03-05-97 PCVilliam S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Couri
Megan M. McDonald
February 27, 1997
RADMILL & CO URI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Planning Commission Members
City of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Adams Dog Kennel CUP
Dear Planning Commission Members:
At the request of the City I have reviewed the minutes of the last
Planning Commission meeting which involved the rehearing of the
above mentioned CUP. I have also discussed that hearing with Bob
Kirmis of NAC and Chairman Swenson, as well
from the unapproved
representing the kennel owner. It appears
minutes of the hearingand those esented to justify adverse sions that there is
insufficient evidence pr adverse action on the
CUP at this time.
The purpose of placing this matter for rehearing was to establish
whether there were violations of the conditions of the CUP. In this
case there were repeated complaints regarding the facility.
The City is not required to wait unto criminal
a Conditional convictions have
been repeatedly obtained in order t
Permit. The term "violations" in the context of a planning and
zoning matter does not necessarily mpproval is given subject to
criminal standards, since the that it be proven to
initial app
operation of the facility in the best interests of the community.,
In my opinion, due to problems inherent in attempting to prosecute
dog barking complaints, a public hearing
athemore
problemsaearlier
ble way
to address the issues raised. It appears that
reported to the City have been largely remedied.
I have also been asked to respond to certain questions raised by
Letter to Otsego Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 2
thresponses; Planning Commission. Following are my p
number of dogs or density which
1. Do City ordinances restrict the
be kept at the Adams Kennel?
may
The City Ordinances were patterned after the state statutes whThe
did not set forth specific numbersy taken from the Minnesota Rules,
Otsego City Ordinance was general
states, "Enclosures must
specifically Minn. Rule 1720. 1420, or cat to turn about fully
be of sufficient size to allow each dog osition. The
and to stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable normal P
enclosure must be constructed so as to prevent injury o the dog or
cat." Within the City ordinances it is generally understood that
the state inspection process should provide limits on the number of
animals. tates that no
es may
2. The conditional use permit
the functions of retail
Adams 1Dog 1Kennel
occur upon one site. One o
is to find homes for stray dogs. Mr. Goener has questioned whether
this constitutes a commercial activity.
Within the City ordinances "retail" is defined as, "the sale of
items in small quantities directly to the consumer." Retail and
sale implies sale for profit. If animals are being sold for a
indeed constitute a violation,
profit on the premises this may g
exchan ed for the costs of
however, if the animals are merely being
their upkeep while at the facility that would not constitute retail
activity in this particular case.
3. Condition 6b of the conditional use permit states that dogs kept
outside must have access to shelter to protect them from sun, rain
the
and snow. Based on testimony
heard not at vee "outdoor" shelters. Mr.
Adams. Kennel apparently.
Goener has questioned whether this would be considered a violation
of the conditional use permit.
The Conditional Use Permit states that "Dogs kept outside must have
access to shelter to protect them from sun, rain, and snow." City
This
is simply a restatement of Min.Ruland72cond condi0.1400. tions arest basically
ordinance requirements for kennelse key word here is "access", as
taken from the Minnesota Rules. Tmnoved inside they have access to
at the i
long as the dogs can be readly
shelter. I would also note twhen thecuprequires
gis rnot on the premises•
inside during the night, and
4. The Adams Kennel apparently has cats on the premises. Does this
constitute a CUP or City ordinance violation?
The CUP approved was for a dog kennel. Whether or not the keeping
Letter to Otsego Planning Commission
February 27, 1997
Page 3
of cats at the facility is a violation or potential
dependent upon the numbers. If there are a few pet
premises I would not consider that a violation.
In conclusion, based upon my review
that the facility is now operating
conditional use permit and that the
to take adverse action against the
Ver my yours,
dre J. acAr
.RADZW & COURI
violation is
cats on the
of the minutes it would appear
in general compliance with the
is insufficient justification
dog kennel at this time.
cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC at Law
Gerald Paulson, Attorney
William S. Radmill
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Court
Megan M. McDonald
February 19, 1997
RADZWILL & COURI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Planning Commission Members
city. -of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Adams Kennel CUP
Dear Planning Commission Members:
�-^ r, f7 RNA �_'., 1I
FEB 2 5
A question has been raised regarding the authority of the City to
order a rehearing in this matter. The original CUP states as
follows; 1114. If gross violations are identified in County and/or
State inspections, or if there are repeated violations of
applicable City ordinances, the City may at its discretion, hold a
rehearing of the conditional use permit with the potential of
revocation of the permit being ordered by the City Council."
The City Council did, at its discretion, and at my recommendation,
order the rehearing. Part of the reason for ordering a rehearing
was that in this particular situation such a hearing appeared to be
the best forum for resolving ongoing complaints about the facility.
These complaints were not only received in. writing but also by
telephone and in person. The majority of the complaints regarded
continuous barking of dogs, disturbing neighbors. Such noise,
depending upon .its duration and intensity, may be a violation of
the Otsego Zoning Ordinance Sections 6-2-7, A&B, and 6-2-8, F. The
purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not such
violations have occurred. Because of the nature of complaints
regarding noise, it will be necessary for the Planning Commission
and the Council to use their best judgment.
The building inspector did go out to the site and did note some
concerns. I have been informed that he has recently gone out to the
facility and that it appears to be in better shape.