11-12-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #976 November 4, 1985 Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission was asked to consider the following issues: 1. Does the fact that the goat is classified as "house pet" by a veterinarian or pet shop owner have any bearing on this review? Your ordinances specifically discuss the keeping of such animals or at least similar animals (sheep vs goats). Review definition of animals and Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(K). 2. Does the fact that the goat is maintained as a house pet have any bearing on your decission makirj? 3. Does the fact that Korth is a renter not an owner have any bearing on your decision making. 4. The complaint calls reflected owners' fear that the keeping of the goat would diminish the property values of the area - is this a valid concern in light of the neighborhood and developed density? The Planning Commission could find little validity in the specific complaints of the neighbors in li,' of the many supportive neighbors in attendance at the meeting. Mt..,bers felt that the fact that Korth is a renter should have no bearing in their decision making. The permit would be granted to Mr. Korth for the keeping of "Billy" only. Any change in numbers or kind would necessitate a new permit. Planning Commission Recommendation To approve a conditional use permit for Calvin Korth to keep a pigmy goat named "Billy" as a house pet within his residence located at 3615 Lyric Avenue based on the following findings: 1. The pet is maintained as a house pet - housed within existing residence. 2. Area requirements per Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (K) are not applicable in this application. 3. Surrounding neighbors have all submitted written statements approving the keeping of the goat by applicant. 4. The keeping of the goat creates no potential health hazards for neighborhood or community. The enclosed resolution has been drafted to include the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation.