2013_10_02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 2, 2013 Page 4 nuisance ordinance or the property performance standards of City Code related to noise. 146 However, Mr. Paschke advised that he was unaware of any specific noise ratio formula. 147 Regarding fence height, Member Murphy referenced Section 1011.08.B. related to “Residential 148 Fences in all Districts,” and standards applying to all fences constructed in any residential zoning 149 district, or directly adjacent to such a district. Member Murphy noted that this addressed fence 150 height, buffer areas, screening, and setback requirements, and questioned how that applied to 151 this situation and proposed fencing or screening. 152 Mr. Lloyd noted that there were several areas of code that addressed acceptable screening 153 options, including a building itself, and spoke in support of a case by case determination as to 154 what was more practical for the use or application being screened on a subject property and 155 needing to be buffered from adjacent residential properties. 156 As an example, Mr. Paschke noted that there was a 13’ fence on the east side of the Har Mar 157 Mall parcel, buffering or screening adjacent residential properties, rather than only a 6’ fence as 158 code provides. Mr. Paschke advised that the Cub Foods store use going into the mall, had 159 triggered the language. Mr. Paschke spoke in support of striking that section of code as practical 160 specific to commercial properties in a Community Business (CB), Community Mixed Use (CMU) 161 or Industrial/Business Park zoning designation to provide for and regulate creation of property 162 screening mechanisms on a case by case basis; with the requirement at a higher standard for 163 businesses and offices. Mr. Paschke noted that this would clean up the language to make if more 164 practical in day to day application, use, and enforcement. 165 Seeking a clarification of City Code related to kennel licensing, Member Cunningham questioned 166 if that section related to this use or if it was an exemption. 167 Mr. Lloyd clarified that Kennel Licensing was not a part of the Planning Division, but handled 168 through the Licensing Division; with Mr. Paschke further clarification that this use was not a 169 Kennel License that would apply to residential property owners for their personal property and 170 use, and required this land use process for approval; with the fence requirement only addressing 171 commercial applications versus residential. 172 During his personal site visit, Member Daire opined that it appeared to him that the area being 173 talked about north/south on the west side of the 2025 parcel was actually a current ramp to a 174 basement with a retaining wall running along the north and west sides of the space and into an 175 area out to the street, and consisting of a 12’ high hedge. Member Daire advised that he had not 176 seen a dedicated rain structure at the bottom, but opined that there was a drain to the storm or 177 sanitary sewer system. 178 At the request of Member Daire as to whether the Woof Room was renting or purchasing the 179 property, Mr. Lloyd advised that they had entered into a contract to purchase the parcel, 180 depending on the results of this process and other details. 181 Upon purchase of the property, Member Daire questioned if the applicant would be in a position 182 to alter the concrete at the end of the run; or whether the Woof Room owners intended to fill that 183 space to make it level with the property, or leave it as a ramped surface. 184 Mr. Lloyd advised that, to his knowledge, the Woof Room owners intended to leave it as a 185 ramped surface. At their current facility, Mr. Lloyd advised the applicant had used outdoor turf for 186 a similar facility. Mr. Lloyd reviewed the various areas needed for screening, including the existing 187 retaining wall and fencing proposed on top of that, as well as taller fencing along the west grade 188 to come up to that level. While the owners of the Woof Room intend to purchase this parcel, Mr. 189 Lloyd advised that they had been fully compliant at their current location where they were tenants, 190 by creating a rain garden on that site as well. 191 Member Daire questioned staff’s rationale in only going to property owners within 100’ rather than 192 the extraordinary majority of nearby properties. 193 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff felt, given zoning of the property as Community Business (CB), and 194 the intent to address whether or not this use being adjacent to residential uses, based on 195