Agenda - Council - 03/13/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #1: Review Proposed Ordinance to Amend Regulations Relating to :~iK~eping'(~ ',i? of Animals ~, ~ii~ii~i< Community Development Director Frolik stated that per the Board's direCff'~}~¥its J 7,' 2001 meeting, City staff amended the draft ordinance to identify horses afi~as as one unit; donkeys, burros and ponies as .5 an/mai units; and define ponies as l~$~:~s, not exceed~ ?'~:~: 54 inches or 13.2 hands in height. Staff requested that the H~:i~iCare ::t~rd reconside-r":¢!!::¢:,;~ including horses ~n Subdtwsmn 3. It may be confusing to find,h~'6~s in:~h_i~ist of farm animals when there is a separate section of City Code that establish~;?'~gulationS~fOr horses at a scale greater than what is being proposed for the other typical. ~:::~m/mals+hsted and when there are conflmtmg standards, the more restrictive ~s apphcable:~:.:'~5~ ~:~-:~;~_ Theresa Dahlheimer's request for a conditional use p~Mt fc~}'5~,ses:~g:~'i(~ss'~ three acres was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 6, 206i~}.)i}'~re were three letters of opposition to the request submitted at the public hearing. Howe¢~ ~e Plann!~g Commission did recommend Council approval of the request. As an aside, the pIa/~.hi~g G/)~ssion asked that the Horse Care Board consider wh~{~6r ornot it would be appropria'~:e~:a~'~ad City Code to provide for the inclusion of leased Iand~kL*th~i.i':formula for determining)0~ many horses are permitted on a parcel. Also, there are a couple of outstanding i~es from ~'pas~:'<i)( ~-~:'~ervious Horse Care Board had suggested that the horse regulations be amendeffto establ/sh.-~inimum standards for shelters and fencing; 2) When Councilmember Natali~ Ha'~s Stefan w~' on the City Council, she relayed an incident wher~a~istray goat wandered onmi'her property. She called the Humane Society and found out thatth:ey do not PiCk up farm anim~iS~.¢.~Sh~:stated that there should be a policy of how to handle ~als at large otb& than dogs and ~:~' ~.:'~: The Hr~iJS~':Ca/'e Board di~'ie~at length_ thi~nflicts between the proposed ordinance and the Horse ordinanee~..':'~. /~i. :!'::'~-~-::'~:'-~.~i:~ ?:.~:~'~:(? .,;.~C~-'V~0~hrd~'Member Sc0ttstOn suggested that the conflict between the two ordinances could be :'~:~'~:~;iS'~£'the City simply stated that if a property owner only has horses then they fall under the Horse Ordinance, but if a ,~.0per/y owner has a mix of horses and farm animals, then they shift over to the i~/x,'~stock OrdinanCes. Consensus of the Horse Care Board was to have an ordinance for livestock animals and an ordinance for 5~rses which would include horse, mule, donkey, burro or pony (any equine ,species). The :-Horse Ordinance should also be amended to allow for one additional horse for ~very ful~ a~e' versus ½ acre over three acres. There will be no animal units described in the bI~srse O~d~nance. ! I I I I ! I I I I -32- Horse Care Board/February 26, 2001 Page 2 of 3 I