5.1. PCSR 07-13-2010/j
City of
Elk -.~
River
To
Planning Commission
AGENDA SECTION
MEETING DATE
Planning Items July 13, 2010
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Request by John Fahey for an Amendment to an existing
Conditional Use Permit for Animals,
Public Hearing -Case No. CU 10-14
ITEM NUMBER
5.1
PREPARED BY
Chris Leeseberg, Park Planner-Planner
REVIEWED By
Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) request with the following conditions:
1. As a Conditional Use Permit is not a building permit, the applicant shall apply for all
required permits.
2. The commercial kennel shall be limited to fifteen (15) dogs and cats over the age of 6
months. Additional animals will require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
3. No more than ten (10) dogs shall be allowed.
4. Animal waste shall be disposed of per Section 10-9.
5. The applicant shall receive and maintain a commercial kennel license from the city
council.
6. All animals must be appropriately licensed and vaccinated.
7. All animals shall be on a six (6) foot or shorter leash when outside of the kennel.
8. No more than two (2) animals per supervisor shall be allowed outside of the kennel.
9. All animal waste shall be cleaned up immediately when animals are off of the subject
property.
10. Applicant shall provide proof of liability insurance in at least the sum of $1 million.
11. No dogs designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous are allowed to be kept at the
kennel and keeping of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog shall be grounds for
revocation.
12. Outdoor kennel space is to be located at least 250 feet from any principal structure on
neighboring properties.
13. No fenced pasture land shall be used for the permitted animals under this Conditional
Use Permit.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In September 2009, the applicant received a CUP (CU 09-18) to operate a commercial kennel. That CLIP
allowed for 10 animals over the age of 6 months. The applicant wants to increase the amount to 15
animals, to allow for cats. It should be noted the current approved CUP is not specific to types of
animals.
During the Planning Commissions review of the original CLJP on September 15, 2009 the Commission
came to a determination that 15 animals (staff recommendation) was too many and suggested it be
REQUEST FOR ACTION
N:\Depaxt~nts\ConurninityDevelopment\Planning\Case Files\C[JP\CU 10-14 Fahey\CCJ 10-14 PCdoc
lowered to 10. The main reason for this was due to possible level of noise from barking dogs. The City
Council agreed with that determination and approved the CUP with a limit of 10 animals.
Staff is again recommending that the maximum animals be 15, but limiting it 10 dogs to maintain the
desire to keep the possible level of noise from barking dogs down.
Staff has is unaware of any complaints from the current Conditional Use Permit.
Horses
The applicant occasionally has horses on their property and they are kept in an area approximately half of
the size of property, which is fenced. Horses axe a permitted use and do not require a CUP in this zoning
district on a property this size so they axe not part of this request.
ATTACHMENTS
^ Location Map
^ Applicants Narrative
Action
Follow Up
~.
Motion by Second by Vote
N:\Depamnents\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\CUP\CU 10-14 Fahey\CU 10-14_PC.doc
W~ ~Z~'~~~Z O~OZItr~19'~Mp'~~W uo~~e~a71~Ca~e~ tri-OI fl~ldfl~lsa~l~ ase~~6uiuue~dl~uau~do~anaa ~L~~unwwo~~s~u~u~~~da01~N
~,liN'10~
:-
~, ,,.
°~ ~~
#~,
',
-~.
~~ W
-~ ~,YK.
~__ ~ _~
i:..
~~ ~.
Kennel Permit Amendment Narrative
We are asking to increase our allowed animal number from 10 to 15, to allow for cats
(we were under the wrong impression after the meetings last year, that the count was for
dogs only), but would ask that Horses be excluded from that count.
I have spoken to four of our Neighbors (three of which are within the 350 feet from our
property lines) asking if there are any problems or concerns with our dogs that we should
be working on, none of which stated any problems or concerns. I have included some of
their E-mails.
Also, on our currant C.U.P. there is a requirement for us to build a structure for the
purpose of housing our dogs outside of our home. We'd like to remove that requirement,
due to the fact that we house our animals (dogs) within our home and have no desire to
house (kennel) them outside.
Sincerely,
John D. Fahey
Page 1 of 1
Barnhart, Jeremy
From: Sheila Heiss
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:32 AM
To: Barnhart, Jeremy
Subject: RE: John and Kim petition
dir. Barnhart,
~y name is Shelly Heiss and ~ v~~i!! ~ speaking for my entire family on behalf of
our neighbors .~ohn and dim.
I understand they are petitioning the city of E!k River, to be able t0 have more
animals on their property, and asking to allOVtj a training and exercise area for
the dogs in their pasturef and as far as we are concerned, as their neighbors,
we cannot see any issue. they are extremely capable people and the dogs
they breed and train are gaits simply amazing. I strongly recommend that you
come and see for yourself really how well behaved and disciplined their animals
are and hoof "on top of things" this family is. e are tota!!y on board trvith
whatever the°~ may decide to do, and truly have nc~ corr~plaints whatsoever.
"hank you;
Sheila Heiss
961 213th Avenue ~VV
Elk River, !'~i~. 55~3Q
07/13/2010