Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />During the public hearing, two neighbors outlined their concerns with the proposal and staff had also received <br />two letters expressing similar concerns. The applicant also spoke claiming several of the concerns outlined by <br />neighbors were inaccurate and/or are based on other unrelated confrontations. The application also stated the <br />dogs are inside most of the time and have been on the property for two years. <br />The Planning Commission felt a fifth of an acre, with five houses backing up to the property, is too small for this <br />many animals regardless of breed and demeanor. They were also concerned with the amount of staff time that <br />might be generated from future complaints by neighbors. <br />The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial citing standard number one, for insurance a CUP, is <br />not met and noted the use could detrimentally affect the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate <br />vicinity. <br />Post Planning Commission Meeting <br />The applicant asked about other private kennel CUPS issued by the City Council. Staff informed them that the city <br />has issued a number of CUPS for private kennels in the past. However, each CUP is reviewed on its individual <br />merits (neighborhood context, lot size, number, and size of dogs, etc.) and no one application is alike. <br />Staff has received several additional email comments in support of the proposed private kennel which are <br />attached. <br />Financial Impact <br />None <br />Mission/Policy/Goal <br />■ Help, not hinder citizen quality of life <br />■ Ethical, efficient, and responsible <br />■ Opportunity to live, work, and play <br />■ Work with citizens to achieve goals <br />Attachments <br />■ Planning Commission Memo dated May 25, 2021 <br />■ Emails/letters from the Applicant and Neighbors <br />