Planning commission approves rezoning for 6201 Crow Lane to allow pet services over neighbors’ objections

The Planning Commission on June 9 approved a rezoning and plan amendment for 6201 Crow Lane to allow pet services, voting 7–4 to adopt the applicant’s request with a conditional overlay that forbids four higher‑intensity uses.

The action rezoned the roughly 0.98‑acre property from Limited Office Mixed Use (LO‑MU‑NP) to Neighborhood Residential/Commercial Mixed Use with a conditional overlay (LRMU‑CO‑NP), and adopted the companion plan amendment staff recommended as neighborhood mixed use. Commissioner Ahmed made the motion to approve the applicant request with changes to the conditional overlay; the motion passed 7–4.

The vote followed more than an hour of public testimony and a round of commissioner questions. Supporters, including the applicant’s attorney Catherine Nicely, described the business as a small dog day‑care and boarding operation that has made changes after an earlier incident. “We have made changes after what happened,” Nicely said, and she told commissioners the owners have coordinated safety and permitting work with city staff.

Opponents — many of them residents of the adjacent SkyBridge Lofts condominium — said the facility, known in testimony as “the Acre,” has repeatedly allowed dogs to escape, produces persistent barking and noise, and in one case a boarded pet died after escaping. “This facility has already proven incompatible with the character, safety, and peace of our community,” AJ Mooney, a SkyBridge Lofts board member, told commissioners. Several neighbors described scenes of dogs “charging the fence” and said the barking makes their terraces and the community walking trail unusable.

Planning staff described the property and the request before public comment. Mark Walters of the Planning Department introduced MPA‑2024‑0020‑01, saying staff’s recommendation was neighborhood mixed use as “a better fit for the surrounding land uses.” Beverly Viela explained that the rezoning would carry a conditional overlay that prohibits a set of higher‑intensity commercial uses to improve compatibility with nearby residences.

During rebuttal and commissioner questioning, the applicant said it has ordered and plans to install a 7‑foot solid wooden fence along the shared property line and has coordinated with the SkyBridge HOA and city utilities to avoid hitting underground infrastructure. The applicant estimated the fence cost at about $18,000 and said the goal is to complete the fence work before any council vote. The applicant also described supervised outdoor play sessions generally lasting about 20–30 minutes, with playgroups typically of six to nine dogs.

Commissioners who voted for the rezoning said the land’s commercial zoning history and the broader mix of nearby commercial and multifamily uses supported allowing pet services with a conditional overlay. Commissioners who opposed the motion said they remained unconvinced that proposed mitigations — including the planned fence and commitments on supervision — would eliminate persistent noise and other neighborhood impacts.

The commission’s formal motion approved the applicant request and directed that the conditional overlay explicitly prohibit consumer convenience services, consumer repair services, service stations and custom manufacturing on the site. The motion passed by a 7–4 vote; the motion’s text and the tally were entered into the record at the hearing.

Next steps: the commission’s recommendation will go to city council for final action. The applicant said it expects fence improvements to be in place before council consideration; staff confirmed the planning recommendation and described the land‑use categories that the commission approved.

The record for the item includes extensive public comment from neighbors, multiple staff presentations, and applicant rebuttal. Commissioners discussed code distinctions between “pet services” (which staff said is allowed when overnight boarding and care occurs within a building) and “kennel” uses (which may include outdoor site‑level boarding). Staff told commissioners the land‑development code language can be complex and that the distinction hinges on whether care and boarding occur “totally within a building” versus on site outside the building.