pf10-024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i� ; �, ; ;a t:� �, � =. �;:- JE1 <, ; �;� ��, 1C^ �". 1C2 1 C.. ��°� � �:: 1 C ii --• 0 Use Plan. They may also fail to meet all of the zoning standards established for the district within which it is located. 6.2 Section 1012.09B states: The Ciry Council may attach conditions to Interim Use Permits [sic]. In reviewing [suchJ applications, the City will establish a specific date or event that will terminate the use on the property. The Council will also determine that the approval of the interim use would not result in adverse effects on the public health, safety, and general welfare, and that it will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. 6.3 An applicant seeking approval an �TER�M uSE is required to hold an open house meeting to inform the surrounding property owners and other interested attendees of the proposal, to answer questions, and to solicit feedback. The open house was held on September 1, 2010; although nobody attended the open house, the materials prepared for the meeting are included with other supplemental information from the applicant as Attachment C. 6.4 The site and floor plans illustrating the proposed arrangement of the dog boarding, daycare, and event decor uses are included with this staff report as Attachment D. In addition to the existing privacy fence along the southern property line, the outdoor play area is proposed to be enclosed by an 8-foot tall privacy fence and be set back 40 feet from the southern property boundary. 6.5 During the review of the application, the Development Review Committee (DRC) was primarily concerned with the potential for barking dogs to become a nuisance to the nearby residential property owners. After receiving more information about the initial measures taken to minimize instances of barking and proposed means of addressing noisy barking if it does become a nuisance, the DRC's concerns about noise were mostly mollified. All of this information is included as part of Attachment C. Community Development staff then visited two dog daycare facilities in St. Paul; one in an industrial area and another located adjacent to residential properties. There were about 70 dogs at the industrial location and, while some indoor barking was faintly audible outside the brick building, the barking was likely heard because a nearby part of the building consisted only of an un-insulated metal overhead door. The other dog daycare location was completely surrounded by single-family residences and a small apartment building; while outside, staff heard no barking from inside the building or from the couple of dogs in the outdoor area. No odors were noticed outside at either location. Code Enforcement staff has contacted the City of St. Paul to inquire about any complaints from the residents surrounding this dog daycare location, how such complaints are handled, and what special requirements may apply to dog daycare uses; the requested information has yet to be received. �;; i 6.6 The other significant concern of the DRC pertained to disposal of pet waste. No �c� sanitation system will be installed in the building because only house-trained dogs will be ��:: admitted for daycare/boarding. Indoor "accidents" are expected to be rare and will be ��;: quickly cleaned up. To keep the outdoor area clean and odor-free, dogs will be �� encouraged to use a sort of litter box lined with woodchips which would absorb urine and �� be regularly replaced with clean woodchips. Feces will be collected several times daily, ��, enclosed in special odor-controlling bags and deposited in the trash. During warmer ��. months (i.e., when the ground is not frozen and temperatures are above freezing), the �i �:; outdoor activity will be hosed down and cleaned with a specialized, odor-controlling, and PF10-024 RCA 110810 (2).doc Page 3 of 5