pf10-024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � 6 environmentally-friendly cleanser each evening to cleanse the area of urine. During � � 7 colder months, soiled snow will be removed along with the solid waste; to prevent ice � �� buildup in the outdoor area, a more substantial springtime cleaning is proposed to replace � � 9 the nightly cleansing. The water from these yard cleanings should be required to drain � 2o into a rain garden, designed to the approval of Roseville's engineering staff, which would � 2 � prevent added impact to the public sewer infrastructure and provide some initial 122 treatment of the rinse water before it filters into the ground. 123 %.� PUBLIC I�EARING � 24 7.1 The Planning Commission held the duly-noticed public hearing for this application on � 2� November 3, 2010. Draft minutes of the public hearing were not yet available at the time �2F this report was prepared. Questions of the Planning Commissioners led to clarification of �2� some aspects of the proposal, such as that the dog boarding would be located at the 12� northern end of the building, further from the residential properties, and that staff would 129 only be on site overnight when storms (which might frighten the dogs) are expected. � 30 7.2 In addition to the public comments emailed to Planning Division staff prior to the public � 3� hearing, included with this staff report as Attachment E, a few of the property owners to 132 the south of the subject property spoke at the public hearing. The predominant concerns 133 expressed pertained to the City's failures in enforcing regulations on the nonconforming 134 industrial properties along County Road C(of which the subject property is one) and the i 35 potential for the proposed [NTER�M UsE to be the source of nuisance dog barking. 136 Planning Division staff briefly touched on the challenges of regulating the historically 137 nonconforming industrial uses, which have a"grandfathered" status that prevents � 3r� Roseville from controlling them to the extent that the neighboring property owners would 139 like to see, although Code Enforcement staff has made some progress in the past year or � 4o so to eliminate some of these nonconforming conditions. By contrast, the proposed dog 141 daycare/boarding is a conforming use, and present t1vTER�M uSE process will provide the ��2 City with clear and specific requirements that can be enforced much more effectively ��3 than the nonconforming industrial uses. � a� 7.3 After hearing the public comments and discussing the application, the Planning ', 4;> Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the proposed �NTER�1vt usE, subject to '�;> several conditions. After the conclusion of the public hearing, one of the property owners '�� in attendance expressed the desire to see an additional condition that the building walls ?�fj be completely sound-proofed prior to beginning the business rather than allowing noise '�� to become a problem that needs to be addressed in the future. While this seems like a ' so sensible suggestion and it remains within the preview of the City Council to make such a � 5 � requirement, Planning Division staff is hard-pressed to recommend it as a condition of ^�? approval. Requirements related to land use approvals must be reasonably related to the ��3 proposal, and staff simply has no way of recommending a level of sound-proofing that � 5� would be adequate without being excessive. Moreover, recommended condition "h" i�5 below gives City staff the ability to require additional insulating if noise proves to be a � ss problem in the future. � 57 8.O RECOMMENDATION ' S� Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4-7 of this report, the Planning PF10-024 RCA_110810 (2).doc , Page 4 of 5 '� '',