Laserfiche WebLink
�2} The Applicant should have known that keeping more than three dogs requires a <br />private kennel license. The failure to comply l with the city ordinance raises concerns <br />for the City Council about compliance with city requirements if a private kennel <br />license is approved and the Applicant is allowed to continue to have as many as eight <br />dogs on the Property. <br />(3) One of the dogs on the Property has been declared a potentially dangerous dog <br />pursuant to city code. The Council does not feel it is appropriate for a potentially <br />dangerous dog to be boarded in a private kennel with seven other dogs and is <br />concerned about the ability to control this dog with so many other dogs on the <br />Property. <br />(4) The City Council has received testimony from a number of people complaining about <br />noise from the dogs on the Property. <br />(5) The Council has received testh n.on and complaints from a number of people who <br />�' P P p <br />fear for their safety given the large number and aggressive nature of the dogs on the <br />Property. <br />(6) The Council finds that it is not consistent with the public health, safety and welfare to <br />approve a private kennel license allowing up to eight dogs on this Property, due to the <br />presence of a potentially dangerous dog on the Property, the apparent aggressive <br />nature of the dogs on the Property, and the noise generated by the large number of <br />dogs on the Property. <br />(7) The City Council finds that keeping of more than three dogs on the Property <br />constitutes a nuisance due to the aggressive nature of the dogs, the perceived threat to <br />public safety and the noise complaints from barking. <br />S: jResolutions\Krause Derual.DOC <br />