Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2014

Home

oftentimes when the Dog Owners are away from home for a length of time that requires boarding service. This service provided by the Applicant is done at no charge to the Dog Owners. The Applicant has stated that there are no plans for this kennel operation to be a business. Before allowed on the the Subject Property, all dogs will be subject to standards in Section 10-59 of City Code (Rabies vaccination). The Applicant maintains that the maximum size of the twelve (12) dogs requested to be allowed on the Subject Property in relation to the Permit would be roughly fifteen (15) pounds. When not safely contained in the Applicant's home on the Subject Property, the dogs would be outside secured within a proper enclosure (the "Enclosure") that meets the definition found in City Code Section 10-52 (Definitions). The location of the Enclosure is in the front yard and immediately next to the Applicant's home, as shown in Exhibit A. This contained area is lined by chain -link fence. Within the Enclosure is an even smaller enclosed space that is lined by both a chain -link fence and a three (3) foot high privacy fence, as shown in Exhibit B. The privacy fence coupled with the location of this smaller area right next to the house is intended to provide the dogs quick access to the outside and reduce the incidence of them loudly reacting to anything outside of the Enclosure. If the Enclosure does not adequately deter noise from the dogs and it becomes a reasonable annoyance to neighbors, there are penalties that may be imposed and associated disciplinary actions taken to stop the annoyance as described in City Code Section 10-69 (Dogs disturbing the peace). Additionally, revocation of the conditional use permit would be another option. A Public Hearing for this request was held during the August 7 Planning Commission meeting. During the Public Hearing, one commenter alleged that, some time in the recent past, Pit Bull puppies were for sale on the Subject Property. According to the commenter, the sale of Pit Bull puppies was dangerous due to the breed of dog, and the sale also appeared to constitute a "puppy mill" as it was also alleged that this has happened several times in the past eight (8) years. City Code Section 10-52 (Definitions) does not define a dangerous dog by breed but by the exhibition of aggressive behavior that results in bodily harm inflicted on a human being. City Code Sections 10-64 (Potentially dangerous dogs) and 10-65 (Dangerous dogs) go into greater detail about the process of determining a dangerous dog, which was not required for the Pit Bull puppies. Due to disagreement between accounts regarding the sale of Pit Bull puppies voiced by the Applicant and those providing public comment, City Staff are unable to confirm or refute the allegation. There was also a statement made that alluded to a home occupation being operated on the Subject Property in addition to the dog boarding services. The Applicant explained that there is occasional automotive repair work done on the Subject Property (they assist their children with routine maintenance on their vehicles). On August 13, 2014, City Staff inspected the Subject Property, interviewed the Applicant, and found no signs of a home occupation. At the time of the inspection mentioned above, the Applicant was boarding seven (7) dogs. They consisted of the four (4) owned by the Applicant, the one (1) dog owned by a family member that is maintained regularly on the Subject Property, and two (2) other dogs owned by family that were out of town for a week and a half. According to the Applicant, these dogs, which are shown in Exhibit C, are representative of the type of dog that would be boarded on the Subject Property. Also, the Applicant has stated that no one else resides on the Subject Property that owns a dog. The Applicant has inquired about having dogs on the Subject Property that would exceed the number and/or size limitation. The inquiry was about family or friends that may visit them at the Subject Property for a short period of time (same day visit, not overnight) and bring a dog with them. To assist with enforcement of the provisions of the Permit, it has been drafted to exempt these types of incidental same -day visits, thereby not counting these dogs as part of the maximum number stipulated in the Permit (as they are not being maintained on the Subject Property). Two (2) neighboring property owners have submitted letters of support for the Applicant and the proposed conditional use as shown in Exhibit D. Six (6) neighbors from five (5) properties near the Subject Property have signed onto a letter that does not endorse the granting of the Permit, as shown in Exhibit E. In addition to the kennel services, the Applicant also proposes to eventually breed dogs and provide temporary foster care to dogs on the Subject Property. Neither of these uses would allow the Applicant to maintain more dogs than stipulated in the Permit. When originally reviewing the request for the August Public Hearing, Staff was not aware of the regularity or the