Laserfiche WebLink
-224- <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Acting Chairperson Levine, Commissioners Van Scoy, Hunt, and <br />Brauer. Voting No: None. Absent: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Cleveland and Rogers. <br />NOTE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br />The following Council minutes were noted: <br />1) City Council regular meeting minutes dated September, <br />2) City Council regular meeting minutes dated October l' <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS /COMMISSION BUSIN <br />Case #1: Public Hearing — Request for4 a Conditional Use Permit for a Private Dog <br />Kennel to Maintain Four Dogs on a Parcel, Case of Karianne Olson <br />Acting Chairperson Levine closedtJe. regular portio <br />7:07 p.m. in order to call the public hearing to order. <br />Public Hearing <br />Acting Chairperson I ca <br />Planning Commission/November 6, 2008 <br />Page 2of19 <br />Planning Commission meeting at <br />Presentation <br />Management lnter i Haugen explamed the City received an application for a conditional use <br />th <br />permit for a private kennel to maintain a maximum of four dogs on the property at 6250 160 <br />Lane NW He stated the subject property is approximately 2.72 acres and is zoned R -1 Rural <br />Developing He indicated the City r`iceived an ordinance complaint regarding the keeping of <br />animals on thesubject property,on September 16, 2008; there are currently four dogs residing on <br />the property and two of the dogs are Chihuahuas, one is a Labrador, and one is a Bulldog. He <br />noted that Finding` #9, requires revision because it misstates the color of the applicant's Labrador. <br />He further explained that the Labrador has been declared a potentially dangerous dog by the <br />Ramsey Police Department and'�if another similar report is submitted for this dog, the property <br />owner will be required to the dog as a "dangerous dog" with the Ramsey Police <br />Department and is subject to additional requirements as stated by Statute and local ordinance. He <br />stated staff has received four written statements supporting the applicant's request and two <br />written statements against the applicant's request; in addition, staff has received supporting <br />information from the applicant and a letter from an adjacent property owner against the request. <br />He indicated staff recommends approval of the CUP contingent upon conditions that ensure the <br />control or restraint of the animals on the property; staff is recommending some form of physical <br />control for the dogs, e.g., a permanent confinement area to prevent the dogs from becoming at <br />large. He noted there' is a kennel on the .property that could satisfy the requirement of a <br />permanent restraint; there is also an invisible fence on the property that could satisfy this <br />