Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment D <br />154 At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that written notice had provided to property <br />155 owners within the 500' radius for land use applications. <br />156 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that, while the neighboring residential property <br />157 owner had offered his written support several times to -date, it seemed out of order to receive it before that <br />158 requirement became part of the approval process. <br />159 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Lloyd addressed the recourse for the property owner to the north if noise <br />160 became an issue in the future. Mr. Lloyd noted that any noise or odor issues would be addressed by the City's <br />161 Nuisance Codes, as previously outlined by Mr. Paschke, and based on the written statement of support and <br />162 predicated on the practice /culture of the outdoor facility and its general description. Mr. Lloyd advised that this <br />163 provided the City and /or adjacent property owners the ability to come to the City if the business was not being <br />164 operated consistent with its approval, which would then prompt enforcement action, and subsequent rescinding of <br />165 its approval. <br />166 Applicants and Owners of the Woof Room, Kristen Cici and Angie Decker <br />167 Ms. Cici clarified that the home next to this subject parcel was zoned CB, with the existing home already a legal, <br />168 non - conforming use. Based on that zoning, Ms. Cici opined that if and when that home was sold in the future, it <br />169 was possible and even likely that it would become a business. <br />170 Vice Chair Boguszewski reiterated his concern that a proposed change in the zoning text may affect similar uses <br />171 or applications in other areas of the City. <br />172 At the request of Member Murphy, Ms. Cici reviewed their average population of 40 dogs, advising that they <br />173 anticipated growing at this new site, based on a significant demand and their waiting list. However, Ms. Cici <br />174 advised that the average would remain around 40 dogs, as the population varied for the Day Care portion during <br />175 the winter months (higher) and summer months (slower), but highly determined by the weather. <br />176 At the request of Member Daire, Ms. Cici confirmed that the Day Care portion of the operation had a much lower <br />177 population overnight, typically 15 -20 dogs, with the population only reaching 40 during their busiest time <br />178 (holidays), with the typical weeknight population much lower, approximately 20. At the request of Member Daire, <br />179 Ms. Cici reviewed their business model for overnight and day care operations. <br />180 At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Decker advised that, for management purposes they provided a <br />181 ratio of dogs per staff members, and it would be very unusual for all the dogs to be outside at any given time, with <br />182 typical operations indicating a maximum of 15 dogs out at any given time, based on their staffing capabilities, with <br />183 the typical outing for 10 -20 minutes and alternating different groups of dogs, varying on weather and behavior of <br />184 the dogs. Ms. Decker advised that the length of the outing depended on the dog, and if it started barking, or <br />18� something excited the entire group, they were immediately brought back inside. During night time hours, Ms. <br />18E, Decker responded that it would typically only be for bathroom breaks for the dogs. <br />187 While there appeared to be no formal record of police calls or complaints, Vice Chair Boguszewski referenced his <br />188 knowledge of the concerns expressed by neighbors during their Interim Use application process several years <br />189 ago, and whether the applicants could adequately monitor the dogs. Vice Chair Boguszewski asked Ms. Cici and <br />190 Ms. Decker whether the neighbors had been in personal contact with them, or if they had fielded direct <br />191 complaints; asking their honest evaluation of how manageable the business model and operations had proven. <br />192 Ms. Decker advised that they had fielded a few calls during their first year of operation as their staff was being <br />193 hired and trained. However, over the last year of operation at their current location, Ms. Decker stated that they <br />194 had not heard from anyone. Ms. Decker attributed this to the extensive training provided for dog handlers, and <br />19� their long -term staff who were more than capable of handling the dogs and any situations arising. <br />196 Ms. Cici concurred, noting that they, as business owners along with their staff, had methods for providing <br />197 incentives to and in dealing with hyper dogs. In general, Ms. Cici advised that if a dog starts barking, they avoid or <br />198 remedy the situation causing that hyperactivity; and that it was never allowed to become excessive or continue for <br />199 any lengthy amount of time. <br />200 Vice Chair Boguszewski suggested the most effective training seemed to be more for the handlers versus dogs <br />201 as evidenced by the comments of Ms. Cici and Ms. Becker. <br />202 At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Cici confirmed that their intent was to purchase the property, <br />20 hoping to have things finalized by the end of next week, depending in part on the outcome of this hearing. <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />