Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-09 Planning & Zoning Packet - Work SessionAGENDA CITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION January 9, 2013 6 p.m. — 7 p.m. 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 andAmending 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. "Vllaye with a Past, C# with a Future" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794© Telephone: 907 - 283 -7535 / FAX: 907 - 283 -3014 1III�� 1992 MEMO: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administration DATE: January 3, 2013 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. Commissioner Knackstedt has a proposal he would like the Commission to consider which would be an alternate method for the City to regulate poultry. Because the Council has asked the Commission to review the proposed ordinance and return a recommendation to the Council at their March 6th meeting, it is important that options are explored in a timely manner. The work session is being held before the regular meeting so the Commission can discuss Commissioner Knackstedt's proposal. Then, during the regular meeting, the Commission can take make a recommendation regarding the proposal. Attached is an email from Commissioner Knackstedt providing his suggestion for consideration. The email references Title 13. Any amendments would be made in Title 3. You should have all the materials in your packet from the last work session. We will make additional copies available at the meeting. Attached to this memo is Ordinance No. 2656 -2012 and Commissioner Knackstedt's December 3`d memo. Attachments: Knackstedt Email dated 1/2/13 Ordinance No. 2656 -2012 Knackstedt memo dated 12/3/12 Marilyn Kebschull From: Henry Knackstedt [hknackstedt @hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:01 PM To: Marilyn Kebschull Subject: Ordinance 2656 -12 Proposed Motion Marilyn It is my opinion that the Commission should move forward with the concept of keeping poultry on lots smaller than 40,000 sf, but I believe that Ordinance 2656 -12 is too limited and should be significantly rewritten. The ordinance as written will not provide the residents of the City of Kenai other reasonable poultry opportunities and does not provide adequate guidance and regulation for those wishing to keep birds and recommend Council consider an alternate or substitute to Ordinance 2656 -12. I think the best way to move forward is to have staff create a new chapter within Title 13 Animal Control for Commission to review, and then modify based on public input and Commission collective opinions. Probably the best way to achieve this end is to request Council to direct staff to prepare a revised ordinanace for Planning Commission review. I offer the following proposed motion with the understanding that creating a new chapter within Title 3 may necessitate modifications within other chapters. MOTION: I move to request Council direct staff and administration prepare a new chapter within Title 3 for the keeping of poultry on lots less than 40,000 sf including RU, RS2 and TSH Zones, using Chapter 3.15 Licensed Facilities as a framework for the new chapter. Poultry will be considered to be chickens, ducks, geese and turkeys, and will exclude roosters. Suggested recommendations for the keeping of poultry provided by Commissioner Knackstedt to the Commission dated December 3, 2012 should also be considered for incorporation into the new chapter and provided to the Council as information. You have my permission to include this email in the next commission packet for discussion and possible modification. Henry Knackstedt P&Z Commissioner U Sponsored by: Council Member Boyle NA CITY OF KENAI K � 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 CHICKEN CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES FOR WHEREAS, the keeping of chicken hens within the City of Kenai is not currently generally permitted by the Kenai Municipal Code except as ma be 1 certain lots of 40,000 square feet or more; and, y Permitted on WHEREAS, City residents have expressed an interest in keeping and for purely domestic (not commercial) purposes to provide their chicken as pets supply of fresh eggs; and, families with a 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 A 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. 0.070 of the Kenai Munici al Code: The Kenai Municipal Code, Section 3.10.070, Livestock within the as follows: city Limits, is hereby amended 3.10.070 Livestock within the city limits. New Text Underlined; PMFTED 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, 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 (11) Ratite (12) Duck (13) Goose (14) More than 12 cfClhicken Hens (15) Turkey (16) Rabbit (17) Honey bees (Apis mellifera) (18) Rooster (d) (1) Except for the RSl, 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 BRACKETED] 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 e- 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 cod ifi ed 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 n 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) anal, 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. (e) Pens, hutches, coons or other appropriate containment crn,�r, •. �� v, u crLy s smae yarct, Atty feet LQ I from the front and and five feet V Sv from the back yard. All containment structures must be secure and in good re air. 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; 'I or placed at least eight feet (8') above ground level; or placed behind a fence at least six 11 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 21at 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 Text Underlined; ]DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] 14 ' December 3, 2012 i 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. • 1 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.