Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council February 23, 2009 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br />Steve Jungwirth, 2236 Pinewood Drive, stated his belief that those statements are totally false. 1 <br /> 2 <br />Marcus Berry, 2273 Pinewood Drive, stated they love their dogs, play with them every chance 3 <br />they have, and clean the yard when told to do so. He stated he is sorry if it smells bad and will 4 <br />try to do a better job. Mr. Berry said if a dog is taken away, he does not know how he will be 5 <br />able to take it because they are special dogs he has had for three to four years. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Hearing no additional public input, Mayor Flaherty closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Council Member Mueller thanked all who attended to explain their positions to the Council. She 10 <br />stated she understands that pets can become like a family member so this is a tough decision to 11 <br />make but the Council must look at what the Code requires, which has a limit of two dogs. A 12 <br />third dog requires a kennel license and petition in support signed by 50% of the neighbors within 13 <br />a 500-foot radius and the Code does not allow any “wiggle room” for vacant houses. She stated 14 <br />that she cannot support the kennel license without the required signatures. Council Member 15 <br />Mueller noted that Ms. Palm had mentioned a solution to give one dog to another family member 16 <br />if they live close by. However, if the dogs are creating a situation of fear or loss of property 17 <br />enjoyment in the neighborhood, the kennel license must be denied. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Council Member Hull stated vacant homes within the 500-foot radius are a disadvantage and 20 <br />asked what “registered homeowner” means. Assistant Clerk-Administrator Crane stated the 21 <br />Code clearly states the owner of the property must sign the petition. Council Member Hull stated 22 <br />perhaps the City should look at that Code requirement for this and other petition processes. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Mayor Flaherty stated the properties do have an owner, but the owner may not live at that 25 <br />address. City Attorney Riggs agreed the property is owned and it is the same situation when the 26 <br />City is required to get a signature for something like an easements for road projects. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Council Member Gunn stated the petition is short of signatures so it is null and void. She noted 29 <br />the Code states it has to be signed by more than 50% of all registered landowners within 500 feet 30 <br />but it does not state that everyone around them needs to sign the petition. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Council Member Stigney stated that generally, there are two people in the house but one may 33 <br />agree while the other does not agree. He asked how that would be resolved. City Attorney Riggs 34 <br />stated that is a good question and it has not been resolved. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Council Member Mueller asked whether the Munstermans would be able to obtain the signatures 37 <br />required if the matter is tabled for several weeks. Assistant Clerk-Administrator Crane advised 38 <br />that Mr. Munsterman has indicated he feels the petition is now tainted because of the flyer and 39 <br />has someone to take the Chocolate Lab. Council Member Mueller stated the Code does not 40 <br />indicate which dog must leave the property and she is inclined to table for two weeks to allow 41 <br />more time for the Munstermans to obtain the needed signatures. 42 <br /> 43 <br /> 44 <br /> 45