CC PACKET 01262021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Charlie Yunker From:Paul McHugh <paulmchughmn@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 5:07 PM To:Charlie Yunker Cc:Marcey Westrick; Meridith Socha; Brian Rude; Corey Erickson; Paul Morita; Thomas Kuykendall; Randy Stille; Tom Randle; Jan Jenson; Wendy Webster; Bernard Walker Subject:Letter to the SAV Planning Commission Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Hello Charlie, Please include this letter in the public record on the car wash CUP, and the public comment forwarded to the Planning Commission. Thank you, Paul McHugh Dear members of the St Anthony Village Planning Commission: My wife and I own and live in one of the 25 units at Kenzington Condos that overlook the site of the proposed car wash. In my view and that of many of my neighbors, construction of this car wash would be a disaster for those of us in the adjoining residential area. It would be a disaster in terms of its effect on our quality of life ("general welfare"); on our physical and evenmental health; and, for those reasons, also on the value of our property. As you know, the SAV ordinance governing the issuance of a CUP, City Code Section 152.243(C)(3), states: “(3) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity ...” It may be difficult to provide scientific proof of the property value impacts of this car wash. After all, proof would require an economic study based on data, yet data for such a study would be difficult to find, given the relative rarity - for reasons that should be obvious - of car washes being allowed next to residential areas. So, instead, please ask yourself how you think you'd feel living within 40-100 feet of a car wash that generated noise impacts on your home that the car wash proponent compared, in his testimony at the public hearing, to the sound of a nearby vacuum cleaner. To that noise level, add noises from mufflers, loud speakers, radios, and people shouting above all the noise. If that sounds unpleasant to you, wouldn't you expect to need to offer a lower sale price than otherwise in order to find potential buyers? Isn't this just common sense? I'd also like to comment on the Commission's process of soliciting citizen input through the December 15 public hearing. If SAV and the Planning Commission are committed to the values of genuine citizen participation and full inclusion, why would the city schedule a public hearing about a highly impactful development like a car wash, adjacent to a 55+ condominium and a family-rich residential area, for a date in the busiest month of the year, during a pandemic that makes both physical and virtual participation by seniors extremely difficult, with less than two weeks notice? And, given that the city did do this, how could anyone state with a straight face, as the city planner did at the December 15 hearing, that a "heavy burden" of proof of adverse impacts rests on the residents opposed to the car wash - when citizens clearly had very little time to examine impacts, let alone provide proof of them - especially seniors during a dangerous pandemic? In closing, let me ask you this: Given the above, before voting on the CUP, are you willing to re-examine the appropriateness of approving it in light of the 45-50 pages of public comment, including expert testimony, in the public record? If not, why not? 113