Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August 14, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated the ordinance would change city code making it easier for residents with <br />three or four dogs to get the necessary approval. He stated that currently there is a lengthy <br />process for dog owners to get approval. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated that the issue of having three to four dogs is not a land-use issue and is <br />not an issue to be governed by a Conditional Use Permit for a property. He stated the licensing <br />requirements for having so many dogs will not change, the issue would continue to be regulated <br />through licensing than through a CUP. <br /> <br />Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive stated he does not understand dog kennels and the <br />position of the community. He asked if the City is a rural, suburban, or city community. He <br />stated he is concerned with residents having three to four dogs. <br /> <br />Mr. Amundsen pointed out that such a number can cause significant messes in an area and that <br />he believes such a number of animals should require a kennel. He stated he believes the CUP <br />should stay with the property owner. He stated his opposition because he believes the <br />neighboring property value could be diminished. <br /> <br />Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, asked if the ordinance applies to any types of kennels. <br />Director Ericson responded that the change is strictly residential and applies to pets, not to <br />commercial kennel operations. <br /> <br />Director Ericson responded to Mr. Amundsen’s concerns saying that if the property owner meets <br />the requirements of the CUP for the kennel, which there are none other than kennel requirements, <br />that they are granted a kennel license. He stated there is no mechanism by which the City can <br />deny the CUP. He stated the City is strengthening the ordinance with a revocation clause, which <br />was not include, and read the revocation conditions. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated another clause is being added stating that certain persons are not allowed <br />kennels. He stated the only significant change is that the neighbors will not receive notice before <br />hand, but that property owners still must obtain signatures from at least 50% of the neighbors <br />within 500 feet. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich asked Director Ericson to address the portability of the license and <br />whether it can be transferred from one property to another. Director Ericson stated the licensing <br />is done through a different department and the planning department is not involved in the <br />licensing process. He added that he does not know if a move requires the license to be renewed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated he believes a move should require a new license. <br /> <br />Councilmember Thomas stated she does not believe four dogs is an unreasonable number. She <br />stated that current licensing requirements create conditions where the license can be revoked. <br />Thomas stated she does not believe a kennel for three to four dogs is a property issue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Gunn pointed out that an animal owner has to reapply for their license when