7.2 SR 07-20-2020City of
Elk az
—
River
Request for Action
To
Item Number
Mayor and City Council
7.2
Agenda Section
Meeting Date
1july20,
Prepared by
Public Hearings
2020
Chris Leeseber , Senior Planner
Item Description
Reviewed by
Conditional Use Permit: Operate a Private Kennel
Zack Carlton, Planning Manager
at 12457 194th Lane, Gary Schwartz
Reviewed by
Cal Portner, City Administrator
Action Requested
Approve, by motion, the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions to satisfy the standards
set forth in Section 30-654:
1. The private kennel shall be limited to eight (8) animal units.
Additional animal units will require an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit.
2. No more than six (6) animal units shall be allowed outdoors at once.
3. The removal of animal waste shall comply with Section 10-5. All on- ' -
site waste shall be picked up and properly disposed of twice a week. a cR 33 --
4. No more than two (2) animals per supervisor shall be allowed
outside of the fenced area.
5. All dog waste shall be cleaned up immediately when dogs are off -site.
6. The applicant shall receive a private kennel license from the city.
7. No dogs designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous can be
kept on site, and the keeping of such dog shall be grounds for
revocation of the permit.
8. Fencing, around the entire perimeter of the property, shall always be
maintained and if underground invisible fencing is utilized, shall
always be functioning.
Background/Discussion
The property is zoned R1-c Single Family Residential where private
kennels require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Ordinance includes the
following definitions related to kennels:
• '-
Kennel, private, means any premise where more than six (6) domestic animal units over the age of six
months, are harbored or kept.
Animal unit, domestic is a unit of measure for domestic animals. Domestic animals under 20 pounds, at full
maturity, count as one (1) animal unit and domestic animals 20 pounds and over, at full maturity, count as
two (2) animal units.
The applicant is seeking a CUP to allow 8 Animal Units on the subject parcel. They have four dogs: two
Rottweilers and two Micro Bullies. Each dog counts as two animal units.
The Elk River Vision
A nelcoming community nvith revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional p o w E A E u e T
service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity ,� g /�
Planning Commission
Linda Silvola, the property owner directly to the west, expressed her deep opposition to the request for
additional animal units. She indicated while she is in her backyard, the dogs frequently charge to the invisible
fence and bark and snarl at her, while only a few feet away. She shared that one of the dogs left the property
(collar batteries failed) and went after the skateboard her children were playing with. The applicant confirmed
the event. She noted her children will cross the street to walk past the subject property. She asked the city to
honor the establish rules and reminded the commission these parcels are not in the country.
Laura Schwartz, applicant, asked condition #2 be changed to allow all four animals be allowed outside at one
time indicating it is cruelty to the one dog being left inside while the others are outside. A commissioner
indicated they could leave two dogs inside to be together. Laura said it would be detrimental to the family if
they were required to get rid of one of the dogs. She shared photos of the property to show how they
continually maintain it.
Gary Schwartz, applicant, stated they have had no issues with other neighbors and indicate it is "perception"
and the neighbors should get to know the dogs to realize how nice they are.
Erik Silvola, the property owner directly to the west, stated the dogs have come across the fence in the past and
exhibit aggressive barking. He shared a story where an irrigation contractor would not finish the maintenance
of their system because of the dogs.
A nearby neighbor stated he did not know, for the longest time, the property had dogs. He has since gotten to
know the family, and the dogs are not aggressive. He also stated all dogs bark.
Valeria Reyes, applicant, indicated the two rottweilers will not be leaving the home, regardless of the city's
decision. She stated the only they have had issues with the Sivola's and wished they would make efforts to get
to know their dogs.
Commissioner Johnson stated that reducing the number of animals by one, situations with aggressive dogs
would not go away.
A physical privacy fence was discussed so the dogs could not see through, perhaps making the neighbor feel
more comfortable in their yard. Mr. Schwartz stated a privacy fence would take away from the natural openness
which is why they chose the invisible fence. He stated the variable that does not change in this equation is there
will still be two rottweilers living at his home, barking, and snarling at neighbors.
The commission agreed a privacy fence along the west property line would not mitigate barking issues.
Commissioner Jordan stated he is trying to find the right solution as the applicant is asking for something
special and was not supportive of the request.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request by a 4-2 vote with the conditions listed.
Financial Impact
None
Statutory Review Period
Per State Statute §15.99, the required 60-day review period ends on July 26, 2020.
Attachments
Planning Commission Memo dated June 23, 2020
Site Photos
■ Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dog State Definitions
Request for Action
To
Item Number
Planning Commission
4.3
Agenda Section
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Public HearingsJune
23, 2020
Chris Leeseber , Senior Planner
Item Description
Reviewed by
Gary Schwartz — 12457 194th Ln. NW
Zack Carlton, Planning Manager
Conditional Use Permit for private kennel;
Reviewed by
Case No. CU 20-13
Action Requested
Recommend, by motion, approval of the Conditional Use Permit
with the following conditions to satisfy the standards set forth in
Section 30-654:
1. The private kennel shall be limited to eight (8) animal units.
Additional animal units will require an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit.
2. No more than six (6) animal units shall be allowed outdoors at
once.
3. The removal of animal waste shall comply with Section 10-9.
All on -site waste shall be picked up and properly disposed of
twice a week.
4. No more than two (2) animals per supervisor shall be allowed
outside of the fenced area.
5. All dog waste shall be cleaned up immediately when dogs are
off -site.
6. The applicant shall receive a private kennel license from the
city.
7. No dogs designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous are
allowed to be kept on site, and the keeping of such dog shall be
grounds for revocation of the permit.
d
V
CR 33
b
x
•
RR
Hwy 10
CR12
t
tiny
/69
Background/Discussion
The property is zoned R1-c Single Family Residential where private Figure t
kennels require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Ordinance includes the following definitions related to
kennels:
Kennel, private, means any premise where more than six (6) domestic animal units over the age of six
months, are harbored or kept.
Animal unit, domestic is a unit of measure for domestic animals. Domestic animals under 20 pounds, at
full maturity, count as one (1) animal unit and domestic animals 20 pounds and over, at full maturity,
count as two (2) animal units.
The Elk River Vision
A n elcoming community n ith revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional p U w E e E o s r
service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity;, g /� JfUR
The applicant is seeking a CUP to allow 8 Animal Units on the subject parcel. They have four dogs: two
Rottweilers and two Micro Bullies. Each dog counts as two animal units.
The dogs are all kept in the home and are supervised in the yard. The backyard has an invisible fence
system in place for containment. In the past, one dog did cross the fence due to a dead battery in his
collar. During the staff site plan review meeting, it was suggested a physical fence being installed due to
the breed of dogs.
Public Notice
Staff received a phone call from a resident asking what a private kennel meant and if there was an
ordinance about barking dogs. Staff clarified the term kennel does not necessarily mean a structure is
being requested or built and boarding or breeding is not allowed. Staff also shared information from
Section 10-5 Nuisance Animals.
Applicable Regulations
In approving a Conditional Use Permit, the council may impose such specific conditions with regard to
the development or operation of the proposed use as it considers necessary to satisfy the seven standards
set forth in Section 30-654 and the requirements contained in this article, and to promote compatibility
with and minimize any potentially adverse effects upon adjacent properties, the neighborhood or the city.
The issuance of a Conditional Use Permit can be ordered only if the use at the proposed location:
1. mill not endanger, injure or detrimentally affect the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or
the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience orgeneral nv fare of the neighborhood or the city.
Without conditions, the use might endanger, injure or detrimentally affect the use and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity or the public health, safety, morals, comfort,
convenience, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Any residential property in the city can have up to six animal units without needing to obtain a
permit. The applicant is asking for two additional animal units to be located on the subject parcel.
As all property owners in the city are allowed six animal units (inside or outside), the
applicant/subject property should also be allowed the same amount as others in the city. To
protect the general welfare of nearby residents, staff recommends a condition stating no more
than six animal units shall be allowed outdoors at one time. For this reason, staff is not
recommending a physical fence as it would not be required for other residents with six animal
units. Additionally, no dogs designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous shall be allowed on
site.
2. i,Vill be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which guides the property for residential
uses.
Staff does not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard.
3. mill not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacantproperty.
As the surrounding area is already developed, the use will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of surrounding vacant property.
Staff does not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard.
4. mill be served adequately by and will not adversely affect essential public facilities and services including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage, refuse disposal, neater and server systems, parks and schools; and Dill not, in
particular, create traffic congestion or interference with traffic on adjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares.
The property is adequately served by these facilities and will not adversely affect essential public
facilities and services including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, refuse disposal, water
and sewer systems, parks and schools; and will not, in particular, create traffic congestion or
interference with traffic on adjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares.
Staff does not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard.
5. Vill not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental
to any persons or property because of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, dust or vibrations.
Barking dogs, animal waste, and running at -large animals are always a concern with private
kennels. The use could involve uses and activities that could be detrimental to any persons or
property because of excessive noise and fumes.
To address these concerns, staff proposes the following conditions: feces be cleaned from the
property twice weekly; no more than six animal units shall be allowed outdoors at one time; and
no more than two (2) animals per supervisor shall be allowed outside of the fenced area.
6. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance.
As no alterations to site are proposed, it will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a
natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance.
Staff does not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard.
7. Wlill fully coVywitb all other requirements of this Code, including any applicable requirements and standards for
the issuance of a license orpermit to establish and operate the proposed use in the city.
The use will fully comply with all other requirements of this Code, including any applicable
requirements and standards for the issuance of a license or permit to establish and operate the
proposed use in the city.
Staff does not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard.
If denial of such a permit should occur, it shall accompany recommendations or determinations by
findings or a report stating how the proposed use does not comply with the standards set forth in Section
30-654.
Financial Impact
None
Statutory Review Period
Per State Statute §15.99, the required 60-day review period ends on July 26, 2020.
Council Meeting
If acted on, this item will go to the July 20, 2020, City Council meeting.
Attachments
■ Location Map
■ Applicant's Narrative
■ Site Diagram
■ Section 10-5 Nuisance Animals
PROJECT NARRATIVE
We now have four dogs living in our home, two Rottweilers, and two Micro Bullies. We are
submitting a Private Kennel Application, and the conditional use permit is part of this process as
required.
These dogs are all family dogs for our private use. They are all kept in the home, as well as
allowed supervised use of the yard. We have the invisible fence system in place for
containment, and we have a designated area where the dogs relieve themselves. Barking is
virtually nonexistent with the exception of people near the property and/or deer, and then we
mitigate this as soon as we hear it with commands.
We have had our Rottweilers for almost six years with no issues. The exception would be the
neighbors to our right. There was an incident where our male crossed the line due to a dead
battery in his collar. My wife was in the yard with him, he just wanted the skate board the kids
were playing with as he is a huge fan of these boards. No one was injured, not even the board,
and my wife quickly brought Loki back to the yard and placed a new battery in his collar.
Since the incident we have had the Elk River police come out and meet our Rottweilers and we
have had a call from them as well, both of these contacts were initiated by the neighbor, with
positive outcomes. We have not had any issues with other neighbors.
We added a Micro Bully, Louis about five months ago. Our Rottweilers do not want to play with
him so we searched out a playmate Chanel, who is now 10 weeks. We were not aware of the
city requirement on the number of dogs a family could have, and we did not know we needed a
conditional use permit. My Laura did remember that when we lived in another city years ago
we needed a kennel permit when we had four dogs, so she inquired and found out we needed
one.
We were working with Chris on what we needed to do to get the Kennel application completed,
and then the COVID-19 epidemic occurred.
We were on hold and did not think we would get the puppy, but last minute they were able to
get her to us, and we are now resuming the process.
We appreciate any time and consideration taken to assist us through this process.
n
1 _i �•
Y /
/Y/ �//
,W
Y I
Y 7
i
•
Sec. 10-5. - Nuisance animals.
(a) It shall be the obligation and responsibility of the owner of any animal in the city, whether
permanently or temporarily therein, to prevent such animal from committing any act which constitutes
a nuisance. Failure on the part of the owner to prevent his/her animal from committing an act of
nuisance shall be subject to the penalty herein provided.
(1) Noisy animals . It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor an animal which habitually
barks or cries. Habitual noise shall be defined as barking or crying for repeated intervals of at
least five minutes with less than one minute of interruption. Such barking or crying must also be
audible off of the owner's premises. Repeated barking or crying due to intentional provocation
by an unrelated individual residing off the property of the owner is not considered habitual for
purposes of this subsection, nor is barking or crying related to a periodic external stimulus such
as a nondomestic animal, machinery or unusual activity within the vicinity of the premises.
(2) Excrement . The owner of any animal shall be responsible for cleaning up any feces of the
animal and disposing of such feces. Feces on the property of others or on public property must
be cleaned up immediately. Feces on your own property is required to be cleaned up.
(3) Running at large . Any domestic or agricultural animal shall not be permitted by the owner to
run at large within the city. For purposes of this section the term "at large" means any animal
not restrained by chain or leash not exceeding eight feet, except:
a. Police dogs;
b. Animals restrained in a vehicle, fenced -in area, or building;
c. Animals on the premises of the owner and under the control and direction of the owner so
as to be effectively restrained by command as by leash.
d. Animals accompanied by the owner and under the control and direction of the owner so as
to be effectively restrained by command as by leash.
e. Off -leash dog park.
(4) Destruction of property. It is a nuisance for an animal to molest, defile, or destroy any property,
public or private.
(5) Vicious animals . It is a nuisance for an animal to bite, attack, or endanger the safety of
humans or domestic animals.
(6) Diseased or dangerous animal.
a. Any animal displaying symptoms of being rabid may be seized and shall be confined by the
animal shelter at the expense of the owner, until found to be free from rabies.
b. If any animal appears to be diseased, vicious, dangerous, or rabid, or has been exposed to
rabies, and such animal can't be taken up and impounded without serious risk, such animal
may be disposed of if reasonably necessary for the safety of any person.
(7) Non -domesticated animal nuisances . The city does not manage wildlife. Wildlife removal is
handled by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or a private pest removal
company.
(b) Disposition of seized animal. Any animal seized under the provisions of section 10-5 shall be taken
to the animal control shelter and kept there to be reclaimed by the owner. The owner shall pay all
fees related to impounding. An animal shelter shall maintain records in accordance with Minn. Stats.
§ 346.47, subd. 2.
(c) Violations . No animal shall be permitted to be a nuisance. Any owner who keeps, harbors, or is in
physical control of an animal that is a nuisance shall be in violation of this article.
(Ord. No. 19-25, § 1, 12-2-2019)
f�k;
.r� !!• . d�- yyi�p J9 � r ^" 1 - —
9,0
-
.— mm.
e. ■
-. a ■. .. 7 i 'Y +• _ T Ly *•, .- d ti •�1. �,
■, .. a -e! ��'.`Y,f
•
• " •'"a a W� {e a "I�-�'. � �,e P.. �'', ;�+� �,
a
m <
y ,
J
r. ➢•
r, q I" f _
, •' , r
5
h �r
Ile
3 'INL q Iti , .
llL.j f s f . w
rkc�j ,
• ' 1'�; IT' � • l+e'' S -
a■ ■ Jl
Lr
le
r CIE
r
1 .
or
2 s 1 - = Sr, , Y' • 4'.. ,''' ' r'!{, f yh- 1 arM1 `' "�I mod, `.. L c�.: - e' `•..
a d}
° r' :� , . �+' r •'. �•'1 , + 4,• ,4' -. �t-� � � `tip. ��
j I L
r , p.. ,1 r{ F, f. l w• � ' ..e f .4' . # -y'' °s� , . e i y '', , PL
t T -
`a
m
a .A
• i
n
.y ��` rI • may+ �,., � "�' •.. ,
r
1 ti
Y .e
y 1 �
1
r ^
°
Y �.f
Y as
r
e
S1 f` • And e • 1 - 's _ - - ^d
� . ,� ���rs �'�' ., ,� � ° �,�aa'L .�� "°fin �� j r• ��'�
h qq a � 4v " �Y, eiY,� .• �r,
a
IF
�•r e
r . �.
•� s •'tea
_,�.• .. a F?- .eaY ". e
..•.1 ,. .. a ,ar°s' ,• .. .aJ -.. kA
°
�x a
■
? d Y •
J
6 d
JOro 'ao t_'
Minnesota Statutes
347.50 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 1. Terms. For the purpose of sections 347.50 to 347.56, the terms defined in this
section have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. Dangerous dog. "Dangerous dog" means any dog that has:
(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private
property;
(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or
(3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially
dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic
animals.
Subd. 3. Potentially dangerous dog. "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that:
(1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property;
(2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the
streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an
apparent attitude of attack; or
(3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or
otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals.
Respectable members of the City Council, Mayor,
Thank you for allowing me the space to voice my request.
I received a puppy for Christmas, and we were all very happy with him, his name is Louis and he is about
40 Ibs now. My older dogs, now 6, Coco and Loki, wanted nothing to do with Louis and he was very sad
and getting depressed, our trainer recommended a mate. At the time, we started the process for the
permit and then COVID happened and our efforts to get the puppy came to a halt, so we did not
continue the process.
A few months later we were told by the breeder a female puppy was available, but we had to decide
quick; given that she met the characteristics we were looking for and seen her playful temperament in
videos provided, we decided to bring her home. We did not restart the process right away due to
COVID-19 and as we were under the assumption that a newborn puppy was not accounted as a unit for
the first 6 months of age.
We then got this letter about the permit immediately due to a call from a concerned neighbor. We had
no problem to go through this process as it is the right thing to do and we feel confident we can meet all
necessary conditions to make this work.
Although I understand the concern from our neighbor, I would like to mention that the rottweilers
presence is not been affected by the decision made today. The city rules allow us to have 3 dogs
regardless of breed without requiring a fence. We have done everything within our financial power to
provide a safe environment for our family, dogs and neighbors. The incident from two summers ago
was a very isolated case, nobody was hurt, the dog did not even come close to kids or payed any
attention to them. As a concerned mom, our neighbor called Police who then made an evaluation of
our dogs and confirmed that our Rotties are neither dangerous nor vicious.
Since that incident, we have been threaten by our neighbor several times to the point that she threatens
with also calling immigration on us. Since then also my neighbor constantly takes videos of our children
and me in our yard, in the front or back. ER police should have records of us reporting this behavior. I
understand this is not the place or time to vent these issues; but I would like you to have a better
perspective of the character of all parties if this were to be a factor in your decision.
None of our dogs meet the Dangerous nor Vicious definition; they have never attacked anybody other
than by jumping in excitement and with super wet kisses. If this was ever the case, I would be the first
one making sure the dogs are removed. I have children too.
MN Law defines dangerous dogs based on behavior not by breed. ACCORDING TO THE 2019 Minnesota
Statutes 347.50 DEFINITIONS.
Subd. 2.Dangerous dog.
"Dangerous dog" means any dog that has:
(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private
property;
(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property, or
(3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is
potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or
domestic animals.
We have had our Rotties for 6 years without any dangerous incident. They do bark at strangers
approaching their property just like a Chihuahua would. That is normal behavior, does that make them
scarier? Maybe due to size and unfortunately, color, some people have a pre -disposition towards them.
However, I want to point that I have 3 other neighbors around and when they work in their yards the
dogs, although initially may bark at them to let them know they are there, they immediately leave them
alone and go back to mind their own business.
One of the concerns someone had at the Planning meeting was "barking dogs:". Our dogs are not
barkers outside of what at normal barking level is, if not lower. They are very well behaved when
outside and because of their nature they don't "need to" bark. Sometimes they come out charging and
barking when there is deer or other dogs inside our yard, but any other dog does that. Then they
immediately stop after a few barks and never had crossed the invisible fence line. That is consistent
with normal barking levels, yes their bark may be louder, but comparable to other large dogs around. In
all these years we have not have complaints about barking other than our neighbor Silva, just to be told
by the police that the dogs are barking within normal parameters. Barking is not an issue for our dogs
and I would respectfully ask that you don't consider this when making your decision.
In another note, I would like to explain or give context to the presence of the dogs in the yard. We both
work all day, our daughter goes to school and works, and while not currently in school, our almost 12-
year-old son cares for the dogs in the mornings. While he was in school, the dogs would stay inside
during the day. Our son does not let the dogs unattended or in the yard for other than to relieve
themselves. During weekdays, we play with them in our yard for 1-2 hours and that's as much as they
are out playing at once. On the weekends we may have them out more. Occasionally the neighbor
comes out and yes, the dogs run towards that side of the yard and may bark as they see her, but then
they quickly stop and we retrieve them and out of respect to her feelings, we bring them inside. We feel
we go the extra mile with all the neighbors, but particularly with her as others don't care that our dogs
are outside playing or just sunbathing, and we are proactively keeping far from kids playing outside, etc.
and not because they are dangerous, but we want all kids to feel comfortable playing outside. That's
what we have the backyard for.
We do rely in the invisible fence and their setting in their collars is set to the max. Since the incident
with Loki's battery we are diligently monitoring batteries and ensuring the fence is in working
conditions. I respectfully request that these issues are set aside when considering the approval of this
request. There are other appropriate venues our neighbor can follow for her concerns.
Since the last meeting, we have been following all the conditions and things appear to be working ok so
even 3 dogs at a time is working, we do have a rotation program is not as bad as I had anticipated. Of
course, we would love the opportunity to have 4 dogs at once with at least 2 adults supervising if
possible.
As far as the front yard, we rarely allow our Rotties in the front, and when we do it is for minimal time
and ALWAYS supervised. I walk my dogs occasionally through the neighbor and I am surprised to see so
many large dogs in the front of the houses alone. That's the right of the person but again, out of respect
and consideration to neighbors we never allow dogs in the front unsupervised. The isolated case from
two summers ago was unfortunate but was just a one-time failure and we learned from that.
The incident presented by our neighbor (the husband) regarding the contractor is completely untruthful
and as a matter of fact, the neighbor yelled at my son that day "to control your dogs and put them
inside" as he was letting them out potty and that's why the dogs approached the area when the
contractor was there; my son brought them quickly inside. We have had multiple contractors doing
work in our home and yard and nobody has ever had an issue — once you know our dogs, they are super
mellow and happy to see people.
In more occasions that I would like to admit, we have had other dogs coming into our yard from
neighbors that don't keep them in a leash, or don't have any fence system — this runs rampage in the
back side of our block— of course our dogs will want to chase them out; another dog has jumped its
fence and ran into our yard from a few houses down, and attacked our female rottie in our yard as he
ran towards my daughter and Coco, our female Rottie, tried to protect my daughter from this charging
dog coming at her — that goes to also show that physical barriers also fail and Rotties are not necessarily
the vicious ones but rather they are protective. The other dog was not hurt, mine was and required
surgery at the time and since then and after a whole year of convalescence, our adult Rotties settled
way down and are much less active now.
We have now the much younger puppy, Chanel who is only 16 weeks old, she will be around 40 Ibs also
and we will continue to be diligent in her temperament and behavior training. We have a professional
training scheduled to start with the new 2 puppies in the next couple of weeks.
We are not in a position to put a private fence around and frankly we have had more complains about
this when we tried years ago through the HOA as most of our neighbor opposed the enclosure as being
detrimental to the natural look of our backyards. We feel confident that the Invisible Fence works as
it's supposed to and we are committed to ensure it is functioning at all times. We will also continue to
be sensitive to our neighbors by limiting the dogs time outside.
In summary, I would like to respectfully request the approval of this special permit with the following
modifications
In regard to the waste. The addition of another dog is not posing a significant difference to the amount
of waste. We do have a great system in place where our dogs are trained to relieve themselves in a very
specific area in the corner of our yard, which is surrounded by woods, away from houses and kept clean.
This is designed with a great natural drainage system that get irrigated with our sprinkled system as
well. We keep a waste container nearby and the area itself is cleaned several times as day — our dogs
don't like a dirty bathroom. The yard then remains free of waste at all times. The container is shut
closed and then disposed of during normal garbage collection days. This system is working perfectly
now, and I respectfully ask that you allow us to continue following this method.
In regard to 3 dogs outside at once, I would like you to consider allowing the following:
4 dogs at a time allowed in the backyard as long as there are 2 adults present. — We like to play with all
our dogs at once; and as mentioned, this is minimum during the day anyway The number of 3 dogs is
currently allowed without restrictions; I think this would also provide another layer of safety and
security for our neighbors. No changes are requested for the front yard.
All of our dogs are mostly indoor dogs as we are away most of the day on normal days.. We want and
need to give them enough exercise in the evening hours when we are home and we normally let them
play outside in the backyard. Since we have 4 now, we usually play all together with them. We don't
walk the old ones much out of consideration to neighbors that may be scared of the breed, not because
they are dangerous. We don't have to limit ourselves, yet we have as we understand how others may
feel. We instead play in the back with them and as time permits, we take them to dog parks. We have
never had issues with them at dog parks; we also take our dogs for ice cream at dairy queen and Cold
Stone without incident each time. —They love ice cream!
Lastly,
We want to do the right thing as responsible owners; denying this permit does not change the fact that
we still have the Rotties and they will continue to behave as normal dogs do when people come close to
their family and property. We believe that this special permit imposes more rigorous rules to us which
will provide with more safety and peace of mind to neighbors than what the current regulations allow,
while allowing our family to keep all our dogs with us.
We are very attached to each one on its unique way. Denying this request would mean we would have
to part ways with one of our dogs which will ultimate hurt our kids. In addition, a denial would mean to
go back to No restrictions on the 3 remaining dogs, which would not solve nor help the way our
neighbor feels about them.
We are confident we can continue to provide a safe environment to all neighbors with the restrictions
imposed and the modifications requested, along with our extra measurements listed.
As a mother with young kids still, I understand the concerns of others and I am very sensitive to them.
But I also feel that aside from being very sensitive to the feelings of others and thus very proactive, we
have proper measurements in place, and we do our part to compromise and be fair to others. If
invisible fences were not working, they would not be legal. The product works, and we are committed
to ensure we keep it that way.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Respectfully,
Laura Schwartz
Planning Commission
Elk _
River
IF
75-585-0405
7585-0410
"5
t a
r
e �
75 33-031a 75:s85-4415
_ `' 75�a85-0530
OOP
75-585-0420 :
" 75%33 O370'1. 5-i95-043 75 -05351+
1\ f
r i 851435 755-0425
a.
75-585-0540
75 -633 -03 75 7 5-58 5 -0 440
'I L�-4 li 75-635'01
75�33-0380
- 7 5-585 -0 545
.441
'; 75-585 610 75_585-0605 �1 75-650-01202 75 35-01? 5
t;
qr
S'ch-\v. art z
�• it 1'il�:�..1 it—'l�l .:�: i 7-1�7 :.�77' -,:+ �� � . _- --------
.- 75�585-0620 7
Ells --
on ition l t, se Per 't Case No: CU 20-13 ver
Background
■ Zoned R1-c Private Kennels require a CUP
■ PnPate Kennel, means any premise where more than six (6)
domestic animal units over the age of six months, are harbored
or kept
■ It does not mean a structure/business, boarding, or breeding
■ The application is exceeding the amount of allowed pets
Background
■ Anihval unit is a unit of measure for domestic animals. Domestic
animals < 20 pounds, at full maturity, count as one (1) animal
unit and domestic animals 20 pounds and over, at full maturity,
count as two (2) animal units.
■ 6 animal units allowed without CUP — entire city
■ 2 Rottweilers (77-130 lbs)
■ 4 animal units
■ 2 Micro Bullies (66-88 lbs)
■ 4 animal units
Background
■ Dogs kept in home
■ Supervised in yard
■ Invisible fence
■ Collar battery failed once
'c
°
=� * ,, _ �' fie•
° F
ir
lww
06
, ,
7
, a `L
n,
PI
I �
°
a
416
If
a ,*
ft
a
p
1 rt' 3' F r ®, 4 r, rFa
4
I ,•-.
r
n
p
-
I;r
A.
-
- + AApp
ym
ti p
P
NO
r .p
�1
• -. sue'..
• � � x y
,e
" m
�.
" , � � •t.. ` �-may y � .. •� .r
.. �L•'ryY �. e r s �.
Public Comment
■ Neighbor to the west
■ Opposed to extra animal unit
■ Dogs bark and snarl at her only feet away
■ Dog went after her children's skateboard
■ Dogs have come across fence line
■ Irrigation contractor would not complete work
■ Applicant
■ Asked condition #2 changed to allow all 4 animals outside
■ The one left behind doesn't like to be alone
■ PC member stated they can leave 2 dogs behind
■ The two rottweilers will not be leaving the home
Public Comment
■ Neighbor
■ Didn't realize they had dogs
■ PC
■ Limiting to 3 dogs will not remove aggressive dog situation
■ Privacy fence was discussed
■ Applicant felt it was out of place and stated the variable that
does not change in this equation is there will still be two
rottweilers living at his home
■ One commissioner state they are trying to find the right
solution as the applicant is asking for something special and
was not supportive of the request
CUP Requirements
■ PCs analysis of the application shows compliance with 5 of the
7 standards required for approval of the CUP
■ With the recommended conditions, the 2 other standards
should be met
■ The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
request by a 4-2 vote
Action Requested
■ Approve, by motion, the Conditional Use Permit with the
conditions outlined in the memo
IF
75-585-0405
7585-0410
"5
t a
r
e �
75 33-031a 75:s85-4415
_ `' 75�a85-0530
OOP
75-585-0420 :
" 75%33 O370'1. 5-i95-043 75 -05351+
1\ f
r i 851435 755-0425
a.
75-585-0540
75 -633 -03 75 7 5-58 5 -0 440
'I L�-4 li 75-635'01
75�33-0380
- 7 5-585 -0 545
.441
'; 75-585 610 75_585-0605 �1 75-650-01202 75 35-01? 5
t;
qr
S'ch-\v. art z
�• it 1'il�:�..1 it—'l�l .:�: i 7-1�7 :.�77' -,:+ �� � . _- --------
.- 75�585-0620 7
Ells --
on ition l t, se Per 't Case No: CU 20-13 ver
Conditions
1. Limited to 8 animal units. Additional animal units will require
an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
2. No more than 6 animal units shall be allowed outdoors at once
3. The removal of animal waste shall comply with Section 10-9.
All on -site waste shall be picked up and properly disposed of
twice a week
4. No more than two (2) animals per supervisor shall be allowed
outside of the fenced area
5. All dog waste shall be cleaned up immediately when dogs are
off -site
City of
River
Conditions
6. The applicant shall receive a private kennel license from the
city
7. No dogs designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous are
allowed to be kept on site, and the keeping of such dog shall
be grounds for revocation of the permit
8. Fencing, around the entire perimeter of the property, shall
always be maintained and if underground invisible fencing is
utilized, shall always be functioning.
P r
SON
142 (
� � � � 'wj� • 4 s
44