Consider a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Maintain Four or More Dogs at the Property Located at 5520 140th Ln NW; Case of Diane and David Mattsen

The City has received an application from Diane and David Mattsen (the "Applicant") for a conditional use permit (the "Permit") to maintain up to twelve (12) dogs on the property located at 5520 140th Lane NW (the "Subject Property"). Of the potential twelve (12) dogs allowed on the Subject Property, eight (8) would not belong to the Applicant, which City Code Section 10-52 (Definitions) would define as a commercial dog kennel. The Applicant owns the other four (4) dogs and their maintenance on the Subject Property would represent a private dog kennel. In addition to the four (4) dogs owned by the Applicant, they also provide regular care for one (1) other dog owned by a family member. As expressed during the August Planning Commission meeting, Planning Staff was unaware of this last dog regularly cared for but not owned by the Applicant, as the Applicant did not identify it and the nature of its care on the Subject Property.

The incident that prompted this request was a community service officer (the "CSO") visiting the Subject Property to investigate a complaint related to dogs. The complainant expressed concern with the number of dogs on the Subject Property and the level of noise they generated. The CSO spoke with the Applicant, who explained that there were more than three (3) dogs on the Subject Property. The CSO then informed the Applicant that a conditional use permit for the operation of a dog kennel would be needed to board more than three (3) dogs, as outlined in City Code Section 10-56 (Number of Dogs Permitted).

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within a 350 foot radius of the Property of the Public Hearing via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also published in the City's official newsletter, the Anoka County Union Herald.  While the Public Hearing was closed at the August Planning Commission meeting, action on the request was tabled to the September meeting.

Section 10-52 (Definitions) of Ramsey City Code defines the following:

A "private dog kennel" is a place where a dog owner keeps four or more dogs over six months of age on property occupied by the dog owner for residential purposes and where the keeping of such dogs is incidental to the occupancy of the premises, and may include breeding and selling of dogs as a hobby.

A "commercial dog kennel" is a place where boarding and/or training is offered to any number of dogs not owned by the owner or occupant of the premises. Such boarding and/or training may also include but is not limited to related uses such as selling, breeding, showing, treating or grooming.

Using these definitions, this request will require the approval of establishing both a private and commercial dog kennel on the Subject Property. The private dog kennel is applicable to the four (4) dogs owned by the Applicant; the commercial dog kennel would be for the remaining eight (8). Of those dogs not owned by the Applicant, one (1) belonging to a family member is maintained on the Subject Property regularly.  The other dogs not owned by the Applicant would also belong to family members and friends (the "Dog Owners") and be cared for only on occasion, oftentimes when the Dog Owners are away from home for a length of time that requires boarding service. This service provided by the Applicant is done at no charge to the Dog Owners. The Applicant has stated that there are no plans for this kennel operation to be a business. Before allowed on the the Subject Property, all dogs will be subject to standards in Section 10-59 of City Code (Rabies vaccination).

The Applicant maintains that the maximum size of the twelve (12) dogs requested to be allowed on the Subject Property in relation to the Permit would be roughly fifteen (15) pounds. When not safely contained in the Applicant's home on the Subject Property, the dogs would be outside secured within a proper enclosure (the "Enclosure") that meets the definition found in City Code Section 10-52 (Definitions). The location of the Enclosure is in the front yard and immediately next to the Applicant's home, as shown in Exhibit A. This contained area is lined by chain-link fence. Within the Enclosure is an even smaller enclosed space that is lined by both a chain-link fence and a three (3) foot high privacy fence, as shown in Exhibit B. The privacy fence coupled with the location of this smaller area right next to the house is intended to provide the dogs quick access to the outside and reduce the incidence of them loudly reacting to anything outside of the Enclosure. If the Enclosure does not adequately deter noise from the dogs and it becomes a reasonable annoyance to neighbors, there are penalties that may be imposed and associated disciplinary actions taken to stop the annoyance as described in City Code Section 10-69 (Dogs disturbing the peace). Additionally, revocation of the conditional use permit would be another option.

A Public Hearing for this request was held during the August 7 Planning Commission meeting. During the Public Hearing, one commenter alleged that, some time in the recent past, Pit Bull puppies were for sale on the Subject Property. According to the commenter, the sale of Pit Bull puppies was dangerous due to the breed of dog, and the sale also appeared to constitute a "puppy mill" as it was also alleged that this has happened several times in the past eight (8) years. City Code Section 10-52 (Definitions) does not define a dangerous dog by breed but by the exhibition of aggressive behavior that results in bodily harm inflicted on a human being. City Code Sections 10-64 (Potentially dangerous dogs) and 10-65 (Dangerous dogs) go into greater detail about the process of determining a dangerous dog, which was not required for the Pit Bull puppies. Due to disagreement between accounts regarding the sale of Pit Bull puppies voiced by the Applicant and those providing public comment, City Staff are unable to confirm or refute the allegation. There was also a statement made that alluded to a home occupation being operated on the Subject Property in addition to the dog boarding services. The Applicant explained that there is occasional automotive repair work done on the Subject Property (they assist their children with routine maintenance on their vehicles). On August 13, 2014, City Staff inspected the Subject Property, interviewed the Applicant, and found no signs of a home occupation.

At the time of the inspection mentioned above, the Applicant was boarding seven (7) dogs. They consisted of the four (4) owned by the Applicant, the one (1) dog owned by a family member that is maintained regularly on the Subject Property, and two (2) other dogs owned by family that were out of town for a week and a half. According to the Applicant, these dogs, which are shown in Exhibit C, are representative of the type of dog that would be boarded on the Subject Property. Also, the Applicant has stated that no one else resides on the Subject Property that owns a dog.

The Applicant has inquired about having dogs on the Subject Property that would exceed the number and/or size limitation. The inquiry was about family or friends that may visit them at the Subject Property for a short period of time (same day visit, not overnight) and bring a dog with them.  To assist with enforcement of the provisions of the Permit, it has been drafted to exempt these types of incidental same-day visits, thereby not counting these dogs as part of the maximum number stipulated in the Permit (as they are not being maintained on the Subject Property).

Two (2) neighboring property owners have submitted letters of support for the Applicant and the proposed conditional use as shown in Exhibit D. Six (6) neighbors from five (5) properties near the Subject Property have signed onto a letter that does not endorse the granting of the Permit, as shown in Exhibit E.

In addition to the kennel services, the Applicant also proposes to eventually breed dogs and provide temporary foster care to dogs on the Subject Property. Neither of these uses would allow the Applicant to maintain more dogs than stipulated in the Permit.

When originally reviewing the request for the August Public Hearing, Staff was not aware of the regularity or the frequency which the Applicant provides boarding services to dogs that do not reside on the Subject Property.  With a better understanding of the request and existing conditions, allowing up to twelve (12) dogs to be maintained on the Subject Property does not seem appropriate in this residential setting.  However, it was noted during the latest site inspection, that the seven (7) dogs that were being maintained at that time on the Subject Property did seem reasonable due to the size of the dogs (all small breeds) and their typical needs for outdoor activity (less than larger, more active breeds). 

Alternatives

Option 1: Approve Resolutions #14-08-148 and #14-08-149 modified as requested. City Staff is supportive of permitting the private dog kennel and the commercial dog kennel with modifications to the total number of dogs boarded on the Subject Property. City Staff recommends allowing up to seven (7) dogs to be boarded on the Subject Property. This number will allow the Applicant to keep their four (4) dogs they currently own, maintain the family member's dog that is cared for regularly, and still board up to two (2) more dogs belonging to family members and friends when necessary. In essence, this number will still allow the Applicant to use the Subject Property to provide services to family and friends as well as care for her dogs. City Staff recommends this option.

Option 2: Approve Resolutions #14-08-148 and #14-08-149 granting a conditional use permit to maintain up to twelve (12) dogs at the property located at 5520 140th Ln NW. City Staff has received new information in regards to the duration and the regularity of boarding services that conflicts with previously provided information. City Staff was not aware that dogs, other than those owned by the Applicant, were regularly maintained on the Subject Property.  Furthermore, the frequency and duration of boarding services was appears to be greater than originally conveyed to City Staff. In light of this updated information, City Staff does not find it reasonable to permit up to twelve (12) dogs on the Subject Property and therefore is not supportive of this option.

Option 3: Do not approve Resolutions #14-08-148 and #14-08-149 denying a conditional use permit to maintain four or more dogs at the property located at 5520 140th Ln NW. This option would result in the Applicant not only terminating the boarding of dogs owned by family and friends, but also require the removal of one (1) of the Applicant's four (4) dogs to be in compliance with City Code section 10-56. While the original Permit is not recommended, City Staff does recommend modifications that still allow the Applicant to keep her dogs. City Staff does not recommend this option.

All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility.

City Staff recommends approving Resolutions #14-09-174 and #14-09-175 granting a conditional use permit to maintain up to seven (7) dogs on the property located at 5520 140th Ln NW.

Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution #14-09-174 adopting Findings of Fact #0932 related to a request for a Conditional Use Permit to maintain up to seven (7) dogs on the property located at 5520 140th Ln NW

-and-

Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution #14-09-175 approving a Conditional Use Permit to maintain up to seven (7) dogs on the property located at 5520 140th Ln NW