02/07/2007 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 2/7/2007 obtained for purposes of kennels. There are 60 of them in the U.S. since 1997, and 10 of them are under conditional use permits. They have never had a conditional use permit revoked for any violation. Mr. Tallon asked about a water filtration system. There is a reverse osmosis system in effect. All water is filtered. Mr. Tallon asked about the wastewater treatment. It is collected and washed into the sanitary system through a trench process. Inappropriate items (like toys or bones) are removed. Mr. Limpert advised that this business does not pose a concern to the waste water treatment system due to the biological similarities of the waste products between what would be a normal residential use and the indoor boarding facility. As to the site itself, this is just legislation-not the actual application to get a conditional use permit. Should the legislation pass, the site would take over all (2) adjacent empty spaces to the current PetSmart to the east and would remove a nail salon. It would go all the way to the corner where you could cut back to plaza south. Mr. Tallon desired to include a distance setback requirement. The Law Director indicated that this is appropriate if Council so chooses. The requirement used to be 700 feet, and that is why this is being addressed. Mr. Barker expressed his support of the ordinance. He felt that the new controls with the new conditional use ordinance would provide sufficient protection for adjacent properties. Mr. Kennedy expressed a desire to retain the displaced tenants in the event PetSmart expands. Mrs. Jones questioned whether there were any regulations for current animal hospitals or pet shops regarding waste disposal. Mr. Limpert responded that there was not. She advised that the conditional use process will provide controls and further advised that it was proximately located to the Great Northern Park and Ride and the airport. She advised that she has seen these facilities in other communities and felt they served a public need. Mr. Orlowski asked about cat waste. He was advised that it is emptied daily into a trash facility as opposed to being flushed down the sanitary sewer system. Ms. Wenger advised that the word "kennel" and "boarding facility" are appropriate distinctions. The definitions are selected by us. Further, in the event that these facilities were to move to the industrial park as a permitted use (or even an industrial zone), they would merely obtain an occupancy permit. There would be no council oversight of noise, odors or any other facet of the facility. Mr. Tallon again requested a minimum square footage and minimum set back requirement. Mr. Orlowski advised that he was concerned with the fact that we will not be able to adequately detect odor and noise to determine whether a particular standard has been satisfied. Mr. Gareau advised that zero was readily detectible in terms of noise and odor through human detection. PetSmart advised that dogs barking while in a highly agitated state could not be detected from a distance of 12 inches outside the back door in a test that they undertook. There was also an odor study undertaken by Duke University. It was determined there was no discernable odor outside the building and the inside was no more or less offensive than odors inside the typical shopping center. Facilities they have throughout the country are in shopping centers, not located in other zoning districts. Mr. Orlowski indicated concern that there are no specific conditional use sections dealing with kennels and indoor boarding facilities. At the committee meeting, Mr. Gareau made a motion to recommend approval of 7