10A - Minutes 071510 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

`-- When asked by Chairmen Woog,the applicants have nothing to add. Mr. Thomas stated that his letter had requested reconsideration. When he reviewed the Findings of Fact they were more supportive of approval rather than denial. He reserved comment to the end to hear the comments from the public. The letter sent out includes a dog boarding case. The general rule is that you have 3 kinds of uses: allowed, conditional and prohibited. A conditional use is like an allowed use and would be allowed unless there are some specific findings that can't be fixed by a condition. The letter states primary concerns seem to be potential noise and potential negative impact on property values. Both issues addressed in the case are summarized in his letter. With respect to noise, you need more than just neighbors to say it will be noise. You need to find a basis. This can be more controllable. It can be tied to decibel levels. As for property values, the case summarized real estate and appraiser testimony was not valid enough for CUP denial. The applicant wants to work with the City. Mr. Thomas asked the Planning Commission to look at what is heard and determine if there is actually a problem that can't be controlled with conditions. Public Comment opened: Harly Simchuck, 5730 Lund Road—He lives immediately east of the Garlands property, 45 feet from the property line. He stated he submitted specific evidence in his letter that dog barking exceeds 105 to 118 decibels,which exceeds the 60 decibels allowed. He sent information stating tests are valid. Molly Ring, 30702 Rae Avenue—Stated she has taken her dogs to LaRee since 2002. She is very good with animals. The grooming shop is filled with dogs and there is never a barking issue. There are no feces left outside; she would never leave dogs to bark. She is happy to have a place to leave her dog closer to home and LaRee is a reasonable person to make this work. George Selvestra, stated his property falls within 350 foot boundary requirement and sent each Planning Commission member a copy of information. He did not know there was a letter from`Mr. Garland's attorney. Mr. Thomas' letter stated it will be appropriate to grant approval,it is acceptable in Rural Residential zone. Mr. Thomas states hypothetical barking of dogs; they all bark, it is not hypothetical. As for resulting decreased property values, Mr. Selvestra stated he called about 5 realtors and appraisers. The value as far as appraisal would not decrease unless they can find an exact comp,by an appraiser. The realtors contacted cannot say the value would decrease but the market value would decrease as personal opinion. Bruce Larson of Crosslake could not sell a home for several years with a veterinarian next door. There is a possible decrease in value. He asked if the MPCA standards override the City or would the State or County Ordinances override the City? Mr. Marohn stated his understanding of MPCA noise requirements is that the MPCA would be charged with enforcing their standards and the City would be enforcing ours. Minutes 3 Pequot Lakes Planning Commission July 17, 2010