Loading...
07-03-12 Planning Comm Agenda packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 3 JULY 2012 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE GARELICK (Oct) ______ MUEHLBERG (Jul) ______ DAVIS (Aug) ______ GENG (Sep) ______ HASEK (Jun/Nov) ______ HUTCHINS (Dec) ______ CHARBONNET (May) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 June 2012  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR AN ELECTRONIC-DISPLAY SIGN Applicants: Our Savior’s Lutheran Church Location: 23290 State Highway 7 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR A SIX-FOOT HIGH FENCE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AREA Applicants: Heather and Jeff Johnson Location: 23625 Smithtown Road 3. ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE (DOGS/CATS) 4. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION  General Provisions 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 3 July 2012 Page 2 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 9. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  P.C. Training  10. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: Commissioner Hutchins APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Geng stated after Item 3 the Planning Commission will adjourn the meeting so the Commission can travel to County Road 19 to walk around and inspect the one-third mile boulevard area on the east side of County Road 19 between the Tonka Bay Center and the LRT Trail. When that is done the Commission will return to the council Chamber and the meeting will be reconvened and completed. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for June 5, 2012, as amended. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  April 3, 2012 Davis moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 1, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicants: Mark and Amy Wagner Location: 27785 Island View Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a June 25, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He stated Mark and Amy Wagner, 27785 Island View Road, have requested a setback variance. Director Nielsen explained Mark and Amy Wagner own the property at 27785 Island View Road. They propose to convert their existing two-car garage into additional living space for their home and then add a new two-car garage in front of that. In order to do that the Wagner’s requested a setback variance to build the new garage closer than 50 feet from the easement for the street. Island View Road, the street along which the property is located, is a private road located on its own platted lot. The property is located in the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. The property is quite substandard in terms of area. Instead of being 40,000 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 2 of 9 square feet of area it only contains 21,659 square feet of area. The lot is a perfectly buildable lot. There is enough room to do what they need to do. Nielsen then explained the platted lot Island View Road is located on was platted as a half cul-de-sac. The land Island View Road sits is only 36.5 feet wide. The cul-de-sac is basically a bubble off of that. The cul-de-sac was never constructed as a street (referred to as a “paper street”). The street continues on to the west and serves at least two more houses. What the applicants are proposing is 50 feet away from the straighter portion of the roadway. The difficulty the applicants have encountered is the bubble creates additional setback. He reviewed the location of things on the site survey document, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet. Nielsen noted the applicants’ builder wrote a letter explaining their request. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting packet. It explains how this request complies with the standard of practical difficulty which must be demonstrated to be granted a variance. Nielsen reviewed how the application complies with the variance standard. The criteria were taken from the League of Minnesota Cities. 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The home, even with the added space, is quite modest compared to other homes on the block. It is reasonable to add on and want to improve the house. The proposed bedroom additions and new garage are considered to be a reasonable use of the property. 2. The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. The Code requires a 50-foot setback. The applicants wish to be 36.5 feet from the cul-de-sac. 3. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The cul-de-sac was never built, and due to the topography on the north side of the street, it will likely not be built where it was platted. Although closer to the road than the house to the east, it is farther from the street than the house to the west. The garage is well back of the straight portion of the road (approximately 58 feet). Therefore, the resulting green space is considered to be consistent with the open space requirements in the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 4. The ordinance creates “practical difficulties” in achieving the manner of use. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met: a) reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. Reasonableness was addressed earlier. The applicant did not create the practical difficulties in this case. The “paper cul-de-sac” is extremely unique in Shorewood. The location of a cul-de-sac, if the owners on Island View Road ever decided to build it, would be better at the west end of the street. The home is relatively modest for the neighborhood. The proposed location of the garage addition is in line with the two homes adjoining the subject property. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis, Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a front yard setback variance as proposed. He then noted the Wagners are present as is their builder Bill Wurms. Commissioner Hasek asked if the proposed walk will be built in the front yard proposed setback. Director Nielsen responded it will be and noted it will be limited to four feet in width. Hasek then asked if Nielsen was able to find CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 3 of 9 any information about a drainage and utility easement along the property line. Nielsen stated he did find out that the building does comply with the ten foot setback requirement and that coincides with the City’s easement requirement. He did not find any information about the plat or a survey of there being an existing easement. Bill Wurms, the builder, stated he brought things to a licensed surveyor. The surveyor did not find anything about there being utility easements during his research. There is a lot close to Howards Point Marina where the applicants have access to Lake Minnetonka. The only other easement was Lot 1, Island View Road and their ability to use Island View Road. He noted he thought the survey was Torrens. Director Nielsen stated the applicants have researched things enough to determine that there is an easement on the common lot along Howards Point Road that the entire neighborhood has access to and through. They have indicated knowing about the easement on Island View Road. There is no easement noted on the survey. Because of that he is confident there is no utility easement there. Mark Wagner, 27785 Island View Road, expressed his and his wife’s appreciation to the Planning Commission for it considering their request this evening. He commented they were relatively new property owners in the City of Shorewood. He stated they look forward to making improvements to their property. He asked the Commission give the variance request due consideration. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public hearing at 7:22 P.M. Mary Ellen Abramson, 27880 Island View Drive, stated she thought the Wagners’ proposed changes are commensurate with the improvements in the neighborhood and harmonious with the neighborhood. She welcomes the changes. She expressed hope that the Planning Commission will recommend approval of the Wagners’ variance request. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M. In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen explained that because Island View Road is a private street and the cul-de-sac was never constructed as a street it cannot be vacated. It would have to be done by the people that have interest in it. He then stated the property immediately to the left of the applicants’ property could be affected by cul-de-sac if they wanted to add on and go closer to the road because that property is closer to the bubble. Chair Geng asked if it is correct that the private road including the platted half circle is owned by the neighbors. Director Nielsen responded that is correct. In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen explained he thought there would be a number of legal things that would have to be addressed for that private property to be vacated. Davis moved, Hasek seconded, recommending approval of the front yard variance request from Mark and Amy Wagner, 27885 Island View Road. Commissioner Hasek stated he spoke with Director Nielsen earlier in the day about the need for public safety and he thinks that may be why the cul-de-sac may have been platted in the first place. He then stated he is pleased to learn that there is a lot to the west that might serve that purpose. He went on to state he has no problem with the setback request being granted. He does have a problem that public health, safety and welfare will no longer be provided for. He suggested there be a discussion between the City Engineer and the fire department. He stated the road is wide enough for people to get by. He questioned if the road is wide enough for a fire truck to get through. He suggested the motion be amended to require Staff to check with the public safety and the Engineering CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 4 of 9 Department to ensure a situation will not be created that will interfere with providing something that might be needed in the future. Commissioner Davis asked how recommending approval of the variance will interfere with public safety. Commissioner Hasek responded by basically saying the cul-de-sac doesn’t have to be there. Chair Geng expressed his disagreement with Hasek’s conclusion. Davis stated the request is for a setback variance. Hasek suggested that maybe the Ordinance should be amended so as not to require a variance for this. Hasek commented that ultimately the City Engineer and public safety may have no problem with granting the variance. Director Nielsen stated the lot to the west extends down to the next street. That could be divided between the property owners and be the logical spot for a cul-de-sac. He noted the fire department has designs in addition to a cul-de-sac for turnarounds that could be looked at as part of a subdivision. He stated the hope for a turnaround would be on that lot. Commissioner Hasek asked if that lot is not subdivided, then by granting the variance would a situation be created that hampers public safety? Director Nielsen noted that no one is suggesting that the cul-de-sac goes away. He stated he does not recommend changing the zoning standard for private roads in the R1A zoning district. That would have a drastic impact on similar neighborhoods. He again noted this is a unique situation. He stated he would not recommend a zoning change to deal with one or possibly two unique cases. Commissioner Hasek asked Commissioner Davis if she was willing to entertain his proposed amendment to the motion. Commissioner Davis clarified that she thought public safety should always be considered. Davis stated this is a unique situation and that there is never going to be a cul-de-sac there. If there is ever one it will be located at the other end. Commissioner Hasek stated he disagreed with Director Nielsen’s statement that a cul-de-sac could not be constructed in the area one is platted for. It would be a partial one. Chair Geng stated that public safety will not be affected by granting the variance in any way. There is nothing that indicates to any emergency vehicles that there is even a paper platted half circle there. Commissioner Hasek stated when streets are constructed in the City cul-de-sacs are built for public safety. He then stated he wondered if the public safety aspect of this should be looked at more closely. Chair Geng stated that is not the question to ask with regard to this variance request because the private street is owned collectively by a number of property owners. He assumed it was Tenants in Common. Geng then stated there is no reason to hold up this application or to even consider that as part of this request. Hasek stated he does not recommend holding approval up but he just wants engineering and public safety to make sure there will not be any negative ramifications for providing public safety services. Geng responded that is not procedurally correct because the variance request does not give rise to any safety concerns. Hasek stated in his mind it does. Chair Geng clarified that the motion had been seconded by Commissioner Hasek. Hasek stated he seconded the motion with clarification. Hasek then stated if Commissioner Davis will not accept his proposed amendment to the motion he will withdraw his second to the motion and then someone else can second the motion. Hasek then stated he will just second the motion [which he already had done] without any proposed modification. Motion passed 6/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 5 of 9 Ms. Abramson stated that residents along the street welcome any public safety vehicle to turn around at the end of the street where the unconstructed cul-de-sac is. The residents living along the street are loyal to the City and the residents are committed to keeping people safe. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M. RD 2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING 3 Draft Director Nielsen stated there is a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission scheduled for June 11, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. During that meeting there will be discussion about the third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) Report (the Report). He explained that during the Commission’s March 20, 2012, and April 3, 2012, meetings the Commission suggested revisions to the earlier draft of the Report. Many of the revisions were in response to feedback received from property owners who live near the vicinity of the Study Area during an open house meeting and public hearing that was held after that. Nielsen noted the Introduction page needs to have the acreage numbers corrected to reflect the numbers that are in the revised inventory. He stated if any additional revisions are recommended this evening they will incorporated into the Report and the Commission and Council will be provided a copy of the updated Report prior to the joint meeting. A Zoning map with the Study Area overlaid on it will be included in the Introduction section. Nielsen reviewed other revisions that will be included in the third draft of the Repot. They are as follows. a. The Executive Summary will be placed at the front of the document. References to increased height and densities have been removed from the summary. b. A Site Location map (Exhibit B), using the aerial photograph of the area in question will go in the front of the report. The two residential lots at the west end of the Study Area are shown with a dashed line. c. Numerous changes were made to the Study Area map some of which include labeling and lightening of the topo lines. The elevations seem to be lost in our system. They will be added once we find them. Gideon Glen, the South Lake Public Safety facility property and the Southshore Community Center are no longer included in the Study Area. Gideon Glen has been labeled as a conservation area. The map reflects the properties for reference purposes. d. Page 7 has been revised to reference the Unified/Coordinated versus Piece-meal table on Page 8. The language revisions recommended by the Commission are included in the table. e. Page 11 (Exhibit E) has been revised to include Redevelopment Guiding Principles instead of a Vision Statement. The Principles include discussion about transitional lots. f. Page 13 (Exhibit F) has been revised to address the transitional lots. g. The bottom photograph on Page 15 (Exhibit G) has been replaced. The previous graphic had been of a tall building at Glen Lake. The new graphic is of the Town Square in Golden Valley. h. The Concept Sketch presented at the public meetings will be included at the end of the report. It shows the relative locations of the various uses. A brief text explanation of the Sketch still needs to be written. i. The Planning Inventory in the Appendix has been revised to update the City’s ownership and include acreages for all of the Study Area parcels. Each property is listed with its acreage and square footage. The CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 6 of 9 inventory reflects the actual land for potential redevelopment. The numbers in the Inventory will appear on the Introduction page of the report. Commissioner Davis recommended the soils comment be removed regarding property owned by the American Legion at 5680 County Road 19. The soil testing has proven the property does not have soil contamination issues. Director Nielsen stated he thought there was a caveat about that. Nielsen noted he will check into that and if what Davis said is true he will remove the comment. Chair Geng stated the Inventory reflects that the vacant property owned by the City of Shorewood has a structural value. He questioned if that should be removed being there is no longer a structure on it. Director Nielsen agreed it needs to be revised. Commissioner Garelick stated next to the American Legion there was an empty lot that up until a week ago said it was either for sale or lease. Now the sign only says for lease. He asked Director Nielsen if he knew what is going on with that property. Nielsen explained the vacant lot owned by the Legion is up for sale. The Legion has approached the City about purchasing the property. That lot is the last of the commercial properties in that zoning district. It abuts residential property and therefore it has to have a 50-foot setback buffer from residential. That takes out about one half of the property for use. The property up for lease has a pole barn on it and it recently came up for lease. Chair Geng stated that Exhibit F titled Smithtown Crossing – Plan states “From the very beginning of this study, it has been realized that properties within the study area may develop or redevelop individually.” He asked if may it should be changed to “…may develop collectively or redevelop individually” or to “…may develop in a unified fashion or redevelop individually”. Director Nielsen explained that first sentence is just talking about developing or redeveloping. Later on it talks about collectively or individually. Geng expressed his comfort with leaving it as written. In response to a comment from Commissioner Hasek about the Study Area boundary, Director Nielsen explained the homes on the easterly side of Christopher Road back up to a long deep lot. Nielsen explained there are two lots between the most westerly edge of the Study Area and the long deep lot. Director Nielsen asked if the Planning Commission is ready to present the third draft of the Report which will include the changes just discussed to Council. There was Planning Commission consensus to incorporate the changes discussed into the Report as draft 3 and th then provide that to Council for discussion during the joint meeting on June 11. 3. TRAIL PLAN – WALK COUNTY ROAD 19 TRAIL ALIGNMENT Chair Geng recessed the meeting at 7:55 P.M. to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to travel to the site of a potential County Road 19 trail segment. The meeting will be reconvened at the site. Chair Geng reconvened the meeting at 8:39 P.M. Chair Geng asked the Planning Commission if it had any comments to make after touring the site. Commissioner Garelick suggested the Commission take the opportunity to go to sites for substantial items of consideration. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Davis stated the Park Commission takes a tour of the City’s parks annually. It takes multiple meetings to complete the tours. Council Liaison Hotvet stated it still does that. Chair Geng stated there is consensus that this has been a worthwhile excursion. Director Nielsen stated he will make an effort to have the Commission go on more site visits as issues arise. He explained Staff is meeting with representatives from Xcel Energy to talk about trail alignment opportunities and granting the City an easement. Staff is still trying to reach the owner of the property where the bus company is located to talk to him about granting the City a tiny easement. Staff will contract Three Rivers Park District this coming week to find out when it is going to initiate discussions with the communities about the proposed LRT Trail and County Road 19 overpass. 4. DISCUSSION  Zoning Permits Director Nielsen explained the topic of potentially amending the Zoning Code to establish zoning permits will be on the June 11, 2012, joint Council and Planning Commission meeting agenda. He explained early in 2010 the Commission considered such an amendment to the Code. At that time Staff researched what the City of Chanhassen does. Chanhassen put together a brochure which explains what a zoning permit is, when it is required and how to apply for one. Staff had a difficult time finding out what other cities do. Some cities have driveway permits, some have fence permits and so forth. Those are similar to what is collectively being recommended as “zoning permits”. The main four items covered by these various types of permits are fences, driveways, sheds less than 120 square feet in area and signs. Nielsen went on to explain the intent of the zoning permits is to make residents aware of what the City’s rules are. In the long run it will benefit residents to know what they can and cannot do. Within two weeks of Council not taking action on the Commission’s recommendation to establish zoning permits during Council’s April 26, 2010, meeting the City received a call from a property owner asking how close to their property a driveway could be constructed. That individual thought his neighbor had put in a driveway that actually went on to that individual’s property. He noted that he thought zoning permits are a useful tool. He expressed hope that Council is open to considering zoning permits. Nielsen stated he hoped the discussion during the joint meeting will be brief. He then stated if Council is not receptive to the idea of zoning permits the Commission will have to drop it. 5. GREENSTEPS STATUS/UPDATE Director Nielsen stated that earlier in the day he emailed the Planning Commissioner’s somewhat of a status report of the City’s progress with regard to the GreenStep Cities Program. He noted that the City has completed a lot of its steps. Some of the steps had been completed before signing up to participate in the Program. He explained the City has completed enough steps to achieve what is termed a Level 1 GreenStep City. GreenStep has invited the City to accept its award for achieving that during a League of Minnesota Cities conference that will be held in the City of Duluth on June 21, 2012. He stated he will find out if a member of the Council wants to go and accept the award. He commented he thought there are 44 cities participating in the Program. Nielsen then stated the Planning Commission’s next effort with regard to the Program is to review the City’s weed ordinance. GreenStep wants ordinances adjusted to allow residents to have prairie grass for landscaping. He noted the City does not have a grass-length ordinance because there are many natural areas in the City. The City does not prevent someone from having a prairie grass landscape. The City does prohibit noxious weeds. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 8 of 9 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. OLD BUSINESS In response to a question from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen stated the government training session will be held this fall. It will likely be held in September. Commissioner Garelick stated he is on the Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization. He noted that the appraiser for the City of Shorewood did such a great job that there were no appeals to the County. Director Nielsen explained that during Council’s May 29, 2012, meeting Council considered an application for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to construct accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet on a property located at 5355 Elmridge Circle. The applicant had an existing garage on his property and he proposed to build a detached, single-story garage at the south end of his property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the C.U.P. subject to locating the proposed garage an additional eight feet to the northwest in order to better protect a large linden tree that would be behind the proposed garage location. Nielsen went on to explain that the Commission also qualified it by asking Staff to check with the neighbor about the proposed change in location. Nielsen explained the Commission also recommended that property owners to the east agree to the new location. They had already agreed with the plan as submitted. He, Mr. Christensen (the applicant) and the neighbor Mr. Hotvet met on site to review where the proposed garage would be. Mr. Hotvet preferred the garage be built in the original proposed location. Moving it to the northwest would block some of his view. Nielsen noted that Mr. Christensen is very concerned about his trees. He explained Mr. Christensen hired an arborist to provide him advice about the trees that would be located near the proposed garage location. The arborist recommended chemically treating the linden tree to put it into a state of dormancy to reduce stress on the tree during construction and when it comes out of dormancy. He stated that he had recommended Mr. Christensen speak with his arborist about saw-cutting the roots at the back edge of the building. The arborist recommended saw-cutting the roots around the proposed garage. Saw-cutting the roots of the trees would be easier on the trees than ripping the roots out of the ground. The arborist also agreed to place a bed of wood chips over the nearby root systems near the back of the proposed garage to cushion the ground where construction activity will take place. He noted that these three measures are the most comprehensive tree preservation plan he has seen submitted. They clearly demonstrate the applicant’s desire to save his trees. Nielsen explained that he provided Council with two resolutions for consideration during the above referenced meeting. One was specific to the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The alternative followed the arborist’s plan. He noted that Staff recommended going with the arborist’s plan. Because the Commission recommended Staff meeting with the neighbor about the Commission’s proposed change in location and finding out the neighbor preferred the original location, Staff thought it appropriate to recommend leaving the building in the applicant’s proposed location. Nielsen noted Council adopted the alternative resolution which included the arborist’s plan. He stated the plan is a good example of how tree preservation should be addressed. Chair Geng asked if the arborist had offered up his recommendations prior to the Planning Commission considering the C.U.P. Director Nielsen stated for sure the arborist had spoken about putting the linden tree into dormancy before then. The other two items, the saw-cutting and the bed of wood chips, were discussed after that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 9 of 9 Nielsen noted Mr. Christensen is extremely interested in tree preservation. Director Nielsen stated he has taken note that the site plan provided by the applicant was not of the quality it should have been. 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there are at least three items on the July 3, 2012, Planning Commission meeting agenda. There may be a public hearing to consider an ordinance amendment for accessory apartments. There will be consideration of a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for Our Savior’s Church for a dynamic sign. There will be consideration of an after-the-fact C.U.P. for a six-foot-high fence in the front yard setback area. The fence was built far enough back, and there will likely have to be some landscaping done. Discussion about the zoning ordinance general provisions will resume. Nielsen explained there is an owner of a property that fronts Lake Minnetonka who is very upset because a neighbor planted arborvitae along the property line. The complainant considers that to be a fence. He related that he had explained to the woman that the City consciously chose not to include that type of type of thing as a fence long ago. The City’s policy has been the more vegetation the better. It prefers vegetation over fences. The woman wants to the City to consider an ordinance that would make vegetation subject to the same requirements as a fence. He noted the arborvitae was planted all the way down to the beach. On the other side of the complainant’s property is a regular fence that went only as far as 50 feet back from the Lake shore. It is unobtrusive. 10. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Charbonnet gave a brief report on the May 14 and May 29, 2012, City Council meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). • SLUC Director Nielsen stated he will be sending out the agenda for the next Sensible Land Use Coalition meeting. • Other None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hasek moved, Garelick seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 5, 2012, at 9:07 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 June 2012 RE: Animal Control Regulations (Dogs and Cats) FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 70 1) Last year, the Planning Commission was asked to review and comment on Shorewood's regulations pertaining to dogs. The discussion was initiated in conjunction with a request by the Coundh for the Planning Commission to review various existing license requirements. The Commission's conversation on this matter (see Planning Commission Minutes — Excerpt, dated 20 September 2011 — Exhibit A, attached) was forwarded to the Council without any specific code changes. The City Council then directed the City Administrator to work with other South Lake Administrators and the SLMPD to try and come up with a more uniform set of regulations that could be applied to the South Lake communities. The SLMPD has asked that the cities review the attached Draft Uniform Animal Control Proposal (Exhibit B, attached). The Planning Commission will begin its review of the ordinance at its meeting on Tuesday. For purposes of comparison, you are directed to Chapter 701 of the City Code. It is worth noting that the draft code also addresses cats. Staff is biting its collective tongues on that one. Cc: William Joynes Scott Zerby ®a vp® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Excerpt — P. C. Minutes — 20 September 2011 4. DISCUSSION - SHADY HILLS TRAFFIC Director Nielsen reported that an additional speed count was done in the Shady Hills neighborhood without the presence of the speed buggy. There were only a couple of cables laying across the street, eliminating the eoncem that the speed buggy influences driver's behavior creating unrealistic results. He said the average speed remained unchanged from the previous study, and staff recommendations also remain unchanged in terms of the signage for the restricted turning movements. He said the raw data from the latest study was forwarded to the Commission, but a detailed analysis will still be done and available by the next meeting. The Commission's consensus was to await the detailed analysis before making a recommendation. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, to continue the public meeting regarding Shady Hills Traffic to October 4, 2011. Motion passed 6/0. 5. CITY CODE DISCUSSION - DOG REGULATIONS (Chapter 701) Director Nielsen reviewed his staff report stating that the City Council has recently been reviewing ordinances that require a license by the City for the purpose of determining if they are still valid or need updating. Due to a number of questions raised relating to Chapter 701 - Dog Regulations, that Chapter has been referred to the Planning Commission for review and continent. Nielsen stated that one of the questions was whether the City should continue to require dogs to be licensed. IIe noted that four of the other South Lake communities (Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood, and Deephaven) all require dog licenses. Nielsen said the current code allows up to two dogs, each requiring an annual license. For over two and up to four dogs, a kennel license is required. Under special conditions the code allows for more than four dogs and does not state a limit on the number of dogs and this is one of the areas that needs to be better defined. One consideration is to develop a multiple -dog license which would replace kennel license. Administrator Heck added that some of the rationale for requiring dog licenses are the revenue, it's an enforcement mechanism, and to be consistent with surrounding cities' requirements. Councilmember Woodruff said that the City Council has already decided to continue Licensing dogs. The remaining issues that need to be addressed are the cost of licenses and multiple -dog license regulations. In regard to dog kennels regulated by the state, the code needs to be updated to reflect current state statutes. Commissioner Hutchins said it's difficult to encourage people to license their dogs by charging more or less fees. They will either do it or not. Nielsen said one thing that's never been done is to publicize the fine schedule, letting people know what the cost of violation is. Hutchins said he thought that may have more of an impact than anything else. Heck said that the City did have an incident regarding a potentially dangerous dog and it was discovered that there is nothing in the current City Code regulations that address this issue. State statutes provide a definition of a dangerous dog, but it is up to local jurisdictions as to how they want to deal with it. He said what is needed is language in the City Code that identifies potentially dangerous dogs and what the Exhibit A City requires if one is identified and reference the state statute for the dangerous dog classification Commissioner Amst asked if the City can decide how many dogs are allowed with a kennel license, or if the state statutes override the number allowed. Nielsen clarified that what the state deems a kennel is actually for boarding and breeding of dogs and other similar activity. The Code needs to be updated using the term multiple -dog license to regulate households with more than two dogs, but the maximum number of dogs allowed needs to be determined. Chair Geng asked how many complaints the City has received about dogs. Heck said he has received three complaints, although they may have been more about the neighbors themselves rather than the dogs. He said the police department has data about calls made about dogs, but he doesn't have the impression there is a huge problem. Arnst commented that the manner in which the police respond to complaints makes it obvious who made the complaint which is discouraging to people needing to make a complaint. Geng said he agrees with Hutchins in thinking a large fine or penalty is the most effective way to get compliance with the regulations. Hutchins said he would rather see people rewarded for compliance, such as a no- charge license, or valid for three years. But when dog owners do not comply and break the law they pay a heavy fine. Commissioner Davis said there is a big difference between having a few large dogs versus a few small dogs. She said she is more concerned about the quality of care a dog is being provided and that they are healthy, but unfortunately that is not something the City would be able to regulate. Administrator Heck summarized the points of the Commission's discussion stating the City should continue licensing dogs but possibly extend it to a three -year validity period to coincide with rabies vaccine schedules; consider eliminating the license fee; address dangerous dog regulation; as far as the number of dogs allowed per household, start with four dogs; delete any reference to kennel license; and review penalty fees to consider increasing them. Commissioner Hasek asked the Commission if they felt the City should continue to license dogs and the response was mixed. Heck reiterated that the Council had already determined that the City will continue licensing. Commissioner Arnst said one of the benefits of requiring a license is the opportunity to provide the owner with a copy of the regulations, including the penalty fee schedule. Commissioner Hutchins noted that if there is to be no license fee, perhaps it's more a registration than a licensing process. Councilmember Woodruff said in a former City Council discussion, a reason for requiring the license was to ensure dogs were vaccinated against rabies. He added that public education letting residents know that licenses can be obtained via the website would help. Regulations against barking, running at large, etc, are covered by the Code whether a dog is licensed or not. 6. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION - DYNAMIC SIGNS Over the past several meetings the Commission has been discussing a number of issues associated with dynamic signs. Director Nielsen provided draft language for a Zoning Code text amendment based on those discussions for the purpose of review. SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT 24150 SMITHTOWN ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 -8598 MEMORANDUM To- Coordinating Committee Members FROM. Lt. David W.Prerson CSS David Hohertz kAA Ee June 21, 2012 Aloe Draft Uniform Animal Control Proposal BRYAN T. LITSEY Chief of Police Office (952) 474 -3261 Fax (952) 474 -4477 At the May P, 2012 Coordinating Committee Meeting we informed the committee that we are continuing our efforts to update and standardize ordinances for animal control in all four cities. We explained that this was being done to being ordinances LIP to date with current laws and regulations, as well as to standardize ordinances throughout our cities. Based upon the close proximity of our neighborhoods we feel that a standardized ordinance would bring continuity to the ordinances and clarity to citizens of our communities. We also felt that standardization of the ordinances would malce it much easier to educate our citizens and gain their compliance. Finally, instead of our Community Service Officers (CS0s) having to enforce four different ordinances, there would only be one common ordinance to interpret and enforce. Since our last coordinating committee meeting CSS Hohertz and 1 have studied the animal control ordinances from all four cities as well as Minnesota State Statutes relating to potentially dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs. As we went through this evaluation process we found several dissimilarities in the ordinances between the four cities. We also found dissimilarities between city ordinances and state statutes. We felt that these dissimilarities result in an open door to confusion on the part of our citizens and CSG's. An example of these dissimilarities would be whereas the City of Shorewood allows cats to run at largc. The City of Excelsior does not. Another issue that has surfaced lately is how our ordinances handle Dangerous Dogs. City of Greenwood ordinances does not allow dangerous dogs in their city with no avenue of appeal, the City of Excelsior and Shorewood ordinances follows Mirmesota State Statute for dealing with dangerous dogs. Attached to this .memorandum is a draft ordinance proposal for animal control throughout the Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and fonka flay. The City of Greenwood's ordinance was used as a ternplate for this draft ordinance, however, elements were brought into the draft proposal from Excelsior; Shorewood, Fonlca Bay and Minnesota State Statutes. Serving the South Lake Minnetonka Communities of Excelsior, Greenwood. U"V Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood, and Tonka Bay Section Purpose Definitions Enforcement Registration and licensing requirements Permitted Domesticated An Permitted Non - Domesticated An Limitations on number of Li ement,of certain dogs ndment and redemption procedures e Abuse /neglect of animals Dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs Animal breeders Penalties for violation rII The city councils recognize and reaffirm that residents have rights to own, harbor, and keep dogs, and that from time to time these animals may behave in ways that constitute a public nuisance. It is the intent of this chapter to establish regulations which will allow the keeping of animals within the city in a safe, clean, and healthy manner. The cities recognize that certain types of animals require regulations and standards to ensure that the health, safety, and welfare of the public is protected and to promote the compatibility of land uses as it relates to the keeping of animals. This chapter also addresses the conditions under which noises by animals may be considered untimely. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY. Ari agency of the state, county municipality or other governmental subdivision of the state which is responsib'lefor animal control operations in its jurisdiction. ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER:; The chief of police, his designees, law enforcement officers, animal control officets,.and other personnel charged by the city council with enforcement of this chapter_; ANIMAL SHELTER. Any premises designated by the. City Council or the SLMPD for the purpose of impounding and caring for dogs held under the authority of this ordinance. AT LARGE. An dnim ovining, harboring, or restraint. CITY. The city of Exc DANGEROUS ANIM beings or domestic ai DANGEROUS DOG off the property of the person animal, and the animal is not under Shorewood, or Tonka Bay animal that constitutes a physical threat to human dog that has: (1) Without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; (2) Killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or (3) Been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. [2] (1) When unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; (2) When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or (3) Has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. DOG WASTE DEVICE. A device for removal of DOMESTIC (DOMESTICATED) ANIMAL. Any of the various animals including, but not limited to, dogs and cats adapted so as'to live With humans in a tame condition. NON - DOMESTIC (NON - DOMESTICATED) ANIMAL. Any animal, mammal, amphibian, or reptile, which is of a species which is wild by nature or..,of a species which due to size, vicious nature, or other c6racteristics is inheren4y,dangerous to human beings. PROPER ENCLOSURE. Securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio; 'or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or` any house or structure in which windows ar'e, open or in which door or window screens are the only obstaclesAhat prevent the dog from exiting. OWNER. Any person, firm, or corporatio i owning, keeping, harboring, possessing, having'an interest in,, or acting as custodian or caretaker of a domesticated or nondomesticated animal, or the parents or guardians of a person under 18 years of age who owns, harbors, keeps, or has custody of a domestic or nondomestic animal, or any person who owns the property on which a dog is harbored or kept. SUBSTANTIAL BODILY HARM. "Substantial bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member. GREAT BODILY HARM. "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm. [3] PREMISES. A building, structure, shelter, or land where a dog or other domesticated or non - domesticated animal is kept or confined, and specifically excludes all public rights -of -way, sidewalks, and streets. PROVOCATION. An act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to attack or bite. RESTRAINT. An animal is considered to be under restraint, provided that: (1) It is on the premises of the person owning, keeping, harboring, or maintaining the animal; or (2) It is in a private motor vehicle of a person owning, harboring or keeping the animal; or (3) While it is on any public trail, sidewalk, the Southwest LRT Regional Trail, in any city park, or along any public right -of -way (for example, along roadways and streets), or any other property, public or private, which is not the premises of the person owning, keeping, harboring; or maintaining the animal, it is on a leash no greater than six feet n length. SLMPD. The South Lake F' (a) The councils shall appoint animal enforcement officers and may enter into a contract With a person or organization whose duties shall be to enforce this chapter ;a , (b) No person shall take or aft . bmpt to take from an animal control officer or police officer or ariy other adthoxized' representative of the city any animal taken up or apprehended in compliance with this chapter, or in any manner intentionally interfere with or hinder such persons in the discharge of their duties under this chapter. (c) Citations are issued for certain violations. The animal control or police officer is to issue a citation to any person, firm, or entity for any alleged violations of this chapter and any other ordinances or statutes which provide,the basis for prosecution of violations of this chapter. Nothing within' this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of police officers to enforce any provisions of this chapter or related statutes or ordinances. Subd. 1. Registration and license required. Every person who owns a dog over the age of six months shall cause the dog to be registered and licensed as hereinafter provided. [41 Subd. 2. License tag and fees. All dogs kept in this city, including those allowed by private kennel license, shall be registered with the city clerk /treasurer or his /her agent. The fee for the license shall be set by resolution of the city council. Applications for licenses shall be made on forms approved by the city which shall require the name and address of the owner; the name, breed, age, color, and gender of the dog; and such other information as may be considered necessary. License applicants shall also provide proof of compliance with the vaccination requirements. The owner shall obtain a license and tag for each dog. The license tag shall be securely attached around the dog's neck and kept there at all times during the license period. If the tag is lost or stolen, the owner shall receive a duplicate license and tag upon payment of a fee to the city clerk /treasurer or his /her agent. The fee for the duplicate license shall be set by resolution of the city council. Subd. 3. Rabies vaccination. Each application for a dog must be accompanied by a rabies certificate from a qualified veterinarian showing that the animal has been vaccinated against rabies. No dog'shall be licensed which has not been vaccinated as required by this section within the 24 -month period immediately preceding the date application for a license is made. Subd. 4. Term of license. The license period shall portion of the year ending on the ensuing Decemb Subd. 5. New residents of city. Any, person Who m resident of the city and who owns a' dog within the be registered and'licensed' as, provided hereinbefo than 30 days after becoming a resident of the city. for the whole or 31. into and becomes a shall cause the same to ithin a period of not more Subd. 6. Transfer of license The license of any dog, licensed by the city, may be transferred to a'. new owner of the licensed dog for the duration of that license. The transfer is when the information regarding the new owner is filed with the city cle'r'k. The fee for license transfers shall be set by resolution of the city council. Subd. 7. `Revocation. Any; person making any false statement on any license application' "required by this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The city clerk shall revoke any license issued under this section if the owner has made any false statement on the license application. No refund of any fees shall be due to the licensee whose license has been revoked. Subd. 8. Reinstatement. Any person whose license has been revoked under subsection (c) of this section may reapply for such license after all deficiencies have been corrected. Any person making application after any revocation shall follow the procedures set out for the initial issuance of the license and shall pay the fees in the full amount that would be required for an original license. [s1 (a) Any person may own, keep, harbor, or maintain any domesticated animal that is not susceptible to rabies. (b) Any person may own, keep, harbor, or maintain any domesticated animal which is susceptible to rabies if it can be vaccinated for rabies, and it has been vaccinated with a vaccine licensed for use specifically for that species of animal. Based on current knowledge, the following animals can be legally vaccinated for rabies: dogs, cats, ferrets, cattle, sheep, and horses. However, the latter three are considered livestock, and therefore, not permitted in the city. (c) It shall be unlawful to own, keep, harbor, or maintain any domesticated animal which is susceptible to rabies and which has not been vaccinated with an approved vaccine. (d) Notwithstanding of the provisions of this section, it shall be unlawful to own, keep, harbor, or maintain any livestockasdefined in Minn. Depti of Agriculture Rule 1515.3100. (a) Any person may own, keep harbor, or maintain any non-domesticated animal, provided that it weighs less than 50 pounds. (b) It shall be unlawful to own, keep, harbor, or maintain any non - domesticated animal which weighs 50 pounds or more. • Subd.'1. Within the limits of the city, no person may possess, harbor, or keep more than 2 dogs over' the age of 6 months nor shall any single family residential unit be host to more than 2 dogs over the age of 6 months unless the owners, or if property is, leased, the lessees, 8 h real property shall have first obtained a private kennel license, provided that in no event may any person possess, nor may any single family residential unit be host to more than one animal that has been declared potentially dangerous. Subd. 2. Private Kennel license. Persons desiring to keep more than 2 dogs, but in no event more than 3 dogs, must first obtain a private kennel license. An application for a private kennel license shall include written authorization for the city or animal enforcement officer to inspect the premises, which shall be valid for the length of the license. Private kennel licenses may be issued by the city clerk upon the applicant meeting the following conditions: (a) Payment of an annual private kennel license fee as set by the city council by resolution or ordinance; [61 (b) Identification of the single family residential unit by address and property tax ID number of the parcel to be licensed together with a signed application by the applicant and, if different, the real property owners of the property to be licensed (if the property is leased, the application must be signed by both the lessee and the real property owner). The applicant, real property owner and lessee, must certify the information provided to the city in the application and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of licensing, city ordinances and state laws regarding animals. (c) A description as to the type of facilities available for keeping the dogs confined on the premises of the owner. Confinement means fencing of the yard or kennel runs, and that the dogs cannot leave of their own volition. `Invisible fence" type fencing is not acceptable for containment of more than 2 animals. The city may require changes in the confinement system as a condition of issuance or continued license validity. If the animals are known to have been able to breach confinement or have otherwise caused disturbance to neighboring property owners, animals, or the public„ in general, the city rn ay, require the licensee to change the confinement system on 30 days prior written notice. Failure to make the required change shall cause the private kennel license to be revoked. If an outdoor kennel is provided, it must be constructed of suitable material to maintain and secure the keeping of clogs and to allow for sufficient space for the dogs. Standard's for adequate shelter for dogs is specified in M.S. § 343.40 and is adopted by reference iricluding any amendments to that section. The space must be inspected and approved by the animal enforcement officer. All surfaces must be constructed of rnatenal.to provide for proper cleaning, drainage and maintenance and needs of tlb dogs. Kennel structures must be located vv thin the prescribed setback requirements for the property and shall be located at least ten feet from the property boundary. All fences shall be located entirely upon the property;of the fence owner. No boundary line fence shall be erected�,ploser than three feet to an existing parallel boundary line fence. (d)`A description and verification that each animal will have access to an individual,dog house or other suitable shelter from weather, as well as adequate food and'='ater at all times. (e) Demonstration of the method that the applicant will use for preventing the dogs from running at large and/or causing a disturbance or nuisance to passers- by, neighboring pro petty owners, or the public in general. Owners must ensure that dogs kept on licensed premises do not create a nuisance by excessive barking or by creating unsanitary conditions. (f) Fully paid dog licenses for each animal to be kept within the private kennel. (g) Verification that the applicant and the real property owner of the site, at which the private kennel is located, have had no violations of city or state regulations regarding the keeping of animals or the behavior of such animals while in the control or custody of either the applicant or the real property owner, or the real property owner's lessee. 171 (h) Verification that the applicant and property owner do not possess more than one potentially dangerous dog as defined under this ordinance. Subd. 3. Denial of license. The city may deny any license request based upon one or more of the following:. a. The animal enforcement officer finds the kennel facilities inadequate; b. Conditions of the license are not met; c. A nuisance condition is found to be created by the dogs or owner; d. The kennel creates a public health and safety hazard or has placed the animals in an unreasonable endangerment, The animal enforcement officer shall investigate all complaints and may issue a citation for violations. After a complaint has been received and found to be, valid regarding a kennel license, the holder of the license shall appear before the City Council to state or explain their position. The appearance shall be'within 30 days of the initial complaint and after notification of all contiguous property owners. The City Council will then decide the status of the license. Subd. 4. Revocation of private kennel license. In addition to any other sanctions herein provided, violation of any of the terms of this chapter shall be grounds for termination of the privilege of keeping up to three dog's, and the license may be revoked. Revocation m v occur fora violation attributable to any dog kept by the owners. Subd. 5. Limitation oh and Transfer of Private Kennel Licenses. Private kennel licenses shall be limited to r one per single- family residential unit and in no event shall more than one private kennel license be issued per taxable real estate parcel. Private kennel licenses are riot transferable and in the event of protafion or revocation of same,such licenses may not be transferred or otherwise.reissued to persons otherwise resident in the single - family taxable real estate parcel unless the property has been sold or the former dog owner has otherwise vacated the premises. Within the limits of the city, an owner or household may not possess, harbor, or keep more than 3 cats over the age of 6 months. No owner of any domesticated or non - domesticated animal shall permit such animal to run or move at large at any time within the city. The finding of any animal running at large shall be prima facie evidence of violation of this section by the owner of the animal. It shall be no defense that the offending animal escaped or is otherwise at large without the permission of its owner. [u1 The animal enforcement officer shall have authority to take into custody and impound those animals, found at large within the city. If the animal enforcement officer is unable to take an animal into custody the officer may, where possible, follow the animal to the property of its owner, and may issue a citation to the owner for violation of this ordinance. The officer shall not be authorized to take into custody an animal once it is upon the property of its owner except: (a) Where the officer finds no one present upon the property and custody is necessary to prevent the animal from further running at large; or (b) The animal is a potentially dangerous animal dog or animal; (c) In those instances where such custody is required or permitted for the health and welfare of the public. ANIMAL NUISANCES. Subd. 1. It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to exercise proper care and control of his animals to prevent them from, becoming ,;a. public nuisance. Subd. 2. It shall be considered a nuisai continuously or untimely, to frequent s( without the owner or custodian of' the `a chase, molest, annoy or bite any pe "rsc owner or custodian, oftki' animal, to m or private, or to in or upon pu without being cleaned up immediately person having custody, of the animal is feces in a ; sanitary manner. Failure; on for any animal to bark excessively, )I grounds, parks, or public beaches al present: >to chase vehicles. to person is not on the property of the lefile or destroy any property, public )perty or, the property of another person in charge of the animal. The nsible for disposing of the animal rrt of the owner or custodian to f'nuisance shall subject the owner or custodian to tf%e Oenalty hereinafter provided. Subd. 3. The phrase "to bark excessively, continuously, or untimely" includes, but is not limited to, barking, whining', howling, baying, crying, or making other noise excessively, such that the creation of the noise by any single or combination of d',ogs can be heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer or animal 'control officer, from a location outside of the building or premises where the dog is being kept and which noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five minute period of time with one minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the five minute period. "Untimely" includes, but is not limited to, the noise which occurs repeatedly over a two - minute period of time with one - minute or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the two - minute period, between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Subd. 4. The person having custody of the dog must have in their possession device for removal of dog feces when in or on any public trail, sidewalk, the Southwest LRT Regional Trail, in any city park, or along any public right -of -way (for example, along roadways and streets), or any other property, public or t9I private, which is not the premises of the person owning, keeping, harboring, or maintaining the animal. Subd. 5. No person shall allow any domesticated animal on any public swimming beach or any public grounds where any prohibitory sign is posted, except a recognized animal for life assistance. Every female animal in heat shall be confined in a building or other secure enclosure in such manner that such female animal cannot come into contact with another animal, except for planned breeding. Subd. 1. Authority to impound, citations. T have authority to take into custody and . im the city. If the animal enforcement officer'i custody, he or she may, where possible, f owner and may issue a citation to the owr Officer shall not be authorized to take into property of its owner except where 'the off property and custody is necessaryAo prey large or except in those instances hereine required or permitted. for the health" d w Subd. 2. Pound. The city s animals taken into oustody properly; fed. and cared for ment Officer shall be kept and ding to the provisions of this Subd. 3, Notice of impoundment. Within 24 hours after taking a dog into custody, the animal enforcement officer shall, if the animal has on it an official tag or microchip identification, no the person shown as owner of the dog that the animal is in his or her custody and will not be disposed of if redeemed within a stated time, which time shall not be less than five full days after the animal was taken into custody. Subd. 4. Redemption by owner. The owner of any animal seized pursuant to this section may retrieve the animal from the city's animal impound shelter, provided that the owner purchases the appropriate license within 7 days if the animal is not already properly licensed, pays all impound fees to cover the cost of apprehending the animal, boarding fees to cover the cost of sheltering the animal, any veterinary costs incurred by the city, and any other costs incurred by the city. Any owner who fails to comply with these requirements within five days shall be deemed to have forfeited any property right to the animal and the city may dispose of it pursuant to subdivision 5 of this section. In determining the impounding fee, the city may establish a schedule of fees based on the number animal enforcemen )und any animal foGr unable to take an an ow the animal to the officer shall I at large within nal into property of its on of this chapter. The animal once it is upon the one present upon the ial,from further running at ed where the custody is public or of the animal. uate pound or facilities where [10] of times a dog has been impounded. Boarding fees shall be according to a schedule adopted and maintained by the SLMPD. License fees are adopted by the council by resolution. Subd. 5. Disposition of unclaimed or injured dogs. Upon expiration of the five day period, a dog in the custody of the animal enforcement officer may be surrendered to the Animal Humane Society or euthanized. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the animal enforcement officer from causing the dog to be euthanized in less than five days waiting period as aforesaid where the animal is injured and, in the opinion of the animal enforcement officer, the owner, or a veterinarian, the only humane act would be one of euthanization. Subd. 6. Records kept. The animal enforcers account of all animals received at the pound released there from. Subd. 1. Rabies Vaccination Required. Rabies vaccination required. 'It;I, maintain any animal over the a( unless that animal has been va unless otherwise specified by a Subd. 2. Quarantine of biting; do a) Upon a written report t Department stating tha the name of the'dog, if or custodian,, if known, where the incident (o cc the dog quarantined fo animal shall be secure for nan. eing filed with the South Lake Minnetonka Police t a dog has bitten a human being and setting forth known, and the name and address of the owner the name of the person bitten and when and rred, the animal enforcement officer shall order a period of ten days. During quarantine, the y confined and kept from contact with any other shall keep an accurate nals euthanized or on to own, keep, harbor, or is susceptible to rabies at least every 24 months, b) At the discretion of the animal enforcement officer, the quarantine may be on the premises of the owner. If the animal enforcement officer so requires, the owner shall, at his or her own expense, place the animal in a veterinary hospital for the period of confinement or surrender the animal to the animal enforcement officer for confinement. The dog shall not be released from confinement until a licensed veterinarian has certified the animal to be free from rabies and until the owner has paid the costs of any veterinary tests made upon the animal as well as the costs of any confinement on premises other than that of the owner. c) If the costs are not paid by the owner or custodian within ten days following written notice to the owner or custodian that the dog is (11] available for release, the animal enforcement officer shall forthwith cause the dog to be surrendered to the Animal Humane Society or to be euthanized. d) Any person who shall fail to deliver up to the animal enforcement officer any dog which has bitten a human being and against which a sworn, written complaint has been filed shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day's neglect or failure to comply with the provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed a separate offense. e) A dog or other animal displaying symptoms of being rabid, may be seized at any place or time and shall be confined in the city impounding facility at the expense of the owner until found to be free from rabies. f) If a dog or other animal appears to be diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid, or has been exposed to rabies; and the dog or other animal cannot be impounded without serious risk of persona] injury, the dog or other animal may be killed if reasonably necessary for 6e safety of any person or person. Subd. 3. Rabies in city, The city adopts Minnesota proclamations. 69 reaardino rabies ABUSEINEGLECT OF Subd. 1. all for normal growth and ma sufficient quantity and quality to body weight. Water. Animals must be provide satisfy the animal's needs or su adequate water supply. clean, fresh water in sufficient quantity to by free choice. Snow or ice is not an Shelter. Animals must he provided with proper shelter and protection from the weather. A person in charge or control of any dog which is kept outdoors or in an unheated enclosure shall provide the dog with shelter and bedding as prescribed in this section as a minimum. The shelter shall include a moisture proof and wind proof structure of suitable size to accommodate the dog and allow retention of body heat. It shall be made of durable material with a solid, moisture -proof floor or a floor raised at least two inches from the ground. Between November 1 and March 31 the structure must have a windbreak at the entrance. The structure shall be provided with a sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar shavings, blankets, or the equivalent, to provide insulation and protection against cold and [121 dampness and promote retention of body heat. Shade from the direct rays of the sun, during the months of May to October shall be provided. Sanitation. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow food and water receptacles, kennels, yards, or the premises where the animal is kept to be or to remain in an unhealthy, unsanitary, or obnoxious condition, or to permit the premises to be in such condition that obnoxious odors can be plainly detected on adjacent public or private property. Veterinary Care. Animals must be provided with veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering. Cruelty to animals. It shall be unlawful for any owner to beat, cruelly ill- treat, torment or otherwise abuse any animal. Animals in motor vehicles. A person may standing or parked motor vehicle in a m."an or safety. When travelling, animals must b section of any vehicle or placed in crates c accommodate the animal. Animals carried boats, motorcycles, dirt bikes'; 'trailers, etc. carrier or restrained by a chain or cable to vehicle or being tossed out. tof leave an animal unattended in a er that endangers. the animal's health contained within the °passenger carriers of sufficient size n open vehicles, including trucks, mustbe restrained in a crafe or prevent the animal from leaving the Subd. 2. Removal of a - -, ir)7,als. A peace officer, animal enforcement officer, or a volunteer or professional 'member of "a fire br rescue department of a political subdivision may use reasonable force to enter a motor Vehicle and remove an animal which has been left in the vehicle in violation of this section. A person removing an animal under this subdivision shall use reasonable means to contact the owner of th'e`animal'to!arrange for its return home. If the person is unable to contact the owner, the person,,may take tt%e animal to an animal shelter. R . 9 + . lg anga� 0 The city is authorized pursuant to Minnesota statute section 347.53 to regulate potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs. POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS; REQUIREMENTS Microchip Identification. The owner of a potentially dangerous dog must have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification, and the name of the microchip manufacturer and identification number of the microchip must be provided to the animal control authority. If the microchip is not implanted by the owner, it may be implanted by the animal control authority. In either case, all costs related to purchase and implantation of the microchip must be borne by the dog's owner. p -) • - • r s e -T , ' 1 1161 Subd. 1. Dangerous dogs prohibited. No person may possess, own, or harbor a dangerous dog within the city. Upon receiving notice of a dangerous dog declaration, the owner or harborer of a dog shall immediately remove the dog from the city, unless the owner requests an appeal under subdivision 4 of this section. Subd. 2. Requirements during appeals process. (a) While awaiting final disposition of an appeal of a dangerous dog declaration, an owner of a dangerous dog shall keep the dog, while on the owner's property, in a proper enclosure. If the dog is outside the proper enclosure, the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under the physical restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the dog from biting any person or an rnbl but that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration. (b) A person who transfers ownership" of'a dangerous dog�,must notify the new owner that the animal control authority has identified the dog as dangerous. The current owner must also: notify the animal control authority in writing of the transfer of ownership an "d'provide'ahe animal control authority with the new owner's name, address, and telephone number. Subd. 3 Notice. The authority decl of the declaration by delivering or; posting a copy of it at the place wt person residing on the property, ai must include' (1) a description of the seized dog dangerous dog declaration and se under which the `dog was declared and name of contact person where dog dangerous shall give notice to the owner of the dog, or by og is kept, or by delivering it to a oning,if,possible, The notice the authority for and purpose of the ure; the time, place and circumstances 9a4gerous; and the telephone number the dog is kept; (2) a statement that the owner of the dog may request a hearing concerning the dangerous dog declaration, and that failure to do so within 14 days of the date of the notice will terminate the owner's right to a hearing under this section; (3) a statement that if an appeal request is made within 14 days of the notice, the owner must immediately comply with the requirements of subd. 3 of this section and until such time as the hearing officer issues an opinion; (4) a statement that if the hearing officer affirms the dangerous dog declaration, the owner shall immediately remove the dog from the city. (5) a form to request a hearing; and [l4] (6) a statement that all actual costs of the care, keeping, and disposition of the dog are the responsibility of the dog owner, except to the extent that a court or hearing officer finds that the seizure or impoundment was not substantially justified by law. Subd. 4. Right to hearing. The owner of any dog declared dangerous has the right to a hearing by an impartial hearing officer designated by the animal control authority. The dog owner must make the request in writing, on a form provided by the SLMPD, within 14 days of the dangerous dog declaration. Failure to do so within 14 days of the date of notice will terminate the owner's right to a hearing under this section. Any hearing must be held within 14 days of the dangerous dog declaration. The hE person retained by the city or by the SLM that the dangerous dog declaration is uph expenses of the hearing up to a maximur'r the dog's owner. The hearing officer shall ten days after the hearing. Th; hand delivery or registered m provided to the animal control Subd. 5. Dange declared danger authority review behavior has ch of obedience.tre an ue behavior has ch Subd: Q. Law ei apply to ' danger Subd. 7. ExernK damage was su f the request to determine the validity ring officer must be an impartial D to conduct the hearing. In the event Id by the hearing Df $1,000 w mu be the rE in on the �d to the actual onsibility of after within 9's owner by 1 as soon as practical and a copy must be iuthority, ration review. Beginning six months after a dog is may request`annd'ally that the animal control i. The owner must provide evidence that the dog's ie dog's age, neutering, environment, completion 9es modification of aggressive behavior, or other thority, finds sufficient evidence that the dog's iority may rescind the dangerous dog designation. i. The provisions of this section do not enforcement officials for police work. ay not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or person: (1) who was committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog; (2) who was provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or who can be shown to have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog; or (3) who was committing or attempting to commit a crime. 1151 Subd. 1. Seizure. (a) The animal control authority having jurisdiction shall immediately seize any dangerous dog if: (1) after the owner has notice that the dog is dangerous, the dog is not immediately removed from the city, unless an appeal is requested; or (2) the dog is not maintained in the proper enclosure; or (3) the dog is outside the proper enclosure and not under physical restraint of a responsible person as required<in subd. 3(a) of the previous section (b) If an owner of a dog is convicted.ofi a crime for which the dog was originally seized, the court may order that the dog be confiscated and destroyed in a proper and humane manner, and that the owner pay the costs incurred in confiscating, confining, and destroying the dog. Subd. 2. Dogs reclaimed. A dangerou be reclaimed by the owner of the dog t boarding fees, and presenting proof to authority that the >requirements of`subc A dog not reclai.ined undei this subdivi surrendered to Ine.Animal Humane So owner is liable to''the> animal control aL and disposing of the dog.; dog seized under subdivision 1 may bon payment of impounding and H6 appropriate animal control 3 of the previous' section will be met. ion within seven days may be :iety or humanely euthanized and the hority for costs incurred in confining Subd. 3. Subsequent offenses; seizure. Iffia person has been convicted of a misdemeanor for violating a provisions this chapter and the person is charged with a subsequent violation relating to the same dog, the dog must be seized by the animal control authority having jurisdiction. If the owner is convicted of the crime for which the dog was seized, the court shall order that the dog be destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the owner pay the cost of confining and destroying the animal. If the person is not convicted of the crime for which the dog was seized, the owner may reclaim the dog upon payment to the animal control authority of a fee for the care and boarding of the dog. If the dog is not reclaimed by the owner within seven days after the owner has been notified that the dog may be reclaimed, the dog may be surrendered to the Animal Humane Society or humanely euthanized and the owner is liable to the animal control authority for the costs incurred in confining, impounding, and disposing of the dog. f 161 (a) A person who violates a provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) It is a misdemeanor to remove a microchip from a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog, to fail to account for a dangerous dog's death or change of location where the dog will reside, to sign a false affidavit with respect to a dangerous dog's death or change of location where the dog will reside, or to fail to disclose ownership of a dangerous dog to a property owner from whom the person rents property. (c) A person who is convicted of a second or paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of a gross n1i DESTRUCTION OF DOGS IN CERTAINCIRCUMST Subd. 1. Circumstances A dog may be destroyed in a proper and authority if the dog: (1) Inflicted substantial or great bodily:harm on property without provocation; (2) Inflicted multiple bites on a provocation; (3) uent violation of nor. by the animal control n on public or private property without property in the same attack a human on;public or private property without provocation in an attack ere more than one doq participated in the attack. Subd. 2. The animal control_ authority may not destroy a dog until the dog owner has had the opportunity for a hearing before an impartial hearing officer designated by the animal control authority: ANIMAL BREEDERS. (a) Permit required. No person, business, corporation, or other entity may breed, whelp, or raise dogs or cats for profit or sale within the city unless the person, business, corporation, or other entity has obtained a breeder's permit from the city. (b) Application for breeder's permit. Anyone making application for a breeder's permit must provide the following information to the office of the city [171 clerk /treasurer: applicant's name, applicant's address, address of the location of where the breeding, whelping, or raising will occur, the types and breeds of animals concerned, and the numbers of adult animals to be kept for breeding purposes. The applicant must also demonstrate that the location where the breeding, whelping, or raising will occur is suitably zoned for such activity or must obtain a variance from the city council. (c) Approval of permit. After application for a breeder's permit has been made, a copy of the application shall be forwarded to the animal control officer. The animal control officer shall inspect the facility to ensure that it is suitable for its intended purpose. The breeder's permit will be issued by the city clerk /treasurer's office after the facility described in the application has been inspected and approved by the animal control officer and after the applicant has been paid the permit fee. The fee for a breeder's permit shall tie set by resolution of the city council. (d) Permit duration. A breeder's permit,: after the issue date. The fee will be prod for each of the remaining months of the purchased. (e) Inspection of premises after issuanc police officer, building inspector, or.otl i premises licensed under this section at notice, to determine whether or not con a proper manner. Un are declared to be June 19, 2012 issued, will expire on December 31 at the rate of 1/1 2 of the annual fee when the breeder's permit is of permit Any animal control officer, agent of the city may inspect any iy reasonable time, with or without prior Lions of: "the premises are maintained in [18]