Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Page 5 <br />September 24, 2019 <br />----------------------------- <br />Commissioner Larson-Vito asked if the Planning Commission could deny the <br />request on the basis that imposing conditions would not resolve those issues. <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated the Planning Commission could indeed deny the request if they <br />believed the conditions proposed would not resolve the outstanding issues of the <br />property. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson asked if the CUP is passed by the City Council and the conditions <br />weren’t met as outlined in the CUP, what was the reclamation process. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg indicated the applicant would have to remove 15 rabbits from the <br />property. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson asked if the CUP was revoked and the applicant removed 15 rabbits, <br />there would be no other conditions in place to enforce the upkeep and condition of <br />the remaining 6 rabbits. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg agreed, as the city wouldn’t have any enforcement of checks. <br /> <br />Commissioner Feinstein asked how often the rabbits are shown. <br /> <br />Mr. Ziner stated the rabbits are shown during the spring and fall (show season), with <br />an average of three shows a month during those times. He stated under USDA <br />guidelines, rabbits are considered a dual use, as pets and as livestock. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson asked Mr. Ziner if he was comfortable with conditions as presented. <br /> <br />Mr. Ziner stated he was comfortable with the conditions as presented and he would <br />work on getting the property cleaned up. He stated both he and his father have <br />mobility and health issues and have asked friends for help with property cleanup but <br />they haven’t shown up. He stated he understands there’s an issue with the condition <br />of the property but is limited with health issues. He stated they are trying to get the <br />property cleaned up. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jordan stated he doesn’t feel rabbits, chickens, hogs, or goats belong <br />on a city lot but rather on farm land. He felt in this case, there were too many <br />animals in such close proximity to neighboring homes. He stated placing setbacks for <br />cage location isn’t going to help because the lot was too small to make any <br />difference. He stated if history’s a guide with an unkempt property, he didn’t feel <br />confident that there wouldn’t be continuing problems and felt they’re going to get <br />worse but not because the applicant and his son want that. He stated in the previous <br />city where he worked, they would not approve a CUP until a property was brought <br />up to code. He stated he would not support this request. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson-Vito asked about requiring a property to be adhering to all <br />city ordinances before issuing a CUP, noting the city does require businesses to do <br />so, and asked if there were different requirements for residential properties. <br /> <br /> <br />