PLANNING COMMISSION June 12, 1990 Page Nine Mrs. Stokes indicated to the staff that she will have 20 dogs and that she has built the existing kennel within three feet of the rear property line. If the Conditional Use is approved, the dog kennels will have to be moved so as to comply with zoning requirements. Staff indicated that there were 3 telephone calls received stating their opposition to the dog kennel. A reason from one of the property owners was that he would be subdividing in the future and giving the property to his grandchildren and that they would not want a kennel near their homes. Mrs. Stephanie Stokes stated that she was not aware that she had to receive a kennel permit. She indicated that she built the kennels at the rear of the property line because there is a row of willow trees to shade her dogs and if she was required to move them, she would like some time to build some other type of shade. She said that this is a temporary situation because she would like to sell her home and relocate elsewhere. She trains border collies and would home to be moved by the end of the August. She is out at the site various times of the day and her dogs only bark when strays come around the property. The property is surrounded by large parcels of land and that she would not be a problem to other property owners. Mark DeCaria indicated that the Planning Commission is not empowered to grant a variance and if they did it would be subject to question. They could approve a conditional use application and possibly give the applicant two months or so to bring the property into compliance. MOTION: Commissioner Coleman moved to approve C.U. 9-90 by Stephanie Stokes for a dog kennel at 5333 S. 7100 W. With the condition that she has until September 1, 1990 to bring the kennel into compliance by moving the kennels not less than 50 ft. from the side or rear property line and not less than 100 ft. from the public street. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Widdison and voting was unanimous, with Commissioners Coleman, Fuller, Widdison and Thompson voting aye. 11. Reactivate Blair Family Petition Zoning from A-1 to M-1 at 400 N. & I-15 for a Light Industrial Park This petition was reviewed by the Planning Commission in early 1989 for C-2 and M-l zoning. The C-2 zoning was approved but the M-l zoning was held in abeyance until a revised master plan could be developed. The masterplan public hearing for the area is about to be set. Mr. Blair has now indicated that he wishes to proceed with the rest of his zoning petition for the M-l zoning of his property for a light intensity manufacturing park. The proposed rezoning would be approximately 93 acres. The staff recalls the Slaterville Planning Committee not being opposed to the Blair family proposal. The staff feels that the public hearing should be held and the masterplan amendment adopted prior to any M-l zone change, and the zone change be for the west part of the property. 425