2013_10_02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 2, 2013 Page 6 monitor the dogs. Vice Chair Boguszewski asked Ms. Cici and Ms. Decker whether the neighbors 248 had been in personal contact with them, or if they had fielded direct complaints; asking their 249 honest evaluation of how manageable the business model and operations had proven. 250 Ms. Decker advised that they had fielded a few calls during their first year of operation as their 251 staff was being hired and trained. However, over the last year of operation at their current 252 location, Ms. Decker stated that they had not heard from anyone. Ms. Decker attributed this to the 253 extensive training provided for dog handlers, and their long-term staff who were more than 254 capable of handling the dogs and any situations arising. 255 Ms. Cici concurred, noting that they, as business owners along with their staff, had methods for 256 providing incentives to and in dealing with hyper dogs. In general, Ms. Cici advised that if a dog 257 starts barking, they avoid or remedy the situation causing that hyperactivity; and that it was never 258 allowed to become excessive or continue for any lengthy amount of time. 259 Vice Chair Boguszewski suggested the most effective training seemed to be more for the 260 handlers versus dogs as evidenced by the comments of Ms. Cici and Ms. Becker. 261 At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Cici confirmed that their intent was to purchase 262 the property, hoping to have things finalized by the end of next week, depending in part on the 263 outcome of this hearing. 264 At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Cici advised that having an outdoor run was an 265 important component of their business model, as most owners they dealt with were concerned 266 with potty training, making the outdoor area important in reaching that goal. Ms. Cici advised that 267 their business model was not intended to serve as a kennel, but to provide an environment where 268 dogs could enjoy themselves, thus the outdoor component. 269 Public Comment 270 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had fielded a couple of phone calls regarding this application and 271 tonight’s hearing, consisting of one property owner seeking more details and apparently satisfied 272 after speaking with staff; another from the Property Manager at TCE Services and Dialysis 273 Systems, specifically related to drainage issues for their property, as well as being cautious for 274 their tenants and any concerns they may have, by making those tenants well aware of this 275 application. 276 Brad Grant, 5025 Elmer Street (behind the holding pond at the 2020 parcel) 277 Mr. Grant expressed his appreciation for receiving notice of this public hearing, advising that his 278 fiancé was a property owner immediately outside the 100’ area. Mr. Grant advised that, based on 279 the information provided by staff in their report and tonight’s discussion, most of his concerns had 280 been addressed, and commented that “great information was presented.” Mr. Grant advised his 281 only remaining concerns were with possible noise; advising that when his fiancé had first moved 282 into the two-story duplex, there had been a solid row of trees providing a natural noise barrier; 283 however, they had since been removed. Opining that noise was cumulative, Mr. Grant expressed 284 his appreciate of the proposed fence height; however, expressed concern that while no single 285 amount of noise may disturb the neighborhood, it could become an issue with the cumulative 286 effect. Mr. Grant advised that, without those trees providing a natural barrier, all noises were 287 much more noticeable, even police sirens arriving at the apartments south of their parcel. 288 At the prompting of Member Daire, Mr. Grant confirmed that he was familiar with the site and the 289 ramp located primarily where the dogs would be outside, as well as the grade level at the one- 290 story building at 2029 and the 10’ solid barrier in place. Mr. Grant, even recognizing that the 291 height may suffice and the location of the ramp, questioned if the fence height could be at the 292 same height as the building to avoid any open area from the building through the parking lot 293 where a lot of the noise currently originated. 294 At the request of Vice Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the area of the parcel requiring 295 fencing and projected heights, indicating that the entire outline of the outdoor area would require 296 an 8’ height, with several feet of the northern property line with a retaining wall requiring a lower 297 height, currently adequate, with 8’ height along the west side. Based on that 8’ height, regardless 298