2013_1021_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D 102" such a district. Member Murphy noted that this addressed fence height, buffer areas, screening, and setback 104 requirements, and questioned how that applied to this situation and proposed fencing or screening. 105 Mr. Lloyd noted that there were several areas of code that addressed acceptable screening options, including a 106 building itself, and spoke in support of a case by case determination as to what was more practical for the use or 101` application being screened on a subject property and needing to be buffered from adjacent residential properties. 108 As an example, Mr. Paschke noted that there was a 13' fence on the east side of the Har Mar Mall parcel, 109 buffering or screening adjacent residential properties, rather than only a 6' fence as code provides. Mr. Paschke 110 advised that the Cub Foods store use going into the mall, had triggered the language. Mr. Paschke spoke in 111 support of striking that section of code as practical specific to commercial properties in a Community Business 112 (CB), Community Mixed Use (CMU) or Industrial /Business Park zoning designation to provide for and regulate 113 creation of property screening mechanisms on a case by case basis; with the requirement at a higher standard for 114 businesses and offices. Mr. Paschke noted that this would clean up the language to make if more practical in day 115 to day application, use, and enforcement. 116 Seeking a clarification of City Code related to kennel licensing, Member Cunningham questioned if that section 117 related to this use or if it was an exemption. 118 Mr. Lloyd clarified that Kennel Licensing was not a part of the Planning Division, but handled through the 119 Licensing Division; with Mr. Paschke further clarification that this use was not a Kennel License that would apply 120 to residential property owners for their personal property and use, and required this land use process for approval; 121 with the fence requirement only addressing commercial applications versus residential. 122 During his personal site visit, Member Daire opined that it appeared to him that the area being talked about 12 3 north /south on the west side of the 2025 parcel was actually a current ramp to a basement with a retaining wall 12 running along the north and west sides of the space and into an area out to the street, and consisting of a 12' high 125 hedge. Member Daire advised that he had not seen a dedicated rain structure at the bottom, but opined that there 126 was a drain to the storm or sanitary sewer system. 127 At the request of Member Daire as to whether the Woof Room was renting or purchasing the property, Mr. Lloyd 128 advised that they had entered into a contract to purchase the parcel, depending on the results of this process and 129 other details. 130 Upon purchase of the property, Member Daire questioned if the applicant would be in a position to alter the 131 concrete at the end of the run; or whether the Woof Room owners intended to fill that space to make it level with 132 the property, or leave it as a ramped surface. 133 Mr. Lloyd advised that, to his knowledge, the Woof Room owners intended to leave it as a ramped surface. At 134 their current facility, Mr. Lloyd advised the applicant had used outdoor turf for a similar facility. Mr. Lloyd reviewed 135 the various areas needed for screening, including the existing retaining wall and fencing proposed on top of that, 130 as well as taller fencing along the west grade to come up to that level. While the owners of the Woof Room intend 137 to purchase this parcel, Mr. Lloyd advised that they had been fully compliant at their current location where they 138 were tenants, by creating a rain garden on that site as well. 139 Member Daire questioned staff's rationale in only going to property owners within 100' rather than the 140 extraordinary majority of nearby properties. 141 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff felt, given zoning of the property as Community Business (CB), and the intent to 142 address whether or not this use being adjacent to residential uses, based on previously- addressed concerns in 14 the Woof Room's current location, having 100% of the adjacent residential property owner(s) seemed more than 144 adequate. 14 %1P1 In response to Member Daire's question whether storm runoff to the north would be any problem, Mr. Lloyd 146 advised that he preferred not to opine about stormwater issues and leave that analysis up to the City's 147 Engineering Staff and /or the Watershed District(s). Mr. Lloyd noted that it was his understanding that the existing 148 pond was private and already problematic for stormwater drainage, prompting construction of the current drain 149 facility to cleanse the runoff. Mr. Lloyd opined that with storm sewer management code requirements in place, he 150 didn't anticipate any issues that could not be resolved to ensure the stormwater was filtered and had some rate 151 control measures in place. 152 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that this analysis, approval, monitoring, and enforcement 153 would be handled administratively, as with all such stormwater management issues. Page 3 of 7