2013_10_02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 2, 2013 Page 2 this subject parcel as Community Business (CB), staff recommended Zoning Text language 43 revisions to remove the height limitation for review on a case by case basis that would consist of 44 striking “non-residential districts” from current language to avoid future conflicts. Mr. Lloyd 45 presented proposed strike-out language as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part 46 hereof. 47 Mr. Lloyd clarified that any height limitations would be addressed in the Conditional Use 48 permitting process for animal boarding and day care facilities; and with the allowance for written 49 support of 100% of all owners of adjacent residentially zoned properties or those properties 50 remaining in residential use in a CB District to a subject parcel, this should provide sufficient 51 protection of interests of all parties. 52 Conditional Use 53 In reviewing the Conditional Use portion of this request, in addition to the analysis detailed in the 54 staff report, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was aware of no noise complaints being received by the 55 City in the three (3) years of operation by the Woof Room in their current location under an 56 Interim Use Permit. 57 As part of the Conditional Use application approval process, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff 58 suggested the applicant provide in writing specifically how the outdoor area was expected to be 59 operated (e.g. frequency, waste disposal, noise, number of dogs at any given time) for 60 submission to the City and evidence for support or opposition of the adjacent neighbors within 61 that 100’ radii; and that it become part of the official record of the Conditional Use as a starting 62 point for enforcement action if indicated in the future; also providing sufficient protection of 63 interests for all parties. 64 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was recommending one additional their recommendation for approval 65 of the Conditional Use beyond that detailed in the staff report, and included that recommended 66 modification as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Lloyd advised 67 that there had been some sort of drainage infrastructure on the property in the past, but its 68 construction or details were unknown to the City in research of records specific to this parcel. 69 While the intent and functionality of the current drainage system may meet current standards and 70 requirements, Mr. Lloyd suggested a minor change to those conditions in Section 8.2 of the 71 report, specifically Condition d as follows: “The outdoor activity area shall be thoroughly cleansed 72 and rinsed at least once each day during warm weather, and as soon as practicable after periods 73 of freezing weather, with all of the rinse water being directed into a rain garden \[or other 74 solution\] approved by the City’s engineering staff; and…” 75 Discussion 76 Vice Chair Boguszewski clarified, for the audience and listening public, that staff was suggesting 77 that the current technical definition of “rain garden” may not be broad enough for the applicants to 78 transform the existing generic garden space into a qualified “rain garden.” 79 Mr. Lloyd noted that the definition of a “rain garden” was not necessarily addressed in the City’s 80 Zoning Code, but generally included accepted landscaping features or excavation to amend soils 81 to allow better drainage with acceptable plantings to facilitate that drainage and cleansing 82 process, guided to collect during rain events. Mr. Lloyd advised that this particular current 83 drainage area would not qualify as a “rain garden” and would therefore not meet the drainage 84 needs addressed in the staff report; but there was a possibility that it could be excavated or 85 modified to meet the same drainage goals as a traditional “rain garden.” 86 At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd advised that the proposed change in 87 language for this particular situation would not change the City’s underlying code requirements to 88 make it easier or more difficult for other applications or situations in the future. Mr. Lloyd advised 89 that the proposed revised language in the condition would only affect and was only recommended 90 for approval of this application, not the code itself. 91 Vice Chair Boguszewski questioned why staff had not recommended that the applicant pursue a 92 Variance process versus the Zoning Code Text change and Conditional Use process for the 93 outdoor use, since the underlying code (Section 1009.02 Conditional Uses – D. Specific 94