock within the City Limits to Allow a Maximum of 12 Chicken
Hens to be Kept on Certain Lots within the City of Kenai.
February 8, 2023 — WORK SESSION
KENAI
• Standards for livestock within the City Limits are found in Title 3 Animal Control.
• Livestock is prohibited in the Urban Residential (RU), Suburban Residential 1 (RS'l),
Suburban Residential 2 (RS2) and Townsite Historic (TSH) zoning districts.
• Livestock, other than bees, may be kept on lots 40,000 square feet or greater.
• Livestock is defined to include the following animals: horse, American bison, llama,
alpaca, sheep, swine, goat, mule, donkey, ratite, duck, goose, chicken, turkey,
rabbit, and honey bees.
LAND USE TABLE
KEY: P = Pd nci pal PeFrndpd Use
C = Conditional Use
S = Secondary Use
N = N ct Permitted
ZONING NG DISTRICTS
LAND USES
A LI
E
RR
RR-1
RS
FPS-1
R S-2
Rol
EC
EG
IL
IH
ED
R
TSH
LC
CMIJ
Fa rmi ngi General Ag d cultu re;-,*
N
P
P
N
H
H
H
N
N
H
H
P
N
P
N
H
H
1* See, h mever, th a li tail-aii on s i rn posed u nde r KINK 3_ 10.070
City of Kenai
KM C 3.10.070-Livestock within city limits
= Lots
VLive'.
- Pror
N
F-I
Proposed Ordinance No. 33 1
M � Ail
• Allow a Maximum of Twelve (12) Chicken Hens on lots less than 40,000 square feet
except in the prohibited zoning districts (RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH).
• Proposed ordinance includes specific conditions under which the keeping of
chicken hens would be permitted.
City of Kenai
KM C 3.10.070-Livestock within city limits
Proposed Amendment to Allow
Chicken Hens on Certain Lots
Less than 40,000 Square Feet
Proposed Amendment to Allow Chicken Hens on
Lots Less Than 40,000 SF (3,307)
Livestock are Permitted
=Prohibited Zones (RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH)
This map is for graphic representation
only and the City of Kenai assumes no
responsibility for errors on this map.
N
7/
Proposed
Ordinance —
Specific Standards
— Paragraph (h)
The keeping of chicken hens
on lots less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet is allowed, except
in the RU,
RS1, RSL, and TSH
zoning districts, subject to
the following standards:
M A maximum of twelve (12) chicken hens may be kept on lots with a permitted principal structure.
Chicken hens must be kept in an enclosed shelter or fully fenced -in at all times.
Chicken coops, hutches or other fully enclosed shelters may not be located in a front yard or
side yard that abuts a street in a residential zoning district and must have a minimum setback of
fifteen feet (15') from the side yards, ten feet (10') from the rear yard, and twenty- five feet
from residential dwellings on neighboring lots.
Fences, corral, pen, or other similar containment structures must have a minimum setback of
fifteen feet (15') from the side yards, twenty-five feet (25') from the front yard, ten feet (10') from
the rear yard, and twenty-five feet (25') from residential dwellings on neighboring lots.
New Text Underlined
Proposed Ordinance — Specific Standards — Paragraph (h)
All shelters or containment structures must be constructed of durable weather resistant
materials, secured, and kept in _ good repair.
No person may slaughter chickens on -site except when in an area of the property not visible
to the public or adjoining properties.
M Chicken hens may not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance as
defined by Kenai Municipal Code.
The keeping of chicken hens must be consistent with terms of this title and does not in or of
itself constitute a nuisance or a disturbance.
New Text Underlined
Proposed Ordinance — Specific Standards — Public Nuisances
12.10.010 Public Nuisances.
In addition to other public nuisances declared by other sections of this Code, the following
are hereby declared to be public nuisances:
(h) The continued making of loud or unusual noises which annoy persons of ordinary
sensibilities, or the keeping of an animal which makes such noises;
Proposed Ordinance — Specific Standards
3.10.010 Interference with peace or privacy.
Maintenance and Sanitation
No person may permit an animal which he owns to interfere with another person's reasonable
right to peace or privacy by making repeated or continued noise.
3.10.030 Maintenance and sanitation.
A person who owns an animal shall maintain all structures, pens, and yards where he keeps the
animal, and all areas adjacent thereto, in a clean and sanitary condition and free from
objectionable odor.
Requested Amendment from Council Member Askin
Amend Section 1, paragraph h. 1. that reads:
A maximum of twelve (12) chicken hens may be kept on lots in the Rural Residential (RR) zone and
a maximum of six (6) chicken hens on lots in other allowed zones with a permitted principal
structu re.
New Text Underlined
City of Kenai
KM C 3.10.070-Livestock within city limits
Proposed Amendment to Allow Up to 12
Chicken Hens in the Rural Residential (RR)
Zone and Up to 6 Chicken Hens in other zones
on Certain Lots Less than 40,000 Square Feet
Proposed Amendment to Allow Up to 12 Chicken
Hens on Lots Less Than 40,000 SF in the Rural
Residential (RR) Zone
Proposed Amendment to Allow Up to 6 Chicken
Hens on Lots Less Than 40,000 SF in Other Zones
Livestock are Permitted
_Prohibited Zones (RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH)
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
This map is for graphic representation
only and the City of Kenai assumes no
responsibility for errors on this map.
71
N
J4
Requested Amendment from Council Member Knackstedt
Amend Section 1, paragraph h as follows:
(h) The keeping of chicken hens on lots less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet is allowed, except in the ALI,
RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH zoning districts, subject to the following standards:
Amend Section 1, paragraph h. 1. that reads:
(1) A maximum of six 6 [TWELVE (12)] chicken hens may be kept on lots with a permitted principal structure.
Amend Section 1, paragraphs h. 3. And h. 4. that reads:
(3) Chicken coops, hutches or other fully enclosed shelters must be located in the rear yard [MAY NOT BE LOCATED
IN A FRONT YARD OR SIDE YARD THAT ABUTS A STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT] and must have a
minimum setback of fifteen feet (15') from the side yards, ten feet (10') from the rear yard, and twenty-five feet
(25') from residential dwellings on neighboring lots.
(4) Fences, corral, pen, or other similar containment structures must be located in the rear yard and have a
minimum setback of fifteen feet (15') from the side yards, [TWENTY-FIVE FEET (25') FROM THE FRONT YARD,] ten
feet (10') from the rear yard, and twenty-five feet (25') from residential dwellings on neighboring lots.
New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
City of Kenai
KM C 3.10.070-Livestock within city limits
Proposed Amendment to Allow
Up to 6 Chicken Hens on Certain
Lots Less than 40,000 Square Feet
Proposed Amendment to Allow Up to 6 Chicken
Hens on Lots Less Than 40,000 SF
(Livestock are Permitted
Prohibited Zone for Chicken Hens in the ALI Zone
=Prohibited Zones (RU, RS1, RS2, and TSH)
This map is for graphic representation
only and the City of Kenai assumes no
responsibility for errors on this map.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Ordinance No. 3332-2023 — Amending KMC Section 3.10.070
Livestock within the City Limits to Allow a Maximum of 12 Chicken
Hens to be Kept on Certain Lots within the City of Kenai.
February 8, 2023 — WORK SESSION
KENAI
(from City Council/P&Z Commission/Public Comments)
1. Zoning.
• Remove Airport Light Industrial zone from allowed zones. (Knackstedt 2/l/23 p. 14).
• Remove RS (Suburban residential) zone from allowed zones.
-- Many subdivisions in this zone have small lot sizes (1/3 acre or less) and restrictive
covenants banning poultry: Central Heights (off Walker Lane), Woodland Parts I -II -
III -IV (off North Forest Drive), Redoubt Terrace (off South Forest Drive), Inlet
Woods (off Redoubt Ave).
• Add to land use table (see Wasilla ordinance).
2. Lot Size/Configuration.
• Minimum lot size 20,000 s.f. (1/2 acre).
-- Avoids conflict between ordinance and numerous subdivisions with small lot sizes
and covenants banning poultry.
• Limit to lots with no more than 3 adjacent lots or a maximum number of chickens on
adjacent lots (first come first served).
-- Because subdivisions with staggered lots may have 5 adjacent lots (60 chickens).
• Maximum of one lot/owner — avoid "chicken farm."
3. Number/Gender.
• Limit to 12 in RR zone, reduce to 6 in other zones (Askin-2/l/23 p. 12).1
• Reduce to 6 hens Knackstedt-2/l/23 p. 14).
• Reduce from 12 to 4-6.
• Specify that roosters are prohibited.
4. Land Use.
• Limit to back of house in rear yard (PZC 2/l/23 p. 11).
• Limit housing or fencing to rear yard (Knackstedt 2/l/23 pp. 14-15).
• Setbacks, not free range with fences.
• Limit to personal use, not commercial use.
• Setbacks from water bodies (see Wasilla ordinance).
• Prohibit storage of manure or waste outside containment structure.
5. Other.
• No killing chickens on site.
• No keeping chickens or containment structures/fences on City -owned property.
• Property owner written consent required.
• Standards for containment area/structures (see Wasilla ordinance).
6. Enforcement/Public Safety.
• Burden of proof on owner to prove accessory structure setbacks.
• Require license (like dogs) or registration with administration like Wasilla.
• Require removal of chickens with bird flu.
t Compiled by Kristine Schmidt, 513 Ash Ave, Kenai 99611
PARTIAL LIST OF RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS IN THE KENAI
CORE (RS ZONE) WITH POULTRY BANS
Central Heights Subdivision, Plat No. K-1546 etc.: 86lots; smallest 6,004 s.f., largest 13,639 s.f.
Inlet Woods Subdivision Part I, Plat No. 84-279:178 lots, smallest 7,455 s.f., largest 26,500 s.f.
Redoubt Terrace Subdivision, Plat No. K-1474 etc.:180 lots; smallest 7,499 s.f, largest 25,418 s.£
Windhaven Estates Phase 1, Plat No. 98-26: 33 lots; smallest 15,000 s.f, largest 18,488 s.f.
Woodland Subdivision Part 1, Plat No. K-1522:113 lots, smallest 9,773 s.f., largest 22,073 s.f.
Woodland Subdivision Part II, Plat No. K-1543: 51 lots, smallest 8,211 s.f., largest 13,529 s.f.
Woodland Subdivision Part III, Plat No. K-1571: 491ots, smallest 7,397 s.f., largest 10,795 s.f.
Woodland Subdivision Part IV, Plat No. 78-208: 50lots, smallest 7,288 s.f., largest 23,259 s.f.
Total residential subdivision lots listed above with poultry bans: 740
Central Heights Subdivision, Developer: M & S Development Company
• Subdivision Plat No. K-1546, recorded 5/14/1968, Kenai Recording District.
• Covenants recorded 5/14/1968, Misc. Book 31 Page 61, Kenai Recording District:l
11. Livestock and Poultry.
No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot,
except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred
or maintained for any commercial purpose. And further provided that no more than one dog of
sled type breed may be maintained, and all dogs shall be restrained as necessary, to prevent their
becoming nuisances.
Inlet Woods Subdivision Part One, Developers: MSM and San Lar, Inc.
• Subdivision Plat No. 84-279, recorded 10/23/1984, Kenai Recording District.
• Covenants recorded 8/15/1985, Book 268 Page 636, Kenai Recording District:
No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot, except that
dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred or
maintained for any commercial purpose.
Reboubt Terrace Subdivision, Developer: Fourth Avenue Investment Company
• Subdivision Plat No. K-1474, recorded 5/31/1967, Kenai Recording District.
• Covenants recorded 5/31/1967, Misc. Book 26 Page 312, Kenai Recording District:
13. Livestock and Poultry.
No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot,
except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred
or maintained for any commercial purpose. And further provided that no more than one dog of
sled type breed may be maintained, and all dogs shall be restrained as necessary, to prevent their
becoming nuisances.
1 These covenants apply to the entire piece of property owned by the developer, including
original subdivision lots in Plat No. K-1546, and later additions, Plat Nos. 83-66 and 88-54.
2 These covenants apply to the entire piece of property owned by the developer, including
original subdivision lots in Plat No. K-1474, and later additions, Plat Nos. K-1519, 75-86, 76-96,
81-134, 83-7, 83-29, 83-207, 94-49.
Windhaven Estates Phase 1, Developer: Clint D. Hall
• Subdivision Plat No. 98-26, recorded 6/22/1998, Kenai Recording District.
• Covenants recorded 7/22/1998, Book 535 Page 567, Kenai Recording District:
No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot, except that
dogs, cats or other household pets, limited to three (3), may be kept provided that they are not
kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose.
Woodland Subdivision Part I, Developer: Collier Carbon and Chemical Corporation
• Subdivision Plat No. K-1522, recorded 12/15/1967, Kenai Recording District.
• Covenants recorded 12/15/1967, Misc. Book 29 Page 187, Kenai Recording District:
13. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY.
No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot,
except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred
or maintained for any commercial purpose. And further provided that no more than one dog of
sled type breed may be maintained, and all dogs shall be restrained as necessary, to prevent their
becoming nuisances.
Woodland Subdivision Part H, Developer: Collier Carbon and Chemical Corporation
• Subdivision Plat No. K-1543, recorded 4/18/1968, Kenai Recording District.
• Covenants recorded 4/19/1968, Misc. Book 30 Page 292, Kenai Recording District:
12. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY.
No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot,
except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred
or maintained for any commercial purpose. And further provided that no more than one dog of
sled type breed may be maintained, and all dogs shall be restrained as necessary, to prevent their
becoming nuisances.
Woodland Subdivision Part IIl, Developer: Woodland Development Corporation
• Subdivision Plat No. K-1571, recorded 8/23/1968, Kenai Recording District.
• Covenants recorded 8/23/1968, Misc. Book 32 Page 223, Kenai Recording District:
12. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY.
No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot,
except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred
or maintained for any commercial purpose. And further provided that no more than one dog of
sled type breed may be maintained, and all dogs shall be restrained as necessary, to prevent their
becoming nuisances.
Woodland Subdivision Part IV, Developer: Hall Construction Company Inc.
• Subdivision Plat No. 78-208, recorded 12/l/1978.
• Covenants recorded 12/4/1978, Misc. Book 136 Page 505, Kenai Recording District:
9. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY.
No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot,
except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred
or maintained for any commercial purpose. And further provided that no more than one dog of
sled type breed may be maintained, and all dogs shall be restrained as necessary, to prevent their
becoming nuisances.