Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Appeal Kennel in R-1 Distr MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 11 JULY 7, 2003 7A STEVEN HORSMAN, BUILDING INSPECTOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION THAT A DOG KENNEL LOCATED IN AN R-l DISTRICT WAS NOT A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE (Case file #03-0S8PC) History: The Planning Department received an Appeal Notice from John & Arlene Kalton (Appellants) regarding staffs decision to not allow a dog kennel land use to continue as requested by the appellants. Staff received complaints regarding the number of dogs on the subject property. The site is developed with a single-family dwelling and located in the R-l District. Staff notified Mr. & Mrs. Kalton regarding the complaint and apparent zoning ordinance violation. The appellants responded that they have owned and raised miniature dachshunds as a hobby since 1966 when they first purchased the subject property. In a follow-up phone conversation the appellants requested additional time to provide documentation in order to continue to raise dachshunds as a grandfathered use (legal non-conforming use). The appellant submitted documentation on 14 dogs they stated to have retrieved from the American kennel Club records. The appellants stated they currently have 8 dogs. Staff reviewed the submitted documentation and determined the request did not meet the requirement for a legal nonconforming land use under Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.2305, which states in part, Application for a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-conforming use shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator by the owner or lessee of the building or land occupied by the non-conforming use within 1 year of the effective date of this ordinance. For a use to be a legal nonconforming use, it must have been a legal use under a previous ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance in effect in 1966 was originally adopted in 1963. This ordinance specifically defined animal kennels as "any place where 162etYt~~~~~~'e~~5~~~oPfi5~Jt&~'1sflnnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animals, over four (4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale." Animal kennels were not permitted in the R -1 district. A new Zoning Ordinance, adopted in 1973, also did not allow animal kennels. Under the ordinance adopted in 1975, animal kennels, defined as "any establishment where three or more animals are bred for sale, boarded or trained", were allowed in the R-1 district with a conditional use permit. This provision was carried over in the ordinance adopted in 1983. The current ordinance, adopted in 1999, specifically removed kennels from the R-1 district. There is no evidence the appellants ever obtained a conditional use permit or otherwise legally established the kennel use. Furthermore, the City has no record of a dog being licensed at the subject property prior to November 13, 2002, when the owners visited City Hall to acquire dog licenses after notification of the apparent violations. Staff determined the use to be illegal and responded with a decision to deny the request for a legal non-conforming land use. On May 27,2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this appeal. A copy of the Planning Report, which outlines the request, is attached to this report. Staff presented the report, and answered questions from the Commission. The hearing was opened to the public and comments were offered by the applicant and from an adjoining property owner. The Planning Commission then discussed the matter and determined the request did not meet the criteria for a nonconforming land use and therefore was an illegal use. The Planning Commission based this determination on the fact that there was no evidence that the appellants had ever legally established the use. Nor was there any evidence that any dogs had been licensed. The Commissioners noted that as members of the AKA, the appellants should be aware of licensing requirements. The Commission denied the appeal of staffs determination, and adopted Resolution 03-05PC to that effect. A copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 27,2003, is attached to this report. Current Circumstances: On May 28, 2003, the applicant submitted the attached letter appealing the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested kennel use. The appeal was scheduled for hearing before the Council on July 7, 2003, as requested by the applicant and in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The staff report to the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested kennel use. This recommendation was based on the ordinance that addresses nonconforming land uses, which required a property owner to notify the City staff of the land use within one year ofthe effective date of this ordinance on May 22, 1999. There is also L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-46 Kalton\CCREPORT.doc 2 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: no record that the appellants had ever obtained a conditional use permit or otherwise legally established this use. In addition, the City has no record of a dog license being issued on the subject property prior to November 13,2002, after the owners had been notified of the apparent violation. The City dog license records go back to 1997. The Planning Commission agreed with staff s recommendation and denied the requested kennel use. The findings of fact included in the attached resolution reflect the Planning Commission's decision. Issues: The City Council must determine if it concurs with the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested nonconforming land use of a kennel on the subject property in the R-l District. The City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance requires a Certificate of Occupancy be issued for all legal nonconforming land uses created by adoption of the ordinance, or in existence at the effective date of the ordinance on May 22, 1999. Conclusion: The Planning Commission determined that the appellant's request did not meet the required conditions as spelled out in the ordinance for a nonconforming kennel use. If the appellants had submitted for a Certificate of Occupancy for a nonconforming land use prior to the effective date of the current ordinance, a conditional use permit would have been required according to the 1983 ordinance in effect at that time. The city has no record for a conditional use permit to allow a kennel on the subject property. In addition, the city has no record of a dog license being issued to the property owners prior to November 13, 2002. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the appeal as requested by the appellant. The attached resolution is consistent with this action. 2. Overturn the decision ofthe Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the approval of the requested kennel as a nonconforming land use. 3. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons. The staff recommends alternative # 1. This requires the following action: L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-46 Kalton\CCREPORT.doc 3 --r-- A motion and second to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the appeal of the zoning administrators decision to deny a kennel as a nconforming land use. REVIEWED BY: i L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-46 Kalton\CCREPORT.doc 4 I; I I l I II 1 RESOLUTION 03-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS DECISION THAT A DOG KENNEL LOCATED IN AN R-1 DISTRICT WAS NOT A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT) IDENTIFIED AS 15594 HILL CIRCLE SE MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, John & Arlene Kalton, appealed a decision of the Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator and from Section 1107.2305 of the City Code to deny a dog kennel as a nonconforming land use on property located in the R-1 District (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shore1and Overlay District) at 15594 Hill Circle SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Lakeside Manor 1 st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal request as contained in Case File #03-046, and held hearings thereon May 27,2003; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the appeal request did not meet the zoning ordinance criteria and denied the request; and WHEREAS, John & Arlene Kalton, appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on May 28,2003; and WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #03-046 and Case File #03-058, and held a hearing thereon on July 7, 2003 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2) The City Council finds that the requested appeal does not meet the zoning ordinance criteria to permit a nonconforming land use as set forth in Section 1107.2305 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overtuming the decision of the Planning Commission. 3) The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision to deny an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision that a dog kennel located inthe R-l district was not a legal nonconforming use should be upheld, and said appeal should be denied. 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-46 kalton\dnyccres.doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4) The City Council makes the following findings: a. John & Arlene Kalton, appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on May 28, 2003. b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #03-046 and Case File #03-058, and held a hearing thereon on July 7,2003. c. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed nonconforming land use of a dog kennel on property in the surrounding area. d. The City Council has determined the request does not meet the zoning ordinance criteria for the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a nonconforming land use of a dog kennel in the R-1 District as required by Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.2305. 5) The contents of Planning Case File #03-046 and Planning Case File #03-058 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. 6) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying the appeal to permit a dog kennel as a nonconforming use for applicants John & Arlene Kalton. Passed and adopted this 7th day of July, 2003. YES NO Haugen Haugen Petersen Petersen LeMair LeMair Gundlach Gundlach Zieska Zieska {Seal} City Manager 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-46 kalton\dnyccres.doc Page 2 ,.. Planning Commission Meeting May 27,2003 PC MINUTES 5/27/03 .-s~ -- · Concurred with Staff and Commissioners. · The sewer line on this property is unique and creates a set of hardships in placem the garage. That warrants the first two variances from setback · The second variance t ce etween the structures - noting the neighbor's gara e ac ed garage 4 feet away. e placement of the easement is not a hardship for impervious surface. This is not an unusually small lot. Even if lack of a garage is a hardship the impervious surface should remain as is. Lemke: · Assuming the sidewalks are included in the impervious surface calculations. · Noting condition number 4 in the staff report indicates the driveway should be aced with bituminous or concrete. Could that be ch ansier and Kirchoff said they co MOT ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-03PC ROVING A 17.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM TIlE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM TIlE REQUIRED 11 FOOT SIDE YARD SEPARATION SETBACK INCLUDING TIlE 8 CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF CONSTRUCTION OF A DETA Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY C G RESOLUTION 03-04PC DENYING A 6.8 PERCENT V FROM TIlE 31.5 PERCENT MAXIMUM ANDARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Criego, Lemke and Stamson. Nay by Atwood. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. B. Case #03-46 John and Arlene Kalton are appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to not permit a dog kennel land use in an R-l District. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 27, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The Planning Department received an Appeal Notice from John & Arlene Kalton regarding staff s decision to not allow a dog kennel land use. Staff received complaints regarding the number of dogs on the subject property. The appellant submitted documentation on 14 dogs they stated to have retrieved from the American kennel Club records. The appellants stated they currently have 8 dogs. Staff reviewed the submitted documentation and determined the request did not meet the requirement for a legal L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN052703.doc 4 .,..- Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 nonconforming land use under Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.2305. Staff determined the use to be illegal and responded with a decision to deny the request for a legal non-conforming land use. In addition, the City does not have a record of any dogs being licensed at the subject property prior to November 13,2002, when the owners visited City Hall to acquire dog licenses after notification of the violation. This appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator is site specific to the subject property, and does not affect the way in which the ordinance is applied in all situations. The request for a legal non-conforming land use does not meet the ordinance requirement as spelled out in the report. Staff therefore recommended the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Questions from Commissioners: Lemke: · Questioned the appeal provisions requested in the applicant's letter. Horsman explained the nonconforming use. Kansier said the issue is the applicant is appealing the City's decision to the Commissioners. It will not necessarily go to the Council, but staff would review the ordinance to be sure. Ringstad: · If the applicants would have applied for a kennel license back in 1999 what would be the City's response? Kansier said the 1983 ordinance required a conditional use permit for kennels in the residential districts. Kaltons had no conditional use permit. The difference would be if they had licensed their dogs on a regular basis and could show over the years they had maintained this number of animals, the staff would have looked at it differently as a nonconforming use. Staff was able to go back into the records for five years verifying they did not obtain licenses. That is why it was an illegal use versus a nonconforming use. Stamson: · What is the limit of dogs one is required to keep in an Rl district? Staff responded three. Comments from the Public: John Kalton, 15594 Hill Circle, represented his wife, Arlene KaIton as the owner of the dogs. He gave a history of the lot to indicate grandfathering the use in. His property was originally in Eagle Creek Township. At that time, the township official explained many items including animals would be grandfathered into City. The Kaltons were first aware of the problem in October of 2002 when staff sent a letter of a violation. Kaltons replied that when Eagle Creek Township was annexed into the city limits there were no pet restrictions and requested noncompliance of Section 802.66 or Section 1102.44 Rl District. All of their dogs are vaccinated and confmed to their property by a 3 foot chain-linked fence. Kalton stated miniature dachshunds are small, the size of rabbits. In October of 2002, the Kaltons went to City Hall to license the dogs. At that time they were only allowed to have 3 licenses and assumed they were given a grandfather use. Later in November, staff informed them they had to establish proof of the number of dogs previous to a 1979 ordinance. KaItons submitted proof from the American Kennel Club indicating they had 12 dogs L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN052703.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 in 1979. He was not aware of the 1983 ordinance. On March 4,2003, they were told by staff they had not met requirements for a legal nonconforming land use. This was the first time they were aware of this ordinance or a one year window of compliance. On March 4,2003, the Kaltons were told they would have to dispose of their dogs by April 4, 2003; no mention was made ofthe grandfather request. Kalton said he was under the impression that living at their residence since 1966 they would be grandfathered in. They would like to continue to raise dachshunds as a hobby for the estate lifetime of owner, Arlene Kalton. They do not view this as a kennel business and are requesting noncompliance for 8 of their dogs. Kalton pointed out Meda Kop's farm animals are in the City of Prior Lake. He also stated they are willing to pay license fees. Kalton said they have had 16 different neighbors in 4 different properties. To their knowledge one complaint has been filed. No citations were given to them by police. Kalton felt a dog was allowed a certain number of minutes barking. It varies from City to City, usually 5 to 10 minutes. He could not find that requirement in the Prior Lake City Ordinance. Stamson: · Questioned KaIton if he was breeding and selling dogs or raising and showing them. Kalton said they are raising dogs for show. As the dogs become older they are neutered, spade and then sold. They have two litters a year. They now have 8 dogs. In October they had 12 dogs. As the dogs become ill they are euthanatized. When they become older they are given up for adoption. They keep the show dogs. Kalton said they will keep their number of dogs at 8. The size of the dogs are 8 to 10 pounds. Criego: · Asked Kalton the size of the lot. Kalton said it is one-third of an acre. The dogs are confined to the back of the house. · Was Kalton aware of the need for dog license? He responded he was aware but felt he was grandfathered from licensing. · Questioned KaIton if he ever went to the City to ask to have a license for the dogs. Kalton said not until they were given the notice. Atwood: · Read part ofthe applicant's letter and asked KaIton ifhe will ever keep more than 8 dogs. He responded they will not go above 8 dogs. They reduced their number of 12 dogs to 8. They may keep less. Jeff Arrigoni, 5201 Candy Cove Trail, back yard neighbor to Kaltons and have lived at their residence for 10 years. Arrigoni asked the Commissioners to picture their back yards with a fence 30 feet from the back door - 8 to 10 dogs constantly barking for the last 10 years. One of the problems is that over time dogs get use to the neighbors and they won't bark. As Kalton said, they have new dogs every 6 months and the dogs are not familiar with the neighbors and continue to bark. Kaltons do not want 8 to 10 dogs barking all day in their house so they let them outside. Arrigoni said they have had enough. He never complained or called the police on KaItons dogs. Arrigoni said he was not going to come tonight until he received a complaint on the fence he was building to keep the dogs out. Arrigoni explained his wife's harassment from Mr. Kalton. There has been a history of harassing behavior by John KaIton and the police have been involved. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN052703.doc 6 - 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Kalton calling the City to complain about his fence to keep Kalton's dogs from barking was the last straw. The dogs have barked for 10 years and he is tired of it. Arlene Kalton said the dogs do not bark all the time, they "woof, woof'. Kalton stated the accusations are ridiculous. They have had 16 different neighbors and only one has been a problem. The neighbor has indicated they have a concem with Kalton's water running into their property. They have spent thousands of dollars in landscape so their runoff does not run into the neighbor's yard. Stamson explained the issue is the dog kennels. Arlene Kalton said the illusion is made that they are selling dogs and making a lot of money. This is an expensive hobby. They have been active members and Board of Directors of the Minnesota Dachshunds Club for over 30 years. She has champion dogs. They are not the only neighbors with barking dogs. What are they going to do? They lived in Prior Lake 37 years and assumed they were grandfathered in. Kalton stated her dogs are smart and knows who likes them. They do not run back and forth barking all the time. Stamson asked what the top number of dogs they have owned. Kalton said 13, the least is 8 or 9 dogs that are housed in the basement. They do not tolerate barking any more than anyone else. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · Agreed with staffs assessment. Mr. Kalton noted his dogs are very small. If the Commission gets into the idea that 5 small dogs equal 3 mid-size dogs, it is the wrong approach to take. . Deny the application. Atwood: · Was out to the property and there were 2 black labs barking in their circle. · This is a tough situation. No pearls of wisdom. Would like to see a win-win situation and see some kind of discussion for this. · The longevity of their hobby and the grandfathering in can lead to frustration. · Appreciate the neighbors putting in a fence. Lemke: · Agreed with Atwood. Assumed this 1999 ordinance was published in the paper. Kansier said it was. · Questioned if there are any records on the annexation in 1966. Did someone retain this information? · Kansier explained grandfathering and nonconforming use are the same words. A nonconforming use is a legally established use that is no longer permitted under the ordinance but can continue to operate. In this particular case, if the Kaltons had regularly licensed the dogs, the staff would have looked at it as a legally nonconforming use. The fact they had not licensed any dogs for at least 5 years prior to 2002 is what staff based their decision on. · The applicants felt that the grandfathering they thought they had would include licensing. I assume they (the City) didn't license dogs in 1966. Kansier said she did not know, however the licensing has been in effect for many years, and it is not a grandfathering L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN052703.doc 7 T Planning Commission Meeting May 27,2003 issue. Every dog needs to be licensed. Every time you get a new dog it should be licensed. · Assume that officers and members of the AKC should lrnow that information. . Agree with Commissioner Ringstad, 3 is 3. The ordinance does not stoop to the size of the dog. Criego: . Empathy for the dog owners and the neighbors. . Making assumptions of the law is the worst thing anyone can do. The laws have been around for a long time. . If the dogs would have been licensed in the last 5 to 10 years it could have possibly been grandfathered in. Most people lrnow they need to have the dogs licensed. . The applicant assumed they were grandfathered in without checking it out. That is the problem. . The ordinance states 3 dogs. Agree with staff s recommendation. j Ii j Stamson: · Concurred with Criego, staff is looking at a definition of what a nonconforming use and what qualifies. Staff is correct. · It needs to be a legal use beforehand. There are a number of things that have to go with that like licensing the dogs. It has not been done. The applicant's perspective that it was a legal use before and therefore isn't qualified to be a legal nonconforming land use is the correct interpretation. The applicants did not comply. . Read and thought about this a lot and concur with staffs recommendation and interpretation. Open Discussion: Atwood: . Agreed staffs interpretation is accurate, not meaning to imply it isn't. But given there has been confusion and some of the Kaltons' questions were not addressed. Stamson: . It would be great to find a win-win situation, but some point before it got this far a negotiated settlement would have been much better. . What we are looking at is the written ordinance and have to uphold staffs decision. There is no avenue open. It is in writing. . Feel for the applicant's position but they put themselves there. · Staff interpreted the ordinance correctly. j I I :1 Lemke: . What is the time frame for the applicants to come into compliance if the Commissioners agree? Horsman felt a year is too long, 30 days is too short. It is staffs decision to discuss. . Kansier said the staff usually starts with 30 days but if progress is being made, staff would negotiate time frames as long as staff felt there was an attempt to comply. · The compliance period should not begin until the appeal period has expired. Kansier said it was not unreasonable. Stamson: L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN052703.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting May 27,2003 · The ordinance does not allow kennels in the R1 District. Kansier said by definition anything more than 3 dogs is a kennel. It's the number. . It is not a commercial kennel. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 03-005PC DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO NOT PERMIT A DOG KENNEL AS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE IN THE R1 DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained it has not been determined if this issue can be appealed and any interested party should contact Staff. Kansier stated if anyone wanted to appeal they would have to appeal in writing by Monday (June 2, 2003). 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Kansier explained trying to get a joint workshop with the Planning Commission, City Council and the DNR together sometime in July. On June 30, 2003, staff will be doing a surf and turf tour. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN052703.doc 9 .______.----,-_.____0._._0____. APPEAL LETTER May 28, 2003 Prior Lake City Council City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RE: Appeal - Non-conforming land Use Decision of the Planning Commission We are submitting an application to be placed on the City Council meeting agenda to appeal the decision regarding our request for non-conforming land use. In addition to the material submitted previously to Mr. Horsman we wish to submit the following: We were not aware of the ordinance adopted in 1999 requiring that an application for a certificate of occupancy for a legal non-conforming land use be filed within one year of the effective date. Having residency in Eagle Creek Township since 1966 it was our assumption that our housing of more than three dogs when our area was annexed we were Grandfathered for more than three dogs. We request a copy of the proceedings for case #03-46 because we feel that some of Mr. Arigonie's allegations were fabrications implying character belittlement and were not necessarily pertinent to the dog issue. We would be available to answer questions. Respectfully submitted, h JO~~= r IJ. ff~ 15594 Hill Circle S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 . AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 5B CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO NOT ALLOW A DOG KENNEL LAND USE LOCATED IN AN R-1 DISTRICT, Case File #03-046 15594 HILL CIRCLE SE, PRIOR LAKE, MN STEVEN HORSMAN, BUILDING INSPECTOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR _X_ YES NO MAY 27,2003 The Planning Department received an Appeal Notice from John & Arlene Kalton (Appellants) regarding staff's decision to not allow a dog kennel land use to continue as requested by the appellants. Staff received complaints regarding the number of dogs on the subject property. The site is developed with a single- family dwelling and located in the R-1 District. DISCUSSION: Staff notified Mr. & Mrs. Kalton regarding the complaint and apparent zoning ordinance violation (Attachment 1 - Violation notice dated 10/18/02). The appellants responded that they have owned and raised miniature dachshunds as a hobby since 1966 when they first purchased the subject property (Attachment 2 - Appellant letter dated 10/23/02). In a follow-up phone conversation the appellants requested additional time to provide documentation in order to continue to raise dachshunds as a grandfathered use (legal non-conforming use). The appellant submitted documentation on 14 dogs they stated to have retrieved from the American kennel Club records (Attachment 3 - Appellant Letter dated 2/10/03, pictures). The appellants stated they currently have 8 dogs. Staff reviewed the submitted documentation and determined the request did not meet the requirement for a legal nonconforming land use under Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.2305, which states in part, Application for a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-conforming use shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-46 Kalton\KltnAPLRPT.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER by the owner or lessee of the building or land occupied by the non-conforming use within 1 year of the effective date of this ordinance (Attachment 4 - Ordinance Sec. 1107.2305). The effective date of the ordinance was May 22, 1999. Staff determined the use to be illegal and responded with a decision to deny the request for a legal non-conforming land use (Attachment 5 - Staff letter dated 3/4/03). In addition, the city does not have a record of any dogs being licensed at the subject property prior to November 13, 2002, when the owners visited City Hall to acquire dog licenses after notification of the apparent violations. The property owners appealed the decision of staff to staff management (Attachment 6 - Appellant letter dated 3/21/03). Staff management reviewed the request and upheld staff's decision to not permit the illegal use of a dog kennel (Attachment 7 - Staff letter dated 4/16/03). The owners appealed staff's final decision to the Planning Commission (Attachment 8 - Notice of Appeal dated April 23, 2003). It should be noted that under Ordinance Subsection 1107.2304: Appeals. With the exception of subsection 1107.2303(1d), the provisions of subsection 1107.2301 through 1107.2304 inclusive are not subject to appeal to the City Council. The following attachments are included references for this report : 1) Violation Notice; 2) Appellant letter dated 10/23/02; 3) Appellants letter dated 2/10/03; 4) Code Sec. 1107.2305; 5) Staff letter dated 3/4/03; 6) Appellant letter dated 3/21/03; 7) Staff letter dated 4/16/03; 8) Notice of Appeal. RECOMMENDATION: This appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator is site specific to the subject property, and does not affect the way in which the ordinance is applied in all situations. In summary, the request for a legal non-conforming land use does not meet the ordinance requirement as spelled out in the report. The staff therefore recommends the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Deny the Appeal request because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated support for the appellants non-conforming land use of a dog kennel in the R-1 District 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-46 Kalton\KltnAPLRPT.DOC Page 2 3. Approve the Appeal as requested and overturn the Zoning Administrators decision to deny the non-conforming use of a dog kennel, as requested by the appellant. ACTION REQUIRED: The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 03-XXPC denying an Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to not permit a dog kennel as a legal non- conforming use in the R-1 District. .. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-46 Kalton\KltnAPLRPT.DOC Page 3 \ . October 18, 2002 John D. Kalton 15594 Hill Circle SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Kalton: The City of Prior Lake received a complaint regarding the keepinq of more than three domestic animals (8 dogs) on your property at 15594 Hill Circle. According to the City Zoning Ordinance this is an apparent violation of Prior Lake City Code. Specifically, the following: Ordinance Section 802.600: Kennels: License Required. Ordinance Section 1102.400: R-1 District: Kennels are not a permitted use in a Residential District. The City of Prior Lake would like to solicit your cooperation and community spirit in correcting the violation and/or addressing this complaint by contacting this office on or before October 28, 2002. If you should have any questions or additional information regarding this matter, call my direct phone number at 447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.. Monday through Friday, and I will assist you. Enclosed is a copy of our City Code pertaining to the violation. The City appreciates your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, ", /'~G-4 ~~~" 'Steven Horsman, Building Inspector 16200 Ea~~'ereek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. rvlinnesota 55372-171-'t / Ph. (952) 4-'t7-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQL'AL OPPORTL;i\ilTY E:--IPLOYER , ! ! . \ - - ,.'.-, ..... -- -.-.......- -" ,........_._....~.,.__...,..._......._._^"'__.a';..~~.h_.~..._.._ __,_._~_"_"",-,,,_,_,~:"_._,"_'_'~....._..l.....'_...._.,_ ~ ATTAC~2 - APPELLANT LETTER .. . ..". Frank Boyles, City Manager Steven Horsman, Building Inspector City of Prior Lake ~.4'<<'" jo DATE: October 23, 2002 From: John and Arlene Kalton RE: Ordinance Section 802 In May 1966, John and Arlene Kalton purchased lot 3 Lake Side Manor, First Addition, Eagle Creek Township, Scott County Minnesota. We had a residency constructed on the site and assumed occupancy on August 1, 1966. We have owned and raised miniature dachshunds as a hobby since that time. When Eagle Creek Township was annexed to the City of Prior Lake there were no pet restrictions implemented. Over the years the City of Prior Lake has passed a number of pet ordinances including Section 802.600 limiting the number of pets, and in 1999 Section 1102.400 R-1 District stating that kennels are not permitted in a residential district. We are requesting non-compliance of Section 802.600 or Section 1102.400 R-1 District. We agree to comply with all other sections of 802 including required license fees. All of our dogs are vaccinated against rabies and are confined to our property by a three foot chain link fence. We welcome, any time at your convenience, inspection of our property and the facilities provided for the well-being of our animals. Respectfully submitted, ~~. 11~ J&no. Kallon ~vf,~1 Arlene M. Kalton ~ ?3,D)' Dated John and Arlene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Phone: 952-447-3958 .'- -. ,",'_...~_..........''''-- I . ... _"'-..---"'0 - _.- ....~---~..... .,-- . ----,_... ..... ~. . ----- ATTACHME~T 3, - APPELLANT m~}>'~TED 2/10/0; TO: Steven Horsman, Building Inspector i: L> ' r- -- - - . _ 7 City of Prior Lake :: , ( ! ,: '.', i : I j fU: ,., I ! UL [ FEB lOam ;,1 I 'I I" ") I~j DATE: February 8, 2003 From: John and Arlene Kalton RE: Grandfathering At this time we are replying to your request in regard to being 'Grandfathered' for the number of dogs we own. In May 1966, we purchased lot 3 Lake Side Manor, First Addition, Eagle Creek Township, Scott County Minnesota. We had a residency constructed on the site and assumed occupancy on August 1, 1966. We have owned and raised miniature dachshunds as a hobby since that time. The American Kennel Club was contacted and an extensive search of their records was pursued in a effort to ascertain the dogs we owned prior to 1980 after which an ordinance limiting the number of pets was enacted. Attached are miscellaneous pictures of the following dogs and listed below are results of the AKC search including the birth date and registration numbers of our pets during this period: DATE OF BIRTH REGISTERED NAME COLOR REGISTRATION NUMBER 1. June, 1968 Kal Ginger Snap Red HB-091379 2. July, 1969 Kal Pandora Lites M Birr an HB-246062 3. May, 1971 Lee's Tamera Kay M Red HB-298585 4. June, 1971 Kal's Samson of Leonca M Blrran HB-638086 5. August, 1971 .Kal Mit-Zee Purl M Blrran HB-380796 6. May, 1973 Leonca's Andrea M Red HB-523283 7. October, 1974 Kal's Felix Samson M Red HB-870848 8. June, 1975 Kal's Amy of Leonca Red HC-180689 9. November, 1976 Kal's Nelly Girl M Red HC-390008 10. 1977 Kal's Polly Red (number missing) 11. 1978 Kal's Zak-A-Ree M Red HC-744868 12. February, 1979 Kal's Shot-Zee M Blrran HC-619635 13. November, 1979 Kal's Ado Annie M Red HC-908416 14. October, 1983 Kal's Jock-EE M Red HD-128765 In an effort to control our dogs, in order that they would not be a nuisance in the neighborhood, a chain link fence was installed around our back yard. During the thirty-six years in our residence a complaint has never been submitted regarding our animals until just this last year. At the present time we own ten dogs with an average weight of 11 pounds each totaling about 110 pounds, the size of one labrador. They do not bark unless their domain is threatened and only two or three of them start the ruckus. The complaints have been ludicrous submitted by disgruntled individuals who would complain whether we had ten or two dogs. An effort is being made to locate bark collars for our offenders which would alleviate the barking problem. We are both in our seventies and maintain dogs as a hobby. A conscientious effort has been made to produce a good blood line and gentle personality in our pets, an endeavor highly applauded by the Minnesota Dachshund Club of which we have been members for 36 years. During the summer months we show dogs at AKC shows in the Upper Midwest and own one male Champion and another male who has four points. Attaining these heights is not an easy task and is very costly. We have no intention to increasing the number of our dogs, rather have several senior citizens who are spayed or neutered and very loving pets and upon the demise will not be replaced. All of the dogs now owned are registered to the name, Arlene M. Kalton. Thank you for your patience with this matter and sincerely hope you seriously consider our request to have our dogs 'Grandfathered' based on our long-time residence in the Prior Lake area. Sincerely, ~~hn~~ 15594 Hill Circle S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 . . ~ ,- ~ I t.P ~ ~ j P- 30 t..P V' -r I .... ($ (I & I ~ '1 t- V' r;;) .:s o:...t'> ~ J.. Vi ?- ,.- (> (' ... ~ I 1"" " ..r (f I (l f' ~ ;..or l' t l P ~ '" p ;$:" X f' (I- ;p. ~ Ka.,f.> 2..a.\< - A ~ t\ (e, j~ ~C.-l i.{1.f gr..? Ko.J~ Aw. J a \ ; \.. ~o~ L4... \.4. c.. \ g d" ~9 '0 \ \a..Y\..<iV / '~ ' :( . ) i, \, 't - Le ~ N"I..\\f / S hc\-,-e.~ r\ . \.71 '^1Q.Y S6...\N\ A~y -Ii' \l. ..~ \ ~\ I. 1- '- ~e.. C...\i.V \ ~ id'l ...~ , 1'~ \ \..)( i-I ~ \' o.."".i y/ T '._". ,~.. _,..__.,~"._..__.b.....<____.-,_. __..____._..._.......__...;:.:,_.__ _~--'"'-.i.o-................_.".__._~._~'-.~~..,~._.__~_..:':., I l tl t~,d 6 ro \1)" / #::; "I (.1 '^' ho..\.$ S\tO-t--z..e.e !''. Ii I l\ 0.. ~ ~ "" C I u .)o...l'Io\.~", 0" ......~ J1'\ \-1, (, - k \ q t..JS- \'\ ~- G3 &'0'<:'" \4 G - c'i \ :31<( \--\ \1- a. 1./ 4. 0 Gt.a.. K a.- \ (j. \ '" ~ S't\P..f \4. cd (J D.N\. ~c,("4.. L ~~ ~ \ J..~,<,6, ~---;.. . .; \ ~.\-\ ~'\A... \;\c...v ,l ~f\ .~ f't \ 140 - J.. 'IS'S S'S 'k' / \ ~ .' .- \.: '- {j. \ ";J . \ , .:t l, ;"<:to \ ' .>j i'''', ;,.. ... I 'it. ' .~ \ ~ ~ /, Q '" ;..... 'J : > \.., '\.,....... 1 ~.i~~io.f J t..,. LoI+\r\ 1':' (..\,. \..~ t<~ .' i ~ / \. / _.~___,............-:.:o.~~"'_#'--."":''''_..c._._~_~_~L_....:''':'')..J . .. .____~_________~h..._ .__..__..____._.....,..... . _ _ __._ ..,r.. ....... _ '" L <C. 4t ~ .~ W'\ i!. y t)- \""'1 - N\ tl-B ;2, <i&ff6- KC....L5 z.o..~ - i~ - Re.e..~ \V\ ~t 1'1"'/ 8f..8 L~V\~ (~~~y~ - ~. rl.65.:t3a83 S \'\.::it"- "2- el [-4..( kJ Cl,:"3S' ,) "'()....<-~)>.. ! i H&-;Z'jh C,,~ .. A ""\ Y' l/ \ \ t', I};'; 1..0 Ci \""'\~_ \.Q~ ~6 I Nq,,\\y > . ,.' " }-\c- 3'1 Jce &' /'\ \....'"" \ '^ ':i 4....Y ^'" ."""" : ....., ""'1 l".... MB-Ol"~ ./ !v... ~ i.z..e.e. \-i ~-1 YC7'iG r;^). ~ J.. y \-\g-;L"t'4, oG~ . ,..____---'"_..__...._.............._....:..........:..._-'_,_ _~~ ____.:___..~.'. _~r. : { -r- l.. Q. ~~ \ ()..~ ~ 'f ~ \..4:. o...y ~ f:I\ / t\~- l~86'- 8S" t<cJ; SCLMoU<M o't L\Al,o,.c,..... i"\ ,4. ~t.. 33c.g;;, '1'<...0.. i ~ ~ ~c i~~",,'\ ~ ,,~\ he. '1 0 &'~ \ l.. \. .' ~cJ.. s ~.s c.. ~ - ~ e.. ~ 0\ \~ \) t J.. S' 1 G S" . . _._. ....... __......__~.......-..- '.,..: ..,_'" .__._... _', _.~',..,."~" - H '-'~--'-.'."."._'..~-_.._. .0:<-'-- _.~ n _ "'~""_..' . ATTACHMENT 4 · ORDINANCE SEC. 110l:~~e 1107.2304 Appeals. With the exception of subsection 1107 .2303( 1 d), the provisions of subsection 1107.2301 through 1107.2304 inclusive are not subject to appeal to the City Council. 1107.2305 NonconforminQ Use. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for all legal non-conforming uses of land or uses of buildings created by adoption of this Ordinance, or in existence at the effective date of this Ordinance. Application for a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-conforming use shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator by the owner or lessee of the building or land occupied by the non-conforming use within 1 year of the effective date of this Ordinance. Failure to apply for a Certificate of Occupancy for a non-conforming use or refusal of the Zoning Administrator to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for a non- conforming use after an application has been made shall be prima facie evidence that such use did. not lawfully exist at the effective date of this Ordinance. Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be subject to any inspection of the premises the City deems appropriate. The City may impose conditions consistent with and in furtherance of requirements of the City Ordinance Code. Any subsequent change in ownership, lessee, size or manner of operation in a non-conforming use shall require that a new Certificate of Occupancy for non- conforming use be issued. '",. (THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY BLANK FOR FUTURE AMENDMENTS) City of Prior Lake May 22 1999 1107/n'::;~ -..>., .,.,- _......._-~ ...._.._~-'-'-.- ~~..,"~._,',... -..-.--...-..- - ".., ---'- ..- --" ATTACHMENT 5 · STAFF LETTER DATED 3/4/03 March 4,2003 John & Arlene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kalton: City staff has reviewed your correspondence and documentation in regards to your statement that you have raised miniature dachshunds as a hobby since 1966. You are requesting the. City to consider your current raising of 8 dogs to be a legal non- conforming land use (kennel) on the property at 15594 Hill Circle. Staff has determined that you have not met the requirements for a legal non-conforming land use under Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.2305 (see attached). Specifically, the Ordinance requires that an application for a Certificate of Occupancy for a legal non- conforming land use shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator by the owner or lessee of the building or land occupied by the non-conforming use within 1 year of the effective date of this Ordinance. The current Ordinance was adopted in 1999. In addition, the City does not have records of the dogs being licensed prror to the year 2002, when you licensed three dogs due to the notice of an illegal kennel use on your property at 15594 Hill Circle. This office again would like to solicit your cooperation and community spirit in correcting the violation on or before April 4, 2003, by limiting the number of dogs or cats you keep on your property to a maximum of three. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, or if you cannot comply by April 4th, call my direct phone number at 447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I will assist you. The City appreciates your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, ~~ r...c-z:. teven Horsman, Building Inspector . 16200 E~Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY E"IPLOYER - - ._..._q-...._.~'.........--...- .,;,._......._.~...',....;....:~... ~ ,-,'.'," --'- ~ ATTACHMENT 6 · APPELLANT LETTER DATED 3/21/03 ~~--:"~~~ [i ~~C~l:,-~l TO: Steven Horsman and Staff City of Prior Lake ~( MI1R24~ ,i : FROM: John and Arlene Kalton I! [ !: DATE: March 21, 2003 . W I..IL---- I .' ','. _--.J L./ RE: Grandfathering Appeal After we received the letter dated October 18 regarding an apparent violation the following action was taken: Visited your office to purchase a kennel license. We were told we could not have a kennel license in a residential area. In view of this refusal we pursued the purchase of eight licenses for our adult dogs. This request was denied and we were told that only three dog licenses could be acquired which was aI/owed at that time. Up until the October 18 notice, we were under the impression that living at our residence since 1966, at which time was in Eagle Creek Township, we were grandfathered with our dog population. Citing John Kop having horses and other livestock - Larry Haferman having goats - Farmer Vierlings herd of cows. In 1980 and before we had more than eight dogs. No mention was made regarding time limitations on legal non-conforming land use. We were told that Staff decisions could be appealed to the Planning and Zoning commission and eventually City Council. We were asked to furnish proof of possession of dogs before to 1980. This information was attained from the American Kennel Club through a thorough record search and this ownership record for the period before 1980 is outlined in the attached copy of the letter sent to your office on February 8. Your March 4 letter does not allude to or mention receipt of this information and our grandfather status request. . Sincerely, ~~ Q" ~ !(~ Arlene and Joh<< Kalton 15594 Hill Circle S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 ATTACHMENT 7 - STAFF LETTER DATED 4/16/05 April 16, 2003 John & Arlene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kalton: Mr. Rye, Community Development Director, has reviewed your written request appealing my decision to deny your described "Grandfathered Use" of a dog kennel (8 dogs) in an R-1 District on your property at 15594 Hill Circle. Staff has concluded your request for a legal nonconforming use does not meet the minimum standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, as stated in my letter addressed to you dated March 4, 2003. Specifically, Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.2305 requires that an application for a Certificate of Occupancy for a legal non-conforming land use shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator by the owner or lessee of the building or land occupied by the non- conforming use within 1 year of the effective date of this Ordinance (adopted in 1999). You have the option to appeal staffs decision to the Board of Adjustment (Planning Commission) by filing a Notice of Appeal to the City Planning Department within 5 days of this written notice stating the action appealed from and stating the specific grounds for the appeal (see enclosed Ordinance Sec. 1109.301). If you should decide not to appeal this decision, the City of Prior Lake shall require your cooperation in correcting the violation on or before May 31,2003, by limiting the number of dogs or cats you keep on your property to a maximum of three. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, or are not able to meet the compliance date, call my direct phone number at 447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I will assist you. The City of Prior Lake appreciates your cooperation on this matter. CC: Don Rye; Bob Hutchins .. 16200 ~e Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN FOIIAI OPPORT1INrrY EMPI OVFR . :.;.. ~:".: ;...:..-':':,:,,-.:,,::"-o','p:":-:". .........-_~,;a;_:...:............._~:.....:-;......_..._.-:......: - --_. -- :~-;..~. ..---. ..- -. ~_ - "... ..C_'- ,.___'__ ATTACHMENT B. NOTICE OF APP~AL C3=% r:- .~i~:; i~~..:~~ _. - -.;~l .~ APR 2 5 anJ I; April 23, 2003 . . .-i ~;...,--,-._. .-------...--.-.:.:..-....' Board of Adjustment Planning Department City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RE: Appeal - Non-conforming Land Use We are submitting an appeal to the decision regarding our request for non-conforming land use. In addition to the material submitted previously to Mr. Horsman we wish to submit the following: We were not aware of the ordinance adopted in 1999 requiring that an application for a certificate of occupancy for a legal non-conforming land use be filed within one year of the effective date. We would be available to answer questions. ReSpeCtf~~WJed, ~k~ John and Arlene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RESOLUTION 03-05PC A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO NOT PERMIT A KENNEL USE IN AN R-l DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. John & Arlene Kalton have filed an Appeal from the Zoning Administrator's decision to not permit a kennel use out of a single family dwelling on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland) District at the following location, to wit; 15594 Hill Circle SE, legally described as Lot 3 Lakeside Manor 151 Addition, Scott County, MN 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the request for an Appeal as contained in Case #03-046PC and held hearings thereon on May 27,2003. 3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding the illegal use and the effect of the proposed Appeal on the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 4. The general performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance includes special provisions to allow for a legal nonconforming use, the appellants request does not meet the minimum standard. 5. Section 1107.2053 of the Zoning Ordinance specifically states, in part, that an application for a Certificate of Occupancy for a nonconforming land use shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator within 1 year of the effective date of this Ordinance. 6. The appellant has not demonstrated reasonable or factual support to justify his claim of a legal nonconforming kennel use under the provisions ofthe Zoning Ordinance. 7. The contents of Planning Case #03-046PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. . CONCLUSION 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-46 kalton\denyres.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following Appeal from the Zoning Administrator's decision to not allow the following; 1. An animal kennel to be considered a legal nonconforming land use within the R-l District. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 27,2003. sl Anthony Stamson Anthony Stamson, Chairman ATTEST: s/Donald Rye Donald R. Rye, Director of Community Development 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-46 kalton\denyres.doc 2 PUBLIC HEARING conduc~e CITY COUNCIL 11 if(J{)~ The City Council welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to speak before you address the Council again and limit your comments to new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible except under rare occasions. Thank you. ATTENDANCE-PLEASE PRINT L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP.doc Page 1 of 1 Connie Carlson From: theserras@integraonline.com Sent: Monday, July 07,20033:27 PM To: ccarlson@cityofpriorlake.com Subject: Kalton Appeal Dear City Council Members, July 7, 2003 We are unable to attend this evenings meeting, however we wanted to be on record for the appeal process. We live across the street from the Kalton's and agree with the planning commission's decision to deny a dog kennel to be located at the Kalton's residence. We feel that 8-12 dogs is excessive for a residential area and also goes against the Lakeside association rules. We were made aware that there were up to 16 dogs this past spring which included 8 puppies. Since we moved into our home in may 2002, we have had several occasions where the dogs were all outside and barking for 15-20 minutes non-stop. We made several reports about this to the police and the city planner has taken reports from us as well. The police and city planner have been very helpful in assisting us with our concerns. My husband has talked to Mr. Kalton as well. In this case, the noise alone is enough reason to deny a kennel in our neighborhood. We have been woken up at all hours of the night and at times during the day the barking is enough to send us into our home to get away from the noise. This winter while someone other than the Kalton's were taking care of the dogs, they were let outside at 1 am and again at 4 am and were out for 10-15 minutes each time barking non-stop. We should not have to listen to this non-stop barking from 1 dog let alone up to 12 dogs. We are the owners of 2 dogs that are outside in our yard most of the day when we are home. They are very quiet dogs and only rarely ever bark. They may lick you if you enter our yard, but they are not allowed to bark. We feel it is important that our dogs do not disturb others. The presidence has already been set for the amount of noise the Kalton's allow their dogs to make and we are tired of it. We are strongly apposed to allowing a dog kennel. We ask that their appeal for a dog kennel be located in a single family R-1. district be denied. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Gina and George Serra 15581 Hill Circle SE &, - (r - 7/7/2003 ~o } ') d 00 -3 _j_Q.~fI- 1 QJ~ .titLt-~~~ m . ~_.._ ._~....~~~ .~~-~:_:~:f~::-4inML -fU\1P~~~M u. ..._..___~-1\Cl-1 \ L",\uuLL -.. -r~-~o.l\J.rOn~-L~Q\u0 --. u_~-~~~~--~\'\d.0 L_~.(POj - Qt{\ ~1 ... ....___n_tt1u~_~-U)._. ~~nnD-J ~~ ~.:u)tt~:n~ dvocp_,. .-r.~....C1M-- _..~ . ~~~~L -~-_....~. WJL... ~~.....~",^~m. ~L . -- :~)J.U.dJ .~ ~.~ \ ~'-, l}\J ~ .:. J [' c:'}d a:J3