Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUTC PKT 11-15-2010City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee November 15, 2010 City Hall 5:30 .m. Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA (Electronic Version) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS Topic Title/Description A. Approval of Minutes: November 1, 2010 B. Zoning and Development Code Text Amendments Related to Keeping Chicken and Ducks C. Portable Signs in Street Side Planter Strips Code Amendment Action Presenter Page or Info LeMaster 2 Action Herrera 5 Action Barker 40 Action Council Date Time N/A 5 min. Dec. 7, 2010 15 min. Ordinance Dec. 7, 2010 10 min. Ordinance 4. OTHER 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: The next LUTC meeting will be held Monday, December 6, 2010 at 5:30 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN Committee Members City Staff Dini Duc%s, Chair Cary M. Roe, P.E., Directo� ofParks, Pub/ic Wo�ks and Emergency Management 1im Fe�re/% Member Darlene LeMaste�, Administ�ative Assistant II lack Dovey, Member 153-835-2701 G. I LUTCILUTCAgendas and Summaries 1010111-IS-10 LUTCAgeiMa.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee November 1, 2010 City Hall 530 PM City Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Dini Duclos, Committee Member Jack Dovey and Committee Member Jim Ferrell. Council Members in Attendance: Mayor Linda Kochmar and Council Member Burbidge Staff Members in Attendance: Financial Services Administrator Bryant Enge, Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management Cary Roe, Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Finance Director Tho Kraus, Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, Deputy Public Works DiTector Ken Miller, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Surface Water Manager Will Appleton, Streets Systems Project Engineer Brian Roberts, Seniar Tr�c Engineer Jesse Hannahs, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner David Lee, Lead Financial Analyst Phung Huynh, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster. 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Duclos called the meeting to order at 530 PM. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 3. BUSINESS ITEMS Forward Topic Title/Descriptiou to Council A. Approval of the October 18, 2010, LUTC Minutes Committee approved October 18, 2010, LUTC minutes as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 N/A B. Comprehensive Plan Update: PACC and Sports Facility Study Session N/A Information Financial Services Administrator (FSA) Bryant Enge presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Committee Member povey asked far the purpose of the staff report to which FSA Enge reported that there had been a concern raised in the past the information in the updated Comprehensive Plan was not accurate. Since the last update in 1994, some of the information regarding the PACC and the Competitive Sports Facility needs updating. Staff would like to see the Comprehensive amended to have this information corrected. Chair Duclos pointed out that as it exists today, the summary on the Competitive Sports Facility needs updating so as not to compete with the Community Center. FSA Enge concurred, elaborating that the Competitive Sports Facility would not include a pool. There would be sports courts available for basketball and volleyball use that would not compete with the Community Center. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 November 1, 2010 C. Councilmember Burbidge also supported updating the comprehensive summary for future facilities. FSA Enge stated that if directed to, staff would make the suggested updates as it relates to Section 6.4 of the Comprehensive Plan. Assistant City Attorney Beckwith commented that this may conflict with already having had amended the Comprehensive Plan already in 2010. It may only be amended once per year. Director of Community Development Services Fewins stated that since the Comprehensive Plan amendment was recently enacted, the amendments to Section 6.4 could be included as part of the 2010 amendment. The PACC and the Competitive Sports Facility had originally been part of this amendment, but had been removed due to inaccurate information. Committee directed staff to return to LUTC with the proposed updates to Section 6.4 of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the PACC and the Indoor Competitive Sports Facility. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferreil Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 School Impact Fees 11/16/2010 Consent D. E. F. Finance Director Tho Kraus presented information on this item. Director Kraus introduced Sally McLean, Chief Financial Officer for Federal Way Public Schools who presented additional information. There was no public comment. Committee Member povey noted that he feels positive about the City and the school district working together to make Federal Way IN.a good place to develop. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferreil Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Proposed Amendments to BC Zone, Design Guidelines and Landscaping Associate Planner David Lee presented information on this item. There was no public comment or discussion. Committee Member povey recused himself. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Ductos Passed: 2-0, 1 recusal. Department of Ecology — Freshwater Algae Control Program Grant Surface Water Manager Will Appleton presented information on this item. There was no public comment or discussion. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Ferreli Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 S 320` St at I-5 Southbound Off Ramp — 85% Design Status Report 11/16/2010 Ordinance First Reading 11/16/2010 Consent 11/16/2010 Consent Street Systems Project Engineer Brian Roberts presented information on this item. There was no public comment or discussion. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 3 G:�I,UTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 20I0\t I-OI-(0 Minutes.doc Land Use/TranspoRation Committee Page 3 November 1, ZO10 G. Silver Lake Elementary School Zone Flasher Grant Application Senior Traffic Engineer Jesse Hannahs presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Committee Member povey asked if the grant had already been planned on or was this a new means of acquiring funds. Senior Traffic Engineer Hannahs explained that after having observed the School Zone Flashing Beacons at Sherwood Forest Elementary School, the goal is for all elementary schools within City limits to have them. These beacons have yielded great results. Obtaining this grant would enable staff to put more money into the program. Committee forrvarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell 4. OTHER None Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 5. FUTURE MEETING The next LUTC meeting will be held Monday, 11/15/10 at 530 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:08 PM. Attest: COMMITTEE APPROVAL: Dini Duclos, Chair 11/16/2010 Consent Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member 4 G:�I.UTC\WTC Agendas and Summaries 2010U 1-01-10 Minutes.dce COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 7, 2010 ITEM #: FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SusJECT: Text amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19 `Zoning and Development Code' related to the keeping of chickens and ducks. POLICY QUESTIONS Should the city: (1) Ban roosters citywide with the exception of Suburban Estate zoned lots; (2) allow the keeping of chickens and ducks on residential lots less than 35,000 square feet; (3) cap the number of chickens and ducks at 20 for lots 35,000 square feet and greater with the exception of the Suburban Estate zone? COMMITTEE Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) ❑ Consent ❑ City Council Business STAFF REPORT BY: Matthew Herre // � Ordinance Resolution Associate Planner MEETING DATE: November 15, 2010 ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other DEPT Community Development Services Eghibits: (I) Draft ordinance; (II) Draft minutes of the November 3, 2010, Planning Commission meeting; and (III) Planning Commission staff report. Background: (1) A citizen initiated request to ban roosters was docketed by the department December 8, 2008. Roosters and other fowl are permitted on lots 35,000 square feet and greater. The proposed text amendment would ban roosters citywide with the exception of Suburban Estate zoned properties where animal husbandry uses are permitted. Owners of roosters would have until December 31, 2012, to comply with the ordinance. (2) Recent trends in urban agriculture and sustainability have led to numerous requests to the city regarding the ability to keep "backyard chickens/ducks." The proposed text amendment would allow any combination of four chickens and/or ducks on lots less than 35,000 square feet and increased setbacks for coops. (3) The proposed text amendment would cap the number of chickens/ducks at 20 far lots 35,000 square feet and greater in RS zones. (4) As a component of the urban chicken item, City Council directed staff to examine the current rabbit policy. Based on input received to date, citizens seem satisfied with the number of rabbits currently allowed. Therefore, staff does not recommend amending rabbit keeping regulations. Options Considered: 1) Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as contained in the draft adoption ordinance; 2) adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as modified by the LUTC; 3) do not adopt the recommendation; or (4) refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Option #l; adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as contained in the draft ordinance. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: .1��`l`"' �� g�� DIRECTOR APPROVAL: �3 _ Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION "I move to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on December 7, 2010. " Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): 1 READING OF ORDINANCE (December 7 , 2010): "I move to forward the ordinance to a second reading for enactment on the December 21, 2010, consent agenda. " 2 ND READING OF ORDINANCE (December 21 2010): "I move approval of the LLITC's recommendation contained in the adoption ordinance. " Continued on following. page (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED — 08/12/2010 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to the keeping of chickens and ducks; amending FWRC 19.260.020 and FWRC 19.260.060; and adding a new section to FWRC Chapter 19.260. (Amending Ordinance No. 90-43) WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to periodically modify Title 19 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), "Zoning and Development Code," in order to conform to state and federal law, codify administrative practices, clarify and update zoning regulations as deemed necessary, and improve the efficiency of the regulations and the development review process; F�t�J WHEREAS, this ordinance, containing amendments to development regulations and the text of Title 19 FWRC, has complied with Process VI review, chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to chapter 19.35 FWRC; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to adopt new animal regulations for residential areas which establishes development regulations for keeping chickens and ducks within the City of Federal Way; and WHEREAS, a citizen initiated request to ban roosters was submitted on December 8, 2008; and WHEREAS, trends in local food production and sustainable practices has led to the popularity of backyard chicken/ducks; and WHEREAS, a cap on the number of chickens/ducks is appropriate for urban residential areas; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public workshop on these code amendments on September 29, 2010; and Ordinance No. 10- � Page I of 6 Rev 1/10 LU ��_� PAGE_L�..�F�-- WHEREAS, an Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was properly issued for the Proposal on October 13, 2010, and no comments or appeals were received and the DNS was finalized on November 10, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these code amendments on November 3, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered these code amendments on November 15, 2010, and recommended adoption of the text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findin�s. The City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the proposed amendments. (a) These code amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City and will benefit the City as a whole by providing greater access to local food sources and mitigating the effects of rooster crowing. (b) These code amendments comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management. (c) These code amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 19 FWRC and will implement and are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. (d) These code amendments bear a substantial relationship to, and will protect and not adversely affect, the public health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance No. 10- 8 Page 2 of 6 Rev 1/10 LU �X�� =�' perE � �� (e) These code amendments have followed the proper procedure required under the FWRC. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to chapter 19.80 FWRC and chapter 19.35 FWRC, and based upon the recitals and the findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the proposed amendments: (a) The proposed FWRC amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: LUG 3— Preserve and protect Federal Way's single-family neighborhoods. LUP 11 — Support the continuation of a strong residential community. LUP 14 — Maintain and protect the character of existing and future single-family neighborhoods through strict enforcement of the city's land use regulations. , (b) The proposed FWRC amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare as it allows citizens access to relatively affordable organic food, chemical-free pest control, and superior fertilizer/soil amendments. (c) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of Federal Way because provides greater access to localized food sources and mitigates noise impacts of roosters in single-family neighborhoods. Section 3. Chapter 19.260 of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended to add a new section 19.260.055 to read as follows: 19.260.055 Chickens and ducks This section allows limited numbers of chickens and ducks for residential lots containin� less than 35 000 sc�uare feet su�ect to the following re�ulations: Ordinance No. 10- � Page 3 of 6 Rev 1/10 LU �,�k�� '� z _ eA�C � �� — (1) Number o animals Any combination of 4 chickens and/or ducks mav be kept on lots up to 34 999 square feet Regulations associated with small domestic animals set forth in FWRC 19 260 060 annly to lots 35 000 square feet and reater. �2) Pens structures and enclosures A suitable�en structure or enclosure to house the animals shall be provided and maintained in a clean condition at all times. All pens, structures and enclosures shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from side and rear propertv lines and are not permitted in the area between the �rimarv dwelling unit and the front propertv line. �3) Roosters Roosters are not permitted within the city except for those lots zoned suburban estate Roosters kept prior to the adoption of this section shall be removed from the property no later than December 31, 2012. Section 4. FWRC 19.260.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.260.020 Types of animals. Animals will be regulated according to the following categories: (1) Household pets. The following animals will be regulated as household pets: (a) Three dogs or less per dwelling unit. (b) Three cats or less per dwelling unit. (c) A total of four dogs and cats per dwelling unit. (d) Four rabbits or less per dwelling unit. (e) Gerbils. ( fl Guinea pigs. (g) Hamsters. (h) Mice. (i) Caged birds. (j) Nonvenomous reptiles and amphibians. (k) Other animals normally associated with a dwelling unit, and which are generally housed within the dwelling unit. (2) Small domestic animals. The following animals will be regulated as small domestic animals: (a) More than three dogs per dwelling unit. (b) More than three cats per dwelling unit. (c) More than a total of four dogs and cats per dwelling unit. (d) More than four rabbits per dwelling unit. (e) Fowl. Refer to FWRC 19 260 O55 for chickens and ducks on lots less then 35,000 sQUare feet. (3) Large domestic animals. The following animals will be regulated as large domestic animals: (a) Horses. (b) Cattle. (c) Sheep. (d) Pigs. (e) Goats. (� Other grazing or foraging animals. (4) Bees. Ordinance No. 10- Page 4 of 6 Rev 1/10 LU EXE��11' ��-- �o PAGE...�..._�� ....�.�.,, (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.20(2)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-982.) Section 5. FWRC 19.260.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.260.060 Small domestic animals. Small domestic animals, as that term is defined in this chapter, may be kept on the subject property subject to the following regulations: (1) Minimum lot size. The subject property must be at least 35,000 square feet in area. (2) Maximum number of animals. No more than 20 sma11 domestic animals may be kept on a lot containing 35,000 square feet of area. With the exception of chickens and ducks, 9one additional small domestic a.nimal is permitted for each additiona1500 square feet of lot area. In addition, offspring from one female are permitted at any time, until those offspring are able to live independently. (3) Pens, structures and enclosures. The applicant shall provide a suitable pen, structure or enclosure to house the animals and must maintain this structure, pen or enclosure in a clean condition at all times. All pens, structures and enclosures must be set back at least 40 feet from each property line. (4) Limitations under certain circumstances. The city may limit the number of animals allowed to less than the m�imum stated in this section if this is reasonably necessary to protect nearby uses or the city considering the following factors: (a) The proximity of the animals to dwelling units both on and off the subject property. (b) The lot size and isolation of the subject property. (c) The compatibility with surrounding uses. (d) Potential noise, pollution and other impacts. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.20(6)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-986.) Section 6. Severabilitv. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Section 7. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Ordinance No. 10- �� Page S of 6 Rev 1/10 LU EXI� ! � ��'.....:,.�---- PAGE � '�f - Section 8. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this 21 day of December, 2010. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, LINDA KOCHMAR ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Ordinance No. 10- Page 6 of 6 Rev 1/10 LU �2 EXl��' �- . PAGE... �:�....��._��__.. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION November 3, 2010 City Hall 7•00 p m Council C hambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Tom Medhurst , Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, and Sarady Long. Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Deb Barker, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Associate Planner Matt Herrera, Assistant City ��?��9rney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Darlene LeMaster. .: ';�` �`� ROLL CALL Commissioners Elder, Medhurst, Bronson and Long were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of October 20, 2010 were AUDIENCE COMMENT None AnM�isTxnTrvE None Pfeifer, Carlson Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.140, "Signs" the Public Hearing. Senior Planner`°�b. F ��x. portable signs in s��`� of a portable sign, c�i�� reserve area language County Association of ,�,, ��wed the background and reasons for the code amendment to allow �r strips within the right of way. Ms. Barker also reviewed the definition ;s of the street side planter strip, and explained the sight distance triangle l for the code amendment. An email from Mr. Sam Pace, Seattle/King was entered into the record. There was one public comment. Sam Pace, 29839 154` Ave SE, Kent — Mr. Pace spoke in support of the proposed code amendments regarding portable signs. Mr. Pace explained that the code amendment is important for both sellers and buyers, especially first time buyers. The code amendment is also important to the City. Each real estate sale produces revenue in the form of taxes paid when a sale is funded. Mr. Pace complimented all City staff on their outstanding customer service on this and past issues and asked for Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed amendment. Vice-Chair Elder asked if there were any questions/concerns from the commissioners. Hearing none, 13 �X�� - PAGE.rI...�..�� --- CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 3, 2010 Vice-Chair Elder asked for a motion. Commissioner Long moved to recommend adoption of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.140.060 (29) text amendment, in regard to Portable Signs as proposed by staff. Commissioner Bronson second. Motion carried, 4-0. Vice-Chair Elder closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING — Zoning and Development Code Amendments Related to the Keeping of Fowl and Rabbits .�'��,:. Vice-Chair Elder explained the guidelines for the Public Hearing. Associate Planner Matt Herrera reviewed the background and ��sons �.�` e code amendment and summarized the proposed code amendments. Staff analyzed a��es��'ons and mendations from the Planning Commission's September 29, 2010 Study Sessio��`,�nc� �o did furthe� �� ,�� arch. Mr. Herrera presented the staff recommendation: �� ■ Ban roosters in all areas of the city with the excep`��oqf Sub ¢�n Estate (SE) zo d lots. ■ Allow up to any combination of four chickens/ducks�` �'� �`�� entia��lots less than 5,000 s.f. ■ Cap the amount of chickens/ducks allowed at 20 (tota '; w�ots 35,000 s.f. and greater in single- family residential zones (RS) zones: �,. ,,"�� ■ Maintain the current policy of four ra�� r�,lots less than 3 � s.f�, There were two public comments: Alissa Hansen, 356 S 304` passed, what is the antici�t he anticipates the cod�, �'�� Marion Bartholomew, 3030� recommendata��, aske� �� •.�� comply with�� bo�s�� , , � enclose� ��-�� are chacken � �� allow��`��ee range chickei�� run wild `� ''de of their ow their coops ��ot create c� setback for rab`��tches as Vice-Chair Elder 'ederal Way �„��s. Hanse',n��ked if these code amendments are �rt they would`�e allowed t� keep chickens. Mr. Herrera stated that �� enacted by tli��.,end of the year. m��m� deral W�- Mr. Bartholomew was very happy with staff's '��°��isader reducing the period of time for residents to �s to one. 1�r. Bartholomew asked if a chicken coop must be fully �w � � � of a coop. Mr. Herrera explained that the existing regulations '�., �? . ar��nuisance regulations in place that state that animals may not Mr��artholomew hopes that allowing chickens to roam outside of �liance issues. As for rabbits, Mr. Bartholomew supports a ten foot or comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Bronsor�;�ggested that staff may want to recommend four or five appropriate chicken coop designs. Mr. Herrera stated there are currently no design guidelines for single-family residential uses. In addition, many residents desire sustainability and may therefore want to build a coop out of recycled materials. Vice-Chair Elder asked for clarification on the allowed amount of chickens and/or ducks. Mr. Herrera confirmed an allowable total of four, in any combination of chickens or ducks for single-family residential areas less than 35,000 s.f. To respond to Mr. Bartholomew's comment on rabbits, there is an existing code allowing up to four rabbits in single —family residential less than 35,000 s.f. It is assumed that rabbits are household pets, therefore not requiring outdoor living quarters. For lots an 35,000 s.f. and � 4 �X� � � �� PAGE. �- ...Q�.�-- Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 3, 2010 greater, there is a 40 foot setback for rabbit hutches. Commissioner Medhurst complimented staff for listening to the public on this issue and responding appropriately. Commissioner Medhurst is not interested in regulating a coop design. Commissioner Long concurred with Commissioner Medhurst and thanked Mr. Herrera for a thorough presentation. Commissioner Long supports a maximum limit of up to four chickens/ducks, stating that this limit is very reasonable and will allow the average family more than enough egg production. Commissioner Bronson wanted to clarify what was meant in his earlier �iment regarding chicken � ,.• coops. Commissioner Bronson supports not having requirements fo '�i�oo�,� rather, having ideas, suggested plans, materials, etc. for residents who are looking for ideas, . Herrera responded that staff may be producing a resource document, available to residents in sia�apl�e� regarding Urban Chickens and the code as it applies to them. � •.� � _ Commissioner Bronson asked the reason for a ten foot s� difference between five and ten feet? Mr. Herrera respo ; i staff felt inclined to meet residents halfway. A ten v , "" ;�. density single-family residential area with approx. 5,00 n � Assuming a ten foot setback on the side and rear of the lot, coop (48 s.f.). Should this turn out to not be the case, staff applies to mobile coops. There should be a��i�,aate space. Commissioner Long asked if residents will n � permits will not be required. This can also be re va �� Commissioner Bronson mov� , ommend adop� Revised Code (FWRC) 1 0 °,� ' and Develc �. ,�, presented by staff. Co ioner urst second. _. . � �ti Vice-Chair Elder closed the ADJOURN ��„�� :�,��* The meeting was `��1�;�ned at �7 p.m. �1�=�ar' chicken c��`�� Is there really a that because of conce ' ed by residents, ;tback i` adequate. For ` �", in a high lots, , verage lot wid is 40-60 feet. equ�te room for a�i size an �•�� , � aluate this at a later date. The same •. '��`.� �� r chickens��cks. Mr. Herrera said that ��ter date�'�any problems arise. the pro��`ed code amendments to Federal Way t Code as rt applies to chickens and ducks as on carried, 4-0. 15 �XM � � �� PAGE.. � ..��'.:: -- � +C#'�Y OF I�� `��r�� '��` PLANNING COMMISSI4N STAFF REPORT DA'rE: October 27', 2010 To: Chair Merle Pfeifer and Members of the City of Federal Way Planning Commission F1toM: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planne��t " I' /�/ Greg Fewins, Director of Community Development Ser�s / SusTECT: Zoning and Development Code amendments related to the keeping of fowl and rabbits. FILE: 10-102048-0Q-UP MEET�1vG DATE: Naveraber: 3, 2010 A. POLICY QUESTIONS (1) Should the oity ban roosters in all areas of the city; (2) should the city amend its current policy to allow the keeping of fowl on Iots less than 35,000 square feet; and (3) should the city increase the number of rabbits considered ho�sehotd pets? B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1) Department staff recommends the banning of roosters except for areas zoned,Suburban Estate with a removal date of December 31, 2Q12, for those who currently own roosters. (2) Staf'f recommends removing the 35,000 square-foot lot size threshold and allowing up to four chickens and/or ducks. (3) Staff recommends maintaining the current rabbit-keeping regulations for lots less than 35,004 square feet; and (4) Staff recommends capping chickens and ducks at 20 for lots greater than 3S,OOQ within RS zoning designations. Analysis of each of the recommendations and responses to questions posed by the Planning Commission during the September 29, 2010, study session is provided in section E of this report. This report also provides a basis for the proposed code language in the attached Exhibit A. C. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A— Proposed code amendment to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code," Chapter I9.260 Exhibit B— Citizen initiated development regulation amendment request Exhibit C — Jurisdictional Comparisons Exhibit D— Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued October 13, 2010 E�ibit E- Communiry Development Services Stalceholder Group E�chibit F— Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum �6 EXN��' � PAGE._.1_.C�� D. BACKGROUND The "urban chicken" zoning and development code amendment began as a citizen initiated request to ban roosters within all azeas of the city and also included codification of a policy for city staff to remove roosters within 48 hours of non-compliance. The request was docketed at the deparlment Permit Center December 8, 2008 (E�ibit B). As the request was submitted after the September 30, 2008, deadline, it was not included in the 2009 Planning Commission Work Program. Inquiries and informal requests to reduce minimum lots sizes for keeping backyard chickens and ducks have been received via email correspondence with a City Council member, Citizen Action Request to the City Manager's o�ce, and Permit Center phone/counter calls. These actions and the formal citizen initiated request mentianed above prompted staff to request a comprehensive review of e�sting policies and, if warranted, text amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, `Zoning and Development Code.' , . The urban chicken item, encompassing rooster, backyard chicken and rabbit policy examinations, passed the selection process, at which point City Council directed staff to include it in the 2010 Planning Commission Work Program. Prior to formulating a policy recommendation, a study session with the Planning Commission and interested pa.rties took place September 29, 2010. Staff presented existing city policies, surrounding jurisdictional policies, and several policy questions. In return, the Planning Commission took comments from interested parties and provided staff direction to formulate an amendment that would allow greater flexibility in keeping certain varieties of domesticated fowl with the specific exception of roosters. E. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATION (1) Ban roosters in all areas of the ciiy with the exception of Svburban Estate (SE) zoned lots. The impetus for the te�rt amendment began with a cifizen initiated request to ban roosters submitted by Marion Bartholomew. As a component to the ban, Mr. Bartholomew proposes a codified policy of the removal of roosters by city staff within 48 hours of the effective date of the ordinance. As stated by Mr. Bartholomew in the docket request, the amendment is needed due to multiple noise complaints stemming from roosters crowing within his neighborhood. The docket further states "[r]oosters "crowing" disrupts neighborhoods within 5-6 blocks in all directions. "Crowing" negatively impacts hours of sleep. [The rooster] starts "crowing" around 3:30-4:OOam, daily." Existing Policies Current FWRC Chapter 19.260 regulations allow up to 20 fowl on single-family residential (RS) zoned lots greater than 35,000 square feet with an additional fowl permitted with each additional 500 square feet of lot area. Additionally, residents of Suburban Estate zoned lots (five acre minimum) are permitted to keep and raise typical farm animals as a primary use. SE zoned lots are permitted to keep fowl at a rate of 30 per acre. Due to the absence of a definition of fowl in the Zoning and Development Code or an interpretation formally adopted by the department, staff has used a dictionary definition of fowl, which includes roosters. During the Planning Commission study session, several commissioners inquired about the city's existing noise or nuisance ordinances that may be applicable to rooster crowing. Staff researched FWRC Title 7`Public Nuisances' and Title 9`Animals' and found no codes that could be effectively administered to stop rooster crowing. Further, staff has found that the city's noise regulations do not apply to rooster crowing as: (l) it is a rooster's natutal instinct to crow during late night and early Urban Chickens Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 u�bntn r..�t. a.� Chicicens\Planning CommissionlPlam�ing Commission Packet�StaffRepat.dce �� EXl��1�' � PAGE��.��-- morning hours; and (2) the city allows the keeping of roosters. These two factors act as acquiescence that rooster related noise is not regulated as a nuisance. Rooster Ban Backyard chickens have been used by homeowners primarily as a means for relatively low cost organic egg production and fertilizer/soil amendments. These outcomes do not require the presence of roosters. Further, roosters by nature, tend to crow in the early morning hours at volumes that have the potential to disturb citizens within a relatively large radius. Staff does not support banning roosters on lots zoned Suburban Esta.te (SE) as it would be inconsistent with agricultural uses currently permitted within the SE zone. Typical farm animals (cows, pigs, sheep, fowl, etc.) are permitted in SE zones. At a rate of 30 fowl per acre, it can be assumed roosters are or can be used for egg fertilization as is typical in farm uses. Noise from roosters and other farm animals is mitigated by the minimum lot size requirements in SE zones. Conforming SE zoned lots are a minimum five acres (217,800 square feet) compared to lots zoned single-family (RS), which range from 5,000 to 35,000 square feet. If the Planning Commission recommends and City Cpuncil ultimately adopts a rooster ban policy, those roosters legally kept within RS zones would become nonconforming. Staff dces not recommend Mr. Bartholomew's request for rooster removal within 48 hours of the enacted ordinance. Instead, staff recommends setting an amortization period of approximately two years for remaining roosters to either expire naturally or allow adequate time for owners to find new homes for their rooster. A definitive date for owners to come into compliance allows for a more effective enforcement as it does not allow an owner to replace an expired rooster. Staff found an example of a two year amortizaxion period for nonconforming roosters in .an unincorporated area being annexed into Riverside, California? Other examples do not appear to be widely available. In.summary, staff provides the following rationale for the recommendation to ban roosters except in SE zones: (1) hens do not require the presence of a rooster to provide eggs intended for consumption; (2) roosters typically crow in early moming hours; (3) there are no practical or humane methods to "de-crow" a rooster; existing noise and nuisance code regulations do not apply; (5) an amortization period provides a predicta.ble and adequate time for an existing owner to come into compliance; and (6) a permitted primary use in SE zones includes the keeping and raising of typical farm animals including fowL (2) Allow up to any combination of four chickens/ducks on residential lots less than 35,000 s.f. The recent populariry of keeping backyard chickens has been an element of the localized and organic food rnovement across the country. Several cities in the Puget Sound region (Exhibit C), including Federal Way, allow the keeping of fowl. While Federal Way does allow urban dwellers the ability to keep fowl, the required 35,000 square feet (0.8 acres) minimum lot size excludes a majority of the single-family residential lots in the city. Numerous citizen inquiries and subsequent disappointment due to lot size restrictions led staff to request an examination of the existing policy. Following the September 29, 2010, Planning Commission study session, staff recommends re.moving the 35,000 square-foot tot size requirement and allowing any combination of four chickens and ducks on any residential lot, provided, coops and enclosures shall meet a prescribed 10-foot side and reaz property line setback. Additionally, coops and enclosures would not be permitted in areas between the primary residence and front property line. Urban Chickens Page 3 � Planning Commission StaffReport K:�20I0 Code Amendments\Urban Chickens�Planning CommissionlPlanning Commission Pecket�Suff Report.dce � i �s ��,� � �� __��_�� The following bullet points provide rationale for the recommendation: • Remove the 35,000 square foot minimum lot size; Trends in sustainability, significant public interest, and Planning Commission direction at the September study session provide basis for the staff recommendation for removing the minimum lot size requirement. The result of this policy change would provide citizens afforda.ble access to organic food via egg produetion and the superior soil amendments for gardens from the composted manure. Allowing limited numbers of `backyard chickens' would not be unique to Federal Way. Several surrounding jurisdictions akeady allow limited numbers of chickens and ducks in higher density . residential neighborhoods. Limitations on numbers, coop setback, and cleanliness requirements should provide adequate mitigation of nuisance impacts. Restrict definition of fowl; A zoning code definition of what constitutes acceptable fowl does not currently exist. Absent a definition, staff has interpreted fowl to include domesticated varieties of chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, pheasants, quail, and peacocks. As interest in the code amendment from stakeholders was limited to chickens/ducks, and the nuisance impacts of some of the other varieties are not we11 understood, staff proposed removing the minimum lot size for those two varieties only. Residents with lots greater than 35,000 square feet will continue to have the ability to keep the above-referenced varieties of fowL • Cap the maaimum number of chickens/ducks at, f'our; Staff found no policies with regard to m�imum chicken/duck numbers in existing Public Health — Seattle & King County policies and was directed by county stafFthat municipalities control maximums. Therefore, staff has recommended a static cap of four chickens/ducks on residential lots less than 35,000 square feet. Those residents keeping the maximum amount of chickens/ducks will likely yield 18-24 eggs per week during the optimal years of the animals' life. This should provide an adequate amount of eggs for a typical family of four. Staff acknowledges this may not be a sufficient amount for some families and they will need to supplement with store bought eggs. � . Coops and Enclosures; Staff recommends inereasing the typical5-foot side and rear yard setbacks to 10 feet for coops and enclosures. The increased setback should help mitigate aesthetic, noise, and odor issues associated with the coop. Coops and enclosures will not be permitted in front yard areas to reduce aesthetic impacts of the structures. Keeping a limited number of chickens/ducks does not require a significant amount of outdoor space. Each chicken should be provided a completely enclosed coop with 3-6 square feet of . indoor space and 3-6 square feet of outdoor space 4 A coop built for four chickens that provided 12-square feet (6 s.f. indoor & 6 s.f. outdoor) per chicken amounts to only 48 s.f. of coop area. Most residential lots are able to provide adequate space and meet setback standards. • Health issues; Basic cleanliness will keep chickens/ducks healthy and coops free from vermin. Existing coop policies require that the enclosure remains clean at all times and the code amendment will retain Urban Chickens Page 4 Planning Commission Staff Report K:�2010 Code AmendmentsiUrben Chickens�Planning Commiaaion�Planning Commisaion PacketVShffReport.doc �9 EX�� P�►GE...�....0�. ��.' .�., that policy. The following existing FWRC regulations and Public Health.— Seattle King County adopted ardinances will apply and be enforced by the city's code compliance staff: FWRC 7.03.040(4) Animal parts, manure, excreta, or wastes including bones, meats, hides, skins, or any part of any dead animal, fish, or fowl, which aze improperly handled, conta.ined, or removed from a premises; placed in any watercourse, lake, or street; or allowed to become putrid, offensive, and injurious to the public health; KCBH 8.06.040 Duty to implement rodent-proofmg and eradication; authority of director. A. The owner or occupant of premises shall: 1. Implement rodent-proofing and eradication measures to prevent rats, mice, or other rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with food, food products, animal food, or bird food; 2. Prevent the accumulation of materials capahle of providing food or harborage for rodents, including but not limited to garbage, litter, excrement, filth, lumber, limbs, firewood, motor vehicle bodies or parts, construction or demolition debris, appliances, junk, waste wood, scrap metal, overgrown vegetation, decaying animal or vegetable matter, and any other articles that provide shelter and protection for rodents; and 3. Maintain all premises free from rats, mice, and other rodents. Noise issues; Chickens tend to make noise when laying eggs or when threatened by predators. Unlike roosters, chickens are quiet through the night and early morning hours. With increased setbacks, four animal maximum, and absence of roosters, noise impacts should be minunal and likely analogous to any other outdoor pet. (3) Cap the amount of chickens and ducks allowed at 20 for lots greater than 35,000 square feet in single-family residential (RS) zones. As staff researched the existing city policies, a potential inconsistency was found in the number of fowl allowed on RS zoned lots. Current regulations allow up to 20 fowl on lots of 35,000 square feet with one additional fowl for each 500 additional square feet of land area. For those larger single- family zoned lots, the additional one fowi per 500 square feet amounts to approximately 87 fowl per acre. For perspective, an owner of a single-family zoned lot measuring five acres could legally own 385 fow1 while an owner of a five-acre farm in a Suburban Estate zone would be limited to 150 fow16 Staff recommends capping the allowable amount of chickens/ducks to 20 in RS zoning designations as it is inappropriate to allow more chickens/ducks in single-family residential zones than farn�s located in a Suburban Estate zoning designation. (4) Maintain the current policy of four rabbits for lots less than 35,000 square feet. As a component of the urban chicken item, City Council direeted staff to examine the current rabbit poiicy and, if warranted, provide a recommendation amending the permitted numbers. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any requests from citizens or stakeholders to change the current policy. � ' Urban Chickens Page 5 Planning Commission Staff Report K:�2010 Code AmendmenteWrban Chickens�Plamiing Commission�Plenning Commisuon PsckellStaffReport.doc ao EXN�� PAGE__`� _.4�� FWRC 19.260.020(d) allows up to four ra6bits per household on lots less than 35,000 square feet. This atnount is regulated as a household pet and may be kept in any zone where a dwelling unit is permitted. Staff researched seven surrounding jurisdictions (Exhibit C) for comparisons and found with the exception of Tacoma and Tukwila, a range of three to four rabbits as household pets is a typical amount allowed per dwelling unit. . Based on input received to date, citizens seem satisfied with the number of rabbits currently allowed. Therefore, staff does not recommend amending cunent regulations regazding the keeping of rabbits. F. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) (Exhibit D) was issued for the proposed code amendments on October 13, 2010, pursuant to State Errvironmental Policy Act Rules 197-11�-340. Notice of the environmental determination was� provided in the Federal Way Mirror, City designated bulletin boards, and emailed to the department's stakeholder group (E�ibit E). The comment period ended on October 27, 2010, with no comments submitted to the City. Public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was emailed to department stakeholders, published in the Federal Way �rror, and posted on the City designated bulletin boards October 20, 2010. This staff report was emailed to the department's stakeholders on Oetober 27, 2010. G. BASIS FOR PLAN1�iING COMMISSION ACTION FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code," Chapter 19.8Q, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for development regulation amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the proposed development regulation amendments. 2. To determine whether the proposed development regulation amendment meets the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130 (Item H below). 3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed development regulation amendment. H. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWRC 19.80.130 provides criteria for development regulation amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed amendments with the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130. � The city may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response — The proposed code amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies: L UG 3— Preserve and protect Federal Way s single family neighborhoods. L UPll — Support the continuation of a strong residential community. L UP14 — Maintain and protect the character of existing and future single family neighborhoods through strict enforcement of the city's land use regulations. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. Urban Chickens Page 6 Planriing Commission Staff Report K:�2010 Code AmendmentslUrban Chickms�Planning CommisaionlPlanning Commiesion Packetl3uff Report.doc 2� �X�wl� �"�' �_ PAGE_�.. G�?�._. Staff Re�ponse — The proposed code amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health and welfare as it allows citizens access to relatively affordable organic food, no- chemical pest control, and superior fertilizer/soil amendments. 3. The proposed axnendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City. Sta,�'f Response — The proposed code amendment is in the best mterest of the city as it provides greater access to localrzed food sources and mitigates noise impacts of roosters in single family neighborhoods. _ I. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240, the Planning Comxnission may take the following actions regarding the proposed development regulation amendments: 1.. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. Endnotes � http:!/www.merriam-webster.com/dictionarylfowl accessed October 14, 2010. Paraphrased definition of fowl —(1) a cock or hen of the domestic chicken; (2) any of several domesticated or wild gallinaceous birds. 2 Riverside Municipal Code 19.455.034(B) allows existing owners to keep their roosters for two yeazs following the annexaTion date. - 3 "Considerations in Raising Small Backyazd Flocks of Poultry in Population-dense Communities." Frame, David. Utah State University Cooperarive Extension. July 2009. 4 Seattle Tilth `City Chickens 101' staff attended September 18, 2010. 5 37.12 fowl allowed for the first acre of land; then 87.12 fowl per acre for the remaining four acres. 6 FWRC 19.195.d40 permits farms as a primary use. Farms are allowed fowl at a ratio of 30 per acre. Urban Chickens Page 7 Planning Commission Staff Report K:12010 Code Amendments\Urban Chickens�Ptenning Commission�Planning Commisaion Puku�StaffRepat.doc 2 z EXt�! � � ��' _�`-�-- PAGE.._Z._��= Chapter 19.260 ANIMALS� Sections: 19.260.010 Application of chapter. 19.260.020 Types of animals. 19.260.030 Other regulations. 19.260.040 Use must be accessory. 19.260.050 Household pets. 19.260.055 Chickens and ducks 19.260.060 Small domestic animals. 19.260.070 Lazge domestic animals. 19.260.080 Bees. 19.260.090 Bonds. 19.260.010 Application of chapter. This chapter establishes special regulations that govern the keeping of animals in any zone where a dwelling unit is permitted. The keeping of animals is permitted in any residential zone or other zone where a dwelling unit is permitted, subject to the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of FWRC Title 9, Animals. However, any provision of this chapter that is inconsistent with a specific provision applicable to suburban estate zones does not apply in suburban esta.te zones. (Ord. No. 07-573, § 37, 12-4-07; Ord. No. 02-424, § 3, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.20(1)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-981.) 19.260.020 Types of animais. Animals will be regulated according to the following categories: (1) Householdpets. The following animals will be regulated as household pets: (a) Three dogs or less per dwelling unit. (b) Three cats or less per dwelling unit. (c) A tota.l of four dogs and cats per dwelling unit. (d) Four rabbits or less per dwelling unit. (e) Gerbils. (� Guinea pigs. � (g) Hamsters. (h) Mice. . (i) Caged birds. (j) Nonvenomous reptiles and amphibians, (k) Other animals normally associated with a dwelling unit, and which are generally housed within the dwelling unit. (2) Small domestic animals. The following animals will be regulated as small domestic animals: (a) More than three dogs per dwelling unit. (b) More than three cats pez dwelling unit. {c) More than a total of four dogs and cats per dwelling unit. (d) More than fow rabbits per dwelling unit. (e) Fowl. Refer to FWRC 19 260 O55 for chickens and ducks on lots less then 35,000 square feet. (3) Large domestic animads. The following animals will be regulated as large domestic animals: (a) Horses. (b) Cattle. EX��'�' PAGE_.1_..._0��.. z3 � EX�"��''�' �- PAGE,.. � 6�.�-- (c) Sheep. (d} Pigs. (e) Goats. (f} Other grazing or foraging animals. (4) Bees. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.20(2)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-982.) 19.260.030 Other regulations. . Nothing in this chapter eliminates the need to comply with applicable sta.te law and any other ordinance of the city regulating the keeping of animals. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.20(3)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-983.) 19.260.040 Use must be accessory. � The keeping of animals under the provisions of this chapter must be clearly accessory to the principal residential use of the subject property. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.20(4)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-984.) 19.260.050 Household pets. Household pets, as that term is defined in this chapter, may be kept on the subject property. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.20(5)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-985.) 19.260.055 Chickens and ducks . This section allows limited numbers of chickens and ducks for residential lots subiect to the followin�regulations: . �1 Number o�animals permitted A total of 4 chickens and ducks may be kept on lots un to � 34 999 square feet Reg�lations associated with small domestic animals set forth in FWRC 19.260.060 applv to lots greater than 35.000 sc;uare feet. (2) Pens structures and enclosures A suitable pen structure or encloswe to house the animals shall be provided and maintained in a cIean condition at all times. All pens, structures and enclosures shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from side and rear propertv lines and are not permitted in the a.rea between the primary dwellinQ unit and the front propertv line. (3) Roosters Roosters are not permitted within the cit�except for those lots zoned suburban estate Except for those lots zoned suburban estate roosters kept prior to the adoption of this section shall be removed from the propertX no later than December 3 l. 2012. 19.260.060 Small domestic animals. Small domestic animals, as that term is defined in this chapter, may be kept on the subject property subject to the following regulations: - (1) Minimum lot size. The subject property must be at least 35,000 square feet in area. (2) Maximum number of animals. No more than 20 small domestic animals may be kept on a lot containing 35,000 square feet of area. With the exce_ption of chickens and ducks, 9one additional small domestic animal is permitted for each additional 500 square feet of lot area. In addition, offspring from one female are permitted at any time, until thase offspring are able to live independently. (3) Pens, structures and enclosures. The applicant shall provide a suita.ble pen, structure or enclosure to house the animals and must maintain this structure, pen or enclosure in a clean condition at all times. All pens, structures and enclosures must be set back ! 40 feet from each property line. �� `� `��••��•••� . PAGE�� . � EXH��1'T z4 PAGE_.�.._a�_`�.._.- (4) Limitations under certain circumstances. The city may limit the number of animals allowed to less than the maximum stated in this section if this is reasonably necessary to protect nearby uses or the ciTy considering the following factors: (a) The proximity of the animals to dwelling units both on and off the subject property. (b) The lot size and isolation of the subject property. (c) The compatibility with surrounding uses. (d) Potential noise, pollution and other impacts. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.20(6)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-986.) 19.260.07U Large domestic animals. Large domestic animals, as that term is defined in this chapter, may be kept on the subject property subject to the following regulations: (1) Minimum lot size. The subject property must be at least 70,000 square feet in area. (2) Maximum number of animals. No more than two large domestic animals may be kept on a lot containing 70,000 square feet of area. One additional large domestic animal is permitted for each additiona135,000 square feet of lot area.. In addition, sucklings from one female are permitted at any time. (3) Pens and structures. The applicant shall provide a suitable pen or structure to house the animals and must maintain this structure or pen in a clean condition at all times. All pens or structures must be set back at least 40 feet from each property line. (4) Roaming and grazing areas. T'he subject property must conta.in an area of at least 14,500 contiguous square feet configured in a suitable manner to be used as a roaming, grazing or paddock area for the animals. This area must be exclusive of barns, storage sheds and other structures and must be accessible to trucks to deliver feed and remove manure. All roarning, grazing and paddock areas must be setback at least 20 feet from each property line. . (5) Exemptions to setbacks. The setback requirements of subsections (3) and (4) of this section may be modified or waived by the city if the abutting property owner records a statement with the county to run with the property giving permission for the structure or pen or roaming, grazing or paddock area to be closer to the property line than the required setback and/or for the structure, pen or area to extend across the property line. (6) Manure piles. Manure piles must be located and maintained in a manner to reduce or eliminate any nnpacts upon adjoining properties and water quality. (7) Limitations under certain circumstances. The cify may limit the number of animals allowed to less than the maximum stated in this chapter if this is reasonably necessary to protect nearby uses or the city considering the following factors: (a) The proximity of the animals to dwelling units both on and off the subject property. (b) The lot size and isolation of the subject property. (c) The compatibility with surrounding uses. (d) Potential noise, pollution and other impacts. (Ord. No.�90-43, § 2(115.20(7)}, 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-987.) 19.260.080 Bees. � Bees may be kept on the subject property subject to the following regulations: (1) Minimum lot size. The subject properly must be at least 15,000 square feet in area. (2) Number of hives. Two hives are permitted if the subject property is less than 20,000 square feet in area. Five hives are permitted if the subject property is between 20,000 and 60,000 square feet in area. A maximum of 15 hives are permitted if the subject property ' ��T � 7 than 60,000 square feet in area. � �� • �� G F �EXh�w��T._ PAGE. � .0� ' 25 (3) Location of hives. The hives must be at least 25 feet from each property line unless one of the following circumstances applies, in which case the hives must be at least 10 feet from each property line: (a) The hives are at least eight feet above the adjacent ground. . (b) The hives are less than six feet abave the adjacent ground and are behind a solid fence or hedge which is at least siaL feet in height and parallel to any property within 25 feet of the hives and extending at least 20 feet beyond the hive in both directions. (4) Registration. All colonies shall be registered with the state department of agriculture prior to April of each year in which they are kept. (5) Housing and maintenance. All colonies must be kept in movable frame hives. Adequate space must be maintained around hives to prevent overcrowding and swarming. Hives must be requeened following any swarming or aggressive behavior. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(I 15.20(8)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-988.) 19.260.090 Bonds. The city may require a bond under Chapter 19.25 FWRC to ensure that the subject property is maintained in a clean condition. (Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.20(9)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-989.) 1 Cross reference: Animal control regulations and animal related businesses, FWRC Title 9. EX� � � �� PAGE � �� EX��tT'r PAGE._�_._0� �`' 26 /O - /'J o �J :!� �- - � lQ CtT'! 4� '. �� . - � DEP-�TYfEVT OE CON&Y[UYITY D�`/�LO?��tt�..�V'I' SERYICFS 3�3Z� 3 .�vsmle Soutn ?O �o:c 97 i 3 FederaE �Nay �VA 930o3-97i� 253-835-2oQ7;iax 253-83�-2609 ✓rv��r.citvoT�zder�I:vav com ��LI��1TI{��1 �O� �►1��D/41��T �'� TH� � DEVE�L��l�1��1T ��GU1.AT10�1� l. R�quzsts for Amendments to the Devziopment Regulations a) Who may apply. Any inter�sted person inay apply for an amzndment to the d�ve(opment regt�lations.� . b) How to apply.:The appiicattt shall file a compiete�. Vtaster L,and Use appiication with the Department of Comm.unity Development Ser�rices. � - � c) FT�lten can you apply? Application for a proposed aruendm�nt must be made by submitting a completed application form to the Communiry Development Services (CDS) Departme�tt betwreen Auvust l�` and �:00 p.m., Sept�u3ber 30`� zaca year. Applications for amendments wil[ not be accrpted prior to August 1 of each year. Prior to Au�ust 1'`, any amendment must be docketed uiith kh� City (Piza�e refer �o Buliztin #02�) � :� y,�...» � .Referenc� Pizasz rePerencz the cod.e szetion of t�1e d�vetopment.r;.�1a�`ion and page number where Tocated. . SurpoRT��oR z� A�tir�rr�yr��r (Ptea�� fill out for all amendntents) Pleasz exniain the n�ed for th� amendment (why is it beia; reasoning that suppar� the proposed amen.dment (pleas:, ati PAGE� d) Propnserl Amendmer.t t� or000sed amandment ca.n oe eitnar coac,:piu.at or spacific amendatorl language. Pt�as�'ne � snecific as possible so fhat your proposal c�n be adeq��at�Iy consider�d. LF . specific wording changes arz proposed., this should b;, sho�vn in , '��/undertinz farmat � (plzasz aitach adciitional page; if necessary). � i i C��.3� ��:5 1!� �(�V. �.31eY'S �G�`UWIYt . � ��ftl�� 1 '� r.�rA . � �"6 !a� c? N -!C cdnS . `� � �u.�� . P P a�- 5 d-,�.5 a�S� r C a�� 3 ` ra�... � �� r-U n � =3 � - �-GO ,,� � , �rc�tr�x,� C�t./�+.. ; � n � � � �� i �nrr. r�uh e y: 1`�0 �y ',�nirv�c/S I, r7/`�C�s)GXJy ��q�F;�el . ;y��-��G6 . . .�` P 3. SIGNATURE - - /] _ / �7�� / � Signature Date " � � a�-Y' r, r1 h �• �c�!`�I�1 �3 �� r+�t P:�✓ Print Name ��3�.� ! � f-�/. S �► - Address . 25.� � Z- 7 �� Telephone No. � ' If you have any questions abaut filling out this appiication form or the amendment process, please call the Department of Community Development Services at 253-835-2607. Please be advised that an application for a development regulations amendment lacldng the required information will not be accepted. Bulietin #027— June 5, 2007 Page 2 of Z � .. ; � .. .. � . ; _ � .,�. - i .. , :+ _ 1 - i - . � ��F�r��`�' : - ��G�..,:�..3 ...,��;. - � � .. EXM�!�1�` � ' k:�aitdovtstF7ev Re s A[rientim ts y E ��°��.i ��f a-�M \j 28 �� (� ��F+rR E�i ToF Co�rtMtrNr['�' D 3332�a A enue South 'ar 3� �tf"� Qf PO Sox 9718 �]� �� )� Federal Way WA 48063-97t8 �� 253-835-Zb07; Fax 2i3-835-2609 CI�� EDERAL ��Va ��u+w•cihvff deralwav.com CDS DOCK�T FC�R�i1 DATE OF SUB�iTFTAL �� ' S —� � v�E �1_�r � aDD�ss 3 Q 3 b S / 9� �l ac2 �!� PHONE (ptease inctude area code) �o� � � .� ��7�� TYPE (please check one) Comprehensive Plan ❑ Deveiopment Regulation <� DESCRIPTTON OF DOCKETED ITEM Builetin #02G — Au�ust f 8, 2004 Pag� 1 of I ��"� � �'��.r.�-=— p E I �F� ��. �oc'�ce orrr��i� v 29 Urban Fowl City Minimum Roosters Notes Lot Siie Aliowed? Auburn One Acre Yes Up to 12 chickens per acre. Slaughtering with the intent to sell is rohibited. Des 22,000 s.f. Yes Up to 10 per 22,000 s.f. plus additional5 per 11,000 s.f. Moines Kent 5,000 s.f. No Up to 3 domesticated fowl per 5,000 s.f. plus one additional per every 1,000 s.f. Coops must be at least 10 feet from any adjoining lot. Domesticated fowl includes duck, goose, swan, chicken, or other fowl of similaz size and character. Tacoma No minimum No Enclosures and roaming areas must be at least 50 feet from any residential structures. Enclosures and roaming areas may be within 50-feet of residential structures if written consent is obtained from � ad'acent ro owner. Renton 6,000 s.f. No Up to 3 chickens, ducks, or geese per 6,000 s.f. and one additional chicken duck, or oose with each additional2 000 s.f. Burien No Minimum No Up to 3 domestic fowl on any lot. On lots of at least one-half acre domestic fowl may be kept at a rate of 7 per one-half acre. Domesric fowl include but is not limited to chickens, ducks, geese, and turkeys. Tukwila 10,000 s.f. No Up to 12 chickens per 10,000 s.f. The number of chickens may be increased 1/10 for each additionai 1,OU0 s.f. Six geese, ducks, or turkeys may be kept per 10,000 s.f. and increased at the same rate as chickens. Coops must be set back at least 20 feet from ad'oinin ro e line and at least 35 feet from an dwellin unit. Seattle No Minimum No LTp to 8 chickens per lot. Lots greater than 10,000 square feet that contain an urban farm as accessory use may increase chickens 1 r 1,000 s.f. �X� � � ��_��. PAGE,.�..,.�F�_ �xN��T � ---- PA�E__�._._OF�..-. 30 Rabbits City Quantity Additional Rabbits/Notes Allowed Auburn 4 Lots greater than one acre may keep 12 rabbits per acre Slau terin animals rohibited. Burien 3 On ]ots of at least one-half acre, rabbits may be kept at a rate of 7 er one-half acre. Des Moines 3 Additional rabbits allowed at a ratio of 10 rabbits per 22,000 s.f. Kent 3 Additional rabbits allowed on lots greater than 20,000 s.£ with ermits and licensin . Renton 3 Three per 6,000 s.f of lot. One additional rabbit for every additiona12,000 s.f. Tukwila 12 10,000 squaze foot lot minimum. Number of rabbits may be increased by 1/10 for each additional 1,000 s.f. of property. Enclosures must be set back at least 20 feet from ro e line and 35 feet from an dwellin unit Tacoma No limit Rabbits cannot be kept within 50 feet of neighboring residence. . EX� � � �� PAGE_15�.�� 2 LX1��?#T C �PAGE 2 QF � 31 ---- ` CITY OF � Federai Way DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Proposed Text Amendments .to Federal Way Revised Cade Title 19 `Zoning & Development Code' Related to the Keeping of Fowt and Small Domestic Animals (Non-Project Action) File No: IO-103481-00-SE Description: Proposed text amendments to the Ciry's zoning and development code that would decrease the minimum lot size for keeping a limited number of domestic fowl on single-family residential properties. Scope of changes may also include the banning of roosters and reduction in lot size minimum for keeping more than four rabbits per household. Location: Ciiywide Appticant: Department of Community Development Services Lead Agency: City of Federal Way � Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, 253-835-2638 The lead agency for this proposat has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on fihe environruent, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2xc}. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, F�deral6Yay Comprehensive Plan, and other municipai po(icies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act pursuant to RCW 43.31 C_ 110. This information is available to the public on request. Further information regarding this action is available to the public upon request from the Department of Community Development Services. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days frorr► the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on October 27, 2010. Unless modified by the City, this determination wili become final following the above comment deadiine. Any person aggrieved of the Ciiy's fina! determina#ion may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above comment deadline_ You may appeal this determination to the Federal Way City Clerk, at the City of Federal Way (address beiow), no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 10, 2010, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Responsibte OfFcial: Greg Fewins Title: DirecYor, Department of Community Development Services Address: 33325 8th Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 EX�"�!��'�' � Date Issued: October 13, 2010 Segnature: ��/''' P,�E�� . ExM�� . K12010 Code Amendmenu\[hba�l��\�A�DT� 32 �A � Stakeholders List Updated July 14, 2010 Bob Cooper Lloyd Entecprises Inc. PO Box 3889 Eederat Way, WA 98063-3889 bobcC�l, loydenterprisesinc.com Chris Carrel Friend of the Hylebos PO Box 2497I Fedetal Way, WA 98093 ccarrel(�a,att.blackberry.net Dan Bil� SBI Developing PO Box 73790 Puyaltup, WA 98373 danbCa��oundbtulthomes.com Kurt Wilson SBI Developing PO Box 73790 Puyallup, WA 98373 ' {253)539-81I6 � Julie Ramseth Harsch Investment ProperCies 13010 NE 20`� Street, Suite 450 Bellewe, WA 98005 iulier ,harsch.com Jnlie Ratnseth Harsch Investment Properties 13010 NE 20�' Street, Suite 450 Bellevue, WA 98005 (530) 450-0778 iulier�a�,harsch.com Don Perry Lakehaven Uti[ity District PO Box 4249 Federal Way, WA 98063 dperryna,taketiaven.org Tim Osborne, PE Lakehaven Utility District 31627 t�` Avenue South Federai Way, WA 98003 (253)946-5540 tosbome lakehaveaorg John Bowman Lakehaven Utility District PO Box 4249 Federat Way, WA 98Q63 (253) 946-,5401 jbowman@lakehaveaorg Gii Hulsmann Abbey Road Group PO Box 1224 Puyallup, WA 98371 {253)435-3699 gil.hulsmann cr,abbevroadgroup.com Jennifer povey Windermere 33405 6�' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 423-8000 jsdovey(�a,windermere.com John Noms Norris Homes 2053 Faben Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 275-1901 johnnonis cr,comcast.net Mark Clirehugh GVA Kidder, Mathews, Segner 1201 Pacific Avenue, #1400 Tacoma, WA 98402 (253)722-i416 marckc(u�gval�.com (u, Paul Lymberis Quadrant Homes PQ Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 (425)452-6556 Paul.lycnberis(c��guadranChomes.com Paul Manzer Pacland Development Consulting 1 t235 SE 6�` Street, Suite 220 Be(lewe, WA 98004 (425) 453-9501 pmanzer@,pac [and. com Rod Leiand Federal Way Public Schools 31405 18'� Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 rlelandna, fwsd. wednet.edu Sid White Federal Way Public Schools 1066 South 320�' Street Federal Way, WA 98003 (253)945-5935 swhite(a��fwps.org Gordon Olson South King Fire & Rescue 31617 1�` Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 227-930 i gordoa olson(a)southkingfire.org Tom Raymond South King Fire & Rescue 31617 1� Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 (253)946-7241 Tom.ravmond cr,southkingfire.org Tom Pierson Federal Way Chamber oFCommerce PO Box 4220 �ederal Way, WA 98063 (253)838-2605 tomp�a federalwavchamber.com Sam Pace SealKing County Assoc of Realtors 29839 154`� Avenue SE Kent, WA 98042-4557 (253)630-554t sampace(c�concentric.net Ron Tremaine Redstone Development Land Acquisition and Development 17417 433`� Street SE North Bend, WA 98045 redstoneron � hotmail.com 425-831-7730 (w1 � � �,�� 206-353-1761 (ce AG E .= � 1 � 425-831-7783( � K,Zmo coae nmenameotslo�.�a�o stalcenda«s Gst.ao� EXHI�IT � PAGE._.�._...OF��,�; °.:�. 33 Monte Poweil Powell Homes 29607 8"' Avenue South �ederal Way, WA 98003 monte ,powe(1-homes.com Garrett J. Huffman Master Builders Associarion of King/Snohomish Counties 335 116`� Avenue SE Bellewe, WA 98004 ghuffman c[r)mbaks.com 425-460-8236 (MBAKS) Brant A. 5chweikl, P.E. Managing Member Schweikl and Associates, PLLC 705 South 9 Street, Suite 3Q3 Tacoma, WA 98405 bschweikl@,comcast. net 253-272-4451 (wk) 253-2'12-4495(fax} Mike Behn Quadrant, Development Manager 14725 SE 36'� Street, Suite #200 PO Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 mike. behn@,quadrantho mes. c om 425-452-6563 425-753-4866(cell} Bob Roper bob.rooerna,comcast. net 253-941-6954 Dale A Roper . The Roper Company Landscape Architechue/Site Plantting 816 Cherry Avenue, #3A Surnner, WA 98390 253-891-1030 253-826-3891 (fax) roperdale�n,aol.com Gary Hering 1439 SW 296�' Street Fedeni Way, WA 98023 gjhering(�a,comcast.net Tim Atkins Big Mountain Enterprises PO Box I001 Enumclaw, WA 98022 tim�a�,bi�mountainentcom Bill McCaffrey WJM Studio 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116 Federal Way, WA 98023 wj mccaffrey�a,comcast.net Tom Barghausen Barghausen Consulting Engiaeers 18215 72 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 tbar�hausen cr,barghausen.com Peter Townsend 1648 South 310`� Street, Suite 6 Federal Way, WA 98003 253-839-2947 petert8 ,me.com Aubucn, WA 98032 Miice Baily LDG Architects L319 DexterAvenue, Suite 260 Seattle, WA 98109 206-283-4764 mike _,Idgarchitects.com Chad Weiser OTAK 10236 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Kirklantd, WA 98033-7897 206-442-1359 chad. weiser(n�otak. co m Christine Balyeat New Concept Nomes' PO Box 1229 Issaquah, WA 98027 hcbalyeat _,hotmail.com Mark Freitas 33516 9 Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 253-838-8327 markfccim(�cs.com Tres Kirkebo Apex En�ineering 2601 35 Street, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98409 253-473-4494 kirkebona,anexengineering.net K12010 Code Amendmenh107-f4-10 StakdroMcs List.doc � . 34 Gary Martindale The Commons of Federal Way (928-B South Commoas Blvd Federal Way, WA 98003 253-839-6156 QmaRinda le� tca fw. com Jeff Greene Greene Gasaway Architects PO Box 4158 Fedecal Way, WA 98063-4158 253-941-4937 jeffggarch �seanet.com Steve Hammer $rowleit Petecson Hammer Architects 6920 220�' SW, Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 steve n bpharch.com Met Easter Johnson Braund Design Group 15200 52" Avenue South, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98188 206-766-8300 mele(a�jbdg.com Koong Cho Royal Hospitality (Hampton Inn) 15901 West Valtey Highway Tukwila, WA 98188 253-318-0908 koong�a�comcast.net Jim Jordan (Saghalie Heights developer) jriordan�a�,isomedia.com Mike Hovland Hovland Architects 900 Meridian Avenue East, Ste 408 Milton, WA 98354 ho varcht(cilcomcast. ne t Dave Thorstad 406 South 289�' Place Federai Way, WA 98003 dltarchitect n,comcastnet Dan ColcalI Hammes Co. (St. Francis Hospita�� ■�� 1325 4'� Avenue, S � Seattte, WA 98I01�� i q �� dcoxall(�a,hammesc �., � .�,,,� EXHt�tT�.�._._. PAGE_? OF P.� Tony Stazkovich 1611 9�' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 423-775-6552 vinta�ecaaitat(c�hotmail.com Bill Piautz LBA Realty 660 SW 39'� Street Renton, WA 98057 425-272-0267 bplaufz�n,lbarealri.com Georgia Ferrer LBA Reaity 660 SW 39`� Street Renton, WA 98057 425-272-0264 gferrer(c�,�lbarealty.com Gareth Roe BCRA 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 253-627-4367 groe .bcradesi n.g com Brett Thomas brettna mountainconst.com Connie Boyle connie.bovleC�colliers.com James Pate iamesp(�a,harsch.com JeffOliptiant j1o55 a aol.com Jerry Heinz ierry._heinzCc�weyerhaeuser.com Jon Potter potter.nwp{a��mait.com Randy Lloyd randylloyd(a�xprintblackberrv.net Rick Olson RickOlson cr.thshealth.org Rob Aigner roba(�a,harsch.com Rob Rueber arcueber cr,comcast.net Scott Rhodes rhodesarchitecture�a,gmail.com Sheppazd Cutler swc(cr�,fcshersons.com Gordon Olson Gordon.olson(c�southkingfire.org Steve Honeycutt shoneycutt�a,wildwaves.com Heidi Swariz Swartz Deveiopment 5724 30�` Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98105 (206) 730-6933 cell (206) 527-8999 fax hpswartz �comcast.net �x�"�� PAGE 2�� w,wio caa� n,n��c,�ar-�¢io sw�� ;�.a�� Ex��r� c - PAGE_.�;�=- 35 C17Y OF ` Federal UVay MEMORANDUM DA,TE September 23, 20I0 To: Chair Merle Pfeifer and Federal Way P ning Commission FROM Matthew Herrera, Associate Pl Greg Fewins, Director of Community Development Serv�� 5UBJECT: Urban Chicken Study Session FILE: 10-102048-00-UP MEETING DATE: September 29, 2010 A. BACKGROUND Frequent informa! citizen requests to amend the existing policy that limit chicicens to larger lots prompted staff to request that City Council include consideration of urban chickens as part of a citizen initiated request to ban roosters docketed in 2008. The council accepted the addition and also directed staff to consider the city's rabbit poticy as part of the overall development regulation amendment. Recent trends in sustainability and the slow food movement� have poputarized the keeping of backyard chickens in urhan areas. Two contributing factors to the popularity of raising.chickens is the cost effectiveness of egg procluction and companionship the birds provide their owners. Several surrounding jurisdictions allow "backyard chickens" in urban residentiai neighborhoods. Typical zoning regulations include limitations on the number of chickens atlowed and required setbacks for coops. Some jurisdictions allow roosters along with other domestic fowl, white others prohibit roosters by either outright ban or not including them in the zoning code's fowl definition. City pianning staff began a stakeholder list of interested parties for the proposed amendment following its inclusion into the 2010 Planning Commission Work Program. The stakehoider list contains 13 citizens as of the clate of this memorandum. B. STUDY SESSION PURPOSE Due. to the relative popularity of the proposed amendment, staff requested a study session to: (1) brief the Planning Commission on the city's existing chicken and rabbit regulations; (2) provide regional e�catnples of urban chicken and rabbit policies; (3) detail the next steps of the amendment process; and (4) get input from the commission and citizens on how the existing regulations shouid or should not change prior to issuing a recommendation_ C. EXISTING FEDERAL WAY POLIC[ES Fowl — Chickens and roosters are characterized as "fowt" in the Federal Way Revised Code. Current fowl-keeping policies have remained unchanged since the city's 1990 incorporation. Wt►ile fowl is not specifically defined in city code, the dictionary definition inciudes domesticated chickens, roosters, ducks, turkeys, geese, and quail. Fowl may be kept on any residential zone or other zone where �X� ��''�'� � Slow food promotes keeping agricuiture as close to the end user as possible, such as the slogan "shop iocal" or "eat local PAGE � J..._.�� Vegetable gardens, small scale orchards, and backyard c hic kens are examp les o f s low f o o d_ � 36 �Xff �� i� aerF � �� dwelling unit is permitted. The single-family and multi-family residential minimum (ot size for keeping fowi is 35,000 square feet, which translates to approximately 0_8 acres. Lots meeting the minimum 35,000 square feet may keep up to 20 fowl with one additional fowl allowed for each additional 500 square feet of lot area. ' Rabbits — Cutrent rabbit-keeping regulations have also remained unchanged since the city incorporated. Residential uses may keep 4 rabbits or less as househotd pets without a lot size (imitation. The keeping of more than 4 rabbits qualifies as "small domestic animals." A minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet (0.8 acres) is required to keep 5 to 20 rabbits. One additional rabbit is allowed for each additional 500 square feet of lot area. Development Standards — Owners of small domestic animals (20 or rnore fowU20 or more rabbits) are required to provide. a suitable pen, structure, or enclosure to house the animals. All pens, structures, and enclosures must be set back at teast 40 feet from each properry line. Limitations — The city is autt►orized to limit the number of animals allowed to less than the maximurn if it's reasonably necessary to protect nearby uses or the city. The city considers the following factors when limiting the number of animals: (a) The proximity of the animals to dwelling units both on and off the subject property; (b) The lot size and isolation of the subject property; (c) The compatibility with surrounding uses; and/or (d) Potential noise, pollution, and other impacts. Suburban Estate (SE) Zones — Separate regulations for the keeping of foraging/grazing animals, fowl, and rabbits apply in SE zones. SE zones require a minimum 5 acre lot size and allow 150 fowl or rabbits pex 5 acres of properiy. D. .TURISDICTIONAL COMPARISONS City Minimum Lot Roosters Size Allowed? One Acre Yes Urban Fowl Notes Auburn Des 22,000 s.f. Yes Moines Kent 5,000 s.£ No Tacoma No minimum No Renton 6,000 s.f. No Burien �. No Minimum � No Up to 12 chickens per acre. Slaughtering with the intent to sell is �rohibited Up to 10 per 22,000 s.f. plus additional5 per 11,000 s.f Up to 3 domesticated fowl per 5,000 s.f. plus one additional per every 1,000 s.f. Coops must be at least 10 feet from any adjoining lot. Domesticated fowl inc(udes duck, goose, swan, chicken, or other fow( of similar size and character. Enclos�res and roaming areas must be at leas# 50 feet from any residential structures_ Enclosures and roaming areas may be within 50-feet of residentiai structures if written consent is obtained from adjacent property owner. Up to 3 chickens, ducks, or geese per 6,000 s.f. and one additional chicken duck or goose with each additiona12,000 s.f. Up to 3 domestic fowl on any lot. On tots of at least one-half acre domestic_fowl may be kept at a xate of 7 per one-half acre. Domestic fowl include but is not limited to chickens, ducks, geese, and tarkeys. C �� ..GF' z� UibBR Ct11CICCi1 S�LL(lY SCSSIOII K:�2010 Code AmendmunsWrban Chickens�Planning Commi�sion�nal Final Swdy Session Memo.doc Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 3, EXN!�!�s�' � �AGE..? ...��.,�.,-- Tukwila 10,000 s.f. No Up to 12 chickens per 10,000 s.f. The number of chickens may be increased 1/IO for each additional 1,000 s.f. Six geese, ducks, or turkeys � may be kept per 10,000 s.f and increased at the same rate as chickens. Coops must be set back at Ieast 20 feet from adjoining property line and at least 35 feet from any dwellin unit. Seattle No Minimum No Up to 8 chickens per lot. Lots greater than 10;000 square feet that contain an urban farm as accesso use may increase chickens 1 er i s.f. Rabbits City Quantity Additional Rabbits/Notes Atlowed Auburn 4 Lots greater than one acre may keep 12 rabbits per acre Slau hterin animats rohibited. Burien 3 On lots of at least one-half acre, rabbits may be kept at a rate of 7 er one-half acre. Des Moines 3 Additional rabbits aliowed at a ratio of 10 rabbits per 22,000 s.f. Kent 3 Additional rabbits atlowed on lots greater than 20,000 s.f. with ermits and licensin . Renton 3 Three per 6,000 s.f of lot. One additional rabbit for every additional 2,000 s.f. Tukwila l2 10,000 square foot lot minimum. Number of rabbits may be increased by il10 for each additional 1,000 s.f. of property. Enclosures must be set back at least 20 feet from ro e line and 35 feet from an dwellin unit. Tacoma No limit Rabbits cannot b.e kept within 50 feet of neighboring residence_ E. POLICY QUESTIONS Staff encountered the following items that should be included in the policy discussion. This is not intended to be a complete Iist and staff will consider additional questions/comments provided by the commission and citizens prior to drafting.a recommendation. 1. Shouid the minimum lot size for keeping fowi be reduced or eliminated? 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, how many fowl should be allowed on urban lots? What distance from property lines or homes should coops be located? 3. Should the city provide a definition of "fowl" in the Zoning and Development Code? If so, what should fowl include? � 4. Existing ianguage does not allow the keeping of fowl for nonconforming single-family dwelIing i units. Should this policy change? : 5. Shou(d roosters be banned in all areas of the city? Current code allows them on (ots greater than 35,000 s.f. If fowl aze allowed on lots less than 35,000 s.f., should roosters be banned on those lots? � 6. Should the maximum number of rabbits considered "household pets" be increased from fou�Xf� �� ",�, -� PaGE�aF?� Urban Chicken Study Session K:�2070 Code AmenclmeMSlUr�an Chickens�Planning CommissionlFinal �nal Study Session Memo.doc Planning Commission Staff Report EXH�� 38 PAGE� 3___.��.,.�.,_ F. NEXT STEPS During the weeks leading up to the Planning Commission public hearing, staff will issue an environmental threshold determination as required by the State Environmenta! Policy Act (SEPA). Staff wil! then consider comments provided at the study session and issue a report to the Planning Commission containing findings, conclusions, and a staff recommendation approximately seven days prior to the public hearing. Forinal noticing of the hearing witi be published in the Federat Way Mirror and posted at the city's bulletin boards. The staff report and notices will also be provided to stakeholders and anyone requesting copies of the documents. EXN��''��---�- PAGE: �--'�F 2 � Uib3R ChICkC[1 $tildy SCSSIOD K:�2010 Code Amendments\Urban Chickrns�Planning Commiesan�mal Fioal Swdy Sasioo Memo.doc P�anning Commission Staff Report EX� � P �'� � 4 � 39 PAGE. � .��..._ COiTNCIL MEETING DATES: December 7, 2010 & December 15, 2010 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ITEM #: SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL WAYREVISED CODE (FWRC) CHAPTER 19 REGARDING PORTABLE SIGNS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. POLICY QUESTION Should the City of Federal Way approve an amendment to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19, to allow portable signs to be located in street side planter strips within the right-of-way, subject to conditions? COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) CATEGORY: ❑ Consent � Ordinance ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution STAFF REPORT BY: Deb Barker, Senior Planner MEETING DATE Nov. 15 , 201 O ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other DEPT Community Development Services Attachments: (1) Draft Adoption Ordinance; (2) Staff Report to the Planning Commission for the November 3, 2010, Public Hearing; and (3) Draft Minutes of the November 3, 2010, Planning Commission Public Hearing. Options Considered: (1) Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as shown in the Draft Adoption ordinance; (2) Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as modified by the LUTC; (3) Do not adopt the amendments; ar(4) Refer the amendments back to the Plannin� Commission for further proceedings._ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve Option # 1; adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation reflected in the Draft Adoption Ordinance. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: �_ Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I move to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on December 7, 2010. Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): 1 READING OF ORDINANCE (DECEMBER 7, 2010) "I move to forward the ordinance to Second Reading for enactment on the December 21, 2010, consent agenda. " 2 ND READING OF ORDINANCE (DECEMBER 21, 2010): `7 move approval of the LUTC recommendation to approve the code amendment, contained in the Adoption Ordinance. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED isT reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION # 40 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to portable signs in the right-of-way; amending FWRC 19.140.060. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 08-583, 07-573, 07-554, 06-523, OS-487, OS- 486, 99-357, and 99-348) WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to periodically modify Title 19 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), "Zoning and Development Code," in order to conform to state and federal law, codify administrative practices, clarify and update zoning regulations as deemed necessary, and improve the efficiency of the regulations and the development review process; and WHEREAS, this ordinance, containing amendments to development regulations and the text of Title 19 FWRC, has complied with Process VI review, Chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to Chapter 19.35 FWRC; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to adopt new language which establishes development regulations for portable signs within street side planter strips within the City of Federal Way; and WHEREAS, portable signs are permitted outright in the public right-of-way but prohibited in street medians and in street side planter strips pursuant to FWRC 19.140.060(29)(h); and WHEREAS, it has been noted that in many areas within the city, a street side planter strip is the only location available to safely locate a portable sign when there is no other feasible location due to various factors, including but not limited to the absence of a sidewalk; and 41 WHEREAS, the City has determined that in order to avoid obstructing sight distance at intersections and driveways and avoid impacts to traveler safety, portable signs cannot be located in the sight distance triangle reserve area of street side planter strips; and WHEREAS, by incorporating these parameters, this code amendment would allow portable signs to be placed in the street side planter strips within the right-of- way; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2010, the City properly issued an addendum to the Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS), previously issued on August 20, 2008, noting that under certain conditions, portable signs could be pertnitted within street side planter strips; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this code amendment on November 3, 2010; and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered this code amendment on November 15, 2010, and recommended adoption of the text amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the proposed amendment. (a) This code amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City and will benefit the City as a whole by establishing parameters to allow portable signs to be located outright within the street side planter strips of the right-of-way. Ordinance No. 10- Page 2 of 7 Rev i/l0 LU 42 (b) These code amendments comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management. (c) These code amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 19 FWRC and will implement and are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. (d) These code amendments bear a substantial relationship to, and will protect and not adversely affect, the public health, safety, and welfare. (e) These code amendments have followed the proper procedure required under the FWRC. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to Chapter 19.80 FWRC and Chapter 19.35 FWRC, and based upon the recitals and the findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the proposed amendments: (a) The proposed FWRC amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goal and policy: EDG — 6. The City will encourage and support existing businesses to remain an�l/or expand their facilities within Federal Way. (b) The proposed FWRC amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because when correctly located, portable signs will not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular travel while assisting businesses in attracting customers. (c) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of Federal Way because safely locating portable signs within street side planter strips Ordinctnce No. ! 0- Page 3 of 7 Rev l/ I 0 LU 43 helps attract customers to businesses, sales, and other events, thus supporting economic development. Section 3. Chapter 19.140.060 of the Federal Wczy Revised Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.140.060 Exempt signs. A sign permit is not required for the following signs or modifications to signs; provided, however, that such signs shall comply with all of the following requirements: (1) Address identification with numbers and letters not more than 10 inches in height. (2) Balloons no greater than 18 inches in diameter and no more than five balloons per display with a tether no longer than 36 inches. No more than two displays are permitted per site. (3) Barber poles. (4) Construction signs, so long as such signs are limited to two signs per project and each sign does not exceed 32 square feet per sign face and 10 feet in height. Construction signs shall not be displayed prior to issuance of a building permit and shall be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. One "Coming Soon" or "Open During Construction" sign per site entrance is also permitted. (5) Directional signs, on-site. Each sign shall not exceed four square feet in sign area if the directional sign is indicating one direction and shall not exceed eight square feet in sign area if such sign is indicating more than one direction. Each sign may be no more than five feet in height. No more than two signs per street frontage are permitted for multi-tenant complexes. Single-tenant properties shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Center or complex names or logos shall not comprise more than 20 percent of the total sign area. (6) Flags of czny nation, government, educational institution, or noncommercial orgc�nization. Decorative flags without corporate logos or other forms of advertising are also excluded from permit requirements. All flags must be a minimum size of five square feet unless it is a national or state flag and the official national or state flag is less than five square feet in size but not larger than 40 square feet in size. (7) Fzcel price signs. Signs shall be located on the property where fuel is sold, shall be limited to one monument sign per street frontage not exceeding five feet in height and sign area shall not exceed 20 square feet per sign face. (8) Gravestones or other memorial displays associated with cemeteries or mausoleums. (9) Historical site plaques and signs integral to an historic building or site. (10) Holiday decorations displayed in conjunction with recognized holidays. (11) Incidental signs attached to a structure or building, providing that the total of all such signs per use or business shall not exceed two square feet. (12) Instructional signs that do not exceed six square feet in area per sign face. (13) Integral design features when such features are an essential part of the architecture of a building (including religious symbols) and when such features do not represent a product, service, or registered trademark. Ordinance No. !P- Page 4 of 7 Rev U10 LU 44 (14) Integral signs when no more than one per building. (15) Interior signs located completely within a building or structure and not intended to be visible from outside the structure, exclusive of window signs. (16) Menu board not to exceed 32 square feet per sign face and a maximum height of five feet (two permitted per site). (17) Nameplates not to exceed two square feet per sign face. (18) Nonblinking small string lights which are part of decoration to be used in association with landscaped areas and trees. (19) Point of purchase displays. Point of purchase signs are limited to two square feet in area and one sign per point of purchase. Such signs shall only display instructional or price information and shall not include copy pertaining to any special sale or promotion. Point of purchase display signs shall be permitted in conjunction with an outdoor use, activity, or storage as authorized under Chapter 19.125 FWRC. (20) Political signs so long as the maximum area per sign is limited to six square feet. No political sign shall be displayed later than seven calendar days after a final election. (21) Private advertising signs. The sign shall be limited to eight square feet per sign face and five feet in height, the sign must be immediately removed at the end of an event, use or condition, the sign must contain the address of the event or advertiser, and there shall be no more than six such signs advertising an event. (22) Private notice signs. (23) Real estate signs. Real estate signs shall be limited to one on-site sign per agent per street frontage or public entrance if no street frontage exists. For dwelling units, the area of the sign shall be no greater than six square feet per sign face. For other uses and developments, the size shall not exceed 32 square feet per sign face. All on-site real estate signs must be removed when the sale closes, or in the case of a rental or lease, when the tenant takes possession. (24) Temporary business signs for temporary business defined by FWRC 12.25.010; provided, however, that each licensed temporary business is only allowed two signs of 16 square feet per sign face. If only one sign is used, that sign may be 32 square feet per sign face. (25) Under-canopy signs not exceeding the width of the canopy and eight square feet in size; and provided, that a minimum separation exists between such signs equal to 20 lineal feet or more. (26) Warning signs. (27) Window signs not exceeding 25 percent of the window area only to advertise products, goods or services for sale on site, business identification, hours of operation, address, and emergency information. (28) Signs on sports field fences not exceeding 32 square feet per sign that are securely attached to the fence, are not protruding above the fence line, and are oriented to the interior of the field. (29) Portable signs located in the public right-of-way subject to the following standards: (a) Signs may not be affixed to the ground, including through the use of stakes or other means that may damage property; (b) No more than two signs are allowed per event and no person may have more than two signs at any one time, except that 10 open house signs are allowed; Ordinance No. l0- Page 5 of 7 Rev 1 / 10 LU 45 (c) Sign area shall neither exceed six square feet per sign face nor 36 inches in height; (d) Signs are allowed only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to sunset and must be removed each day; (e) Signs may not be placed on or attached to other objects, including but not limited to buildings, structures, trees, plants, utility poles, utility boxes, utility equipment, or other signs; ( fl Signs shall not be located on the traveled portion of a roadway; in parking lanes; on sidewalks; in bicycle lanes; or placed in a manner that interferes with vehicle, bicycle, wheelchair, or pedestrian views or travel; (g) Signs shall not be placed in street medians or within anv si�ht-distance triangle reserve area of anv street side planter strips as depicted in the followin� drawin�; Face of curb, or if none exists, edge of pavement. Sight distance triangle reserve areas. � � � � ` � �� p 1 � � � J __ J�'y � � ( Street � ( � I Face of curb, or if none exists. adge of pavement. EWRC 19140 060 (29) (E 11 SICHT DISTANCE TRIA�IGLE RESERVE AREA Portable Signs Are Not Allowed in Sight Distance Triangle Reserve Area (h) Signs shall have a name and contact phone number or other contact information on them. Section 4. Severabilitv. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of Ordinance No. ! 0- Page 6 of T Rev 1/10 LU 46 ngle scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of ►� CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, LINDA KOCHMAR ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Or�timmce No. l 0- Page 7 of 7 Rev 1/l0 LU 47 � � CITY OF � Federal Way STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Amendment to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.140, "Signs" File No.10-104254-00-UP Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 2010 I. BACKGROUND On October 3, 2010, the City Council gave staff direction to prepare a code amendment to allow portable signs to be located in street side planter strips within the right-of-way. II. DISCUSS�oN Pursuant to Federad Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.140, portable signs are presently permitted in the public right-of-way subject to the conditions of FWRC 19.140.060(29)(a) through (29)(h). L'unitations include FWRC 19.140.060(29), which states that portable signs are not to be placed in street medians or in street side planter strips. It has been noted that in many areas within the city, a street side planter strip is the only location available to safely locate a portable sign when there is no other feasible location due to various factors, including but not limited to the absence of a sidewalk. The placement of portable signs in street medians may adversely impact road safety and is not endorsed. However, portable signs that are properly located within street side planter strips would keep pedestrian corridors clear and would not create traffic safety issues. Further, maintenance can still occur in street side planter strips as portable signs can be easily relocated. To avoid obstructing sight distance at intersections and driveways and not impact traveler safety, portable signs need to be outside of the sight distance triangle reserve area of street side planter strips. The sight distance triangle reserve area is based on an area having two 30-foot sides along the prolongation or continuation of lines from the face of the curb, or if no curb exists, the edge of the pavement at each intersection or driveway. A drawing is provided for reference. By incorporating these parameters, this code amendment would allow portable signs to be placed in the street side planter strips within the right-of- way while protecting public infrastructure and property, and promoting traffic and traveler safety. The draft code amendment is enclosed as Exhibit A. Language proposed to be deleted is shown as �eet�� and any proposed new language would be shown as underline. Under this amendment to 19.140.060(29), portable signs would be allowed in the street side planter strips of the right-of-way as follows: 48 (29) Portable signs located in the public right-of-way subject to the following standards: (a) Signs may not be affixed to the ground, including through the use of stakes or other means that may damage property; (b) No more than two signs are allowed per event and no person may have more than two signs at any one time, except that 10 open house signs are allowed; (c) Sign area shall neither exceed six square feet per sign face nor 36 inches in height; (d) Signs are allowed only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to sunset and must be removed each day; (e) Signs may not be placed on or attached to other objects, including but not limited to buildings, structures, trees, plants, utility poles, utility boxes, utility equipment, or other signs; ( fl Signs shall not be located on the traveled portion of a roadway; in parking lanes; on sidewalks; in bicycle lanes; or placed in a manner that interferes with vehicle, bicycle, wheelchair, or pedestrian views or travel; (g) Signs shall not be placed in street medians or within anv si�,ht-distance triangle reserve area of a� street side planter strips- as depicted in the following drawin�; Face of curb, or if none exists, edge of pavement. Sight dista�e triangle reserve areas. � � ws � , � > 1 � o �� o i � � � J ...__ t�j I � I Strcet � I � I Face of curb, or if none exists, edge of pavement. Portable Signs Are Not Allowed in Sight Distance Triangle Reserve Area (h) Signs shall have a name and contact phone number or other contact information on them. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the code amendment as outlined in Section II above and enclosed as Exhibit A be recommended for approval to the City Council. N. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWRC Chapter 19.80, "Process VI - Council Rezones," establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. 2. 3. To review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments. To determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the applicable criteria provided by FWCC 19.80.240(1). To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendYUem. Staft' Report ro the Planning Commission Amendment ro FWRC 19.I40, Signs Doc.I.D.56158 Page 2 gle 49 V. DECIS[ONAL CRITERIA FWRC 19.80.130 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendment with the criteria provided by sections (1) through (3) of Chapter 19.80.130, FWRC. The City may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed FWRC text amendment is consistent with the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) goal: EDG-6 The City will encourage and support existing btiesinesses to remain and/or expand their facilities within Fecleral Way. The comprehensive plan encourages success of business in Federal Way as a general concept. Enhanced signage can serve to benefit business visibility and viabiliry. The success of business has a direct impact to the City's tax base, which provides the money to support City services and amenities. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed FWRC text amendment bears a relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because when correctly located, portable signs will not interfere with pedestrian or vehicle travel while assisting businesses in attracting customers. Limiting the number of signs and hours during which they may be displayed will continue to promote a positive visual image of the City, and sign portability lends to maintenance ease. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City. The proposed FWRC text amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City because safely locating portable signs in the street side planter strips helps to attract customers to business, sales, and other events thus supporting economic development. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendment: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendment as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendment and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendment as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendment not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendment to City Council without a recommendation. Exhibit A— Amendment to Fecferal Way Revised Code Chapter 19.140.06Q "Signs," with Proposed Language Changes. StaffRepoKro the Planning Commission Ameed�eatto FWRC 19.140, Signs Doc. I.D. 561i8 Page 3 50 Ex�iT A — AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE (FWRC) CxApTER 19.140.060, "S��NS" 19.140.060 Exempt signs. A sign permit is not required for the following signs or modifications to signs; provided, however, that such signs shall comply with all of the following requirements: (1) Address identification with numbers and letters not more than 10 inches in height. (2) Balloons no greater than 18 inches in diameter and no more than five balloons per display with a tether no longer than 36 inches. No more than two displays are permitted per site. (3) Barber poles. (4) Construction signs, so long as such signs are limited to two signs per project and each sign does not exceed 32 square feet per sign face and 10 feet in height. Construction signs shall not be displayed prior to issuance of a building permit and shall be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. One "Coming Soon" or "Open during Construction" sign per site entrance is also permitted. (5) Directional signs, on-site. Each sign shall not exceed four square feet in sign area if the directional sign is indicating one direction and shall not exceed eight square feet in sign area if such sign is indicating more than one direction. Each sign may be no more than five feet in height. No more than two signs per street frontage are permitted for multi-tenant complexes. Single-tenant properties shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Center or complex names or logos shall not comprise more than 20 percent of the total sign area. (6) Flags of any nation, government, educational institution, or noncommercial organization. Decorative flags without corporate logos or other forms of advertising are also excluded from permit requirements. All flags must be a minimum size of five square feet unless it is a national or state flag and the official national or state flag is less than five square feet in size but not larger than 40 square feet in size. (7) Fuel price signs. Signs shall be located on the property where fuel is sold, shall be limited to one monument sign per street frontage not exceeding five feet in height and sign area shall not exceed 20 square feet per sign face. (8) Gravestones or other memorial displays associated with cemeteries or mausoleums. (9) Historical site plaques and signs integral to an historic building or site. (10) Holiday decorations displayed in conjunction with recognized holidays. (11) Incidental signs attached to a structure or building, providing that the total of all such signs per use or business shall not exceed two square feet. (12) Instructional signs that do not exceed six square feet in area per sign face. (13) Integral design features when such features are an essential part of the architecture of a building (including religious symbols) and when such features do not represent a product, service, or registered trademark. (14) Integral signs when no more than one per building. (15) Interior signs located completely within a building or structure and not intended to be visible from outside the structure, exclusive of window signs. (16) Menu board not to exceed 32 square feet per sign face and a maximum height of five feet (two permitted per site). 51 (17) Nameplates not to exceed two square feet per sign face. (18) Nonblinking small string lights which are part of decoration to be used in association with landscaped areas and trees. (19) Point of purchase displays. Point of purchase signs are limited to two square feet in area and one sign per point of purchase. Such signs shall only display instructional or price information and shall not include copy pertaining to any special sale or promotion. Point of purchase display signs shall be permitted in conjunction with an outdoor use, activity, or storage as authorized under Chapter 19.125 FWRC. (20) Political signs so long as the maximum area per sign is limited to six square feet. No political sign shall be displayed later than seven calendar days after a final election. (21) Private advertising signs. The sign shall be limited to eight square feet per sign face and five feet in height, the sign must be immediately removed at the end of an event, use or condition, the sign must contain the address of the event or advertiser, and there shalI be no more than six such signs advertising an event. (22) Private notice signs. (23) Real estate signs. Real estate signs shall be limited to one on-site sign per agent per street frontage or public entrance if no street frontage exists. For dwelling units, the area of the sign shall be no greater than six square feet per sign face. For other uses and developments, the size shall not exceed 32 square feet per sign face. All on-site real estate signs must be removed when the sale closes, or in the case of a rental or lease, when the tenant takes possession. (24) Temporary business signs for temporary business defined by FWRC 12.25.010; provided, however, that each licensed temporary business is only allowed two signs of 16 square feet per sign face. If only one sign is used, that sign may be 32 square feet per sign face. (25) Under-canopy signs not exceeding the width of the canopy and eight square feet in size; and provided, that a minimum separation exists between such signs equal to 20 lineal feet or more. (26) Warning signs. (27) Window signs not exceeding 25 percent of the window area only to advertise products, goods or services for sale on site, business identification, hours of operation, address, and emergency information. (28) Signs on sports field fences not exceeding 32 square feet per sign that are securely attached to the fence, are not protruding above the fence line, and are oriented to the interior of the field. (29) Portable signs located in tlie public right-of-way subject to the following standards: (a) Signs may not be affixed to the ground, including through the use of stakes or other means that may damage property; (b) No more than two signs are allowed per event and no person may have more than two signs at any one time, except that 10 open house signs are allowed; (c) Sign area shall neither exceed six square feet per sign face nor 36 inches in height; (d) Signs are allowed only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to sunset and must be removed each day; (e) Signs may not be placed on or attached to other objects, including but not limited to buildings, structures, trees, plants, utility poles, utility boxes, utility equipment, or other signs; (� Signs shall not be located on the traveled portion of a roadway; in parking lanes; on sidewalks; in bicycle lanes; or placed in a manner that interferes with vehicle, bicycle, wheelchair, or pedestrian views or travel; Exhibit A to Staff Report to the Plaming Commission Doc. I.D. i6159 Revised FWRC 19.140.060, Signs P�° Z 52 (g) Signs shall not be placed in street medians or within anv si�ht-distance trian�le reserve area of anv street side planter strips as depicted in the followin� drawin�; Face of curb, or if none exists. edge of pavemeM. Sight distance triangle reserve areas. � � � � � � � � � 0 1 n�i .. J � I � ( $tf@et � I � I Face of curb, or'rf norre exists. edge of pavement FWRC 19 140 O60 (29� (a 1�,SIGHT DISTANCE T�tIANGLE RESERVE AREA Po�tabie Signs Are Not Allowed in Sight Distance Triangle Reserve Area (h) Signs shall have a name and contact phone number or other contact information on them. Ord. No. 08-583, § 3(Exh. A), 10-21-08; Ord. No. 07-573, § 49, 12-4-07; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Each. A(14)), 5-15- 07; Ord. No. 06-523, § 3(E�ch. A), 4-18-06; Ord. No. OS-487, § 3, 4-19-05; Ord. No. OS-486, § 3, 4-19-05; Ord. No. 99-357, § 5, 12-7-99; Ord. No. 99-348, § 5, 9-7-99. Code 2001 § 22-1599(d)(2).) Exhibit A to Staff Report to the Planning Commission Duc. LD. 56 i i9 Revued FWRC 19.140.060, Sigas � 53 igle CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION November 3, 2010 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Counc Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Tom Medhurst , Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, and Sarady Long. Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Deb Barker, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Associate Planner Matt Herrera, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Darlene LeMaster. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Elder, Medhurst, Bronson and Long present. Commissione: excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of October 20, 2010 were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None d Carlson were ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None PUSLIC HEAR�1vG - 44mendment to the Federa! Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.140, "Signs" Vice-Chair Elder explained the guidelines for the Public Hearing. Senior Planner Deb Barker reviewed the background and reasons for the code amendment to allow portable signs in street side planter strips within the right of way. Ms. Barker also reviewed the definition of a portable sign, characteristies of the street side planter strip, and explained the sight distance triangle reserve area language proposed for the code amendment. An email from Mr. Sam Pace, Seattle/King County Association of Realtors was entered into the recozd. There was one public comment. Sam Pace, 29839 154 Ave �E, Kent — Mr. Pace spoke in support of the proposed code amendments regarding portable signs. Mr. Pace expdainecl thc�t the code amendment is important for both sellers and buyers, especially first time buyers. The code amendment is also important to the City. Each real estate sale produces revenue in the form of taxes paid when a sade is funded. Mr. Pace complimented all Ciry staff on their outstanding customer service on this and past issues and asked for Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed amendment. Vice Elder asked if there were any questions/concerns from the commissioners. Hearing none, Vice Chair Elder asked for a motion. Coimnissioner Long moved to recommend adoption of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.140.060 (29) text amendment, in regard to Portable Signs as p�posed by staff. Commissioner Bronson second. Motion G:\Planning Commission\2010\Meeting Suwe'dl-03-IO.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 3, 2010 carried, 4-0. Vice-Chair Elder closed the public hearing. PUBL�C HEARING — Zoning and Development Code Amendments Related to the Keeping of Fowl and Rabbits Vice-Chair Elder explained the guidelines for the Public Hearing. Associate Planner Matt Herrera reviewed the background and reasons for the code amendment and summarized the proposed code amendments. Staff analyzed all questions and recommendations from the Planning Commission's September 29, 2010 Study Session and also did further research. :-1VIr. Herrera presented the staff recommendation: ■ Ban roosters in all areas of the city with the exception of Suburban Estate (SE) zoned lots. ■ Allow up to any combination of four chickens/ducks on residential lots less than 35,000 s.f. ■ Cap the amount of chickens/ducks allowed at 20 (total) for lots 35,000 s.f. and greater in single-family residential zones (RS) zones. ■ Maintain the current policy of four rabbits for lots less than 35,000 s.f. There were two public comments: Alissa Hansen, 356 S 304` Place, Federal Way — Ms. Hansen asked if these code amendments are passed, what is the anticipated time that they would be allowed to keep chickens. Mr: Herrera stated that he anticipates the code amendment to be enacted by the end of the year. Marion Bartholomew, 30305 19`�' Place SW, Federal Way — Mr. Bartholomew was very happy with staffs recommendations. He asked the Commissaon to consider reducing the period of time for residents to comply with no roosters from two years ta one. Mr. Barthodomew asked if a chicken coop must be fully enclosed or are chickens c�llowed outside of a coop. Mr. Herrera explained that the e�cisting regulations allow for free range chickens. There are also nuisance regulations in place that state that animals may not run wild outside of their own yard. Mr. Barthodomerv hopes that allowdng chdckens to'roam outside of their coops will not create code compliance issues. As for rc�bbits, Mr. Bartholomew supports a ten foot setback for rabbit hutches as well. Vice-Chair Elder asked for questions or camments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Bronson suggested that staff may want to recommend four or five appropriate chicken coop designs. Mr. Herrera stated there are currently no design guidelines for single-family residential uses. In addition, many residents desire sustainability and may therefore want to build a coop out of recycled materials. Vice-Chair Elder asked for clarifieation on the allowed amount of chickens and/or ducks. Mr. Henera confirmed an allowable total of four, in any combination of chickens or ducks for single-family residential areas less than 35,000 s.f. To respond to Mr. Bartholomew's comment on rabbits, there is an existing code allowing up to four rabbits in single -family residential less than 35,000 s.f. It is assumed that rabbits are household pets, therefore not requiring outdoor living quarters. For lots an 35,000 s.f. and greater, there is a 40 foot setback for rabbit hutches. Commissioner Medhurst complimented staff for listening to the public on this issue and responding appropriately. Commissioner Medhurst is not interested in regulating a coop design. Commissioner Long concurred with Commissioner Medhurst and thanked Mr. Herrera for a thorough presentation. Commissioner Long supports a maximum limit of up to four chickens/ducks, stating that this limit is very reasonable and will allow the average family more than enough egg production. 55 Commissioner Bronson wanted to clarify what was meant in his earlier comment regarding chicken coops. C►\Plaming Commission�2010\MeUing Summary I 1-03-IO.�c Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 3, 2010 Commissioner Bronson supports not having requirements for coops; rather, having ideas, suggested plans, materials, etc. for residents who are looking for ideas. Mr. Herrera responded that staff may be producing a resource document, available to residents in simple text regarding Urban Chickens and the code as it applies to them. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS/PUBLIC COMMENT None Commissioner Bronson asked the reason for a ten foot setback for chicken coops. Is there really a difference between five and ten feet? Mr. Henera responded that because of concerns raised by residents, staff felt inclined to meet residents halfway. A ten foot setback is adequate. For example, in a high density single-family residential area with approx. 5,000 s.f. lots, the average lot width is 40-60 feet. Assuming a ten foot setback on the side and rear of the lot, there is adequate room for an appropriate size coop (48 s.f.). Should this turn out to not be the case, staff can re-evaluate this at a later date. The same applies to mobile coops. There should be adequate space. Commissioner Long asked if residents will need a permit for chickens or ducks. Mr. Herrera said that permits will not be required. This can also be re-evaluated at a later date if any problems arise. Commissioner Bronson moved to recommend adoption of the proposed code amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.260 "Zoning and Development Cade" as it applies to` chickens and ducks as presented by staff. Commissioner Medhurst second. Motion earried, 4-0. Vice-Chair Elder closed the public hearing. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. 56 c:�rlanningco�n;ssion�zolo�nneetingsumm:7r �t-o3-to.mc