My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06.01 - Req for Appeal-Dog Boarding-Public Hearing
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2010
>
09-07-2010 Council Meeting
>
06.01 - Req for Appeal-Dog Boarding-Public Hearing
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 10:14:48 AM
Creation date
5/12/2014 10:12:43 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
East Sibley Street. Today's ordinance would not allow it in that location. She stated the <br />application was for a vet clinic, not a kennel. <br />Harly Simchuk — If you approve the kennel today, would you have to meet OSHA <br />requirements. Mr. Marohn stated that OSHA would administer their requirements. Mr. <br />Simchuck stated the ASPCA is concerned about animals being alone at night. The <br />ASPCA is the cruelty society for animals. <br />Kevin Littman, 31177 Eastwood Drive — stated he lives due north of the property on Lot <br />3. He is concerned with loss of property values and dog barking issues. Conditions <br />could be set that will satisfy proper control of dog barking, but what is the mechanism? It <br />should be the applicant, not the neighbors. Property values would be reduced; where is <br />the proof that they will not be reduced? He works with decibel levels and has an <br />engineering degree. He can hear snowmobiles and car traffic and it is quick and gone. <br />What is the decibel level of dog barking? He would also like some information on item <br />B, the ordinance amendment to exclude dog boarding. Chairman Woog stated at the last <br />meeting when this application was denied, the Planning Commission directed Staff to <br />come back with an ordinance amendment to do just that. We will still be hearing that <br />regardless of the outcome of this application. <br />Kevin Littman — There is no hard evidence that the dogs won't bark and be controlled. <br />He would like to see how that is going to be handled. Chairman Woog stated the <br />mechanism exists in the ordinance. Mr. Littman would like to know what the decibel <br />�-- level of a small, medium and large dog. <br />Rob Voss was concerned with his dogs seeing the other dogs and barking or having to be <br />on a leash. He suggested he may have to refrain from using that portion of his yard. <br />Bonnie Olson — what is the decibel level for 25 dogs? Is it 25 times 60? What if a dog <br />gets out and bites a child or an adult walking on the street? Nobody is on the property; if <br />there is an emergency, what happens? <br />Rob Voss: Was there anything brought up of dogs digging under a fence? What would <br />be done for that situation if this is approved? <br />George Selvestra — If you approve this CUP, will we, the residents, be able to have input <br />for the conditions for this permit? Chairman Woog stated that indirectly, they do. <br />Mr. Thomas stated that what is being proposed is a business that is making assurances as <br />to how quiet it can be. The Planning Commission has the control of the CUP. The <br />pictures submitted of the boarding kennel in Crosslake — they are my neighbor. <br />Northland Pet is allowed in a commercial district. It is also larger and he doesn't hear the <br />barking. Mr. Adams stated that Northland Pet Lodge is allowed 75 dogs. Mr. Thomas <br />stated that when he purchased his property the fact that his office was next to a boarding <br />kennel was not an issue. With regard to the comments made by Bruce Larson, the fact <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.