The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-12-12 Planning & Zoning Packet - Work SessionAGENDA CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION December 12, 2012 Immediately Following Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Commission Discussion - Ordinance No. 2656 -2012 — Amending the Kenai Municipal Code Section 3.10.070, Livestock Within the City Limits, to Exclude from the Definition of "Livestock" a Limited Number of Chicken Hens to Allow for the Keeping of a Small Number of Chicken Hens in the City and Amending Setback Requirements for Chicken Containment Structures. *Public Participation: Public comments will be allowed on a limited basis throughout the review. 5. Adjournment Public comment limited to three (3) minutes per speaker; thirty (30) minutes aggregated. The Commission may relax this restriction. Work Session Packet Ordinance No. 2656 -2012 Amending the Kenai Municipal Code Section 3.10.070, Livestock Within the City Limits, to Exclude from the Definition of "Livestock" a Limited Number of Chicken Hens to Allow for the Keeping of a Small Number of Chicken Hens in the City and Amending Setback Requirements for Chicken Containment Structures. MA "Village with a Past, C# with a Future" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 283 -7535 / FAX: 907 - 283 -3014 �IIIII 1997 MEMO: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administratio DATE: November 27, 2012 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2656 -2012 — Amending the Kenai Municipal Code Section 3.10.070, Livestock Within the City Limits, to Exclude from the Definition of "Livestock" a Limited Number of Chicken Hens to Allow for the Keeping of a Small Number of Chicken Hens in the City and Amending Setback Requirements for Chicken Containment Structures. On November 21, 2012, City Council held a public hearing on Ordinance No. 2656- 2012. The Ordinance proposes an amendment to Title 3 to remove up to 12 chicken hens from the definition of livestock within the City. The ordinance also relaxes setbacks for containment structures for chicken hens. In effect, the ordinance would provide for chicken hens (up to 12) in any zone in the City regardless of lot size. During the public hearing, the Council heard testimony from seven (7) individuals. The majority of individuals supported the amendment. After the public hearing, the Council postponed action and referred the amendment to the Commission for review and for public hearing. Attached to this memo are the materials provided in the November 21 st Council packet and a copy of the draft Council minutes. A copy of Kenai Municipal Code 3.10.070 is also attached. KMC 3.10.070(h) provides a provision to seek relief for properties that can't meet the requirements of the code by applying for a Conditional Use Permit. Since the code was amended in 2000 to include the regulation of livestock in the City, the City has not received any requests for Conditional Use Permits. City Council has asked that the Commission consider the proposed amendment and provide recommendations to Council for Council's consideration at their March 6, 2013 meeting. To meet public hearing advertisement requirements, the hearing must be set at your February 13th meeting for a public hearing on February 27 tH December 3, 2012 P &Z Commissioners, I have been raising chickens for eggs and meat for most of my life, so the "Chicken Ordinance" is of particular interest to me. Based on my experience, a few chickens can be raised on small lots unobtrusively, as long as certain conditions are met. I believe that the most appropriate method for considering whether chickens or other fowl should be allowed on any particular lot is through the Conditional Use Permit process, which must be enhanced with appropriate conditions for smaller lots. Additionally, I am struggling with how potential bear risk should be factored into the permit evaluation. Below are my initial opinions and recommendations for your consideration as we enter into this review process. Henry Knackstedt OPINION /COMMENTS • Chickens can be raised successfully and unobtrusively in residential areas. • The proposed ordinance is limited and should address other fowl including chickens for meat, turkeys, ducks and geese. Other birds are the natural next step for residents once they realize the work involved with egg producing chickens and have the infrastructure for raising fowl. • Hens lay well for about 2 years after which production falls significantly and they need to be culled -out. Since new chicks and hens can't be mixed, the process requires a second coop separated from the original. Egg producing layer hens tend not to brood well, so replacement chicks through this method isn't reliable. Additionally, roosters won't be allowed which won't allow for egg fertilization. The typical city dweller may have difficulty if the purpose of the chicken is strictly for egg production. • Better sustainability through locally- raised foods is a trend across the country, which was presented in public testimony. • Coop and enclosure requirements need to be established to protect adjacent property values. • Property line setbacks need to be evaluated. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is already available to raising fowl. • No CUP has been requested in recent memory. • According to testimony, the public did not seem aware that CUP was available. • I think the proposed ordinance created an interest in chickens which makes ignorance of the existing CUP process immaterial. • Neighbors potentially affected by a CUP would be made aware of proposed activity through the normal process. • A CUP provides tracking and documentation of the use. • Bear conflicts have been a problem. A CUP would provide monitoring and correlation between the raising of fowl and bear conflicts. • KMC 3.10.070 allows for livestock on lots great than 40,000 sf with the exception of RU, RS1, RS2 or TSA Zones, which cannot have livestock even if they exceed this minimum acreage. This code was recently modified disproportionally for bees, and a similar modification of the code to cover fowl is inappropriate as a band -aid. RECOMMENDATIONS • The CUP process is available for fowl, and guidelines should be established for the review of the application for the CUP. It has not been established that the existing process needs fixing through code modification. • KMC 3.10.070 should only be modified to direct to the CUP process for fowl and to assure the code is in harmony with any CUP recommendations. • Animal Control and other departments should be requested to give an opinion on the CUP request. • Coop dimensions should not exceed 8'x10' (80sf). Minimum area per chicken required is 2sf per bird plus room for water and feeder. This dimensional area is more than adequate for 12 chicken hens as proposed. Many coops will likely be converted into storage sheds in time. • The coop exterior needs to be finished in a similar manner as the residence, or as is common in the neighborhood. • The coop must be wired by a licensed electrician. The coop will need lighting and possibly a heat source. In the winter, coops are typically humid, so a GFI outlet should be required. • A building permit for the coop must be required. • No building setback reductions should be allowed for the coop. A coop is more likely to catch fire than a residence or shed, so separation distance from adjacent properties needs to be maintained. • The enclosure needs to be standard 5' high chicken fencing, supported by neatly installed treated lumber, or an approved alternative. • In no case may chickens be free - range. • No mature roosters will be permitted. • Fowl are limited to 12 chicken hens for egg production, 15 chickens for meat production for 10 weeks maximum, 5 turkeys for 20 weeks maximum, 10 ducks, and 5 geese. Combinations of fowl may be considered. • Conditions need to be placed for butchering. I am not sure it is appropriate to butcher in most of our residential areas. Perhaps the recommendation is to butcher in areas that a CUP is not needed ? ? ?? • Feed not in use must be kept in an approved secure location protected from bears and vermin. • The feeder must be inside the coop at all times. • Waste from the coop will be removed from site or composted in a neat composting structure. I am not sure how we address the potential odor ? ?? • The likelihood of bears in the area needs evaluation (I have no suggestions on this, but it is a major concern in our city). I would like input from ADF &G and Administration. • If a coop is raided by bears, the CUP will be revoked immediately. • Installation of an electric fence is optional (I have no experience with them and don't know what is appropriate). They may protect the coop, but not the neighbors. " "Villaye with a Past, C# wdk a Future 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 j Telephone: 907 - 283 -7535 / FAX: 907 - 283 -3014 illlll 1992 v MEMO: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Rick Koch, City Manager DATE: December 5, 2012 SUBJECT: Ordinance 2656 -2012 Amending KMC 3.10.070 The purpose of this correspondence is to offer a suggestion regarding the above referenced ordinance. Administration recognizes that the conditional use process may be onerous to individuals desiring to house chickens on their properties of less than 40,000 s.f. in size. Administration also recommends that a process should be developed that provides certain safeguards and requirements. Attached please find a copy of KMC 3.15 Licensed Facilities. If this code section was broadened to include chicken hens, and possibly other poultry, it appears that an appropriate balance would be created given specific language pertaining to hens and poultry. 3.15.010 Chapter 3.15 tures of adjacent lots. The diagram need not be based upon a formal survey of the LICENSED FACILITIES premises; Sections: (6) The license fee required by KMC 3.05.100; 3.15.010 Licenses required. (7) Proof of a current rabies vaccination for 3.15.020 Licensing procedure. each dog kept in the facility that is over 3.15.030 License revocation. the age of three (3) months. 3.15.040 Hearings— Appeals. (b) The Animal Control Office shall not issue a 3.15.050 Standards for operating facility. license under this chapter to any person who has been convicted of neglecting an animal or 3.15.010 Licenses required. cruelty to an animal. No person may operate a kennel facility with- (c) The Animal Control Office shall not issue a out having a license therefor issued pursuant to this license under this chapter until it has in- chapter. (Ords. 1522 -92, 2519 -2010) spected the premises where the applicant pro- poses to operate the kennel facility, and de- 3.15.020 Licensing procedure. termines that the kennel facility meets the (a) Application for a license under this chapter standards set forth in KMC 3.15.050 and that shall be to the Chief Animal Control Officer. the applicant will operate the kennel facility The application shall include: in accordance with standards set forth in (1) The name and address of the applicant; KMC 3.15.050. (2) The number and breeds of dogs to be (d) The Animal Control Office shall prepare a kept in the facility; written report of its findings; including any (3) The type of facility the applicant pro- reason why the proposed facility does not poses to operate under the license, and a meet the standards set forth in KMC 3.15.050 description of the proposed facility. An and any steps which the applicant may take to application for a license for a kennel fa- make the facility qualify for a license. The cility to be used for commercial pur- Animal Control Office shall give the appli- poses shall include a copy of a current cant a copy of the report. Alaska Business License for the opera- (e) A license issued under this chapter shall ex- tion of the kennel and a Borough Sales pire on December 31 of the year in which it is Tax application or registration number; issued. (4) The address of the premises where the (fl An application to renew a kennel facility li- applicant proposes to operate under the cense shall be made before the current license license, and the name and address of the expires, and shall be made in the same man - owner of the premises; ner as an application for a new license. An (5) A diagram of the premises on which the applicant for renewal may rely upon materials applicant proposes to operate under the submitted with a prior application for a ken - license. The diagram shall show the lot nel facility license provided that the informa- lines and the location and dimensions of tion accurately portrays the current condition yards and structures on the premises of the kennel facility and the applicant certi- where the applicant proposes to operate fies that there have been no significant under the license, designate the parts of changes since the prior application. the premises on which dogs will be kept, (g) Notification of an initial or renewal applica- and show the location and use of struc- tion shall be mailed to real property owners 54 -1 (Kenai Supp. No. 97, 7 -11) 3.15.020 on the borough assessor's records within a three hundred foot (300) periphery of the parcel where the applicant proposes to oper- ate the kennel facility. The notice shall pro- vide a date by which any comments regarding the application should be submitted. During the comment period, the applicant or any person receiving notice under this subsec- tion may request a public hearing about whether an application should be granted by the City. Upon timely request for a hearing, the Chief Animal Control Officer or designee shall hold a hearing to determine whether the kennel facility license should be issued, re- newed, conditioned, limited, or denied. Noti- fication of the hearing shall be mailed to real property owners listed on the borough asses- sor's records within a three hundred foot (300') periphery of the parcel that is the sub- ject of the proposed action. The notice shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and shall include the date, time, and place of the hearing. A copy of the decision shall be mailed to all notified property own- ers, all persons testifying or submitting com- ments and the applicant. (h) The applicant shall be informed in writing that the application or receipt of the license provided for in this chapter does not relieve the applicant of meeting all zoning ordinance requirements or any other applicable City, Borough, or State laws or regulations. (i) The applicant shall agree in writing that the kennel facility may be inspected by the Chief Animal Control Officer or designee at any time during business hours of the permittee. (Ords. 1522-92, 2519-2010) 3.15.030 License revocation. (a) If an inspection of a facility licensed under this chapter reveals: (1) The kennel facility constitutes a health hazard; (2) The kennel facility violates a City or Borough ordinance or regulation; (Kenai Supp. No. 97, 7 -11) 54 -2 (3) The kennel facility violates a provision of this title, a term, condition, or limita- tion of a license issued under this chap- ter or a City regulation promulgated un- der this title. The inspecting agency may so notify the operator of the facility, stating in writing the steps the operator may take to remedy the violation. (b) The inspecting agency shall allow a kennel facility operator who has been notified of a violation under subsection (a) of this section a reasonable time not exceeding fifteen (15) days to remedy the violation. At the end of that period, the inspecting agency shall re- inspect the kennel facility to determine whether the violation has been cured. (c) If after re- inspection, the inspecting agency determines the violation has not been cured or that new violations have occurred, the Chief Animal Control Officer may commence a proceeding to revoke the license for the facil- ity under KMC 3.15.040. (d) Before revoking a license under this chapter, the Chief Animal Control Officer or designee shall hold a hearing to determine whether the license should be revoked. If the license is re- voked, the Animal Control Office shall pre- pare a written decision as to why the pro- posed facility does not meet the standards set forth in KMC 3.15.050. An appeal of the de- cision may be filed as provided under KMC 3.15.040. (Ord. 2519 -2010) 3.15.040 Hearings — Appeals. A person aggrieved by the granting, revoca- tion, renewing, limiting, conditioning, or denying of a license under this chapter may, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision, appeal the decision to the City Council pursuant to the proce- dures in KMC 14.20.290. (Ord. 2519 -2010) 3.15.050 Standards for operating facility. In operating a kennel facility, the operator shall: 3.15.050 (a) Comply with the provisions of this title, the terms, conditions, and limitations of any li- cense issued hereunder and any City regula- tions promulgated under this title. (b) Provide shelter adequate to preserve the health of the animals kept in the facility. (c) Maintain the facility in a sanitary condition. (d) Provide for the adequate care and feeding of animals kept in the facility. (e) Design and equip the facility so as to keep all animals on the premises. (f) Keep only that number of animals in the facil- ity which is safe and healthy for the facility's sake. (g) Maintain the facility in such a manner that it does not constitute a nuisance to owners or occupiers of land in its vicinity. (Ords. 1522-92, 2519-2010) 54 -3 (Kenai Supp. No, 97, 7 -11) November 21St C ity Council Packet Info z� Sponsored by: Council Member Boyle � "'�' °% GITY OF KENAI vavu a ■cv■ ORDINANCE NO. 2656 -2012 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING THE KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.10.070, LIVESTOCK WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, TO EXCLUDE FROM THE DEFINITION OF "LIVESTOCK" A LIMITED NUMBER OF CHICKEN HENS TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF A SMALL NUMBER OF CHICKEN HENS IN THE CITY AND AMENDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR CHICKEN CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES WHEREAS, the keeping of chicken hens within the City of Kenai is not currently generally permitted by the Kenai Municipal Code except as may be permitted on certain lots of 40,000 square feet or more; and, WHEREAS, City residents have expressed an interest in keeping chicken hens as pets and for purely domestic (not commercial) purposes to provide their families with a supply of fresh eggs; and, WHEREAs, the City possesses the authority to regulate the keeping an harboring of animals within its jurisdiction and has previously adopted ordinances in Title 3 of the Kenai Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, a relatively small number of chicken hens can be maintained within populated areas of the City in reasonable densities without causing a nuisance if the hens are properly located, managed, and maintained; and, WHEREAS, in order to reasonable allow a limited number of chicken hens to be kept on smaller City lots, changes to the set back requirements for animal containment structures is required; and WHEREAS, keeping a limited number of chicken hens for pets on other domestic purposes may benefit many City residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, as follows: Section 1. Form: This is a Code ordinance. Section 2. Amendment of Section 3.10.070 of the Kenai Municipal Code: The 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. New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] 11 Ordinance No. 2656 -2012 Page 2 of 4 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall keep or maintain livestock within the City of Kenai. (b) 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). (c) In this section "livestock" is defined as the following animals; (1) Cow (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) More than 12 cfC]hicken Hens (15) Turkey (16) Rabbit (17) Honey bees (Apis mellifera) (18) Rooster (d) (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, New Text Underlined; (DELETED TEXT 12 Ordinance No. 2656 -2012 Page 3 of 4 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) 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. (f) Except as set forth in subsection (g) and (h), below, corrals, pens, hutches, coops 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. (a) Pens, hutches, coons or other appropriate containment structures used to contain twelve(121 or less chicken hens must have a minimum setback of five feet (51 from the Property's side yard, fifty feet (501 from the front yard and five feet (51 from the back yard. All containment structures must be secure and in good repair. [(G)J(h) 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. New Text Underlined; ]DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] 13 Ordinance No. 2656 -2012 Page 4 of 4 (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. [(H)) A person seeking relief from the provisions of this section may apply for a conditional use permit under KMC 14.20.150` Section 4. Severability: 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 5. Effective Date: Pursuant to KMC 1.15.0700, this ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 21st day of November, 2012. ATTEST: Sandra Modigh, City Clerk PAT PORTER, MAYOR Introduced: November 7, 2012 Adopted: November 21, 2012 Effective: December 21, 2012 New Test Underlined; (DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] 14 illa e with a past Gi witk a Future's .q - ' 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 283 -7535 / FAX: 907 -283 -3014 IIII�i thrutyo(, KENAI, AU6SKA 1991 MEM-00 TO: City Council FROM: Rick Koch, City Manager DATE: November 15, 2012 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2656 -2012, Amendment to KMC 3.10.070 The purpose of this correspondence is to provide information regarding the above referenced proposed ordinance. Administration received questions from Councilors regarding this ordinance and was asked to be prepared to speak at the November 21, 2012 Council meeting. The following are answers to the questions we have received: How many applications for a conditional use permit for chickens have been filed in recent history? In the past five years there have been no applications for a conditional use permit to house chickens. It is important to note that lots of 40,000 square feet and larger are allowed to house livestock given conditions provided in code. There are a number of properties 40100D square feet and larger that have chickens without conflict to surrounding properties. Does the Administration believe that allowing up to 12 chickens on any property within the City will negatively impact the City's ongoing negative- bear - interaction mitigation measures? To answer this question requires some degree of speculation covering a wide -range of possibilities. The short answer is "it depends." I believe that in some instances having up to 12 chickens on any property will negatively impact the City's ongoing negative- bear - interaction mitigation measures, I believe this is best illustrated by citing potential examples. Example Number One A property owner has 12 chickens on a lot less than 40,000 square feet in subdivisions either north or south of the Spur Highway, between Marathon Road and Swires Road. The chicken coop and chicken yard is enclosed by only a four to six -foot high chicken wire fence. This is an area in which we have seen increased negative bear activity over the past five years and I would guess there could easily be a problem as a result of the chickens attracting bears. 15 0 Example Number Two A property owner has four chickens on a 10,000 square foot lot located on 4'0 Avenue west of Forest Drive. The yard in which the chickens are kept has a six -foot high sight obscuring fence around the perimeter of the property and the chickens and coop are within a six -foot high chicken wire fence within the backyard. In this example, given the location, lack of history of negative -bear interactions, the small number of chickens, and the type of fencing around the property, there would not likely be a problem as a result of chickens attracting bears. Because there are so many variables in considering this question, Administration supports the process that is already in place, the conditional use process which considers individual circumstances. Are there any concerns from either law enforcement or animal control personnel? (Whether chicken and their associated paraphernalia being a bear attractant, neighborhood nuisance due to odors or sound, etc.)? Yes, there are concerns about each of these items, Again, it is difficult to be specific because each instance will be different, at a minimum the following criteria should be considered: 1. Specific location. 2. Lot size. 3. Comments from Neighbors 4. Type of enclosure(s). If the ordinance should be enacted, does the Administration desire to see amendments for the purposes of regulation? If so, what? Yes. The Administration is not prepared to offer amendments at this time. We are unaware of the scope of the problem that is the catalyst for introduction of the Ordinance so it is difficult to recommend a solution. Internally we have discussed the Ordinance, and the following are a few of the comments: 1. Identify the problem with the existing conditional use process. 2. Number of chickens should be less than twelve. 3. Minimum lot size should be 20,000 square feet. 4. Neighbors should have an opportunity to comment. 5. The number of chickens could be tied to lot size. 6. Property zoning should be a consideration. In summary, I believe it is important to note that there have been no applications for conditional use permits for housing chickens, nor has Administration been made aware of any problems with smaller -lot property owners in Kenai desiring to house chickens. If a property -owner desired to house chickens , the City staff /Planning staff would assist them through the conditional use permit process. If Council desires to more fully consider this legislation, Administration suggests that the Ordinance be postponed and transmitted to the Planning and Zoning (P &Z) Commission so that a comprehensive discussion may be undertaken similar to the bee- keeping ordinance, and P &Z can provide recommendations and comments to Council. 16 0 ""Villaye with a Past, Gi� will? a Future" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 bcftd Telephone: 907 - 283 -75351 FAX; 907 -283 -3014 i KEHAL ALASKA 1992 MEMO: n TO: Rick Koch, City Manager FROM: Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administration, DATE: November 14, 2012 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 2656 -2012 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AMENDING THE KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.10.070, LIVESTOCK WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, TO EXCLUDE FROM THE DEFINITION OF °LIVESTOCK" A LIMITED NUMBER OF CHICKEN HENS TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF A SMALL NUMBER OF CHICKEN HENS IN THE CITYAND AMENDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR CHICKEN CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES The proposed ordinance would amend Title 3 to allow less than 12 chicken hens in any zone of the city and on any lot regardless of size. Administration was not asked to collaborate on the amendment. My concerns relating to the proposed amendment are: • The public should be provided an opportunity to provide input into the proposed amendment. When the livestock ordinance was drafted, the Planning & Zoning Commission held multiple work sessions wherein public comments and concerns were heard, The Commission also re received guidance from the Animal Control Officer since that department gulates and manages Title 3. To provide the opportunity for public participation, it is re recommendation that the Council ask the Planning & Zoning Department in collaboration with the Animal Control Officer to review the proposed amendment. • The proposed amendment under section KMC 3.10.070(g) provides setbacks for containment structures. Depending upon the type of structure, a building permit may be required. If a building permit is required, under KMC 14.24.010 setbacks for zones must be met. Is it the intent of this ordinance to provide an exception to the zoning ordinance? • Ordinance No 1864 -2000 which became effective on August 19, 2000 provides an avenue for individuals who cannot meet the standards in the ordinance to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. To my knowledge, no one has ever applied for a Conditional Use Permit. The existing ordinance was approved after an extensive review of existing conditions, lot sizes, types of livestock and with several meetings including a joint work session of the Council and Commission. The ordinance appears to be working effectively and provides an avenue for exceptions, i.e. the conditional use process. It is not clear what the motivation for this proposed change is; however, it is my recommendation, at a minimum, that administration be given an opportunity to review the proposed amendment and identify possible concerns. And that if Council decides to proceed with consideration of the amendment, that they provide an avenue for public input in the process by sending the ordinance to the Planning & Zoning Commission for review. 17 THE STATE oIALASKA G0 VER N 0 h Sl'. i,N P:', November 15, 2012 Mayor Pat Porter 210 Fidalgo Ave Kenai AK 99611 Dear Mayor Porter, Department of Fish and Game DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Soldotna 43961 Kolitornsky Beach Road, Suite B Soldotna, Alaska 99669 -8276 Main; 907.262.9368 Fax 907.262.4709 It has been brought to our attention that the Kenai City Council will soon take under their consideration a possible city ordinance revision that would allow chickens to be housed and maintained within Kenai residential neighborhoods. While the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) neither supports nor opposes such an ordinance change, by your request we'd like to offer City Council some insight and advice regarding the possibility of increased human/wildlife conflict issues that may arise from their doing so. The City of Kenai, due to its coastal location, immediate proximity to salmon producing rivers and streams and the adjacent 1.9 million acre Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, is frequented regularly by both brown and black bears. In 2004, ADFG responded to over 100 complaints from residents of the City of Kenai concerning nuisance bear activity. That number did not reflect calls made directly to the Kenai Police Department or State Troopers. Due to the high number of negative interactions taking place and the resulting public outcry, a collaborative community effort dubbed the Wildlife Conservation Community Program (WCCP) was initiated in 2005. The program was driven by private landowners, the City of Kenai, ADFG and other program partners with the express purpose of providing educational information and installing and maintaining bear- resistant garbage containers to help reduce the availability of a major human- caused bear attractant. The overall goals of this program were (and still are) to foster better stewardship of our wildlife resources, create safer neighborhoods for people and wildlife and to decrease the amount of State and municipal agency time spent responding to complaints concerning nuisance wildlife within the community. While there's still room for growth in the city's WCCP success (particularly in the area of non -bear resistant waste disposal storage methods currently used) the City of Kenai and its citizenry are to be applauded for being conservation - minded and forward thinking. During 2012, citizen complaints to the Soldotna office of ADFG regarding undesirable bear activity were at their lowest level in years. We believe this is due in large part to the ongoing efforts of community -based programs (WCCP), efforts by the Borough to maintain bear resistant waster transfer sites as well as individual citizen and collaborative neighborhood mitigation efforts taking place around the Kenai Peninsula. W Mayor Pat Porter _ 2 _ 11/15/12 1 Aside from unsecured garbage, the keeping of unprotected, unsecured poultry and other livestock and J feed is a major cause of many negative bear/human interactions in and around residentially developed areas here on the Kenai Peninsula. Quite often, bear predation on easily accessible poultry and feed within residential neighborhoods results in higher levels of site and human- generated food conditioning in those bears which may easily translate into unacceptably higher levels of human habituation. The results of this process can be equally unacceptable in terms of the increase in public safety concerns, less tolerance for bears in general and the overall costs of property damage and loss. Anchorage recently passed an ordinance that allowed the keeping of chickens within residential neighborhoods and there was a marked increase in bear activity around sites where chickens were kept in an unsecured manner. It is our understanding that the Anchorage City Council is reviewing the revised ordinance and may reconsider its position. In short, should the Kenai City Council approve this amendment to the livestock ordinance, we advise that they give careful consideration to all of the possible long -term consequences of doing so. To require a carefully constructed and well maintained electric fence system for each application is one alternative they might consider. We would be happy to provide further information to council on the efficacy of a well constructed fence system should they so desire. In the meantime, I've attached a couple of photos illustrating what can happen to an unsecured livestock holding facility. I hope this information helps you as you make a decision. Please feel free to give us a call for further information or assistance. Sincerely, Larry L. Lewis Wildlife Technician V 19 4 BLS •, 31 �v 4 �• rt'4. .�:• i i• .rl • t v 'i yr• N/ \��M1M1j�`'' �•�• � a MIRr 1 ' ,ate• _ '1r' a!�.., i l'Y i. 11 i #% r 4 �.- "S' ;o I :an I- # op AW of 40 4 ifx Ap, I 99 C, - . � +K '•T At-F , ^ � zki"h /�1j,r�jy' yyj��_ y -_� oq_ 1 - .. � � - Kati ♦ ��.� �� . _ r t � ,i 4 S M 5 t i I a. i J Fr i I l� H I .•w.• Unapproved Council Minutes n ��c,fz,�'t - -L2 Q-2J✓ VOTE: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 2655 -2012 -- Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $11,829 in the General Fund for State Bureau of Highway Patrol Overtime Expenditures MOTION: Council Member Bookey MOVED to enact Ordinance No. 2655 -2012 and Vice Mayor Marquis SECONDED the motion. Mayor Porter opened the floor for public comment, there being none public comment was closed. VOTE: YEA: Bookey, Boyle, Gabriel, Marquis, Molloy, Navarre, Porter NAY: VOTE: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Ordinance No. 2656 -2012 -- Amending the Kenai Municipal Code Section 3.10.070, Livestock Within the City Limits, to Exclude from the Definition of "Livestock" a Limited Number of Chicken Hens to Allow for the Keeping of a Small Number of Chicken Hens in the City and Amending Setback Requirements for Chicken Containment Structures MOTION: Council Member Boyle MOVED to enact Ordinance No. 2656 -2012 and Council Member Molloy SECONDED the motion. Mayor Porter opened the floor for public comment. Susan Smalley, 105 Linwood — spoke in favor of the ordinance. Clifford Smith, 319 Rogers Road — spoke against the ordinance due to bear attractants Nancy Schrag, 312 Princess — spoke in favor, noting greater access to local foods. Jacqueline Graham, 1107 Walnut — spoke in favor of the ordinance. Heidi Chay, 37306 Cetacea — spoke in favor of the ordinance, noting chickens reduce garbage, produce fertilizer, reduce pesticide use, and provide food. Jeff Selinger, Alaska Department of Fish and Game — noted he was available to answer questions and chickens were the main reason for deaths of bears in defense of life and property. Jerry Huf, 765 Ames Road — noted there were already problem bears in the area and he believed getting a copy of the rules should be a requirement of having chickens. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Council Members Gabriel, Navarre, Marquis, Porter and Bookey spoke in opposition. City of Kenai Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8 November 21, 2012 Council Members Boyle and Molloy spoke in favor. MOTION TO POSTPONE: Council Member Bookey MOVED to postpone Ordinance No. 2656 -2012, refer it to Planning and Zoning for review and public hearing, and return it to Council at the March 6, 2013 Council Meeting. Vice Mayor Marquis SECONDED the motion. VOTE ON POSTPONEMENT: YEA: Boyle, Gabriel, Marquis, Molloy, Navarre, Porter, Bookey NAY: VOTE: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. RECESS: 7:59 P.M. BACK TO ORDER: 8:02 P.M. 4. Resolution No. 2012 -63 -- Authorizing the Purchase of a Tracked Loader with a Pallet Fork Attachment and Equipment Trailer from Craig Taylor Equipment Company for the Total Amount of $56,964.75 MOTION: Council Member Gabriel MOVED to enact Resolution No. 2012 -63 and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Vice Mayor Marquis SECONDED the motion. Mayor Porter opened the floor for public comment, there being none public comment was closed. VOTE: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Resolution No. 2012 -64 -- Expressing Its Support of an Application for Community Development Grant Block Grant (CDBG) to Construct Heated Sidewalks and Provide Stand -By Power at the Kenai Senior Center. 71ATOW •� Vice Mayor Marquis MOVED to enact Resolution No. 2012 -64 and requested UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Council Member Molloy SECONDED the motion. Mayor Porter opened the floor for public comment, there being none public comment was closed. VOTE: MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. E. MINUTES 1. "Regular Meeting of November 7, 2012 City of Kenai Council Meeting Minutes Page November 21. 2012 KMC 3.10.070 Livestock Within City L imits KMC 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) 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, RS 1, 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). (c) In this section "livestock" is defined as the following animals: (1) Cow (2) Horse (3) American bison (4) Llama (5) Alpaca (6) Sheep (7) Swine (8) Goat (9) Mule (10)Donkey (I I )Ratite (12)Duck (13)Goose (14)Chicken (15)Turkey (I6)Rabbit (17)Honey bees (Apis mellifera) (d) (1) Except for the RS 1, 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) 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. (f) Except as set forth in subsection (g), below, corrals, pens, hutches, coops 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. (g) 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. (h) A person seeking relief from the provisions of this section may apply for a conditional use permit under KMC 14.20.150. (Ords. 1864 -2000, 2537 -2011) City of Kenai Problem Bear Area's CITY OF KENAI C ONGOING BEAR AWARENESS NFXALALU NN In effort to avoid a human /bear encounter the City of Kenai needs residents to remove bear attractants from outdoor areas. Common bear attractants include: garbage left In open containers, bird feeders, dirty barbeques /accessories, dog food, and outdoor freezers. East Kenai, the Kenai River Bluff, and the Beaver Creek Bluff have higher concentrations of brown bears than the rest of the City. By eliminating bear attractants, residents are doing their part to ensure that bears stay focused on natural food sources. Per Kenai Municipal Code (KMC) 9.10.010 the City Manager has declared two areas within the Municipal boundaries as "Bear Problem Areas." VIP Subdivision and the area generally described as beginning at the eastern municipal boundary extending to a point at approximately mile 7 of the Kenai Spur Highway, this boundary also includes all residences on Beaver Loop Rd. from the Spur Highway to Cunningham Park. In a'Bear Problem Area" all garbage containers must be City- approved bear - resistant containers. A list of City - approved bear - resistant containers is available at the City Manager's office and the City's official website at www.ci.ker i.ak.us. As an alternative to owning a bear resistant container, residents may store their garbage in a garage until transporting it to the landfill each week. 'Bear Problem Area' declarations remain in effect indefinitely. If you do not have a bear resistant container, and you need assistance in removing garbage from outside your home, please contact the Kenai Parks Department at 283 -3692. Parks personnel will transport garbage to the transfer site for you. For additional information please contact the City Manager's office at (907)283 -8223. May 6 and May 9, 2012 0i r_l:aJ: 91:iAa►yW_ :1a]DI EMERGENCY DECLARATION EFFECTIVE AUGUST 29, 2011 Ketch St. BEAR PROBLEM AREA Beaver Loop Kenai Spur Hwy. I 0 EMERGENCY DECLARATION EFFECTIVE JULY 5, 2010