Agenda Packets - 2005/04/25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Residential Dog Kennel CUP Report April 6, 2005 Page 4 Public Comment and Planning Commission Action: Prior to the first public hearing held by the Planning Commission, Staff received many phone calls, letters and in-person visits by neighboring property owners. The neighbors have concerns about allowing the applicant to keep three dogs, specifically because they indicate that the dogs bark excessively. In addition, some of the neighbors indicate that there are already several dogs in the neighborhood and that “more is not merrier…just louder” (see attached letter). Finally, the neighbors are concerned that allowing this applicant to have three dogs would set a precedence, which would make it harder for the City to deny other potential applicants in the area, should they choose to apply for a residential kennel. Some of the neighbors have concerns about the barking and the loss of enjoyment of their property, but are reluctant to force the applicant to sell or give away one of her pets. They asked if it was possible to limit the conditional use permit to these specific dogs in order to allow the applicant to keep these three pets, but to make sure that she didn’t continuously have three dogs. Although this seems like a good compromise, conditional use permits run with the property and cannot be limited to these three specific dogs. Staff received letters from two residents who were opposed to the City allowing the residential kennel because they were concerned about having a dog breeding business in the neighborhood and felt that they did not have enough information about the request. Staff contacted the residents to explain that in this case, the applicant would only be keeping pets and would not be breeding the dogs and Staff gave them more specific information regarding the request. The residents then indicated that they have no problems with the applicant keeping pets and stated that they no longer object to the request. The original letters are on file in the Community Development Department, but were not included in this report, as the letters do not reflect the current opinion of the two neighbors. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 6, 2005. Several neighbors appeared before the Commission and expressed their concern about the excessive barking from the dogs. After much discussion between the Commission members, the neighbors and the applicant, the Commission decided to recommend approval of the conditional use permit, with the stipulation that the permit be reviewed again in three months time. This decision was based on the idea that the dogs may bark less after they are used to their new surroundings. (The applicant and neighbors agreed that the barking had already gotten better since the applicant has moved to the neighborhood and that more time might allow the dogs to become accustomed to the neighborhood.) Planning Commission Resolution 790-05 is attached for the Council’s review. After the Planning Commission meeting, Staff discussed the decision with the City Attorney, Scott Riggs. There was concern that it may not be appropriate to approve a conditional use permit for only three months. Mr. Riggs researched the topic and found that we cannot put a short-term time limit on the conditional use permit, that it would then be considered an interim use. At this point, he is recommending that the Council table action on this request until a determination has been made regarding other options for short-term approval.