Johnston council approves animal-keeping overlay for 6.36-acre property; neighbors raise traffic, manure and avian-flu concerns

The Johnston City Council approved the first reading of Ordinance 11-33 to add an animal-keeping overlay to 6.36 acres on the north side of NW 50 Fifth Avenue, allowing horses and other large animals with limits, while neighbors at the meeting raised concerns about traffic, manure disposal and avian influenza.

Dave (planning staff) presented the application and described the overlay's allowances and limits: the ordinance permits larger agricultural animals such as horses, bovine, sheep and goats with cumulative quantity limits tied to lot size, and also allows smaller animals (poultry, rabbits, pigeons) subject to specific limits and setback and maintenance requirements. Staff said the overlay is consistent with adjoining properties to the west and south where an animal-keeping overlay already exists and recommended consideration.

Eric Cannon, representing the applicant Chris Christiansen (who was not at the meeting due to a health issue), told the council that the applicant intends to build a home on the property and requested the ability to keep animals. Cannon said the applicant was prepared to limit the proposed development and that the owner wanted the option to keep animals on the lot.

Public comments and council discussion

Several nearby residents spoke against a higher-density rezoning later in the agenda and raised specific concerns about animal keeping and related impacts on the neighborhood:

- Bill Gibbons (resident, former Iowa DNR) asked how manure would be stored and disposed of, noting that even a few large animals create management and complaint risks if disposal and storage are not handled on-site.

- Multiple residents (including Stuart and Erin Spencer, Jeremy and Sarah Grandieri, Mona Ripple and Brianna Vater) cited traffic and parking concerns on NW 50 Seventh Avenue and the impact of additional units or on-street parking on a dead-end street with existing safety concerns. One resident cited a previous traffic study used by the school district that flagged 50 Seventh as a safety concern.

- Council members noted both the neighborhood's character — a mix that includes existing animal keeping and by-attached homes — and the applicant's stated intention to limit density. Council members also discussed public-health concerns after one councilor remarked on bird-flu risks for backyard flocks and asked residents with poultry to monitor their animals.

Council action and outcome

Council approved first reading of Ordinance 11-33 (adding the animal-keeping overlay to the 6.36-acre parcel) by roll call. The ordinance text, as discussed, allows large and small animals with limits tied to lot area; detailed setbacks and maintenance requirements remain part of the zoning overlay.

On a separate but related agenda item (Ordinance 11-34), the applicant had requested rezoning a 4.8-acre portion of the same property from R-1 (single-family) to R-2 (low-density mixed residential). That rezoning drew extended public comment and discussion about density, parking and traffic. Late in the meeting the applicant's representative asked to withdraw the rezoning application; the council closed the public hearing and took no action on Ordinance 11-34 at the applicant's request.

What stays on file

- Ordinance 11-33: first reading approved; staff and applicant will return for subsequent steps required by the code. - Ordinance 11-34: applicant requested withdrawal; no action taken.

Concise context

Staff and the applicant characterized the animal-keeping overlay as consistent with existing overlays in the neighborhood and as intended to permit a limited number of large animals tied to parcel size. Neighbors emphasized traffic and parking constraints on the adjoining streets, on-site manure management logistics and public-health monitoring for poultry.

The council discussion included references to the zoning code's procedural rules: a conditional rezoning (if the council wanted to impose a residency or unit cap as a condition) requires a written agreement signed before the close of the public hearing; absent such a signed agreement the council may approve or deny an unconditional rezoning or continue the hearing.

The council closed the public hearing for the rezoning item after the applicant withdrew the rezoning request; no further action was taken on the rezoning at that meeting.