Minutes - Council - 11/25/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Strommen, to adopt Resolution #08-11-228 adopting Findings of Fact #0837 relating to the applicant's request for an interim use permit; and adopt Resolution #08-11-229 approving the applicant's request for an interim use permit based on the findings of fact. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Elvig, Strommen, Dehen, Look, and Olson. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmember Jeffrey. Case #4: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Private Dog Kennel to Maintain Four Dogs on a Parcel; Case of Karianne Olson Management Intern Al Haugen stated that this is a request to keep a maximum of four dogs at 6250 160th Lane. He stated that the City received a complaint about keeping more than four dogs, which is only allowed with aConditional Use Permit (CUP). He stated that there are four dogs on the property and one of the dogs was declared potentially dangerous after an alleged incident with a neighbor's dog. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP with the addition of permanent, visible fencing contiguous to the residence. He stated that the applicant explained that the installation of the fence might not be possible until springtime, so staff added conditions #7 and #8 placing a deadline for the installation of the fence to April 30, 2009. Councilmember Look stated that this is a result of combining households and asked which dogs were there previously. Ms. Olson stated that it was the black Labrador and one ofthe Chihuahuas. She stated that at the time the incident supposedly happened, her dog was in her kennel in the garage and could not have been involved. Councilmember Dehen asked how the Council decides to limit the amount of dogs, if every time someone comes in, the City allows a variance. Mayor Gamec stated that the City wanted people to come in if they had more than two dogs, so the City knew what they had. Councilmember Strommen stated that it is not a variance; it is a permit, so the City can monitor the locations where there are more than three dogs. Councilmember Elvig stated that it is a permit with conditions, in this case a permanent fence. . He stated that this gives better control to the situation than the City would have without a permit. Councilmember Look stated that his issue is a concern about the larger dogs. He stated that if the City allows four dogs and they become four large dogs, it would be a bigger issue for him. He stated that he would like to make a stipulation that if the small dogs expire that they are not replaced by larger dogs. City Council / November 25, 2008 Page 8 of 24