|
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
<br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 2, 2013
<br />Page 5
<br />previously-addressed concerns in the Woof Room’s current location, having 100% of the adjacent
<br />196
<br />residential property owner(s) seemed more than adequate.
<br />197
<br />In response to Member Daire’s question whether storm runoff to the north would be any problem,
<br />198
<br />Mr. Lloyd advised that he preferred not to opine about stormwater issues and leave that analysis
<br />199
<br />up to the City’s Engineering Staff and/or the Watershed District(s). Mr. Lloyd noted that it was his
<br />200
<br />understanding that the existing pond was private and already problematic for stormwater
<br />201
<br />drainage, prompting construction of the current drain facility to cleanse the runoff. Mr. Lloyd
<br />202
<br />opined that with storm sewer management code requirements in place, he didn’t anticipate any
<br />203
<br />issues that could not be resolved to ensure the stormwater was filtered and had some rate control
<br />204
<br />measures in place.
<br />205
<br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that this analysis, approval, monitoring, and
<br />206
<br />enforcement would be handled administratively, as with all such stormwater management issues.
<br />207
<br />At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that written notice had provided to
<br />208
<br />property owners within the 500’ radius for land use applications.
<br />209
<br />At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that, while the neighboring
<br />210
<br />residential property owner had offered his written support several times to-date, it seemed out of
<br />211
<br />order to receive it before that requirement became part of the approval process.
<br />212
<br />At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Lloyd addressed the recourse for the property owner to
<br />213
<br />the north if noise became an issue in the future. Mr. Lloyd noted that any noise or odor issues
<br />214
<br />would be addressed by the City’s Nuisance Codes, as previously outlined by Mr. Paschke, and
<br />215
<br />based on the written statement of support and predicated on the practice/culture of the outdoor
<br />216
<br />facility and its general description. Mr. Lloyd advised that this provided the City and/or adjacent
<br />217
<br />property owners the ability to come to the City if the business was not being operated consistent
<br />218
<br />with its approval, which would then prompt enforcement action, and subsequent rescinding of its
<br />219
<br />approval.
<br />220
<br />Applicants and Owners of the Woof Room, Kristen Cici and Angie Decker
<br />221
<br />Ms. Cici clarified that the home next to this subject parcel was zoned CB, with the existing home
<br />222
<br />already a legal, non-conforming use. Based on that zoning, Ms. Cici opined that if and when that
<br />223
<br />home was sold in the future, it was possible and even likely that it would become a business.
<br />224
<br />Vice Chair Boguszewski reiterated his concern that a proposed change in the zoning text may
<br />225
<br />affect similar uses or applications in other areas of the City.
<br />226
<br />At the request of Member Murphy, Ms. Cici reviewed their average population of 40 dogs,
<br />227
<br />advising that they anticipated growing at this new site, based on a significant demand and their
<br />228
<br />waiting list. However, Ms. Cici advised that the average would remain around 40 dogs, as the
<br />229
<br />population varied for the Day Care portion during the winter months (higher) and summer months
<br />230
<br />(slower), but highly determined by the weather.
<br />231
<br />At the request of Member Daire, Ms. Cici confirmed that the Day Care portion of the operation
<br />232
<br />had a much lower population overnight, typically 15-20 dogs, with the population only reaching 40
<br />233
<br />during their busiest time (holidays), with the typical weeknight population much lower,
<br />234
<br />approximately 20. At the request of Member Daire, Ms. Cici reviewed their business model for
<br />235
<br />overnight and day care operations.
<br />236
<br />At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Decker advised that, for management purposes
<br />237
<br />they provided a ratio of dogs per staff members, and it would be very unusual for all the dogs to
<br />238
<br />be outside at any given time, with typical operations indicating a maximum of 15 dogs out at any
<br />239
<br />given time, based on their staffing capabilities, with the typical outing for 10-20 minutes and
<br />240
<br />alternating different groups of dogs, varying on weather and behavior of the dogs. Ms. Decker
<br />241
<br />advised that the length of the outing depended on the dog, and if it started barking, or something
<br />242
<br />excited the entire group, they were immediately brought back inside. During night time hours, Ms.
<br />243
<br />Decker responded that it would typically only be for bathroom breaks for the dogs.
<br />244
<br />While there appeared to be no formal record of police calls or complaints, Vice Chair
<br />245
<br />Boguszewski referenced his knowledge of the concerns expressed by neighbors during their
<br />246
<br />Interim Use application process several years ago, and whether the applicants could adequately
<br />247
<br />
<br />
|