4A - Conditional Use Application for Dog Grooming Business

Home Browse Search

07/07/2010 WED 16: 33 FAX 218 692 6970 Thomas & Associates PA 2003/005 City of Pequot Lakes Planning Commission July 7,2010 Page 2 "The proposed use is allowed in the zone and the applicant appears to meet all conditions for approval. Unless the Planning Commission raises other concerns that could not adequately be addressed, we recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions. 1. Not more than 25 dogs shall be allowed on the property at any given time. 2. All dogs shall remain within the indoor kennels from the hours of 10 P.M. until 6 A.M. 3. A person responsible for the operation of the facility shall be on site whenever the dogs are allowed outside of the indoor kennel. 4. The grooming operation shall be allowed, but only as an accessory use to the boarding facility. If the boarding facility is discontinued, the grooming facility shall be likewise discontinued. 5. A licensed sewage treatment system designer/inspector shall review the existing system and provide written certification to the City that the sewage treatment system is adequate for the proposed use. 6. The size of the sign shall be limited to 3 square feet consistent with the restrictions of the Rural Residential zone." At the June Meeting, several of the Garlands' neighboring property owners voiced their concern regarding granting the requested CUP, mainly regarding potential noise issues connected with hypothetical barking dogs and resulting presumed decreased property values. Mr. Marohn addressed the noise concerns by explaining that the City's Ordinance cites Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") standards of sixty (60) decibels during the day and fifty (50) decibels at night, measured at the property line. Mr. Marohn stated that the Facility would have to meet those requirements, and various Commission members noted that the noise could be controlled through the imposition of conditions. It was also noted that there was a mechanism in place for the City to remedy the noise issue if the Facility failed to meet the MPCA's standards or other applicable conditions. As for the neighbors' expressed concerns regarding diminished property values, Mr. Marohn stated during the June Meeting that a neighbor would need to provide before and after appraisals to provide actual evidence of diminished value. To the best of our knowledge, no neighbor has obtained or provided to the Commission or the Garlands any empirical evidence of diminished property values as a result of the Commission granting the Application. In reconsidering the Application, the Commission should also take into account the precedent set by the following applicable case law: When a city designates a specific use as permissible in a particular zone or district, the city has exercised its discretion and determined that the permitted use is consistent with the public health, safety, and general welfare in consonant with L:\Open matters\Garland,LaRee\3474-004 CUP Appeal\Correspondence\Out\07-07-101tr to City Planning Commission re denial of CUP application.doe