2010-11-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 03, 2010 Page 5 Further discussion included the process proposed by the applicants should a 208 complaint be received; the security and alarm systems and monitoring controls 209 during staffing and after hours; staffing ratio per dog, with one staff person for 210 every 10-15 dogs when inside, and 1 to 10 ratio for play area; the process for 211 evaluating new clients to determine if they are suitable clients for dog daycare. 212 Member Gisselquist reviewed his favorable experience in using the services of a 213 professional dog daycare 214 Additional discussion included setbacks of the actual building from the property 215 line, with the current building being legally, not conforming based on its age and 216 history and its construction prior to the City implementing its zoning ordinance 217 and remaining applicable unless the building was vacant for 365 days; statutory 218 provisions for the existing building and any disasters that would require its 219 reconstruction, and recent legislative changes allowing property owners more 220 rights in any future redevelopment; and challenges with the past history of 221 noncompliance for uses of this property with City Code and not respecting 222 adjacent property owners and uses. 223 Staff noted their attempts to condition this industrial property as specifically and 224 with as much detail as possible to facilitate operations for a new business, while 225 allowing staff to proactively enforce code and operations. 226 Discussion ensued regarding the length of the Interim Use at five (5) years and 227 considerations for extension; existing and Comprehensive Plan guidance for land 228 use as HDR; staff’s enforcement of conditions and elimination of the Use if 229 conditions are not met, before the five year expiration on October 31, 2015; and 230 attempting to recognize and address neighborhood concerns while being 231 supportive of a new business venture and the time needed to get the operation 232 functioning and productive. 233 Chair Doherty closed the Public Hearing at 6:51 p.m. 234 Chair Doherty spoke in support of the request; opining that the applicants 235 seemed knowledgeable and had responded to comments, questions and 236 concerns from an apparent basis of having done their research on the 237 prospective business; and their willingness to be good and responsive neighbors. 238 Chair Doherty apologized to the residential property owners and their negative 239 experience and history with the City and its staff; however, asked that it not be 240 held against the current applicants. 241 Member Wozniak spoke in support of the request; concurring with Chair 242 Doherty’s comments, in addition to the number of safeguards built into the 243 operating plans and conditions of approval applied by staff to ensure that this 244 facility fit into its surroundings and didn’t become a reason to further distrust or 245 dislike the City or this use. 246 Member Gottfried questioned the lack of presence by the building’s owner at 247 tonight’s meeting. 248 Chair Doherty noted that the building owner was not the applicant. 249 Member Gottfried spoke in opposition to the request; even though recognizing 250 that as soon as the applicant goes away, the use goes away. Member Gottfried 251 noted the City’s poor history with this problem property and the need to prove 252 their improved response to neighborhood concerns, and the difficulty in 253 managing the zoning for the parcel or providing a sustained monitoring system 254 for nuisances and code enforcement issues. Member Gottfried opined that the 255 location is not suitable for this business, even though they appear to have a good 256 business model; however, further opined that the building is out of compliance, 257 and that the City should not repeat the same mistakes as in the past. 258