My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-24-2020 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2020 - 2029
>
2020
>
11-24-2020 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2021 8:40:53 AM
Creation date
5/5/2021 8:40:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
11/24/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Planning Commission <br />November 24, 2020 <br />Page 3 <br />4.2 Elk River Municipal Utilities — 1643 Main St. NW <br />■ Conditional Use Permit to allow a duplex in the R- I a zoning district, Case <br />No. IU 20-02 <br />Mr. Leeseberg presented the staff report. <br />Councilmember Ovall noted this proposal is a significant change to the initial site <br />layout proposed and asked ERMU for the reason regarding this change. <br />Mr. Kerzman explained the big change came after completing final cost analysis <br />associated with civil work, soil removal, and the cost of the retaining wall. He stated <br />the updated plan will not require a retaining wall and will keep most of the soils on <br />site. <br />Councilmember Ovall stated he likes this concept even better. <br />Chair Larson -Vito asked about outdoor storage location and what type of screening <br />would be required. She asked if the type of screening should be detailed in the <br />conditions. <br />Mr. Leeseberg explained storage would occur on the west side of the parcel and <br />some type of screening would be required, stating the screening type is outlined in <br />city ordinance but specific language of the type of screening could be included in the <br />condition. He stated for instance, the condition could be 100% opaque screened <br />fence and wall, using the same materials as the building itself. <br />Commissioner Rydberg asked about Applicable Regulation #5 and what type of <br />activities may generate complaints during normal business operations. <br />Mr. Leeseberg explained staff anticipates traffic and vehicle noise in and out of the <br />site, headlights, backup signals, all occurring during times when people are home. <br />Chair Larson -Vito opened the public hearing. <br />Gordon Bynum, 420 Rush Avenue, was curious about the traffic being anticipated <br />and if it were on Main Street where the current traffic entered and exited. He asked if <br />there was the thought of a further setback and screening to mitigate the traffic, noise, <br />and lights from the neighboring homes. <br />Chris Kerzman stated they are expecting employee traffic during normal work hours <br />coming in on the two northern entrances, and truck traffic along the west side from <br />Main Street, stating they are not anticipating more traffic or workload than what is <br />already taking place. He stated there may be additional deliveries as they will have <br />more storage space. <br />Mr. Bynum asked if staff has heard from the residents living across the street on <br />Main or off Tipton. <br />p a I I a I I a <br />NATURE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.