6.5. SR 07-19-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Members Members Absent: Staff Present: ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTES HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2004 Chair Roph Com-~-lssioners Smderson, CurEs, Lemke, Pedersor. ~nd O~Ye~an Corn=mis sioner Stevens Mlcheie McPherson, Director of Planning; Scot: H,arlicker, Semor Planner; Chris LeeseBer$, Planner Ch~ Ropp called :.he meedn6 to order at 6:30 p.m. Relocation oF ABRA Presented by Rom Fiscus NLr. Ron Fiscus of Pi-~nScape Partners, represenffng ABRA Auto Body, reviewed d:e issues relaffng to ABP~% relocating to Muiv~nev Point. NLr. Fiscus revie,~'ed the evolution o£ ABtLh's corporate Linage and ~-hy the? fee! i: is ~ppropmte for t~hem to locate Ln ~e Business P:rk dismct. ~V~r. Fiscus provided ~nd over~-iew regarding the t~-o opdons to atiow ABRA to relocate to Nfulvaney Po~t. irhey include ~, text amendment to the Business P.~rk District standards, or a zone change from Business P~rk to Lisht Indusmal. Commissioner Anderson asked what the size of the p~rcel was. N~r. Fiscus stated three aczes. Comrmssioner Pederson 2sked where the access to the site would be. !t,0,'as noted that access to the site would be from 3'~ Street. Commissioner Pederson also asked if the desig'n of the buildLng w,~s sLmilar to ~e Ham Lake facility. Mr. Fiscus indicated yes. Chair Ropp asked what the size of the building was. The response was 18,000 square feet. Comznissioner Anderson asked why tlne other sites that were offered were not selected. Nit. Fiscus indicated that they were not wirlhin close proximRt to the emsting AtBP,_~ fac~w and that the price of ~e other si~es was exorbitant. The Comrmssion d~en discussed t~he pros and cons of both a!ternati~es ~nd felt tighdy-wri~ten text ~mendmen~ would be the mos~ ~pp~op~e choice ~ order to AB~% to retoc~te ~ffC~ this ~re~. lng_, Land Hoi&np - Qu~nrud Prooern~ ~Fne Co~a-mssion heard ~ presentation by Hak~nson-Xnderson r%~rdin~ a residential subdivision south of Count, Road 12 and west of i~ever Lake El&ds which wouid subdivide 1'4 ~cres into 28 single f~umiiv home sites. One access from County Road 12 has been proposed. The en~neer noted that three of ff~e ions would potenffa~? not meet ff~e iot depth reguirements of the Rl c Dismct. The issue of access from_ the Coun~ Road was discussed. It was noted thz~ the CounF~- is ~esponsibie ~or :e~u!atm~ access onto their ~ac:iw and if tF.e CounFc were to aiio~' :he access pomt~ d~e Ciw would not prohibit d~e access ~nd in £~c: would encour,~Ke it, :s '~,ithout fine access :o Coun~ Road 12, :_here is an ex~remei7 !on8 cul-de-sac ~nd no secondzr~' ~ccess for emergen% vehicle sumoses to the subdivision.