2013_10_02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 2, 2013 Page 3 Standards and Criteria, 1.a) states that any outdoor dog runs or exercise areas be located at 95 least 100’ from a residentially zoned property or property in a residential use. 96 Mr. Lloyd advised that this option had been considered and discussed; however in the end, staff 97 had determined that a Variance would provide a less thorough response by not addressing this 98 prohibition in similar situations in the future. If the written support of all owners of such properties 99 within 100’ was received as part of the review/approval process, and the applicant had provided 100 their intent and business operation model in writing for those neighboring residential properties as 101 well, Mr. Lloyd suggested that staff determined that writing such a provision into code for 102 business uses next to adjacent properties seemed more viable. 103 In the case of this specific application and the due diligence of the applicant to-date, Mr. Lloyd 104 advised that the only residential neighbor within that 100’ radius was supportive of the application. 105 Vice Chair Boguszewski advised that his only concern was the particular method for neighbor 106 approval, and whether their written support would be binding on subsequent owners who may or 107 may not share that support. Vice Chair Boguszewski questioned if this would signify a 108 “grandfathered” situation for subsequent owners if written support of current owners was part of 109 the record. 110 Mr. Lloyd advised that this was true of any existing use; and opined that it was incumbent upon 111 incoming property owners to be aware of surrounding properties and their uses and zoning 112 designations; performing due diligence as part of their consideration of whether or not to 113 purchase a parcel based on that information. While future property owners had an option to 114 purchase a parcel in this location or elsewhere, Mr. Lloyd noted that the current property owners 115 had some existing vested interested in their personal and/or adjacent properties, and feel a 116 proposed change is disadvantageous to them. 117 Mr. Lloyd reiterated that specific to this application, it had the full support of the only residential 118 property owner. 119 Based on a personal example, Vice Chair Boguszewski opined that he would have difficulty if he 120 were to purchase this home in the future; being aware of City Code, but then finding that the only 121 reason the adjacent property can have the outdoor run was based solely on written approval of 122 the current owner. Vice Chair Boguszewski questioned if the potential option for him could be to 123 have the business operation shut down since he would then be the residential property owner 124 and that use did not have his support. 125 City Planner Thomas Paschke clarified that the Conditional Use would be recorded, as was the 126 general practice, against the property regardless or ownership, and part of the official title search 127 and record of the parcel. 128 Mr. Lloyd concurred, further noting that a property owner always had the choice to refuse to 129 support a new Conditional Use, or uses proposed for a property,; and noted that if an adjacent 130 property owner felt a facility is not being operated as outlined in writing by the applicant as 131 previously noted, this would be part of staff’s review, code enforcement, and possible rescinding 132 of the Conditional Use. 133 While understanding the options, Vice Chair Boguszewski stated that he still had concerns that 134 this process versus a Variance process could bind subsequent property owners versus current 135 owners. 136 At the request of Member Murphy who noted that noise could carry beyond 100’, Mr. Lloyd 137 opined that staff’s research on the history of the 100’ distance seemed somewhat arbitrary and he 138 was unsure of any formula originally used to determine that distance. Mr. Lloyd advised that the 139 current location of the Woof Room was 40’ from several adjacent residential properties, and that 140 this 100’ provision would provide a considerably larger distance than currently existed. Mr. Lloyd 141 reiterated that this distance hasn’t appeared to be an issue to-date, with no staff complaints 142 received. 143 Mr. Paschke advised that, based on his institutional knowledge, there was no standard for the 144 100’. Mr. Paschke advised that most problematic city-wide noise would be governed by the City’s 145