Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes <br />July 12, 2011 <br />--------------------------- <br />Page 6 <br />5.4. Request by SSpectrum High School for an Interim Use Permit to extend their existing IUP <br />for awrestling/fitness facility at 17834 Industrial Circle NW. Public Hearing -Case No. CU • <br />11-10 <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated that the IUP issued in 2010 has expired. The applicant is requesting <br />the IUP because of delays in construction and inspections due to the state shutdown. Mr. <br />Leeseberg reviewed the conditions. He noted that the applicant's representative was unable <br />to attend the meeting due to a conflict, but that Spectrum had no issues with any of the <br />conditions. <br />Chair Ives opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Ives closed <br />the public hearing. <br />MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY <br />COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE <br />REQUEST BY SPECTRUM HIGH SCHOOL FOR AN INTERIM USE <br />PERMIT TO EXTEND THEIR EXISTING IUP FOR A <br />WRESTLING/FITNESS FACILITY, CASE NO. CU 11-10, WITH THE <br />FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: <br />1. INTERIM USE PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE AUGUST 15, 2012 <br />2. AS AN INTERIM USE PERMIT IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT, THE <br />APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, INCLUDING <br />APPROVALS FROM THE FIRE CHIEF, CITY ENGINEER AND <br />BUILDING OFFICIAL. • <br />3. THE STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE <br />PERMIT SHALL CONTINUE TO BE MAINTAINED. <br />4. DUE TO THE INDUSTRIAL NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, <br />THE SCHOOL RECOGNIZES THAT NOISE, ODORS, TRUCK <br />TRAFFIC, AND OTHER UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS MAY BE PRESENT. <br />MOTION CARRIED 6-1. Commissioner Anderson opposed. <br />5.5. TR~equest by City ofElk River forlOrdinarn~ce Amendment to Ch1apter 30 - Land1 <br />1 /PVP~(lIl1Y1P11Y RPO'lll'atlllilC QYFI!`IP `~ - / nnlna ~lvlc lnn 7 Allmmlctw]tlnn ~]n!1 <br />71'10 - <br />Mr. Barnhart provided background information regarding legislaxive changes to Minnesota <br />statutes regarding variances. He stated that the most recent change (May 5, 2011) now <br />permits variances if there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the zoning ordinance. <br />He explained that the critical issues are (1) that the variance is in harmonywith the purpose <br />and intent of the ordinance, and (2) whether or not the variance is consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan. He noted that no changes are being proposed to the appeal process. <br />Staff recommends approval of the proposed language change. <br />Chair Ives asked for clarification on page 3 Sec. 30-635 -Variances (a) regarding conditions. <br />Mr. Barnhart explained that the conditions must be reasonable and intended to mitigate and <br />issue that is recognized. <br />C7 <br />