My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2023 10-10 PC PACKET
GemLake
>
PLANNING
>
PACKETS
>
2020 - 2029
>
2023
>
2023 10-10 PC PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/4/2025 8:50:37 AM
Creation date
12/3/2025 3:05:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Code
ADM 05000
Document
PLANNING PACKET
Destruction
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Pax itJP Staff Report October 10, 20.23 <br />Gent Lake Planning Commission Page 5 <br />EVALUATION OF REQUEST <br />Below is the .Pianner's.findings in regards to the criteria.for #his Conditional Use request,. with.. the criteria <br />in italics, The Planning Commission should discuss whether the findings are m.et.for approval; or if there <br />are.. criteria that are not met. <br />17.5.2(A) <br />1) Adjacent Uses <br />The proposed use would be to house goats in an existing. barn; and then have a fenced in area. <br />for the goata to roam and: graze in. Farm animals are not.a comman. presence in the city, though <br />this:.site was previously used for horses. <br />2) Air and Water Quality <br />The applicant has noted a.desire to use manure for fertilizer, and would clean the fenced in area <br />daily or every:other day. The.city can require.a detailed plan be submitted by the applicant to <br />address:ma.nure created by the goats in order to prevent the creation of a: nuisance for neighbors. <br />3) Traffic Generations <br />The proposed use would not impact traffic. <br />4) Public:5afety and Health <br />The proposed project:should not have impacts on the. safety or health of the public, <br />5) Area Aesthetics. <br />The proposed use of havingfarm animals on a.residential lot is not a common occurrence in the. <br />city, so. it would stand.out.in comparison to other neighcoring propertfes. The site was previously <br />used to house horses, with the barn still remaining on site. <br />Since the issuance of the first I U P last year, there have been no complaints regarding the two. <br />goats on the.site . Code Enforcement did note that a.storage contaiher is located on the northeast: <br />corner of the property; such .containers. can only :be on the. property for up to 30 days without <br />violating the city's nuisance ordinance (486), <br />The Council adopted ord inance. 142 last October, which sets a 0.5:acre of pasture per animal. <br />requirement; the applicant would therefore. need to fence off .one . acre of their property to meet: <br />this.requirement. The request to allow additional goats would require more pasture. 1,5 acres of <br />pasture would be: needed for three goats, 1.5 acres would be 81 °Io of their property.. At 81 % of the <br />property,. it would be difficult -to maintain the residential character:of the. RG zoning district. <br />6) Economic Impact on the Enhre Area. <br />NIA, the proposed use does not have an economic impact on the area. <br />7) Consistency with. the Comprehensive. Municipal Plan <br />Farm animals. and their contain ment.are not. mentioned in the.2040 Comprehensive.Plan. <br />Provided that zoning requirements and. other municipal ordinances are met, allowing two goats <br />would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, <br />The Council addpted: ordinance 142.last October, which sets.a 0.5 acre of pasture per animal <br />requirement;. the applicant would therefore need.to fence off.one acre of their property tomeet <br />this requirement. The request to allow additional -goats would require more pasture. Given. their <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.