Dog Wellness Club seeks Shoreline Drive daycare; residents and council flag noise and parking concerns
Loading...
Summary
An applicant for a dog daycare, boarding and training facility at 4851 Shoreline Drive presented a concept at a council introduction on Oct. 28; neighbors and council members asked for detailed plans and studies addressing noise, the size and location of the outdoor run and parking.
At a council‑introduction hearing Oct. 28, the applicant for a proposed Dog Wellness Club facility at 4851 Shoreline Drive presented a concept for a boutique dog daycare, boarding and training operation and sought council input before pursuing the zoning and permitting steps required for the use.
Planning consultant Rita Trapp explained the council‑introduction process and warned that the proposed use (daycare/boarding/kennel) is not currently listed in Mound’s zoning use table. Trapp said the property is in the Mixed‑Use Corridor District, and adding kennel/daycare to the code would affect all properties in that district; the applicant would need a zoning code amendment and, depending on the final program, possibly a planned unit development or conditional‑use permit with conditions (hours, parking, noise control) identified by council.
Applicant Max Bitterman described the Minneapolis‑based Dog Wellness Club’s approach as "dog‑centric," emphasizing training, behavior‑management and smaller groupings than many kennels. Bitterman said the Shoreline Drive location would be quieter than a typical industrial kennel because the business uses antimicrobial, non‑moisture‑retaining turf that is rinsed regularly and said the company would not leave dogs unattended outdoors and would not "allow incessant barking." He estimated weekday averages of about 40 dogs and weekend peaks of 50 or more, and said outdoor yard use would be attended staff time (roughly 8 a.m.–6 p.m.) and that the yard would be buffered from the street by landscaped hedges and a composite noise‑reducing fence if warranted.
Nearby residents pressed concerns. Scott Erickson, who said he owns buildings adjacent to the site, told council: "My big concern is the noise." Becky Hill, who lives on Bartlett Boulevard across the proposed employee entrance, asked for exact dimensions of the outdoor run and expressed worry about noise, traffic and the proximity of the yard to a residential driveway; she noted a nearby renter with a large dog and suggested further study.
Council members likewise focused on noise, parking and process. Several members urged the applicant to provide decibel/contact studies and more detailed plans showing the yard’s exact set‑back, fence and plantings. Planning staff said the first formal step, should the applicant proceed, is a zoning code amendment to add the use to the Mixed‑Use Corridor table; the council would decide whether to allow the use as permitted, permitted with standards, or conditional. Staff explained a zoning amendment affects all properties in the district, not just the one site.
No formal decision was made. Council used the introduction to identify issues it will expect staff and the applicant to address — noise mitigation, hours of outdoor use, parking and specific site layout — should the applicant submit a formal zoning amendment and conditional use permit application.
Why it matters: The conversation highlights the tension cities face when novel commercial uses (dog daycare/boarding) arise in mixed‑use or near‑residential corridors; the council must balance neighborhood livability, parking and traffic impacts with economic development and business creation.
