2007.02.08 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes — February 8, 2007 Page 2 applicant would have to apply for a conditional use permit to expand the legal non -conforming use and must comply with the related performance standards as part of the site plan review. The addition would provide space inside of the building to store materials that were currently outdoors. The plan complied with the parking requirements as well as the impervious surface and building coverage requirements. The building height had not yet been determined, and there was no lighting plan proposed. The detailed landscaping plan would be submitted with the formal plan but the landscaped areas were shown on the concept plan. She showed where the fencing would be realigned on the property line and explained that staff would prefer the trash enclosures be inside the building. If they were located outside, they would have to be enclosed with materials matching the exterior of the building. There was no new signage proposed and the City Engineer had indicated the pond looked to be adequate, but the City would need formal calculations during the site plan review. The Associate Planner had explained that a variance was granted to allow an addition to be built in 1992 three feet from the property line when the setback was ten feet. Because the building was constructed at a slight angle, the proposed addition would range from three to one foot from the property line if constructed in line with the existing building. The Board of Zoning adjustments had reviewed the variances at their meeting earlier that evening, and the Associate Planner explained there was a neighbor who spoke at the Board meeting about his concerns regarding noise and activities on the site in the evenings. The Board had recommended approval of the variances as requested. Schumann clarified that it was a concept plan and two variances the Commission was considering this evening. A formal application for site plan and the Conditional Use Permit would still need to be submitted for the addition. Bailly asked about the side yard variance and wondered why the building was built crooked on the site. She was concerned about the landscaping on the east side of the site and questioned whether there would be room for a buffer from the neighbors. Mark Erickson, 15685 Foxhill Avenue North, said the back of his home faced Highway 61, and he had observed the business being opened late at night, noise of metal being dropped and employees talking in the open garage door. He asked if it was possible to put a restriction on the variance regarding the hours of operation. The CDD explained that it would not be a part of this application but could be considered in the Conditional Use Permit. Rosenquist asked if the applicant was in violation of any ordinance and the CDD explained that there was nothing that regulated the working hours. Erickson thanked the Commission for their time and said he would try to attend the meeting when the Conditional Use Permit was discussed. Rick Burr, owner of Gussett Design, explained that the last shift ended at four o'clock and they