2010-11-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 03, 2010 Page 4 Chair Doherty clarified that it was part of the process for staff to recommend 155 approval or denial of each case heard before the Planning Commission prior to 156 the Commission’s recommendation for approval or denial to the City Council, 157 based on staff’s analysis and public comment at the Public Hearing. Chair 158 Doherty expressed his confidence that staff would continue their due diligence as 159 noted by Mr. Lloyd during his presentation of the case; and make that information 160 available to the public and City Council through the normal procedure. 161 Mr. McLeod expressed further concern in the proposed number of dogs for the 162 original proposal and any future increases in dogs allowed for daycare and/or 163 boarding; reviewed the negative history of nuisance and code enforcement 164 issues the residential neighbors had endured and their perceived lack of City 165 staff and Council response; and the neighborhood’s desire that a harmonious 166 use be allowed, rather than one that would create additional “neighborhood 167 police” responsibilities in attempting to enforce City Code. Mr. McLeod 168 questioned the actual building materials, opining that when there was a past 169 chemical fire in that building, he didn’t observe the evidence of concrete block; 170 and noted that this was an old warehouse space, a former chicken coop, that 171 was not suited for this type of business use. Mr. McLeod further questioned the 172 optimism of the applicant(s) in their ability to control noise issues from the dogs in 173 reality, even with the dog training they offer. Mr. McLeod expressed further 174 concern related to no staff on site overnight and the response to concerns about 175 noise if he called the City Police Department. 176 Mr. McLeod recommended that the applicant(s) find a more harmonious site from 177 which to conduct their business that would provide a sufficient buffer, but not in 178 an outdated, existing building adjacent to a residential area. 179 Mr. McLeod expressed his fervent opposition to this application; and expressed 180 hope that some other business could find a way to be successful at that site. 181 Applicant Response 182 The applicants responded to public comment and clarified other issues for those 183 unfamiliar with this newer concept for dog daycares; noting that there were only 184 twelve (12) facilities to-date in the metropolitan area, with all of those operations 185 using existing warehouse space to provide the large open areas needed for 186 operations. The applicants noted that they currently work closely with two (2) 187 existing dog daycares, neither of which had overnight staffing with the exception 188 of during inclement weather; and the lack of issues in those operations. The 189 applicants noted that the noise concerns expressed by neighbors was intended 190 to be mitigated through locating the suites in the northern part of the building, 191 approximately 250’ away from residential properties. The applicants further 192 addressed concerns with odors, and their additional research causing them to 193 revise their original proposal from pebbles to Astroturf, based on the 194 recommendations of other providers; noting that there were many online 195 companies selling dog pads that provided for easier cleaning. The applicants 196 clarified that a condition of approval of their Interim Use permit limited them to 197 forty (40) dogs unless they submitted another application. 198 Discussion among Commissioners and the applicant included materials of the 199 exterior walls being partial block and one section that was partial gypsum, and 200 the additional condition that if noise should be an issue, they had already 201 anticipated several options to install plexi-glass along the ceiling to provide more 202 sound barriers, in addition to additional insulation and gypsum board as 203 applicable, with the applicant expressing their confidence that noise would not be 204 an issue. The applicants encouraged residents to contact them immediately if 205 any problems were observed, expressing their desire to be good neighbors, and 206 not wanting them to struggle with any negatives from their operations. 207