2015-11-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, September 17, 2015 Page 7 Mr. Lloyd advised staff would determineif it made sense to add another row as a standard or new 296 use. 297 Mr. Bilotta concurred, advising that staff now knew the Commission’s intent without the 298 Commission having to get too much deeper in the details. 299 Chair Boguszewski concurred with Mr. Bilotta, noting the Commission’s intent to avoid confusion 300 by teasing out the “urgent care” use. 301 Commercial Uses 302 Animal Boarding(exclusively indoors) 303 Member Cunningham noted her concern with potential loud noises with this use if animals were 304 brought outside, it could be at 2:00 a.m., and seemed a larger intrusion for CMU-1 for bordering 305 residential properties which she thought problematic. 306 Member Bull noted CMU-1 designated areas couldn’t have customers between 2:00 a.m. and 307 6:00 a.m. 308 Member Paschke clarified that the indoor use functioned strictly indoor, not outside. 309 Chair Boguszewski noted the noise complaints and/or concerns fielded by the Commission from 310 adjacent residents regarding the former “Woof Room” location, and whether exclusively indoors 311 or outdoors, had come before the Commission as a CU. 312 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the location had originally been on County Road C in an area also 313 designated as HDR; but further clarified that they also had an outdoor component, with the first 314 approval granted as an InterimUse (IU); and their subsequent relocation to Rice Street with CU 315 approval. 316 Chair Boguszewski noted that if made CU for CMU-1 areas, it would allow a further level of 317 review. 318 Member Cunningham requested that it be CU in CMU-1 subareas; which was approved by 319 consensus. 320 Member Bull questioned why animal boarding/kennel/daycare was included in the old Table of 321 Uses, but not in the new table. 322 Mr. Lloyd responded that the use was NP in the old CMU Table with any outdoor element, and 323 since the CMU was further expanded into four subareas, it made sense to not allow it in any CMU 324 area.With Chair Boguszewski noting that the use had to be in a Commercial District, Member 325 Bull noted that “auto dealer” uses remained in the table even though NP across the board, 326 and expressed his preference for leaving animal boarding/kennel/daycare as an NP on the 327 Table of Uses similarly, and not exclude it to make sure it isn’t open for consideration in 328 the future. 329 Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic 330 Member Cunningham expressed similar concerns for this usecompared to “animal boarding 331 (exclusively indoors) seeking that it also be designated “exclusively indoors” as well. 332 Member Bull noted only if P, with hours of operation and employee participation at their choice to 333 fit within that guideline if they locate in a CMU area.However, if a veterinarian needed employees 334 to prepare for surgery, that use couldn’t fit into a CMU-1 designated area. 335 Member Cunningham reiterated her preference that both would be NP as that subarea served as 336 a buffer zone and even though an animal loverrecognized that use could be more impactful to 337 neighbors, and therefore in seeking a happy medium, suggested CU to allow neighbors to weigh 338 in on any potential uses. 339 Chair Boguszewski concurred, noting as an example the St. Francis Animal Hospital on 340 Fernwood and Larpenteur that may perform surgery, even though not open after hours or 341 currently serving as an overnight facility.If they wanted to relocate to this subarea, Chair 342 Boguszewskinoted if they continued to operate as they currently do, they could relocate here, but 343 if they wanted to change and offer overnight surgery, they could not do so. 344