CC_Minutes_2010_1108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 08, 2010 Page 17 Mr. Ring expressed interest in this business succeeding and recognized the need to such a facility; however, he questioned if the proposed location was prudent, given its close proximity to residential properties and in an already non- compliance land use area. Mr. Ring noted his primary concern was to protect the value and liability of adjacent residential properties; and encouraged Council members to locate the business elsewhere, limit the time frame for the business, or apply additional restrictions on the business. Mayor Klausing ended the public comment portion of the meeting. Mayor Klausing clarified that the City was not involved in locating businesses. Mayor Klausing opined that he future consideration of a license with annual re- newal made some sense; and further opined that he had no problem reducing the Interim Use period from five to two years, unless it impacted the applicants' busi- ness model or financing; noting that any noise issues would be dealt with under the City's nuisance ordinance. Mayor Klausing noted the City's significant expe- rience in establishing and designing rain gardens, and that their recommendation of a rain garden as opposed to immediate and direct routing into the City's storm sewer system made sense. Councilmember Roe opined that it made sense to reduce the Interim Use period; and agreed that future review of an annual license may be indicated. Council- member Roe further agreed that a rain garden, approved by the City Engineer, made sense, and recognized that this was a new use for the City of Roseville to consider. Councilmember Roe noted that this location was brought to the City Council, and there were two choices: either to approve the use on an interim basis with periodic review, or denial. Councilmember Roe noted that this area was guided toward high residential zoning in the future, and that the business owners understood that this was not a long -term site. Councilmember Ihlan opined that this was a unique property so close to a residen- tial neighborhood; and questioned City Code provisions related to kennels; and further opined that the City should consider licensing such facilities, and not ap- prove this application until to following conditions were met: 1) Clarification with Ramsey County that all regulations were being met for proper disposal of pet urine, inside and out 2) Whether a rain garden met County and State requirements for pet urine dis- posal; and 3) That specific requirements be included to address soundproofing on the south side of the building, with Condition H providing more specificity indicating that the applicant will be required to implement measures, including soundproofing adequate to remove any nuisance. Councilmember Ihlan noted her previously expressed concerns when the PetS- mart proposal was heard and her concerns with noise, but her ultimate approval