Agenda - Council - 09/23/2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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 four (4) foot high 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. Planning Staff conducted a property inspection on August 13, 2014, at which time 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 inExhibit 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. During the site visit, the Applicant 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, and with input from the Police Department, 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). Planning Staff performed a second site visit on September 11, 2014. During this visit, an accessory structure was found on the Subject Property, for which there was no permit. Staff notified the Applicant of the city code violation and the Applicant responded by having the structure removed from the Subject Property. It was also discovered during that visit that the Enclosure was partially located within public right-of-way. The Applicant stated that the fence boundary of the Enclosure will be relocated so that it is entirely on the Subject Property. The Permit has been amended to include a condition that obligates the Applicant to have that relocation completed within thirty (30) days of the Permit's approval. 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. A Public Hearing for this request was held during the August 7 Planning Commission meeting. Comments were submitted both verbally and in written form, of which some were supportive of the request and some against. Letters for and against the request are shown inExhibits D and E, respectively. When originally reviewing the request for the August Public Hearing, Staff was not aware of the regularity or the frequency which the Applicant provides boarding services to dogs that do not reside on the Subject Property. Because of this incomplete picture provided by the Applicant, the Planning Commission tabled the request until the September meeting to allow the Applicant additional time to work with Planning Staff to provide more detailed and accurate information and provide a better description of the nature of the boarding services. With a better understanding of the request and existing conditions, Planning Staff did not think it was appropriate to allow up to twelve (12) dogs to be maintained on the Subject Property. However, as was observed during the August site inspection, the seven (7) dogs that were being maintained on the Subject Property did seem reasonable due to the size of the dogs (all small breeds) and their typical needs for outdoor activity (less than larger, more active breeds).