|
Attachment D
<br />204 At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Cici advised that having an outdoor run was an important
<br />205 component of their business model, as most owners they dealt with were concerned with potty training, making
<br />206 the outdoor area important in reaching that goal. Ms. Cici advised that their business model was not intended to
<br />207 serve as a kennel, but to provide an environment where dogs could enjoy themselves, thus the outdoor
<br />208 component.
<br />209 Public Comment
<br />210 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had fielded a couple of phone calls regarding this application and tonight's hearing,
<br />211 consisting of one property owner seeking more details and apparently satisfied after speaking with staff, another
<br />212 from the Property Manager at TCE Services and Dialysis Systems, specifically related to drainage issues for their
<br />213 property, as well as being cautious for their tenants and any concerns they may have, by making those tenants
<br />214- well aware of this application.
<br />215 Brad Grant, 5025 Elmer Street (behind the holding pond at the 2020 parcel)
<br />216 Mr. Grant expressed his appreciation for receiving notice of this public hearing, advising that his fiance was a
<br />217 property owner immediately outside the 100' area. Mr. Grant advised that, based on the information provided by
<br />218 staff in their report and tonight's discussion, most of his concerns had been addressed, and commented that
<br />21 Ell "great information was presented." Mr. Grant advised his only remaining concerns were with possible noise;
<br />220 advising that when his fiance had first moved into the two -story duplex, there had been a solid row of trees
<br />221 providing a natural noise barrier; however, they had since been removed. Opining that noise was cumulative, Mr.
<br />222 Grant expressed his appreciate of the proposed fence height; however, expressed concern that while no single
<br />223 amount of noise may disturb the neighborhood, it could become an issue with the cumulative effect. Mr. Grant
<br />224 advised that, without those trees providing a natural barrier, all noises were much more noticeable, even police
<br />225 sirens arriving at the apartments south of their parcel.
<br />226 At the prompting of Member Daire, Mr. Grant confirmed that he was familiar with the site and the ramp located
<br />227 primarily where the dogs would be outside, as well as the grade level at the one -story building at 2029 and the 10'
<br />228 solid barrier in place. Mr. Grant, even recognizing that the height may suffice and the location of the ramp,
<br />229 questioned if the fence height could be at the same height as the building to avoid any open area from the
<br />230 building through the parking lot where a lot of the noise currently originated.
<br />231 At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the area of the parcel requiring fencing and
<br />232 projected heights, indicating that the entire outline of the outdoor area would require an 8' height, with several feet
<br />23�s of the northern property line with a retaining wall requiring a lower height, currently adequate, with 8' height along
<br />234 the west side. Based on that 8' height, regardless of the depth, Mr. Lloyd confirmed for Vice Chair Boguszewski
<br />235 that this would adequately address the neighbor concerns for noise abatement to the north.
<br />236 With Vice Chair Boguszewski opining that the fence should be 8' all the way around to "not be inconsistent with
<br />237 code," as staff addressed in a former and unrelated application discussion, Mr. Paschke advised that the goal was
<br />238 to provide the same fence height throughout, with the exception of the retaining area to achieve that same height,
<br />239 which he felt was appropriate in this situation.
<br />240 In response to Vice Chair Boguszewski observing that a Conditional Use was "forever," not only for a set term,
<br />241 Mr. Paschke clarified that this was a distinction between two separate land use applications: an Interim Use for a
<br />242 set period, typically three years, and this purpose- driven process to consider a Conditional Use without a term
<br />24` limit for a permitted use.
<br />244 Vice Chair Boguszewski closed Public Hearing at approximately 7:31 p.m.
<br />245 In his role as Chair for tonight's meeting, Vice Chair Boguszewski noted that the City Council had recently asked
<br />246 that Members provide their rationale for their support or denial of a recommendation; and personally asked that
<br />247 the vote be split into three (3) separate motions:
<br />248 1) Zoning Text revision regarding fences in residential areas;
<br />249 2) Striking language regarding the 6' fence requirement, and providing for written support of 100% of adjacent
<br />250 residential property owners; and
<br />251 3) The Conditional Use request.
<br />252 Vice Chair Boguszewski advised, that overall, he would support this proposal.
<br />25� Member Murphy concurred, stating that at first he thought the proposal was too restrictive, but after Mr. Paschke's
<br />25,e explanation, he found more clarity.
<br />Page 5 of 7
<br />
|