Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-58 Kalton PC AppealNOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: 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-1 DISTRICT WAS NOT A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15594 HILL CIRCLE SE You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, July 7, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: John & Arlene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 SUBJECT SITE: 15594 Hill Circle SE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as Lot 3, Lakeside Manor 1st Addition, Scott County, MN REQUEST: The applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the appellants request to allow a dog kennel with 8 - 12 dogs in a single family dwelling located in an R-1 District (Low Density Residential) as a legal, nonconforming use. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the heating. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City Council will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed land use is or is not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prepared this 17th day of July, 2003. Steven Horsman City of Prior Lake To be published in the Prior Lake American on July 21, 2003. C:\WlNDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31A0\cc hearing notice.doc ~ 16200 Eagle Creek Avel S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 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 carded 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 staff's 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 of the 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-1 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 of the 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 REVIEWED BY: A motion and second to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny th.e appeal of the zoning administrators decision to~enn~~nforming land use. Frank B~y ~anager L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-46 Kalton\CCREPORT.doc 4 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 HII,L CIRCLE SE MOTION BY: SECOND BY: 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 (Shoreland Overlay District) at 15594 Hill Circle SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Lakeside Manor 1st 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 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 The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #03-046 and Case File g03-058, 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 overturning the decision of the Planning Commission. 3) The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decisionto deny an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision that a dog kennel located in the R-1 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 1 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. do 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\0346 kalton\dnyccres.doc Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 7, 2003 PC MINUTES 5/27/03 * Concurred with Staff and Commissioners. · The sewer line on this property is unique and creates a set t of the garage. That warrants the first two variances from setbacks, ~ · The second variance to ce etween the structures - noting the neighbor's ~. e,. d garage 4 fe.¢t away/ ... ~.~l'fi~~ is n~ot a h~. ~r.dsh. ip 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. Open Discussion: Lemke: ~ · Assuming the sidewalks are included in the impervious surface calculations. "'""'x · Noting condition number 4 in the staff report indicates the driveway~s~.aced with bituminous or concrete. Could that be changed to ~!!~'.',' i3;.vct~? Icansier and Kirc~ M~ ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-03PC ~Pr?PROVING A 17.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 11 FOOT SIDE YARD F Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND B~G RESOLUTION 03-04PC DENYING A 6.8 PERCENT V~ILIfixN'L~ FROM THE 31.5 PERCENT MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS S~GE'~"rANDARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE. 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-1 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\03pcMinutesXMN052703.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 staffwould 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 R1 district? Staff responded three. Comments from the Public: John Kalton, 15594 Hill Circle, represented his wife, Arlene Kalton as the owner of the dogs. 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. He 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 R1 District. All of their dogs are vaccinated and confined 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. Kaltons submitted proof from the American Kennel Club indicating they had 12 dogs L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesWIN052703.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 7, 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 of the 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 Kalton 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 Kalton 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 of the applicant's letter and asked Kalton if he 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 Kaltons 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 Kalton and the police have been involved. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN052703.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 7, 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 concern with Kalton's water running into their property. They have spent thousands of dollars in landscape so their runoff does not mn 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 mn 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 heating was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · Agreed with staff's 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 staffwould 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 staffbased 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\03pcMinutesWIN052703.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 7, 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 know 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 know 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. 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 staff's recommendation and interpretation. Open Discussion: Atwood: · Agreed staff's 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 staff's 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. 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 staff's 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\03pcMinutesXMN052703.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\03pcMinuteshMN052703.doc 9 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, ~ John and Arlene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 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 INTRODUCTION: 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 Pcdministrator 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 staffs 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(ld), the pro visions 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: 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. Tabl~ or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-46 Kalton\KltnAPLRPT.DOC Page 2 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 DATE: From: ATTAC 2 - APPELLANT LETTER Frank Boyles, City Manager Steven Horsman, Building Inspector City of Prior Lake October 23, 2002 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 properly 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, J Kalton Arlene M. Kalton Dated John and Arlene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Phone: 952-447-3958 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 keeping 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 Pdor 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, 'Steven Horsman, Building Inspector 16200 Ei~t~e~eek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. M~nesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 Al'q EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 'ATTACHMENT 3- APPELLANT LE DATED 2/10/0; TO: Steven Horsman, Building Inspector , City of Prior Lake DATE: February 8, 2003 From: John and Arlene RE: Grandfathedng 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 BI/Tan HB-246062 3. May, 1971 Lee's Tamera Kay M Red HB-298585 4. June, 1971 Kal's Samson of Leonca M BI/Tan HB-638086 5. August, 1971 .Kal Mit-Zee Purl M BI/Tan 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 Gid 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 BI/Tan HC-619635 13. November, 1979 Kal's Ado Annie M Red HC-908418 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, Arlene and Joh ton 15594 Hill Circle S.E. Pdor Lake, Minnesota 55372 ATTACHMENT'4- ORDINANCE ,SEC. 1107.2304 Appeals. With the exception of subsection 1107.2303(ld), 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) Cio' of Prior Lake May 22. 1999 ATTACHMENT 5- STAFF LETTER DATED 3/4/03 March 4, 2003 John & Adene 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 prior 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 Apdl 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, Steven Horsman, Building Inspector 16200 E~Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 4474245 ...... AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ATTACHMENT 6- APPELLANT LETTER DATED 3/21/03 TO: Steven Horsman and Staff City of Pdor Lake FROM: John and Arlene Kalton DATE: March 21, 2003 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 allowed 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, Arlene and Joh¥~ Kalton 15594 Hill Circle S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 ATTACHMENT 7 - STAFF LETTER DATED 4/16/0 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 Cerb'ficate 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 I year of the effective date of this Ordinance (adopted in 1999). You have the option to appeal staff's 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. Si.n. cerely,/. ~Ieven morsman, Building Inspector CC: Don Rye; Bob Hutchins 16200 L~e Creek Ave. S,E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 ..... AN FC)HAL OPPORTUNITY EMP[.aYER ATTACHMENT 8 - NOTICE OF APPEAL ~..-.- ::::-:--.: April 23, 2003 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. Respectfully s~ub. mitted, John and Arlene Kaiton 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-1 DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 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-1 (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 1st Addition, Scott County, MN 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the request for an Appeal as contained in Case #03-046PC and held heatings thereon on May 27, 2003. o 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. 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. o 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 of the 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 1 16200 Ea~le 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-1 District. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 27, 2003. ATTEST: s/ Anthony Stamson Anthony Stamson, Chairman s/Donald Rye Donald R. Rye, Director of Community Development 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-46 kalton\denyres.doc 2 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, John and Arlene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBSECTIONS: 802.100: 802.200: 802.300: 802.400: 802.500: 802.600: 802.700: 802.800: 802.900: 802.1000: 802.1100: 802.1200: 802.1300: 802.1400: 802.1500: 802.1600: 802.1700: 802.1800: 802.1900: 802.2000: SECTION 8O2 DOGS AND CATS STATE STATUTES ADOPTED LICENSE REQUIRED LICENSE FEES: EXPIRATION ISSUE LICENSE: TAG LOST, COUNTERFEIT TAGS KENNELS: LICENSE REQUIRED ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY BITES AND RABIES UNLAWFUL ACTS NUISANCE IMPOUNDMENT AND NOTICE IMPOUNDMENT RECORDS RECLAIMING DOGS OR CATS BREAK OPEN ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS: DANGEROUS DOG RESTRICTIONS ON POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF DANGEROUS DOGS DANGEROUS DOGS AT LARGE EXEMPTION FROM PROVISIONS PENALTY Police Regulations PURPOSE: The City recognizes that pets are an important part of many families. There is a need for an ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City and pets living in the City. The purpose of this Section is to balance the needs of pet owners with the needs of citizens who are not pet owners. Additionally, the licensing of pets contained herein is intended to provide a mechanism for the return of lost pets to their rightful owners. 802.100: STATE STATUTES ADOPTED: The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 35.67, 35.68 and 35.69, as amended, are hereby adopted by reference and are incorporated in and made part of this Section as completely as if the same were set out in full. 802.200: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall keep any dog over 3 months of age within the City without securing a license from the City. The City Manager shall keep a record of all licenses issues. City of P#or Lake 802/pl (1) (2) Pofice Regulations Neutered or S.oayed Dogs or Cats. The license fee for non-neutered or non- spayed dogs or cats will be higher than that for spayed/neutered dogs or cats. In order to be eligible for the lower license fee, the City Manager or the Manager's designee must be presented with a certificate from a veterinarian showing the dog or cat has been spayed/neutered and the date of the procedure. Vaccination Re0uired. Every.dog and cat shall be vaccinated against rabies. Every application for a new or renewal license shall be accompanied by a certificate of vaccination from a veterinarian indicating the dog or cat has been vaccinated to protect it from rabies during the term of the license. 802.300: LICENSE FEES: EXPIRATION: A license is issued for two (2) consecutive years. The bi-annual license fee for male dogs or cats, neutered male dogs or cats, spayed female dogs or cats or unspayed female dogs or cats shall be set annually by the City Council. All licenses shall expire on December 31st of the second year following its issuance. The City Manager shall publish a notice of the necessity of obtaining a license to be printed in the official newspaper of the City one time each year before October 1st. Failure to publish notice shall not in any way invalidate any provisions of this Chapter. License fees shall not be prorated. 802.400 ISSUE LICENSE: TAG: Upon payment of the license fee and proof of vaccination, the City Manager shall issue both a receipt and a suitable metallic tag to the applicant. The applicant shall affix the tag by a permanent metal fastening to the collar of the dog is such a manner that the tag may be easily seen. 802.500: LOST, COUNTERFEIT TAGS: Dog or cat tags shall not be transferable and no refunds shall be made of any license fees. Upon presentation of a license receipt for the current year, and payment of a duplicate dog or cat fee, a duplicate dog or cat tag may be issued by the City Manager if the original dog or cat tag is lost. The fee for obtaining a duplicate tag shall be $5.00. It shall be unlawful to counterfeit or attempt to counterfeit a license tag, or to take a legally placed license tag from any dog or cat and place said tag upon another dog or cat. 802.600: KENNELS: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall maintain, within the City, a dwelling unit, as defined in the Zoning Code, where more than 3 dogs or cats or combination thereof are kept without securing a kennel license from the City Manager. The fee for said license shall be determined at the discretion of the City Council. 802.700: ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY: The City Manager or designee shall designate an Animal Control Officer who shall contract for animal control services with a city of Prior Lake 802/p2 Police Regulations qualified animal control facility. Additionally, the City Manager or other authorized City official may make arrangements with local veterinarians, kennels or humane societies for the care and custody of dog or cats as may be deemed necessary. 802.800: 802.801 802.802 (1) (2) (3) BITES AND RABIES: Bites. It shall be the duty of every person having knowledge of a bite by any dog or cat which occurred within the City to report the same to the Prior Lake Police Department as soon as practical after the bite occurs. This report shall include a description of the dog or cat, the address of the owner of the dog or cat if known, and, if known, the name, address and age of any person injured. Impoundment. Any dog or cat which has bitten a person may be immediately seized whether on or off the owner's premises and quarantined for a period of at least 10 days. Where no current rabies vaccination of the do or cat can be proven or upon written demand by the bite victim to the City Animal Control Officer, the dog or cat shall be impounded at the City animal control facility. The owner shall be responsible for the impoundment costs and shall make arrangements in advance for the payment of these costs. Impoundment at City Facility. In the case of a dog or cat with no known owner, the dog or cat shall be quarantined in the City Animal Control Facility. If no owner can be identified, the dog or cat shall be treated as an unclaimed dog or cat and kept at the City Animal Control Facility as set forth in subsection 802.1302. Impoundment at Owner Selected Facility. The owner may provide impoundment at a City approved animal kennel or veterinarian, provided that until such provisions is made, the dog or cat shall be impounded in the City Animal Control Facility. The owner shall notify the Animal Control Officer and shall furnish written certification that the dog or cat is being impounded. For the purposes of this Section, an approved animal kennel shall mean a kennel within or outside the City limits that is approved by the City or the Animal Control officer or a kennel that has entered into an agreement with the City to keep dogs or cats in a manner consistent with this and all other ordinances of the City. Upon expiration of the required 10 days, if the dog or cat does not have any symptoms of rabies, it may be released to the owner after a licensed veterinarian has examined the dog or cat and has agreed to the release. Euthanasia. In accordance with state statute, if the veterinarian at the City Animal Control Facility deems it necessary, the dog or cat shall be subject to euthanasia by injection. The City may have an autopsy performed on any dead dog or cat or on any dog or cat euthanized while impounded to determine if it was diseased. City of Prior Lake 802/p3 802.900: 802.901 802.902 802.903 Police Regulations UNLAWFUL ACTS: All Dogs and Cats Must Be Leashed. It shall be unlawful for any owner or keeper of a dog or cat to walk said dog or cat without the dog or cat being leashed. Running At Large. No dog or cat shall run at large within the limits of the City. The term "run at large" shall mean going on or about the public streets, alleys, public parks, school grounds or other public places, or on any private premises (except the premises of the owner or keeper of said dog or cat), without the owner's permission, unless said dog or cat is effectively restrained by a chain or leash. Waste Removal. It shall be unlawful for any owner or keeper of a dog or cat to permit solid wastes of the dog or cat to accumulate on the owner's or keeper's premises or more than 24 hours. Solid wastes from the dog or cat must be immediately removed from public property or private property of another and disposed of in a trash container. 802.1000: 802.1001 802.1002 802.1003 802.1004 NUISANCE: Owner Res.~onsibility. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or keeper of any dog or cat in the City, whether permanently or temporarily therein, to prevent such dog or cat from committing any act which constitutes a nuisance. It shall be considered a nuisance for any owner or keeper of a dog or cat to allow a dog or cat to habitually or frequently bark, cry, meow or whimper; to frequent school grounds, parks or other public areas while unrestrained; to chase vehicles; to fight with other dogs or cats; to chase and kill birds; to molest, defile, destroy any public or private property; or to leave excrement on any property, public or private. Impoundment For Nuisance. The Animal Control Officer or police officer may issue a citation to the property owner and the owner of any dog or cat which has been permitted to habitually bark, cry, meow, whimper, howl, whine or emit any other loud or unusual noise. Whenever the owner of such dog or cat cannot be immediately located or who has failed, upon order by the Animal Control Officer or police officer, to prevent such dog or cat from making such noises, the Animal Control Officer or police officer may seize, impound or restrain the dog or cat. Interference With Animal Control Officer. It is unlawful for the owner of keeper of a dog or cat to interfere with any police officer, Animal Control Officer or other authorized City employee in the performance of his/her duty to enforce this Section. Common Law Nuisance. Nothing in this section is intended to limit the City or any individual from proceeding under any common law nuisance theory. City of Prior Lake 802/p4 Steve Horsman From: Sent: To: Subject: Steve Horsman Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:56 AM 'legal@swpub.com' Public notice for publication in Prior Lake American on 6/21/03. cc hearin8 notice.doc Page 1 of 1 Connie Carlson From: theserras@integraonline.com Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 3:27 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 7/7/2003 E t 25, 2003 Scott County Recorder Scott County Government Center 200 Fourth Avenue West Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed for recording is a Tree and Correct Copies of Prior Lake Resolution 03-111 and Ordinance 03-08 RESOLUTION 03-111 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 and ORDINANCE NO. 03-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.700 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Please send the documentation and your statement to my attention at the address below. ~[f you have any questions, let me know. Thank you. Planning Dept. Secretary eric. RECLTR ~ 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER / \ FILE COPY July 29, 2003 John and Adene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Request to Continue a Kennel as a Nonconforming Use Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kalton: This letter is to officially inform you that on July 7, 2003, the Prior Lake City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to deny your appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision that a dog kennel located on your property be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. The City Council determined that you have 6 months from the date of the resolution, or until December 23, 2003, to bring the premises into compliance. I have enclosed a copy of Resolution #03-111 for your records. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Steve Horsman at 447- 9854. Sincerely, k.._.) Jane Kansier, AICP Planning Coordinator Enclosure C: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator 16200 E~l~t'~r1~ll~.l~~?r~,al~l:lflnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER July 29, 2003 John and Arlene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Request to Continue a Kennel as a Nonconforming Use Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kalton: This letter is to officially inform you that on July 7, 2003, the Prior Lake City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to deny your appeal of the LO~eo~ Zoning Administrator's decision that a dog kennel located on your property be allowed to continue as a non--City Council determined that you have 6 months from the J~.~f_the resol-tinn.tol' until December 23, 2:003~~ ~"") to bring the premises into complianc~ i-ha~e enclosed a copy of Resolu~on-- #03-111 for your records. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Steve Horsman at 447- 9854. Sincerely, Kansier, AICP Planning Coordinator Enclosure C: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator 16200 El'&~'~rt~-~~.l~C:Flff~?~,l~flnesota 553~2-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER August6,2003 John and Arlene Kalton 15594 Hill Circle SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Request to Continue a Kennel as a Nonconforming Use Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kalton: / This letter is to officially inform you that on July 7, 2003, the Prior Lake City' Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to deny your appeal o[ the Zoning Administrator's decision that a dog kennel located on your propertyl be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. The City Council determined that you have 6 months from the date of the resolution, or until January 7, 2004, to bring the premises into compliance. If you have any questions, please feel free to call my direct dial phone number at 447-9854. The City of Prior Lake appreciates your cooperation on this ma~ter. Sincerely, Steve Horsman Building Inspector 16200 ~erb-le~0e~a~l~3~.~.,(¥1~?~da~,l~fl?~nesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Resolution and Minutes L:\TEMPLATE~FILEINF0.DOC Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Stflmson: Concurred with Staff and Commissioners. The sewer line on this property is unique and creates a set of hardships in placemtnt of the garage. That warrants the first two variances from setbacks, i The second variance to allow clearance between the structures- noting the neighbgr's garage is a detached garage 4 feet away. The 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. Open Discussion: Lemke: · · Assuming the sidewalks are included in the impervious surface calculations. : Noting condition number 4 in the staff report indicates the driveway should be surfaced with bituminous or concrete. Could that be changed to allow pavers? Kansier an :1 Kirchoff said they could. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-0 APPROVING A 17.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT 'i SETBACK AND A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 11 FOOT SIDE YA~ SEPARATION SETBACK INCLUDING THE 8 CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAF REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-041 DENYING A 6.8 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE 31.5 PERCENT MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STANDARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACH] GARAGE. Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Criego, Lemke and Stamson. Nay by Atwood. MI CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. / B. Case 803-46 John and Arlene Kalton are appealing the Zoning Administrattr's decision to not permit a dog kennel land use in an R-1 District. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 27, 2003 in the office of the City Planning Department. The Planning Department received an Appeal Notice from John & Arlene Kalton regardi staff's decision to not allow a dog kennel land use. Staff received complaints regarding number of dogs on the subject property. 3PC 'ARD ~D F ~C gD }TION on file tg The appellant submitted documentation on 14 dogs they stated to have retrieved from th 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\03pcMinutesXMN052703.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 7, 2003 nonconforming land use under Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.2305. Staff determined th be illegal and responded with a decision to deny the request for a legal non-conforming la: In addition, the City does not have a record of any dogs being licensed at the subject prop~ prior to November 13, 2002, when the owners visited City Hall to acquire dog licenses aft notification of the violation. This appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator is site specific to the subject prop and does not affect the way in which the ordinance is applied in all situations. The reques legal non-conforming land use does not meet the ordinance requirement as spelled out in report. Staff therefore recommended the Planning Commission uphold the decision of tht Administrator. Questions from Commissioners: Lemke: · Questioned the appeal provisions requested in the applicant's letter. Horsman ex the nonconforming use. Kansier said the issue is the applicant is appealing the C decision to the Commissioners. It will not necessarily go to the Council, but stat.~ review the ordinance to be sure. Ringstad: · If the applicants would have applied for a kennel license back in 1999 what woul, City's response? Kansier said the 1983 ordinance required a conditional use pern kennels in the residential districts. Kaltons had no conditional use permit. The d would be if they had licensed their dogs on a regular basis and could show over tl they had maintained this number of animals, the staff would have looked at it dill 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 R1 district? Staff respond{ Comments from the Public: John Kalton, 15594 Hill Circle, represented his wife, Arlene Kalton as the ownerof the d gave a history of the lot to indicate grandfathering the use in. His property was originall: Eagle Creek Township. At that time, the township official explained many items includi animals would be grandfathered into City. The Kaltons were first aware of the problem in October of 2002 when staff sent a letter o violation. Kaltons replied that when Eagle Creek Township was annexed into the city lit were no pet restrictions and requested noncompliance of Section 802.66 or Section 1102. District. All of their dogs are vaccinated and confined to their property by a 3 foot chain fence. Kalton stated miniature dachshunds are small, the size of rabbits. use to la use. er ~rty, t fora he Zoning .lained ty's 'would t be the lit for ifference te years brently t three. gs. He ' in ag ['a aits there 44R1 .linked 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. Kaltons submitted proof from the American Kennel Club indicating they had 12 dogs L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesWIN052703.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 S~aff they had not met requirements for a legal nonconforming land use. This was the first tim~ 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 Apri 4, 2003; no mention was made of the grandfather request. Kalton said he was under the imp ression that living at theft residence since 1966 they would be grandfathered in. They would like ':o continue to raise dachshunds as a hobby for the estate lifetime of owner, Arlene Kalton. ?hey do not view this as a kennel business and are requesting noncompliance for 8 of their dogs. [alton pointed out Meda Kop's farm animals are in the City of Prior Lake. He also stated they willing to pay license fees. Kalton said they have had 16 different neighbors in 4 different properties. To their knowl dge one complaint has been filed. No citations were given to them by police. Kalton felt a dr,g 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 Kalton if he was breeding and selling dogs or raising and showing the m. Kalton said they are raising dogs for show. As the dogs become older they are ne utered, spade and then sold. They have two litters a year. They now have 8 dogs. In Oc' :ober they had 12 dogs. As the dogs become ill they are euthanatized. When they becol ne older they are given up for adoption. They keep the show dogs. Kalton said they will 1 :eep theft 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 we confined to the back of the house. · Was Kalton aware of the need for dog license? He responded he was aware but :lt he was grandfathered from licensing. · Questioned Kalton if he ever went to the City to ask to have a license for the do ~. Kalton said not until they were given the notice. Atwood: · Read part of the applicant's letter and asked Kalton if he will ever keep more tha ~ 8 dogs. He responded they will not go above 8 dogs. They reduced their number of 12 d, >gs to 8. They may keep less. Jeff Amgoni, 5201 Candy Cove Trail, back yard neighbor to Kaltons and have lived at tl: eir residence for 10 years. Arrigoni asked the Commissioners to picture theft back yards wilh a fence 30 feet from the back door - 8 to 10 dogs constantly barking for the last 10 years. (}ne of the problems is that over time dogs get use to the neighbors and they won't bark. As Kal Ion 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 theft house so they let them ~utside. Amgoni said they have had enough. He never complained or called the police onKaltons dogs. Arrigoni said he was not going to come tonight until he received a complaint on the fenc, he was building to keep the dogs out. Arrigoni explained his wife's harassment from Mr. Kaltor There has been a history of harassing behavior by John Kalton and the police have been involved. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesWIN052703.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2003 Kalton calling the City to complain about his fence to keep Kalton's dogs from barking last straw. The dogs have barked for l0 years and he is tired of it. Arlene Kalton said the dogs do not bark all the time, they "woof, woof". Kalton stated th accusations are ridiculous. They have had 16 different neighbors and only one has been a problem. The neighbor has indicated they have a concern with Kalton's water running in property. They have spent thousands of dollars in landscape so their runoff does not run neighbor's yard. Stamson explained the issue is the dog kennels. Arlene Kalton said the illusion ismade fl are selling dogs and making a lot of money. This is an expensive hobby. They have beer members and Board of Directors of the Minnesota Dachshunds Club for over 30 years. S champion dogs. They are not the only neighbors with barking dogs. What are they going They lived in Prior Lake 37 years and assumed they were grandfathered in. Kalton stated dogs are smart and knows who likes them. They do not run back and forth barking all the Stamson asked what the top number of dogs they have owned. Kalton said 13, the least dogs that are housed in the basement. They do not tolerate barking any more than anyon~ The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: 'as the Rin'stadAgreedg: with staff's assessment. Mr. Kalton noted his dogs are very small. If th~l Commission gets into the idea that 5 small dogs equal 3 mid-size dogs, it is the Wrong approach to take. / Deny the application. their ~to the tat they · active he has to do? her , time. ;8or9 else. 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 situttion 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. I 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 iegularly 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~ased 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\03pcMinutesLMN052703.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 2 7, 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 know that information. Agree with Commissioner Ringstad, 3 is 3. The ordinance does not stoop to the 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 1 ~een around for a long time. ;ize of · If the dogs would have been licensed in the last 5 to 10 years it could have possib!y been grandfathered in. Most people know they need to have the dogs licensed. · The applicant assumed they were grandfathered in without checking it out. That !s the problem. · The ordinance states 3 dogs. Agree with staff's recommendation. 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 staff's recommendation and interpretation. Open Discussion: Atwood: · Agreed staff's 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 staff's 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. 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 staff's 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\03pcMinutesWIN052703.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\03pcMinutesWIN052703.doc 9 City Council Meeting Minutes ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: SD- Consider Approval of an On. Sale Liquor License Extension for Hollywood Bar & Grill. Zleska: Noted that with the alcohol license extension, an outdoor concert will be conducted on Saturday, July 19a. Normally, outdoor concert permits do not come before the Council. Asked City staff to closely watch the conduct of this outdoor concert as well to see that City ordinances am met. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE THE ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE EXTENSION FOR HOLLYWOOD BAR & GRILL. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petemen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 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-1 District was not a Legal Non-Conforming Use. (Case File #03-05~PC ) Horsman: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff m port. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open at 7:45pm. John Kalton (15594 Hill Cir SE): Advised that they purchased the pm perty in 1967 when it was in Eagle Creek Township. At the time of the annexation of the property, the City Council explained that many items would be grandfathered in as exceptions to City uses. When Eagle Creek Township was annexed in them warn no mstrictions to pets. Advised that all the dogs am vaccinated and confined to their pm perry. Further explained that them pm perry is mom than adequate to house these types of small dogs, and that he felt they were not required to meet the require merits and were gmndfathered in as a msuit of the annexation. Staff did informed them that they were in violation of the kennel pm visions. Do not view this hobby of raising dogs as a kennel business. This hobby is not a for-profit business. Continued that they have many neighbom and them has been only one complaint, The dogs have never bitten anyone, Believed he has been put in a position to defend statements made by his neighbor at the Planning Commission meeting. Further believed complaints by his neighbor am a result of separate issues with erosion of his property. Submitted a statement in support, Zleska: Asked if them was anything require ment at the time in order to be grandfathered in. Kalton: Advised that he did not asked if them were m quire ments to be gmndfathered. LeMair: Asked if he has continually maintained dogs in this fashion since 1966, and asked if any neighbor ever approached him privately about issues with the dogs, or that some compromise could have been met. Kalton: Advised that he has continually maintained the dogs, the maximum being 12, and that Mr. Arfigoni called the police and did not approach him privately. Did admit that 12 dogs continually barking over a period of 5-10 minutes could be a nuisance. Blomberg: Asked if Kaltons raise the dogs for show. Further mad Kalton's statement regarding "a ruckus". Asked what he considered a ruckus. Also asked about bark collars. Kalton: Advised that the dogs am raised as pets, and they recently have had one dog that has qualified for show. Dogs not kept as pets have been sold. Them am one or two litters per year. Explained that with mspect to a "ruckus", a dominate 3 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2003 male dog is typically a watch dog. If others not known to the dogs approach, the dominate male will bark, which starts other dogs barking. Advised that one older dog now has a bark collar. Haugen: Asked how many dogs have they had over this time pedod and if any of the dogs have been licensed. Kalton: Advised that over the years, they have probably had 30 dogs, none of which were licensed until this past October when we became aware of the requirement. Asked why dogs are licensed. Boyle, s: Advised that licensing is required for identification purposes, for inoculation purposes, to identify dangerous dogs and public nuisances. There are likely additional reasons addressed in the ordinance. Jeff Arrigoni (5201 Candy Cove): Stated neither he or his wife ever called the police on Mr. Kalton's dogs. The reason the police were called, was because Mr. Kalton was dragging large trees across the property and through his back yard. The dogs were barking so much, we couldn't even talk to John about what he was doing. Advised that is primary concern is that the landscaping on Kaitons' property is causing soil erosion on the his property. Does have concerns about the number of dogs. If it was always the same eight dogs, it would be different. Every six months there are new dogs which bark at everything. This number of dogs in this type of enterprise does have impacts on a residential neighborhood. No other persons were present to speak on this subject. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carded. LeMair: Commented that he once lived in the neighborhood in the past and did not remember a problem, but he had lived a block and a half away. Does feel the number of dogs is excessive and could be a nuisance to adjacent neighbors, and the area has become much more developed than when the Kaltons first built their home. Believes the City ordinance is reasonable. Zleska: Asked staff if there is any provision in the ordinance regarding breeding dogs. Added that there is a difference of opinion between the Kaltons and staff in that Kaltons feel they are not in the dog selling business for profit. However, selling dogs is selling dogs. Also commented that he can remember the name of every dog he's had. It did not appear that these animals are pets because the Kaltons are not even sure how many dogs they've had. Believes it is a kennel operation. Agree with staff and the Planning Commission. Horeman: Explained with respect to kennels there is no exception, but with respect to licensing, dogs are not required to have licenses until they are 3 months old. Petersen: Advised that he lived in Bloomington when it was still terms, and the area grew into a City. Prior Lake is similar in that it is becoming a large city with many residents. What is permitted 30 years ago does not work now. Believed the kennel operation is not a reasonable use in a residential neighborhood. Blomberl:l: Commented that she would like to specifically address the issue of a kennel business outside of the issues of noise. Advised that her father operates a kennel and she appreciates the Kaltons concerns. Being a landowner means being responsible for knowing what laws apply. City staff who visits a property for one issue, are not responsible for evaluating compliance with all possible ordinances. Sees a repeated pattern in that the Kaltons stated they have had dogs for 30 years with one or two litters per year. The math would conservatively indicate heady 120 dogs. The dogs were sold. Read the ordinance in place in 1963 pdor to the Kaltons beginning the business. Since there is no record of a conditional use permit, or licensing, she believes the violation is accurate. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2003 Haugen: Commented that running a business doesn't necessarily mean you make money. The fact that there are repetitive cycles of dogs that am sold indicates that this is a business. W'~ respect to the licensing issue, Haugen read the Planning Commission minutes with Kalton's comments, wherein the Planning Coordinator discusses the illegal use versus a non- conforming use. Neighborhoods need to be protected from businesses. Supported the Planning Commission's decision. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03-111 UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S THAT A DOG KENNEL LOCATED ON PROPERTY AT 15594 HILL CIRCLE SE, PRIOR LAKE, MN, IN AN R-1 DISTRICT IS NOT A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE, AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS MUST RECONCILE THE ISSUE WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM JULY 7, 2003. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, ~eska, and LeMair, the motion carded. Consider Approval of an Appeal to the Planning Commission's Decision to Grant Variances for the Constmcgon of a Detached Garage on Property Located at 14948 Pixie Point Circle SE. (Edward Feiker- Case Rle #03.56). Kircholf: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Zleeka: Asked for verification that Mr. Fieker's garage is 4 feet off the property line, and so the McGahey's are asking for a 6-foot variance that would put their garage 5 feet from the lot line. Kirchoff: Confirmed, advising that the ordinance requires a 15 foot separation. So, if Mr. Feiker's garage is 4 feet from the lot line, the McGahey's garage would need to be 11 feet. The topography and available area only provides for 5 feet, thus the 6 foot variance. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open at 8:26pm. Edward Feiker (1494 Pixie Point Circ/e): Stated that he moved into an existing residence and the garage was already built. At that time, he did not believe them an ordinance stating one cannot build 10 feet from the property line. He is not against the McGahey's construction of a garage, but would like a smaller size. Believes them is discrepancy in the location of the property line and that the survey is incorrect. He feels his garage is 3 feet, not 4 feet, from the property line. Haugen: Advised that the surveyor is well known in the area the Council has to respect his decision. Zleska: Commented that the measurements of the property owner are not from a registered land surveyor. Explained that the McGahey's request is from their property line to the proposed garage. Blombe~: Questioned Mr. Feiker's written comments on his concern for safety. Felker: Advised that the fire hydrants are on one end and the other. There is some concem with fire access. Nso noted that with this garage it would be hard for police to see if anyone was hiding with the structure so close. Mike McGahey (14948 Pixie Point Circle): Did not have anything to add from what was submitted as the Planning Commission hearing. The point is that they do not have a garage in Minnesota, and have attempted to make the proposed structure reasonable. No other persons wore present to comment on this issue. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. 5 Doc. No. T 147090 Vol. 54 Page 105 Cert. 16597 OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Certir-~l Filed on07-31-2003 at 08:10 Pat Boeckman, Registrar of T'~les Fee: $20.00F~ STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The undersigned, duly qualified and Planning Secretary of the City of Prior Lake, hereby certifies the attached hereto is the original tree and correct copy of CITY OF PRIOR LAKE RESOLUTION #03-111 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 #03-58 Connie Carlson City of Prior Lake Dated this 29t~ day of J,uly, 2003 .. · (City Seal) l:kleptwork\blankfrm\truecopy.doc I RESOLUTION 03-111 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: ZIESKA SECOND BY: PETERSEN WHEREAS, John & Adene 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 Distdct (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Oveday District) at 15594 Hill Circle SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Lakeside Manor 1,t 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 overturning the decision of the Planning Commission. r:\resoluti\planres\2003\03-11 l.doc Paee 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / ['ax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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 in the R-1 district was not a legal nonconforming use should be upheld, and said appeal should be denied. 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 ~3-046 and Case File ~3-058, and held a headng 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. The City Council has determined the request does not meet the zoning ordinance cdteria for the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a nonconforming land use of a dog kennel in the R-1 Distdct 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. 7) The property owner shall have 6 months from the date of this resolution to bring the premises into compliance. Passed and adopted this 7th day of July, 2003. {Seal} YES NO I Haugen X Haugen Petersen X Petersen LeMair X LeMair Gundlach X Gundlach Zieska X Zieska City Manager r:\resoluti\planres\2003\03-111 .doc Page 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The undersigned, duly qualified and Planning Secretary of the City of Prior Lake, hereby certifies the attached hereto is the original tree and correct copy of CITY OF PRIOR LAKE RESOLUTION #03-111 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 #03-58 Connie Carlson / City of Prior Lake [ Dated this 29th day of July, 2003 (City Seal) I:'~deptwork\bl ank frm\tmec, opy.doc I RESOLUTION 03-111 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: ZIESKA SECOND BY: PETERSEN 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 (Shoreland Overlay District) at 15594 Hill Circle SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Lakeside Manor 1st 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 overturning the decision of the Planning Commission. r:\resoluti\planres\2003\03-111 .doc Pa~e 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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 in the R-1 district was not a legal nonconforming use should be upheld, and said appeal should be denied. 4) The City Council makes the following findings: 5) 6) 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. 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. 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. 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. 7) The property owner shall have 6 months from the date of this resolution to bring the premises into compliance. Passed and adopted this 7th day of July, 2003. {Seal} YES NO Haugen X Haugen Petersen X Petersen LeMair X LeMair Gundlach X Gundlach Zieska X Zieska City Manager r:~resoluti\planres~O03\03-111 .doc Page 2