My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-27-2004 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2000 - 2009
>
2004
>
04-27-2004 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:13 AM
Creation date
5/23/2005 9:22:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
4/27/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />April 27, 2004 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />Commissioner Offerman stated that the reason other cities don't allow outdoor storage is <br />because people don't like to look at it. The City has chosen to allow it, providing screening <br />standards are applied. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson stated that they are making an effort to build a nice building, and felt that the <br />120-foot building would adequately screen the outdoor storage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pederson stated that he feels 44 trees is acceptable. He stated that he did not <br />see the need for additional screening since the property is zoned 1-2, it is not in the urban <br />service district, it is located near the railroad tracks and not highly visible from Highway 10. <br />He did not feel it was necessary to screen the site from other industrial buildings. <br />Commissioner Pederson suggested requiring only 30 trees, but require larger trees. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lemke asked for clarification on the number of additional trees. Mr. <br />Harlicker stated that a total of seven additional trees are suggested to enhance screening. <br />Commissioner Lemke stated that he felt the additional trees are not necessary. He suggested <br />removing Conditions #2 and #6. Commissioner Curtis suggested removing Condition #2 <br />and requiring that the trees be spread out. Commissioner Anderson stated that the <br />ordinance requires that landscaping be irrigated and that it would be expensive to irrigate <br />trees spread out through the site. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson asked if less trees would be required if they planted larger trees. Commissioner <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant work with staff on the details of <br />the number and size of trees. <br /> <br />MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY <br />COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST <br />BY OLSON GENERAL CONTRACTORS FORA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE, CASE NO. CU 04-08, WITH THE FOLLOWING <br />CONDITIONS: <br /> <br />1. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ADDRESSED. <br />2. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE SIGN ORNIDANCE AND <br />THE FREESTANDING SIGN SHALL BE SET BACK 10 FEET FROM THE <br />PROPERTY LINES. <br /> <br />3. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED. <br /> <br />4. THE EDGES OF THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA SHALL BE <br />PERMANENTLY DEFINED WITH LANDSCAPING TIES. <br /> <br />5. ONE ADDITIONAL OVERS TORY TREE BE PLANTED. <br /> <br />MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Commissioner Stevens abstained. <br /> <br />5.5. <br /> <br />Request by Vision Enterprises. LLC for a Conditional Use Permit for a building expansion. <br />Public Hearing - Case No. CO 04-09 <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevens excused himself from discussion on this issue due to a potential <br />conflict of interest. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.