Loading...
2011-05-24 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 24, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 24, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnusson, Noonan Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Carie Fuhrman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval ofAjzenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 26, 2011, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2011 AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Report on New Statute Affecting Variances Planner Carie Fuhrman presented Planner Grittman's memorandum regarding the recently adopted statute enacting a new standard for the city's ability to consider and issue variances. Planner Grittman advised the city to use variances sparingly and adopt ordinance standards that reflect the city's definition of reasonable manner of use. It was noted the League of Minnesota Cities will be considering how this new legislation will impact municipalities. Commissioner Field stated the advice is to use variances sparingly, which is fairly broad. Ms. Fuhrman stated prior to the Krummenacher case other communities were using variances more often than they should have, which resulted in the Krummenacher ruling. Commissioner Field stated when Mendota Heights did consider a variance, which was not often, it already used the new standard. Commissioner Magnuson asked when the legislation was effective. Ms. Fuhrman stated it was effective immediately upon signing. Commissioner Viksnins noted the variance consideration has to be as a result of a unique nature of the parcel, not of the applicant's making. Ms. Fuhrman stated that is correct. Commissioner Viksnins stated when variances were considered, the commission looked for something unique and would continue to make that same consideration. Commissioner Noonan referenced the second bulleted point indicating "the ordinance prohibits this manner of use" and asked if a variance would allow something not allowed by the ordinance. Ms. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 Fuhrman explained the ordinance would prohibit a building setback at 20 feet instead of the required 50 feet, and a variance application would request something not allowed by the ordinance. Commissioner Hennes noted there will be an interesting discussion relating to Case No. 11 -11 for a conditional use permit and variance, during which the commission will need guidance. Commissioner Roston stated he found several problems with the statute because it narrows the circumstances for granting a variance relating to economic considerations, which have now been eliminated. He noted the statute was intended to create a process whereby a variance could be granted but used language from case law on exactions of regular takings, which he believes will be a "disaster." Commissioner Roston stated he believed the intention was to make it discretionary for the city to grant variances where it otherwise could not so he does not understand the rewrite of the statute by the Legislature. Hearinzs PLANNING CASE #11 -10 Beverly Sargent 1040 Sibley Memorial Highway Critical Area Permit for a privacy fence Planner Carie Fuhrman presented the request of Beverly Sargent for a critical area permit to allow the installation of a fence along the side yard of her property at 1040 Highway 13. The 128 -foot fence is proposed along the northeast property line that lies perpendicular to Highway 13 and would tie into two existing chain link fence segments, resulting in a complete fence along the entire length of the northeast property line. The subject site is zoned R -1, one family residential, and located within the Mississippi River corridor. Since work would be conducted within this corridor, a critical area permit is required. Ms. Fuhrman presented staff's analysis of the request and advised it has come to staff's attention that construction of the fence has started as well as a gravel driveway that was not part of this application. Therefore, discussion may occur on code enforcement. Based on the application, the commission can consider approval of the critical area permit to install the fence subject to conditions or consider denial based on findings of negative impacts to the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. In addition, the commission could require the applicant obtain a permit for the gravel driveway or require removal. Commissioner Roston asked if there are past examples of a structure being constructed prior to application approval. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated there have been several after - the -fact permits but this is the first case he is aware of where the property owner made application and proceeded with construction prior to approval. Beverly Sargent, 1040 Highway 13, applicant, stated the gravel driveway existed when she purchased the property but she had added gravel so her father, who has Parkinsons, could access the back door and not have to use the steps. With regard to the fence, Ms. Sargent stated she knew she needed a building permit for the fence but did not realize it involved a 6 -8 week process to obtain a critical area permit. She had already scheduled the fence installation but read the code requirements to assure the fence was correctly designed. Commissioner Magnuson asked how much gravel was added. Ms. Sargent estimated 2 -3 yards was laid over the existing gravel surface without expanding its width or length. 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 Commissioner Viksnins asked if the fence is fully installed. Ms. Sargent answered in the affirmative and stated it was completed five weeks ago. She explained she had hired the fence contractor the end of March. Commissioner Viksnins stated the application is straight forward but the concern is that while the resident understood there was a permitting process, had proceeded prior to approval. Ms. Sargent stated it was a timing issue because she didn't know the length of the process for a critical area permit. Commissioner Noonan asked if she received a fence permit. Ms. Sargent stated she had not. Commissioner Noonan stated her testimony has been inconsistent in that she knew a permit was required yet the contractor proceeded to construct the fence without it. Commissioner Noonan stated the location of the fence is not problematic; however, the process was not followed. Ms. Sargent stated it was her impression that she could get the fence permit the day she applied for it and by that time she had already signed an agreement with the contractor. Commissioner Noonan stated the code is to protect the resident as well as the city, noting the applicant could now be required to remove the fence. Ms. Sargent stated she is aware of that and is hoping for the Commission's generosity in considering she has already paid for the fence. Commissioner Noonan stated the contractor should have indicated he could not proceed without the permit. Commissioner Hennes asked if the contractor had been involved with the permit application or left it to the property owner. Ms. Sargent stated she made application, not the contractor. Commissioner Hennes asked how long the old chain link fence existed. Ms. Sargent stated she does not know but estimated 15 years and clarified that it is her neighbor's fence for their dogs. Ms. Sargent stated she wanted to complete the fence for privacy. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Commissioner Roston stated he understands the confusion but thinks there should be ramification short of tearing down a fence that meets Code and there has been an honest mistake. He asked if the city can charge a double permit fee as a penalty. Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello stated the city has charged a double fee for a building constructed without a building permit but he is not aware of that occurring with a fence. Commissioner Roston asked staff to work with the city attorney to draft a remedy when a fence is constructed prior to permit approval short of tearing down a fence. He also suggested the application form be revised to include notation that permit approval is required prior to construction. Mr. Mazzitello estimated the fence permit cost is $50. Commissioner Magnuson stated she has sympathy for anyone who is not aware of the permitting process and ordinance requirements. She stated she viewed the fence today and believed it was reasonable so under typical circumstances she would have voted for approval. Commissioner Magnuson stated she would be willing to consider a double fence permit fee for construction prior to permit approval but hoped Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 the commission would be reasonable in its deliberation and take into consideration that not everyone has read the ordinances and knows the number of requirements that need to be met. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT CONFIRM THAT THE FENCE PROJECT SHALL NOT INVOLVE LANDSCAPING, PAVING, GRADE CHANGES, SOIL LOSS, OR SLOPE ALTERATION; 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE A FENCE PERMIT; 3. THE FENCE SHALL MEET THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 12 -1D- 6, INCLUDING THE 30% OPEN DESIGN REQUIREMENT; AND 4. APPLICANT SHALL PAY A FENCE PERMIT FEE TWICE THE NORMAL RATE IN LIGHT OF THE APPLICANT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STANDARD PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO APPLICATIONS. Commissioner Roston asked if condition #4 can be required given the current ordinance language. Mr. Sedlacek stated it is likely the commission cannot but perhaps that will be part of the code enforcement action. Commissioner Viksnins asked how an additional fee can be obtained in this case. Mr. Sedlacek explained there is a dual tract with the permit process and code enforcement process since the fence was constructed without a permit. If the code allows a double permit through code enforcement, it will already apply. Commissioner Field stated he would not support the motion with condition #4 included. Commissioner Hennes asked if the council has the ability to impose a double fee. Mr. Sedlacek stated he is unsure but that issue will be reflected in the memorandum to the council regarding the discussion this evening. COMMISSIONERS VIKSNINS AND HENNES ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OFFERED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO REVISE CONDITION 4 AS FOLLOWS: 4. RECOMMEND CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT, TO THE EXTENT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CODE, TO ATTACH A DOUBLE PERMIT FEE IF ALLOWED BY THE ORDINANCE. Chair Norton stated he does not favor a condition as part of the motion to charge a double permit and is leery of the commission overstepping its bounds to penalize citizens due to a mistake. He noted the purpose of the planning commission is to review applications before it and if there is already pending enforcement he would recommend it be allowed to take place without interference. Commissioner Viksnins respectfully disagreed, noting the friendly amendment is a recommendation to the council. He believed there should be consequences and the commission should be able to recommend those consequences. Chair Norton stated he does not object to encouraging enforcement action taking place but does not support it as part of the motion. 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 Commissioner Field stated his support of the Chair's position and indicated he would not vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Viksnins called the question. AYES 4 NAYS 3 (Field, Magnuson, Norton) Commissioner Field noted there was also an issue with the gravel drive and testimony by the applicant that it existed when she purchased the property. He stated he wanted clarity in the minutes that this issue was being dispensed with. Chair Norton stated if the gravel driveway is a code enforcement issue, it will be addressed by the city. Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its June 7, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11 -11 Paul Elias 2242 Lexington Avenue South Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for a detached garage Planner Carie Fuhrman presented the request of Paul Elias for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a detached garage in the rear yard of his property at 2242 Lexington Avenue South to replace a dilapidated single -stall detached garage. The applicant wishes to construct a building measuring between 832 and 1,344 square feet in size. Ms. Fuhrman presented the four alternatives submitted by the applicant for garage sizes of. 24 -foot by 36 -foot (3 -stall with loft), 26 -foot by 32 -foot (2- stall), 24 -foot by 36 -foot (3 -stall with loft), and 24 -foot by 36 -foot (3- stall). The applicant is also requesting a variance to exceed the maximum 750 square foot area requirement applied to detached accessory buildings. Ms. Fuhrman presented staff's analysis of the CUP request. It was noted the rear and side yard setbacks would be met but garage height of some alternatives may require a separate height variance. In addition, the alternatives propose different exterior building materials and staff would recommend the applicant select a specific plan, drawn to scale. Ms. Fuhrman recommended that assurances be made that the proposed accessory building is compatible with the site's principal building and match the principle building in color, roof style and pitch. Because the ordinance allows only one private garage, staff recommended the existing detached structure and driveway be removed and turf re- established as a condition of the CUP. Ms. Fuhrman presented staff's analysis of the variance request to exceed the maximum 750 square foot area applied to detached accessory buildings. She clarified that the upper level is not part of the area calculation if retained as cold storage; however, if it is finished and heated for occupation, it is included in the building area calculation. Ms. Fuhrman presented the city's typical standard for variance approval as detailed in the staff report and referenced the new legislation recently signed into law by the Governor to replace "hardship" with "practical difficulties." She stated if the city finds the application meets the new tests, the variance can be considered for approval. Ms. Fuhrman explained that in consideration of the applicant's variance request the commission should consider that the city has established that a detached accessory building measuring 750 square feet in size is the maximum or "reasonable" limit upon residentially zoned properties. Detached accessory structures exceeding this requirement could be deemed "unreasonable" within the context of a single - family residential neighborhood. She reported that during informal conversation, the applicant indicated his neighborhood is characterized by "oversized" accessory buildings and believes his 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 proposed building would be consistent in size with other area buildings. Ms. Fuhrman indicated that staff reviewed aerial photos of the area and found that is the case with many detached accessory buildings exceeding 750 square feet in size. In addition, many properties in this area have multiple detached accessory buildings. While the existence of large accessory structures in the area may provide a basis to determine the applicant's request is "reasonable," it is important to note that many of the oversized buildings likely exist as nonconformities. This raises the questions of whether or not existing conditions should be the basis for further proliferation of oversized accessory structures. Ms. Fuhrman stated the commission may consider approval of the CUP with conditions or denial of the CUP based on a finding the proposed garage would adversely affect surrounding properties. In regard to the variance, the commission may consider approval based on appropriate findings or denial based on findings. She indicated staff is supportive of the CUP with conditions but does not support the requested variance to exceed 750 square feet. Commissioner Field noted a height variance of 15 feet is also required and asked for staff's input. Ms. Fuhrman explained the applicant has not applied for a height variance and if the applicant chooses to pursue a structure that exceeds the height requirement, that application would have to be made. Commissioner Noonan stated one recommended CUP condition requires an attempt to match the architecture and style of the principal building. However, when he visited the site he found the submitted architectural renderings do not match the principal structure and may be out of character. Ms. Fuhrman explained staff is recommending that requirement be placed, if approved. Chair Norton explained it could be required by a CUP condition placed on the application rather than the applicant coming forward with the submittal. Commissioner Hennes stated the issue with the variance boils down to the difference in the size of structure the applicant wants and the allowed 750 square feet. He asked if a three -stall garage can be constructed of 750 square feet. If not, he felt property owners were being penalized if the building has to be constructed as detached. Ms. Fuhrman stated she does not know if a three -stall garage can be constructed under 750 square feet. Mr. Sedlacek stated the council determined the code restriction to limit the size of detached garages and encourages garages to be attached if large in size. Commissioner Roston noted one alternative is 32 -foot by 24 -foot which is 768 square feet and identifies a three -car garage with a loft. He stated he has concern with the practical difficulties component. Paul Elias, 2242 Lexington Avenue S., explained he is trying to improve his property so the siding of the garage would make it compatible and compliment the principle structure. The principle structure was built in 1940 and an addition constructed 1950. At this time he would like to construct a garage. Mr. Elias stated he reviewed many garage plans and found several he thought would fit with the roof pitch of the principle building. In addition, dormers would be added to compliment the structure. He agreed the barn- styled garages do not fit as well and stated his preference for alternate 1. Mr. Elias stated he needs storage for vehicles, motorcycles and other things. He noted this is a narrow and long lot so it is not feasible to construct an attached garage. Commissioner Field asked how wide the lot is. Mr. Elias estimated 70 feet in width and 470 feet deep. Commissioner Field concurred it would be impossible to construct an attached garage on this lot 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 configuration. Mr. Elias stated he has wanted to construct a garage for many years and talked with builders about the alternate designs, roof heights, and to add dormers. Commissioner Field stated he is sympathetic about the applicant's plight due to the narrow lot width and while the appearance of the garage is not an issue for him, it would be helpful to know the exact size of the garage. Commissioner Magnuson asked if alternate 1 is the applicant's preference. Mr. Elias answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Magnuson noted it contains a second story loft and asked how it would be used. Mr. Elias stated he does not yet know but would like the option because he needs storage area. Commissioner Magnuson noted if that loft space is finished for occupation it would be included in the square footage calculation, effectively reducing the garage size. Mr. Elias stated his intent is that it will be used as cold storage but someone in the future may want an office or room. He stated the footprint of the garage would be 24 -feet by 36 -feet. Commissioner Magnuson stated that is 864 square feet in size and if the upstairs is finished it would add 400 square feet. Mr. Elias stated it is not his intent to finish or heat the loft. He wants to use it for storage of boxed items instead of storage on rafters, and to have a staircase. Commissioner Magnuson asked if a three -stall garage is needed. Mr. Elias stated he would prefer a four - stall garage because there are four cars on the site and one vehicle is in storage. In addition he has five motorcycles, a snowmobile and three boats. Commissioner Magnuson stated she visited the property and asked if he has talked with the neighbor on Wagon Wheel. Commissioner Magnuson stated that house is ten feet from the property line and the proposed garage would be 30 feet from the property line. In addition the existing garage would be removed. He stated he has spoken with that neighbor and a fence could be erected or trees planted. Commissioner Viksnins asked how large the existing garage is. Mr. Elias stated may be 10 -feet wide by 20 -feet deep and if empty it may hold a subcompact car. However, the garage structure is beyond repair. Commissioner Viksnins asked how large the neighbor's garage is. Mr. Elias estimated it is 28 -feet by 40- feet and noted there is another three -car detached garage on Lexington Avenue South. Mr. Elias clarified that the garage would have an insulated garage door so he could install a heater and be able to work indoors. Chair Norton asked staff to display the applicant's lot diagram and asked Mr. Elias to identify the location of his house, existing garage, location of the proposed garage, and neighbor's house. Chair Norton addressed the ability of the applicant to build an attached garage and asked what is located on the western edge of the house. Mr. Elias stated it is a living room with windows and dormers above. Chairman Norton asked if a garage is added in front of the garage, would it eliminate all the windows in the family /living room. Mr. Elias answered in the affirmative. Chair Norton asked what is located on the eastern edge of the house. Mr. Elias stated it is bedrooms, bathroom, and a kitchen. Chair Norton asked if a garage is added to the back and eastern side would it eliminate the bedroom's egress window. Mr. Elias stated that is correct and also remove a window from 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 the bedroom and kitchen. In addition, that location is not feasible because of the grade and impact to drainage of the lot. Chair Norton asked how long he has lived at this property. Mr. Elias stated it has been 28 years. Commissioner Noonan referenced alternate 1 and asked Mr. Elias if it is his intention to purchase the plan or if the builder will tweak the plan depending on the situation. Mr. Elias stated he looked at Menard's garage plans that can be purchased but in his case adding dormers would change that plan. He noted that due to the 12/12 roof pitch, only one -half of the loft floor area would be usable. Commissioner Noonan agreed that adding dormers would improve the aesthetics. He stated the difficulty with the initial application was which alternate plan would be used and if it is alternate 1, the commission can focus on the items that need to be addressed such as square footage and height. Commissioner Noonan noted the greatest justification stated by Mr. Elias is to allow a garage to accommodate all the vehicles and other equipment on site. However, he is not overly sympathetic to that argument and asked if the applicant is trying to put too much on the site, though it is laudable to store them indoors. Commissioner Noonan stated that something may have to be done to mitigate having so many things on site. Commissioner Hennes stated he shares some of these concerns, especially with the height. He noted alternate 4 has a height of 14 feet 8 inches but the other three alternates are much higher, 22 -23 feet. Ms. Fuhrman clarified the 15 -foot measurement is not taken to the highest peak but to the average midslope. Mr. Elias stated all four alternatives are under the 15 -foot height requirement. Commissioner Hennes asked if a size of 24 -feet by 32 -feet (768 square feet) is an acceptable option. He noted it could be constructed to appear as alternate 1, hold three cars, provide storage, and meet the height requirement. Mr. Elias stated that may be a possibility but that size may not accommodate a staircase or his needs for storage that would include lawn equipment. He stated alternate 1 is 24 -feet by 36 -feet and would allow space for a staircase, work bench, and to work on cars. Commissioner Roston asked if a three -stall garage can be built of 750 square feet. Mr. Elias stated alternate 2 (26 -feet by 32 -feet) is also over 750 square feet and he wants the garage, if built, to be useable. Commissioner Field stated he understands this process is frustrating for both sides and asked if it is possible to present an application with one plan. He indicated that tonight he would have to vote against the application because he is unsure what is being asked. Chair Norton stated the commission could act on the CUP and variance applications tonight as presented with Mr. Elias indicating his preference for alternate 1, which may or not be approved. Or, the commission could table the application to next month's meeting which may avoid a situation where the application is denied. Then an application can be presented that is specific to the design and size and may not involve a variance request. Commissioner Roston asked about the 60 -day rule. Mr. Sedlacek stated the application is within the initial 60 days and if tabled staff would issue a letter extending for an additional 60 days. Commissioner Hennes asked if the commission could consider the CUP tonight and table the variance. Staff indicated its preference that both applications be considered at the same time. Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 Commissioner Noonan noted if the commission supports the CUP then the applicant can address the concerns expressed. He supported determining whether there is support for the CUP. Chair Norton explained the CUP and variance process and asked the applicant if he had questions. Mr. Elias stated he wished he had included just alternate 1 in this application because he does not think the barn-style garages fit the area. Chair Norton stated he appreciates being provided with options; however, the commission is tasked with making a specific decision on a specific plan. He noted that even with alternate 1, a variance is required because the size exceeds 750 square feet. Chair Norton stated it appears the commission is willing to consider the CUP application tonight and if the structure does not require a variance, it would not have to return to the commission for additional consideration. Mr. Elias stated his preference to move forward with alternate 1. Commissioner Field stated he does not favor acting on the CUP tonight because Commissioner Noonan and others are concerned about the appearance of the garage, which can be addressed in the CUP conditions. Mr. Elias stated he wants to improve this house with new siding and windows when the garage is under construction. He noted the value of his property continues to go down but he still wants to make improvements so the house and garage complement each other. Commissioner Field asked Mr. Elias if he would be comfortable with tabling consideration to the next meeting, which would be his preference so the application can be submitted with one option. Mr. Elias stated his willingness to table consideration to next month but indicated he wants to get started on construction as soon as he can. Chair Norton stated that Mr. Elias can then work with staff and submit an application with one specific building plan. He thanked Mr. Elias for working with the commission and answering its questions. Commissioner Field asked Chair Norton to poll the commissioners whether, in theory, they supported the application. A poll of the Commissioners and Chair revealed all would support a CUP if not greater than 750 square feet. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF CASE NO. 11- 11, CUP AND VARIANCE, TO THE JUNE 28, 2011 MEETING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Commissioner Hennes stated his opinion this application should not have been forwarded to the commission with four options and so many variables. He asked staff to work with Mr. Elias to refine the application. Commissioner Field strongly supported the observation of Commissioner Hennes that this application should not have come before the commission tonight. Commissioner Viksnins stated it is unfair to "lay this at the feet" of staff when the applicant has ill defined goals but he shares the general 0 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 observation that in the next 30 days he hopes the applicant will work with staff to develop a more specific proposal. Chair Norton advised this application would again be considered by the planning commission at its June 28, 2011, meeting. If forwarded to the council at that time, it would be consider on July 5, 2011. Mr. Elias asked how soon he can get a building permit, if approved. Mr. Sedlacek explained that building permits may be submitted prior to final approval; however, they are not prioritized as highly and would be considered on a first - time /first -come basis. PLANNING CASE #11 -12 Patrick Costello 2535 Pilot Knob Road Conditional Use Permit for participative athletics in the industrial zone Planner Carie Fuhrman presented the request of Patrick Costello for a conditional use permit (CUP) to locate "Crossfit Mendota," a proposed athletic training business, in a vacant industrial space along Pilot Knot Road. The zoning ordinance allows "participative athletics" by CUP in the industrial district. She presented staff's analysis of the application, noting the hours of operation would be weekdays from 5 a.m. to 7 a.m., evenings from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., and possibly morning hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. Ms. Fuhrman stated the planning commission may recommend approval based on findings and subject to conditions or denial based on findings that the use would be incompatible with the office /industrial nature of the surrounding area and raise concerns related to traffic, property values, or other issues. Staff recommends approval, as presented, since the use should be lower volume and less intense than other permitted uses in the district and the zoning ordinance anticipates these types of uses in the industrial district by listing them under the CUP allowance. Commissioner Hennes asked if the CUP limits hours of operation. Ms. Fuhrman stated it would not unless hours are limited by the CUP conditions of approval. Commissioner Viksnins asked if hours of operation are being recommended by staff. Ms. Fuhrman stated staff is not making a recommendation; the hours indicated were suggested by the applicant. Patrick Costello, applicant representing Crossfit Mendota, stated he has nothing to add to staff s report and is available to answer questions. Commissioner Magnuson asked if this training facility includes music that would impact neighboring properties. Mr. Costello stated there will be music but assured the commission it would not be excessively loud or cause a disturbance in the building. Chair Norton stated that would be a code enforcement issue, if it occurred. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 10 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2011 AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON FINDINGS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its June 7, 2011, meeting and recommended Mr. Costello be in attendance. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11 -04 Mendakota Country Club Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -08 Norbert and Sandra Krebsbach Critical Area Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11 -09 Karry Knoll Wetlands Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:43 P.M. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 11