2013_1021_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D 5� other applications or situations in the future. Mr. Lloyd advised that the proposed revised language in the 5� condition would only affect and was only recommended for approval of this application, not the code itself. 54 Vice Chair Boguszewski questioned why staff had not recommended that the applicant pursue a Variance 55 process versus the Zoning Code Text change and Conditional Use process for the outdoor use, since the 56 underlying code (Section 1009.02 Conditional Uses — D. Specific Standards and Criteria, 1.a) states that any 57 outdoor dog runs or exercise areas be located at least 100' from a residentially zoned property or property in a 58 residential use. 59 Mr. Lloyd advised that this option had been considered and discussed; however in the end, staff had determined 60 that a Variance would provide a less thorough response by not addressing this prohibition in similar situations in 61 the future. If the written support of all owners of such properties within 100' was received as part of the 62 review /approval process, and the applicant had provided their intent and business operation model in writing for 6 those neighboring residential properties as well, Mr. Lloyd suggested that staff determined that writing such a 64 provision into code for business uses next to adjacent properties seemed more viable. 65 In the case of this specific application and the due diligence of the applicant to -date, Mr. Lloyd advised that the 66 only residential neighbor within that 100' radius was supportive of the application. 67 Vice Chair Boguszewski advised that his only concern was the particular method for neighbor approval, and 68 whether their written support would be binding on subsequent owners who may or may not share that support. 69 Vice Chair Boguszewski questioned if this would signify a it grandfathered" situation for subsequent owners if 70 written support of current owners was part of the record. 71 Mr. Lloyd advised that this was true of any existing use; and opined that it was incumbent upon incoming property 72 owners to be aware of surrounding properties and their uses and zoning designations, performing due diligence 73 as part of their consideration of whether or not to purchase a parcel based on that information. While future 74 property owners had an option to purchase a parcel in this location or elsewhere, Mr. Lloyd noted that the current 75 property owners had some existing vested interested in their personal and /or adjacent properties, and feel a 76 proposed change is disadvantageous to them. 77 Mr. Lloyd reiterated that specific to this application, it had the full support of the only residential property owner. 78 Based on a personal example, Vice Chair Boguszewski opined that he would have difficulty if he were to 79 purchase this home in the future; being aware of City Code, but then finding that the only reason the adjacent 80 property can have the outdoor run was based solely on written approval of the current owner. Vice Chair 81 Boguszewski questioned if the potential option for him could be to have the business operation shut down since 82 he would then be the residential property owner and that use did not have his support. 8%2, City Planner Thomas Paschke clarified that the Conditional Use would be recorded, as was the general practice, 84 against the property regardless or ownership, and part of the official title search and record of the parcel. 8� Mr. Lloyd concurred, further noting that a property owner always had the choice to refuse to support a new 86 Conditional Use, or uses proposed for a property„ and noted that if an adjacent property owner felt a facility is not 87 being operated as outlined in writing by the applicant as previously noted, this would be part of staff's review, 88 code enforcement, and possible rescinding of the Conditional Use. 89 While understanding the options, Vice Chair Boguszewski stated that he still had concerns that this process 90 versus a Variance process could bind subsequent property owners versus current owners. 91 At the request of Member Murphy who noted that noise could carry beyond 100', Mr. Lloyd opined that staff's 92 research on the history of the 100' distance seemed somewhat arbitrary and he was unsure of any formula 93 originally used to determine that distance. Mr. Lloyd advised that the current location of the Woof Room was 40' 94 from several adjacent residential properties, and that this 100' provision would provide a considerably larger 95 distance than currently existed. Mr. Lloyd reiterated that this distance hasn't appeared to be an issue to -date, with 96 no staff complaints received. 97 Mr. Paschke advised that, based on his institutional knowledge, there was no standard for the 100'. Mr. Paschke 98 advised that most problematic city -wide noise would be governed by the City's nuisance ordinance or the property 99 performance standards of City Code related to noise. However, Mr. Paschke advised that he was unaware of any 100 specific noise ratio formula. 101 Regarding fence height, Member Murphy referenced Section 1011.08. B. related to "Residential Fences in all 102 Districts," and standards applying to all fences constructed in any residential zoning district, or directly adjacent to Page 2 of 7