7.1. SR 06-17-2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Those who objected to the request spoke of barking, number of dogs, animal waste, and the exercise of the dogs. Since the commission meeting, an adjacent opposing neighbor is now optimistic about the private kennel, and no longer opposes the request. In regard to barking, there were varying degrees discussed, from "none" to "all of the time" and some said it occurred especially at night or when the dogs were hungry. A resident referenced Section 10-7 Noisy Animals, which states: It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep, have in his possession, or harbor any animal which, by frequent and habitual howling, ye ping, barking or otherwise, shall cause serious annoyance or disturbance to persons or to the neighborhood,• provided however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to duly authorzZed hospitals or clinics established and operating for the treatment of small animals. No person shall be convicted under the provisions of this section except upon evidence from 50 percent of the adult residents living within 500 feet of the residence of the animal complained of or from four persons each of a different household whichever is less, and no warrant shall be issued except after written notice has been mailed or delivered to the occupant of the premises where such animal is kept or harbored advising that a complaint has been made about the animal and calling attention to the provisions of this section. Since 2009, the city has not received any official complaints regarding barking dogs at the subject parcel. A community service officer (CSO) made an unannounced property and home inspection on May 21, 2019, and did not notice urine or feces smells in the home. He saw no reason to deny the request. Staff spoke with the same CSO about how complaints are handled, validated, and cited. The police department will respond to all calls and evaluate the property. They will determine if it exists and if so, is it causing serious annoyance or disturbance to persons or to the neighborhood and documents the visit. A resident asked who monitors how many dogs the applicant is supposed to have. Will they have surprise inspections to keep the property in compliance? He stated if the city is not doing that, they are not serving the needs of the residents. It was noted by staff the CUP provides a mechanism to monitor the property, and to inspect and verify the CUP conditions are followed. A commissioner added the CUP gives more protection to the neighbors than someone with six small very noisy dogs that would not require a CUP. With the recommended conditions, especially the one that states, "no more than six (6) animal units shall be allowed outdoors at one time," the property will function similarly to other properties in the city which are allowed to have six animal units. The Planning Commission agreed with the seven recommended conditions and recommended approval of the request with a 3-2 vote. Financial Impact None Statutory Review Period Per State Statute §15.99, the required 60 -day review period ends on June 24, 2019. Attachments ■ Planning Commission Memo dated May 28, 2019 ■ Email from Charlie Brandt N:\Public Bodies\Agenda Packets\06-17-2019\Final\7.1 sr.docx