Minutes - 2009/02/23 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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