pf10-024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-� .-. Bryan Lloyd From: Pat Trudgeon Posted At: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 4:23 PM Conversation: Dog daycare as an interim use at 1430 Co. Rd. C- Final Review Posted To: DRC - Final Review Subject: Dog daycare as an interim use at 1430 Co. Rd. C- Final Review I still think that this may be an incompatible use since it is so close to a residential area. Bryan is right to point out that we shouldn't just deny it because we think it will be noisy and smelly. I don't have any knowledge of how dog parks operate and if they are noisy and/or smelly. I think at a minimum we should ask them how they will meet our industrial performance standards (which talk about noise and smell among other things). They addressed it briefly in their material, but I don't think it is adequate. Ultimately, we can still (or I should say the Council) decide that the use is not compatible with the existing surrounding neighborhood, especially the outdoor use. Passive storage may be one thing, but active use adjacent to a resident's backyard may not be. - - -_--.._a_ _______ _ .__. From: Bryan Lloyd Posted: Monday, September 13, 2010 2:42 PM Subject: Dog daycare as an interim use at 1430 Co. Rd. C- Final Review The proposed physical plans are here, and you can find more to read on the subject here and here. There was lots of concern at the initial review about noise from barking and odors from waste. I'm a little conflicted about it myself because the applicant's materials seems to address the noise issue is a very straight- forward way and their knowledge/experience with the field of dog daycare leads them to conclude that dog daycares are not noise nuisances. And I'm not too versed in the odor aspects either; I'll plan to do a little research on the topic. I didn't see this addressed in the application, but the applicant plans to own the property through a lease-to-own kind of scenario. That makes a stinky warehouse building their problem if they don't adequately protect the floor from dog waste. If indoor sanitation isn't regulated by a third-party, can/should we make the installation of some sanitation system a condition of approval? If so, what should that be? In any case, I would argue that the use is, indeed, allowed by the zoning ordinance; "dog Kennels" are conditional uses in all inustrial districts. Now, it could be that a kennel (or this use, which I would think is less loud/smelly than an all-outdoor kennel) is inappropriate given that it would be so close to residential properties, but it definitely is allowed by the zoning. True, interim uses often are not allowed in a given zoning district, but we're only approaching the dog daycare as an interim use becasue the Council has previously found some comfort in approving conditional uses as interim uses in places where significant redevelopment is desired. This may be an inappropriate use next to residential properties, but if that's true, I think we need to be educated on what the impacts really are. We have our assumptions about noise and odor, but I think we owe it to the applicant to make informed recommendations. PD and CD folks: do you know about the level of noise/odor/nuisance complaints from residents near dog parks or other daycare/boarding facilities?