PC 121405 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox whether a variance would be required for the keeping of additional chickens, Ms. Decker noted that would not happen unless it was memorialized in the CJode in some fashion. Chairperson Maas believed that families with more than four chickens should be grandfath Bred in_ Cote tr~issioner Blank inquired how the City would be able to tell how many families had snore than four chickens and when they had acquired them_ Commissioner Fox believed the distance from the coop to the neighbor's windows would be problematical and suggested that the distance to the property line would be more practical. Chairperson Maas did not believe that would be a signit3cant pro bletn_ Comte-tissioner Blank inquired what authority the Animal Control Officer had to enter private property_ Roy Ficken, Animal Control Officer, replied that the standard used is probable cause_ if they believed a crime was being committed or if the: animal is in distress, they had the right to enter the backyard. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Arrrraliese Sanborn noted that she had been part of the Abbey 4-Honey Poultry Project for approxirrrately eight years and that she was the youth leader of the project this year. She noted that with respect to Uic number of birds, children need at least two birds ai the fair, which n~ray lead to six birds if there were three children in a fatrtily_ She noted that there were rro specifications between standard-sized birds and bantams; the standard-sized birds are Four times larger than the bantams, and children usually show bantams, which cart be the size of a large dove and need less coop spacc_ She noted that the placement of the coop should be in. a cool and shady area, which may not be the farthest from the property line. The Ordinance specifies that the coop needs wood sides; that material is not optima]. because of the summer heat. She noted that wire sides that can be covered with plastic in the winter are a good coop configuration. Kevin Close, 471 Sycamore, expressed concern about the ef-tect of this ord inanec on agricultural lots in the City and unincorporated areas. Ms_ Nerland -advised that the Code Amendment as proposed would apply to lots that are zoned Residential. The County lots are not zoned within the City yet, and that would not be an issue until and unless they were annexed in as Residential, as opposed to YUD zoning that would be more flexible. She believed. that most of the property had come in under a PUD; going forward, properties in Happy Valley could be called out if there were PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Decenzbcr 14, 2005 Page 4 of 14