08/15/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 4 Planning and Zoning August 15, 1979 and a letter had been received from the planner that indicated it would be consistant with the Comprehensive Plan. There were already two duplexes onthesouth side of 77th Street. Mr. Rehbein asked if the. rezone to R-2 was granted, would he still have the option of using the lots as R-1. This was a question of lesser uses. Mr. Gourley felt a special use permit might be needed for that. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend the Council grant'Rehbe Construction a rezone from R-1 to R-2 with the option of the lesser use of R-1 only, subject to the interpretation of the attorney, and a public hearing be set. Vi Schwankl.seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The next item on the agenda was an application by Mr. Wegleitner for a special use permit to operate a kennel. There was a representative present, who indicated that it had recently come to their attention that they were governed by Lino Lakes ordin- ances. There had been some confusion because their mailing address was Hugo, MN. Mr. Gourley read from the March 17, 1975 P & Z minutes in relation to a similar request by Mr. Orrin Clover, for which the P & Z recommended approval of a special use permit subject to annual review, and limited to 8 dogs with the exclusion of litters that would not be retained more than 6 months. The March 25, 1975 Council minutes were read by Mr. Gourley and they further stipulated that some type of visual screen be provided. It was explained that Mr. Wegleitner would like to maintain in the next 2 to 3 years a breeding show stock of 12 dogs. This would not be a kennel because they would raise a single breed of dogs, and would be for show only and no dogs would be boarded nor any services provided. The puppies would be sold and the money used for maintenance. It would qualify not as a profit-making venture, but as a hobby run at a loss. Mr. Gourley noted it would qualify as a business if it were making a profit and open to the public. They plan to build separation pens and runs; at present the entire 5 acres is fenced and an additional fence encloses the backyard. There was discussion on the surrounding landowners; because of the freeway and Washington County across the street, the signatures represented all the surrounding landowners. Mr. Doocey read Ordinance No. 37, section 9, which required that the land be zoned commer- cial and a special use permit be issued in order to run a kennel. Mr. Heath felt that since they were in open country, this shouldn't make any difference, as there were no adjoining landowners nearby. There was some question as to which of the ordinances regarding dog kennels applied in this situation, and the precedent set by the Clover Kennels situation was also considered. Mr. Heath felt that kennels were usually run by one family, and if the land were rezoned commercial, then any future buyer would be stuck with commercial zoning; he felt a special use permit should be used instead. Mr. Reinert felt no action should be taken until the attorney gave an interpretation. Mr. Heath suggested recommending to the Council that they change that part of the ordinance. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend to the Council that they grant a special use permit to Mr. Wegleitner to operate a private hobby kennel with a maximum of 12 dogs, other than litters up to 6 months of age, and also that the Council refer to City Ordinance No. 37 on kennels being allowed on commercial property and also refer to the March 17, 1975 action by the Planning and Zoning Commission where Mr. Kelling made reference to that rezone conflict. In reference to special use permits, Mr. Gourley pointed out that any neighbor could apply for a similar permit. Mr. Shearen noted it could only be done with the agreement of two-thirds of the surrounding prop- erty owners, and in this case 100 percent of the property owners were in favor. Mr. Heath thought the circumstances (agricultural versus, for example, Vicky Lane) had to be taken into consideration. Mr. Gourley pointed out that special use permits were transferable with the sale of the property. Section 5.04 of Ordinance No. 56 was consulted, "the permit shall be granted for a particular use and not for a particular person or firm. The cancellation of a special use permit shall be considered adminis- tratively equivalent to a rezoning." Once granted, even though it can be reviewed, it goes with the land and a public hearing and advertisement process were required to cancel it. Mr. Shearen amended his motion to include that the special use permit