Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 02-10-11.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 10, 2011 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Hall, Mann, Sands, Stoy and Woodard were present. . Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney; Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager, Mike Basinger, Senior Planner; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner; Dean Grafos, Councilmember; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Woodard made a motion which was seconded and unanimously approved to accept the February 10, 2010 agenda as presented. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Woodard made a motion which was seconded and unanimously approved to accept the minutes for January 13, 2011 as presented. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Woodard stated he had attended the solid waste summit, Commissioner Carroll noted he had attended City Council meetings as well as the Council's winter retreat. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director McClung reported staff have been working on the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan and the update to the Shoreline Master Plan. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Old Business: Continued Deliberations regarding CTA-09-10 — Code Amendment on the definition of Adult Retail Use Establishments Associate Planner Lori Barlow made a short presentation to remind the Commissioners where they had left the discussion. The Commissioners had asked staff to consider the language proposed by the Planning Commission at the January 13, 2011 meeting and return with a recommendation that would encourage stronger language. Commissioners asked questions of the Acting City Attorney regarding what other cities were doing to respond to these types of adult entertainment issues, who the consulting 02-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7 attorney was in regard to this subject, and what kinds of legal challenges the City could expect if they did not follow the Acting City Attorney's recommendation. Commissioner Woodard made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council the following amended language: Adult retail use establishment: A retail use establishment which, for money or any other form of consideration, devotes a significant or substantial portion of stock in trade, to the sale, exchange, rental, loan, trade, or transferri•n�, �. ���������� of adult-oriented merchandise. Anv viewin� of adult-oriented merchandise in an adult retail establishment must be done on the �eneral sales floor, in full public view, is limited to merchandise available on the shelves and/or the viewin� of �romotional film clips and shall not be in exchan�e for money or any other form of consideration. This motion was seconded. The Commission deliberated over this motion. Topics discussed were whether or not to this language was strong enough, if taking a more incremental approach as has been recommended by the Acting City Attorney would be a less litigious approach, if just removing the money incentive would actually stop the behavior. After these deliberative discussions, the Chair called for the question. Vote on this motion is four in favor, 3 against with Commissioners Carroll, Hall and Sands dissenting. B. New Business: CTA-01-11 Code Text Amendment regarding Animal Keeping regulations as they apply to chickens in residential zones and livestock in Mixed Use zones. Assistant Planner Christina Janssen made a presentation to Commission regarding CTA- 01-11, a proposed amendment to the animal keeping regulations regarding the ability to keep chickens in residential zones and livestock in Mixed Use zones. Ms. Janssen talked to the Commissioners about the regulations of other jurisdictions in the surrounding areas for the keeping of chickens and the current City regulations. Currently in order to keep chickens in the City a residential lot must be more than 40,000 sq. ft., the structure for keeping the chickens must be located more than 75 feet from any habitation, any structure for housing poultry cannot be located in the front yard, nor be closer than 10 feet from any side yard property line. Ms. Janssen then presented the Commission some proposed options for a starting point for discussions. They are as follows: Zone Lot Size Number of Location Requirement Chickens Option 1 Keep current Regularions Option 2 All Residential 6,000 sf or 1 chicken per 3,000 30' from any properry line and Zones greater gross sf 50' from any occupied structure Option 3 All Residential 6,000 sq. ft. 1 chicken/ 3,000 50' from any occupied zones or greater gross sq. ft. structure, and must meet all other residential setbacks. Option 4 All Residential 6,000 sq. ft. 1 chicken/ 3,000 Must meet all residential zones or greater gross sq. ft. setbacks Ms. Janssen stated that things to keep in mind while in discussions would be whether or not to allow only chickens and if they should only be female chickens. Ms. Janssen stated she 02-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7 had done additional research and several of the large cities, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, who do allow chickens, do not allow roosters. Ms. Janssen stated that during the study session the Commissioners asked if the Health Dept had any concerns regarding the chickens and Ms. Janssen did contact the Dept and they did not have any concerns. The other issue that came up during the study session was how much general indoor space was required for the keeping of chickens and after some research, it is generally recognized that two to four feet per chicken is recommended and four to ten feet of outdoor space is recommended. Ms. Janssen reminded the Commissioners that the code lists several small fowl in the code and one thing that will need to be considered will the amendment need to be just for chickens or include other types of small fowl as well. The next issue for the discussion of the Planning Commission will be the keeping of livestock of any kind in areas of the City zoned mixed use. This issue was brought forth by an administrative interpretation request the end of last year. Ms. Janssen presented a map which laid out the Mixed Use areas of the city, which are along major transportation routes of the city. From the study session the questions arose as to how many single family residences would be affected if this amendment was put into place. Ms. Janssen indicated a map, which had been prepared for the Commissioners, showing all single family residences that were 40,000 sf or more located in the Mixed Use zoning districts. There are currently 243 parcels currently zones Mixed Use or Corridor Mixed Use in the City. Ms. Janssen stated that staff feels since these Mixed Use zones are transitions to higher intensity commercial zoning districts they are not appropriate for livestock. Chair Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:45 and read the rules of the public hearing. Lynda Hurt, 9802 S Sharp: Ms. Hurt stated she was a proponent of the amendment to allow chickens in residential areas. Ms. Hurt would like to see the least amount of restrictions. Ms Hurt stated she was concerned about the health of chickens and vegetables purchased from stores. She stated that growing concerns about store bought food and that the movement to sustain home grown foods is gaining acceptance and home grown foods have higher vitamin contents. Mel Jones, 1404 N Hodges Rd.: Mr. Jones is a proponent of the amendment. Mr. Jones stated that people are forced to eat eggs from grocery stores that can contain salmonella, be shipped from across the country or from places unknown. Mr. Jones stated he is an advocate for gaining control over our food sources. Mr. Jones asked that the Commission to consider that Seattle just passed an ordinance that will allow people to grow more vegetables on their property and sell their excess vegetables on their property. Mr. Jones also shared a copy of the Seattle ordinance. Mr. Jones asked that the Commission consider adding ducks to the amendment, stating their eggs were superior for baking and cooking much richer and has more vitamins. Mr. Jones asked if rabbits would be considered livestock Mr. Jones wondered if bees were considered livestock Mr. Jones also asked the Commission to consider goats as well. Michelle Bos, 2402 S. Corbin Ct.: Ms. Bos stated that she supported the previous speakers and was a proponent of the amendment however she also feels that the ability to own a chicken was a personal liberty, as is owning any other pet. Ms. Bos would like to see chickens classified as pets and not as livestock Ms. Bos stated that she would like to have a couple of chickens as pets for her children and that she can understand that no one would 02-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 want to live next to 30 or 40 chickens but then no one would want to live next to 30 or 40 dogs either. Ms. Bos felt these problems could be handled with the nuisance ordinances. Kent Young, 704 S Progress Rd.: Mr. Young stated that he agrees with what has already been said here. He also stated that if he was allowed to raise chickens he would not be raising chickens he would be raising kids. The opportunities he has to develop skill, attributes and qualities in his own children based on those things he can teach them by raising chickens or rabbits or helping them learn a good farm ethic is something he felt should be considered. The biggest compliment Mr. Young stated in his family was to be called a farm boy, because they know how to work, they know where their food comes from they have honesty and integrity. Mr. Young stated these are the values he would teach to his children. Bridget Jackson, 708 S Progress Rd.: Ms. Jackson stated she would like to speak on behalf of the roosters. Not all roosters are created equal. There are some that are smaller and do not crow as loudly as the ones people think about. She also stated that there are plenty of roosters that do not crow as much as her neighbors' dogs can bark all day. Ms. Jackson said people who want chickens will take care of them, she would like to see them classified as pets instead of livestock Ms. Jackson would like to see rabbits and goats added. Ms. Jackson said she raises her own meat birds and feels it would be difficult to ask for hens only. She also stated that neighbors should be considerate and she keeps her chickens and roosters inside in the summer until after 8:00 am so they are not crowing and waking people up. Kris Pettibone, 18009 E Cowley: Ms Pettibone is the proponent for the large animals and had requested the interpretation regarding the livestock in Mixed Use areas. Ms. Pettibone stated that Vancouver allows the same regulations in residential areas as in commercial areas for animal keeping. She also stated that in Kennewick they have an application process whereby you can apply to have large animals in Mixed Use areas. Ms. Pettibone stated she was not here for the chickens but urged the Commission to allow the amendment for people to have them in lots smaller than an acre. Stephen Dunn, 11610 E Fredrick: Mr. Dunn stated that he was a proponent for having chickens. Mr. Dunn stated that the chickens that they had did not make any more noise, in fact far less, than the neighbor's dogs. Mr. Dunn stated that there was little to no smell. He made a tractor coop and he moved it around the yard and there was no sme1L Mr. Dunn also stated that one of the concerns he had before they had the chickens was a disease problem and it was not a problem. Mr. Dunn answered a question as to the fact that he clipped the wings of the chickens so that they could not fly away. Mr. Dunn answered another question about what the ground looked like and he stated the chickens never tore up the yard because he moved the coop every three days or so. Regina Rollis, 14614 E 17 Ms. Rollis stated she was a member of International Slow Foods. htt�://slowfood.com which is an organization that promotes moving away from fast food and sustainability and local foods, and being able to sustain their own healthy food supply. She stated she would like to support option 4, so that more people could have the chickens. Chickens are good at pest control so people can use fewer pesticides. Lower income people who care raise their own food are able to make better choices for their families and supply better options than fast food. Ms. Rollis stated that she felt the ratio of chickens to square footage should be reduced. 02-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7 Debra Nelson, 19322 E Valleyway: Ms. Nelson stated that in the area where she lives the covenants state that she can have chickens as long as she does not raise them for commercial use. She stated that for the past 32 years she has had chickens for pets for her children. Ms. Nelson felt that calling chickens livestock is unacceptable. Ms. Nelson stated since this was a rural community before people started moving out there, there are probably people with chickens who don't even know they are doing something wrong. She stated she would like to have more chickens without breaking the law. Ms. Nelson stated she would like to keep the quality of life she has had. Grant Rice, 16620 E Valleyway: Mr. Rice stated that he was a proponent of this amendment. Mr. Rice stated that he was concerned about hyperinflation and the ability of people to buy food at reasonable prices. Mr. Rice stated he was concerned he area was losing it agricultural heritage. Mr. Rice also stated he was in support of the larger animals, rabbits and smaller goats. Mr. Rice stated he was concerned about chickens be classified as pets only in the fact would someone come along afterwards and state afterwards that you cannot kill you pet. Mr. Rice would like to see one bird per 2,000 square feet. Dennis Oiler, 711 S Evergreen: Mr. Oiler stated that he was in favor of this amendment. He felt that chickens were less noisy than the 16 dogs in his neighborhood but he does not complain about them because he loves his neighbors and his neighbors love his chickens. He believes there should be a barking ordinance instead. Mr. Oiler stated that some roosters crow, some don't, but he felt it was a waste of time for people to be debating this issue. Mr. Oiler stated there should be no restrictions on the amount of chickens or the size of lot you can have them on. Lorraine Parlange, 2704 N Laurelhurst Dr.: Ms. Parlange stated that she is in favor of the amendment and supports all previous views but would like to comment on composting. The chickens reduce the compost, reduce the fertilizer which goes into the water. She also stated she felt that the coop should be restricted but the chickens should only be restricted to the yard itself. She stated that people should have a right to have access to their own food, know where their food is coming from, allow children to participate in raising the food that comes to the table. Dennis Oiler: Mr. Oiler stated he was aware that in Europe some cities require that you have at least three chickens because it cuts down on the garbage by at least one third, you cannot kill the chickens for at least three years, then they will give you three new chickens and if you have more children they will give you more chickens. Regina Rollis: Ms. Rollis stated that a breeding pair of rabbits will provide the same amount of ineat in one year as one steer on less than a quarter of the resources. Bridget Jackson: Commented on how much less it cost to raise and butcher a chicken was then to buy it in a grocery store. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, the chair closed the public testimony at 7:52 p.m. Commission then took a break at 7:52 p.m. Commission began again 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Woodard made a motion to recommend to the City Council to amending 19.40.150 as follows: in all residential zoning districts on lots of 6,000 square feet or greater allow one chicken per 3,000 square feet and the coop must meet all the current standard residential setbacks. This motion received a second. Commissioner Woodard spoke in favor of this motion and in proposing to amend it to allow four chickens up to 02-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 25,000 square feet, allow one chicken per 2,000 square feet over 25,000, require that the chickens have to be contained in the resident own yard. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern was when chicken keeping would become a commercial operation. Commissioner Sands also spoke in favor of this motion, sustainability and providing our own food sources. Commissioner Mann stated there was no recommendation about restricting the amendment to just hens. Ms Janssen stated that staff felt that the Commission should determine if the proposal should be limited to just hens or allow roosters as well. Commissioner Mann stated he felt that chickens for show would need roosters and that they should be allowed at a rate of one chicken per 2,000 square feet with a limit of 25. Commissioner Hall stated he supported sustainability in many ways and this was an important decision for the future, and supports amending the motion. Commissioner Bates also stated his support of the amending the motion to 1 chicken per 2,000 sf. The Chair asked if all residential zones included multi-family zones as we1L Ms. Janssen stated it was only for single family residential zones. Commissioner Sands asked if there was a way to expand the amendment to the multi-family zones. Director McClung answered in order to be able to expand the amendment to multifamily zones it would require staff to have to advertise the proposed amendment in order to be able to amend it to multifamily zones. The Chair stated he would like to gather consensus on the items to amend the original motion with and make one major amendment. The Chair asked if there was consensus on restricting the motion to hens only. Commissioner Mann stated he was not in favor of this restriction due to the fact that some people raise chickens for show in and in order to do that, or raise for meat, you must have a rooster. Commissioner Mann also stated he felt the problem with roosters crowing could be handled by the noise ordinance. Director McClung addressed the Commission telling them that noise ordinances are very difficult to enforce and the City has been unable to find a noise expert in a recent case who would actually testify in court. It was determined since there were several components for discussion in the motion, that the Commission would discuss each determine the direction of each piece and then make one amendment to the original motion. • Discussion on roosters: not everyone was in favor of banning roosters • Setbacks — Coops must be 25 feet from any neighboring structure. Still mixed feelings • Number of Chickens — one chicken per 2,000 square feet • Make sure the chickens are rendered flightless • Only going to be allowing chickens Commissioner Woodard proposed an amendment to the original motion to the following: require all chicken coops must be located at least 25 feet from any neighboring habitable structure and must meet all other standard residential setbacks, only female chickens are allowed, no roosters, one chicken per 2,000 square feet of lot space with a maximum of 25 chickens, and the owner must make sure they are contained within the property. The motion was seconded. Vote is unanimous in favor of the amendment. 02-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 The amended motion is: The Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council that on lots greater than 6,000 square feet chickens only will be allowed at a rate of one per 2,000 square feet of lot space with a maximum of 25 chickens, coops must meet all residential setbacks including the coop must be set 25 feet from any neighboring habitable structure, only female chickens will be allowed, no roosters and the owner must make sure that the chickens are contained within their own yard. This motion was seconded. The vote on this motion was unanimous in favor. At 8:55 Commissioner Sands made a motion to extend the meeting for 20 minutes, which was seconded and unanimously approved. Commissioner Woodard made a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council to allow livestock on currently established residential parcels located in Mixed Use zoning districts as per the current animal keeping regulations. This motion was seconded. Commissioner Hall asked if staff knew how many of the 243 residential lots in the Mixed Use zoning districts were actually 40,000 square feet or greater. Staff stated they currently did not know but could find out. Commissioner Carroll wondered if there was another way to accommodate this idea without having to make this amendment. Commissioner Mann asked staff what the reason for the restriction was now and Ms. Janssen stated the Mixed Use zoning districts were a lower intensity commercial zoning district and a buffer to the higher intensity districts such as Regional Commercial or higher density residential uses. Commissioner Carroll made a motion to postpone the discussion on the motion to the February 24, 2011 meeting. This motion was seconded and unanimously approved. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson 02-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7