Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions from the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the council’s action would merely lead to a public process. He did not know how he felt <br />about the issue but wanted to hear the public feedback. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon thanked the council for supporting her work session request. She offered two examples of <br />how the current code was a problem, one of which concerned a family that rescued dogs and had to put one <br />down after a neighbor complained that they had three dogs. In another case, a daughter with two dogs <br />moved in with her mother who also had a dog. They were concerned they would be turned in by a neighbor. <br />She believed the limit caused problems for otherwise well-meaning, good citizens. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said that like Mr. Kelly, he supported asking the public its opinion. He thought the number of <br />complaints demonstrated that it was not a significant problem. However, the fact the code had not been <br />changed since 1968 argued that a reexamination was needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said that a constituent pointed out to him that people who had problems with barking dogs <br />frequently did not know who to complain to or did not want to complain about their neighbors. He said that <br />one barking dog was bad enough. He said the City should enforce its current codes. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said he was happy to look at the issue. He asked if there was a limit on other animals. Mr. <br />McKerrow said the code contained a limit on dogs and had a section on large animals, such as farm animals. <br />In general, those standards concerned larger lot sizes and a minimum square footage. Cats were not <br />regulated at all by the Land Use Code. Mr. Papé thought the City should consider a limit on cats as well as <br />a requirement for cat licensing. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said there were many things that could be a nuisance in a neighborhood. She pointed out that <br />frequently two people get married, and they had more than two dogs. She asked what they were supposed to <br />do since for many people, giving up a dog would be like giving up a child. She did not understand the <br />code’s hostility toward dogs. She pointed out that the City would issue a ticket without substantiation if <br />someone complained. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said he would like to know about similarly sized cities and the number of dogs they allowed and <br />the complaints they received. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to provide a new <br />kennel definition allowing up to three adult dogs on a residential property in the package of <br />proposed code amendments for consideration during the next phase of the land use code <br />amendment process. The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: Inappropriate Infill <br /> <br />The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Department Director Susan Muir and <br />Senior Planner Steve Nystrom. <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom noted that the issue was raised by the council and staff was present to answer questions. The <br />packet included key components of the code that addressed the issue of infill. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />