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 the Public Hearing process and Planning Commission review unfolded, the recommendation moving forward on this request is to allow for seven (7) dogs on the Subject Property, but not the twelve (12) as originally requested by the Applicant.

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.

Using definitions described in City Code Section 10-52 (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 four (4) foot high 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.

Planning Staff conducted a property inspection on August 13, 2014, at which time 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.

During the site visit, the Applicant 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, and with input from the Police Department, 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).

Planning Staff performed a second site visit on September 11, 2014. During this visit, an accessory structure was found on the Subject Property, for which there was no permit. Staff notified the Applicant of the city code violation and the Applicant responded by having the structure removed from the Subject Property. It was also discovered during that visit that the Enclosure was partially located within public right-of-way. The Applicant stated that the fence boundary of the Enclosure will be relocated so that it is entirely on the Subject Property. The Permit has been amended to include a condition that obligates the Applicant to have that relocation completed within thirty (30) days of the Permit's approval.

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.

A Public Hearing for this request was held during the August 7 Planning Commission meeting. Comments were submitted both verbally and in written form, of which some were supportive of the request and some against. Letters for and against the request are shown in Exhibits D and E, respectively. 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. Because of this incomplete picture provided by the Applicant, the Planning Commission tabled the request until the September meeting to allow the Applicant additional time to work with Planning Staff to provide more detailed and accurate information and provide a better description of the nature of the boarding services. With a better understanding of the request and existing conditions, Planning Staff did not think it was appropriate to allow up to twelve (12) dogs to be maintained on the Subject Property. However, as was observed during the August site inspection, the seven (7) dogs that were being maintained 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).

Discussion regarding the request continued into the September Planning Commission meeting. An open house was conducted prior, during which concerns were expressed that related to noise and dogs escaping from the Subject Property. Photos depicting the dogs at large can be seen in Exhibit F. When the request was being heard by the Planning Commission, there was unanimous consent given to the operation of the private kennel operation, which allowed the Applicant to maintain her four (4) dogs on the Subject Property. During deliberation of the portion of the request related to the commercial dog kennel operation, several members of the Planning Commission voiced concerns about allowing additional dogs on the property and how that would impact the character of the neighborhood. Ultimately, the commercial kennel operation to maintain an additional three (3) dogs on the Subject Property was approved with four (4) members in favor and two (2) against.

Alternatives

Option 1: Approve Resolutions #14-09-174 and #14-09-175 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 contingent upon the fence being relocated so that it is entirely 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 modification maintains the spirit of the original request while also recommending a more reasonable number of dogs based on the regularity of boarding services, the environment where boarding services will be conducted, and concerns expressed by neighbors. City Staff supports this option.

Option 2: Approve Resolutions #14-09-174 and #14-09-175 modified as requested. This option would grant approval for a conditional use permit to operate a private dog kennel on the Subject Property, allowing the Applicant to maintain the four (4) dogs they currently own. Differing from Option 1, it would instead deny approval to the commercial dog kennel portion of the request, eliminating the option to offer any boarding services to dogs not owned by the Applicant.

Option 3: Approve Resolutions #14-09-174 and #14-09-175 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 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 the requested twelve (12) dogs on the Subject Property and therefore is not supportive of this option.

Option 4: Do not approve Resolutions #14-09-174 and #14-09-175 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 originally requested Permit is not recommended, City Staff does recommend modifications that still allow the Applicant to keep the four (4) dogs currently residing on the Subject Proeprty and therefore, City Staff does not recommend this option.

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

The Planning Commission 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 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 contingent upon Applicant relocating Enclosure's fence to be entirely on the Subject Property within thirty (30) days of this adoption

-and-

Motion to 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 contingent upon Applicant relocating Enclosure's fence to be entirely on the Subject Property within thirty (30) days of this adoption