2013_1021_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

58 sentence introducing the residential fence requirements says that the regulations 59 (including a 6.5 -foot height limit) apply to residential properties and any other property 60 "directly adjacent to any residential zoning district." Because the sub j ect property is only 61 adjacent to properties which share its CB zoning designation, this phrase doesn't affect 62 the present application but, having found the conflicting regulations while reviewing this 63 application, now is an opportune time to strike the conflicting language. 64 4.3 Roseville's Development Review Committee met on September 12, 2013 to discuss this 65 proposal, and no one had any particular concerns about relieving the 100 -foot restriction 66 in cases where all residential property owners in the protected area support an animal 67 boarding facility with an outdoor area. 68 4.4 The current prohibition of such outdoor areas in close proximity to residential properties 69 was a product of the significant anxiety felt by the would -be residential neighbors of The 70 Woof Room's present location. Given the amount of concern, and the eventual discontent 71 over the City's approval of the facility in the face of those concerns, it seemed simpler 72 just to avoid the potential conflict in the future; hence the outright prohibition of outdoor 73 areas near residential properties. The outdoor area in the current location is about 40 feet 74 from the southern property line which abuts the residential neighbors. Although City staff 75 had not received any complaints about noise, odor, or other nuisance from the outdoor 76 area at this distance from a residential district boundary, a minimum, mandatory 77 separation of 100 feet was established in the 2010 zoning code update simply because it 78 represented a round figure that was significantly greater than the 40 -foot distance of this 79 previous, contentious instance. During the public hearing for the present application, the 80 Planning Commission discussed whether 100 feet was adequate in light of the reasons for 81 establishing a minimum distance in the first place, or whether some greater minimum 82 distance would be more appropriate. In the end, the consensus of the Commissioners was 83 that any greater distance would be equally arbitrary and would be of questionable value in 84 further reducing the potential noise of barking dogs. 85 4.5 As a practical manifestation of "the written support of all owners of [residential] 86 properties within 100 feet" of The Woof Room's proposed outdoor area, Planning 87 Division staff has suggested that the applicants prepare a written description of how the 88 outdoor area is to be managed, how many dogs will be out at any time and for how long, 89 how noise and odors are to be minimized, and so on. This description would be provided 90 to the one owner of residential property within 100 feet of the proposed outdoor area for 91 him to endorse or append a short statement of endorsement, which would then become an 92 Exhibit of a resolution approving the conditional use. In this way, future management of 93 the outdoor area can be measured against the description and, should problems arise 94 which are not (or cannot be) resolved, the City has specific grounds on which to initiate 95 proceedings to rescind the conditional use approval. This suggestion was supported by the 96 Planning Commission, and the endorsed description will is included with this report as 97 part of the draft resolution. 98 5.0 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE 99 5.1 REVIEW OF GENERAL CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA: Section 1009.02C of the City Code 100 establishes general standards and criteria for all conditional uses, and the Planning 101 Commission and City Council must find that each proposed conditional use does or can 102 meet these requirements. The general standards are as follows: PF 13 -015 RCA 102113 . doc Page 3 of 6