My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-11-03_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-11-03_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2011 1:58:02 PM
Creation date
2/18/2011 1:58:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/3/2010
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, November 03, 2010 <br />Page 2 <br />Staff recommended approval of the proposed INTERIM USE for a dog daycare <br />48 <br />and boarding use at 1430 County Road C, as an INTERIM USE, pursuant to City <br />49 <br />Code, Section 1013.09 (Interim Uses); based on the comments and findings of <br />50 <br />Sections 4-6, and the conditions of Section 7 of the staff report dated November <br />51 <br />3, 2010. Staff noted that one of those conditions (Condition J) was for a five (5)- <br />52 <br />year Interim Use, at which time the applicants were open to applying for a new or <br />53 <br />renewed approval. <br />54 <br />Discussion among Commissioners and staff included the subjective nature in the <br />55 <br />Design Review Committee’s (DRC’s) review of the barking component and their <br />56 <br />consensus that it can be mitigated; odor neutralizing bags for disposal of solid <br />57 <br />dog waste stored inside until trash pick up day; the sense of order observed by <br />58 <br />staff in their tour of similar facilities; location of suites for dogs in solitary for a day <br />59 <br />or for long-term boarding with dry wall separations, and location of that portion of <br />60 <br />the business in the building. <br />61 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that staff s only concern for potential noise was if it was found <br />62 <br />that the wooden ceiling needed more insulation; which led to adding the condition <br />63 <br />for approval that the applicant would provide for additional soundproofing <br />64 <br />between the wood ceiling and the rubber and pea gravel outer roofing if noise <br />65 <br />issues become apparent during day-to-day operations. <br />66 <br />Staff duly noted Chair Doherty’s comment for the need to revise language of <br />67 <br />Condition G in Section 7 of the report to: “The outdoor activity area shall not be <br />68 <br />used for recreational purposes after [between] 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.” <br />69 <br />Further discussion included pending information from the City of St. Paul staff for <br />70 <br />their licensing and experience with similar facilities, with staff noting that they will <br />71 <br />continue their due diligence between this meeting and City Council consideration; <br />72 <br />confirmation that overnight boarding of dogs will be inside only; clarification of the <br />73 <br />condition requiring that water runoff from yard cleanings be required to drain into <br />74 <br />a rain garden for treatment, rather than directly into the sanitary sewer system, <br />75 <br />with staff advising that there was no support from Planning staff or the DRC for <br />76 <br />direct flushing into the storm sewer system as referenced in a previous e-mail <br />77 <br />from a concerned resident. <br />78 <br />Additional discussion included any future expansion of the business in the facility, <br />79 <br />with staff advising that, other than for the noise issues and other internal items <br />80 <br />permitted, future expansion indoors was not applicable to land use consideration <br />81 <br />or approval, as the application pertained to daycare use or overnight boarding, <br />82 <br />and if the property owner was interested in allowing the tenant to expand, the <br />83 <br />only concern would be the outdoor area, currently confined to that area <br />84 <br />presented for approval. <br />85 <br />Applicants, Angie Decker and Kristen Cici, Proprietors of The Woof Room <br />86 <br />The applicants responded to various questions of the Commission, including <br />87 <br />encouraging their dogs to use indoor litter boxes lined with wood chips to absorb <br />88 <br />urine, and thereby limiting outdoor urination; mitigation for urine and subsequent <br />89 <br />clean-up outside during winter months when the ground is frozen; any solid <br />90 <br />waste immediately bagged; with outdoor areas cleaned with environmentally-safe <br />91 <br />cleanser whenever possible, with snow scooped up during winter months and <br />92 <br />bagged for trash; with normal cleansing operations followed anytime the weather <br />93 <br />is above freezing and allowable. <br />94 <br />Further discussion among the applicants and Commissioners included overnight <br />95 <br />stays for dogs, with a night time routine for hotel suites through use of monitoring <br />96 <br />cameras and an alarm system, with no staff on site after 10:00 p.m. except in <br />97 <br />cases of inclement weather that may upset the dogs; and the evaluation period <br />98 <br />when owners leave their dogs for two (2) hours in the new environment used for <br />99 <br />new clients to determine the dogs’ temperaments and whether they experience <br />100 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.