My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-10-2012 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2010 - 2019
>
2012
>
04-10-2012 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/20/2012 11:20:11 AM
Creation date
6/19/2012 12:53:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
4/10/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Minutes <br />April 10, 2012 <br />• Commissioner Bell stated that he had a concern a community service officer may have told <br />Mr. Peterson it was ok to have five dogs. He asked if the CUP could continue if the house <br />were sold. He stated he would like to see the permit reviewed in two years. Mr. Barnhart <br />stated that the CUP stays with the property unless the use ceases for six months. He stated <br />that the city has the ability to inspect the property at any time for compliance with the terms <br />of the CUP. <br />Commissioner Konietzko stated that he had a concern that the fence was very close to the <br />neighboring homes behind Mr. Peterson's property. <br />Commissioner Keller asked what would happen if other dogs were at the site that were not <br />therapy dogs and were not trained. <br />Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt the CUP needs to be crystal-clear that no extra <br />activity (other dogs) be allowed on the property. The question was raised regarding puppies. <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated that city ordinance allows puppies up to six months of age, and that the <br />puppies could not be kept on the property after that. Commissioner Anderson asked about <br />keeping friend's puppies, or watching neighbors' dogs. He stated that applicant does not <br />have control of the topography and cannot help that his property slopes toward the <br />neighbors to the south. He stated that he was going to suggest that the fence be slatted to <br />provide more privary. He stated he did not have a problem recommending approval, but <br />that the City Council has the fmal say in the matter. <br />Commissioner Bell stated that he would be in favor of approval if the opaque fence was <br />required. Vice-Chair Westberg concurred. Commissioner Anderson suggested adding a 10~ <br />• condition that slats be placed in the chain link fence. <br />Commissioner Konietzko stated he was not in favor of approving the request because of <br />past incidences of having more dogs on the property than his own and the increased activity <br />this created. <br />MOVED BY COMISSIONER ANDERESON AND SECONDED BY <br />COMMISSIONER KELLER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE <br />REQUEST BY TIM PETERSON FOR A PRIVATE KENNEL WITH THE <br />FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: <br />1. AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT, <br /> THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR ALL REQUIRE PERMITS. <br />2. THE PRIVATE KENNEL SHALL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) ANIMALS <br /> OVER THE AGE OF 6 MONTHS. ADDITIONAL ANIMALS WILL <br /> REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. <br />3. ANIMAL WASTE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF PER SECTION 10-9. <br />4. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE A PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE <br /> FROM THE CITY. <br />5. ALL ANIMALS MUST BE LICENSED AND VACCINATED. <br />6. ALL ANIMALS SHALL BE ON A SIX (6) FOOT OR SHORTER LEASH <br /> WHEN OUTSIDE OF THE KENNEL. <br />7. NO MORE THAN TWO (2) ANIMALS PER SUPERVISOR SHALL BE <br />• ALLOWED OUTSIDE OF THE KENNEL. <br />Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.