Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />.--, .-. <br />b. PLANNING FILE 07-042 <br />Request by Mark Theobaid for an INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) to allow an indoor <br />baseballlsoftball training facility in an existing industrial space at 2581 Fairview <br />Avenue. <br />Vice Chair poherty opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-042. <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of Mr. Theobald (in cooperation <br />with ERP Minnesota Portfolio, LLC, property owner) to allow establishment of a <br />temporary training and instructional facility in an available tenant space at 2579 — <br />2605 Fairview Avenue. Mr. Paschke advised that the interior would be improved to <br />include artificial turf and moveable nets to support up to three (3) batting cages, with <br />most of the training and instruction would occur during off-peak business hours or <br />from 4:00 — 10:00 p.m. <br />Staff recommended APPROVAL of the request for an INTERIM USE PERMIT; based <br />on the comments and findings of Section 5, and the conditions of Section 6 of the <br />project report dated August 1, 2007. <br />Discussion included the standard timeframe allowed for Interim Use Permits (five year <br />increments), and reapplication after that term allowing staff to work through issues <br />and modify texts as applicable; uniqueness of this site with an existing lease <br />agreement and specific uses allowable and the low-impact nature of this proposed <br />use. <br />Further discussion ensued regarding language interpretation on staff <br />recommendations and conditions detailed in Section 6.1.b of the staff report. <br />Commissioner Wozniak questioned whether there were any zoning classifications or <br />Interim Use Permit tools available to impost handicapped accessibility for the use. <br />Commissioner Wozniak observed, from his site visit, that there was no apparent <br />Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access from the north side. <br />Commissioner Martinson questioned whether similar accommodations were given to <br />the Clean Air Act. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that such accommodation would be activated upon the building <br />permit application and process, and that such provisions would be required once <br />improvements were undertaken within the structure, in accordance with International <br />Building Code requirements, but would not be a part of the IUP land use consideration <br />unless conditioned by the Commission. <br />Commissioner Wozniak expressed his support for conditioning this IUP accordingly, <br />since the former warehouse use on the site was designed for different tenants in <br />different areas. <br />Commissioner Gottfried concurred with the concerns expressed by Commissioner <br />Wozniak; however, opined that in general, similar issues were addressed by the <br />Building Code approvals prior to Certificates of Occupancy being issued. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the applicant was not available for tonighPs meeting. <br />Vice Chair poherty closed the Public Hearing with no one appearing for or against. <br />MOTION <br />