Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />August 23, 1994 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Eberley commented on implementing a mechanism to identify <br />and preserve areas such as those presented by Mr. Niziolek. Discussion ensued <br />and the decision was that this was more of a Park and Recreation Board issue. <br /> <br /> <br />Joel Ranallo, 11652-211 Avenue, requested clarification of the "ME" zoning <br />designation. Steve Rohlf responded. <br /> <br />Steve Griffiths, 20760 York Street, asked staff who initiated this request. Steve Rohlf <br />responded. <br /> <br />Darrell Thompson, 20608 Watson, requested clarification of the environmental <br />approvals. Peter Beck responded clarifying zoning, overlay zoning, procedures to <br />identify the mining area, the EA Wand EIS reviews. <br /> <br />Maureen Griffiths, 20760 York Street, asked staff what area residents should <br />expect regarding their property values being decreased/increased and what <br />affect this would have on taxes or assessments. Steve Rohlf responded and <br />suggested concerned residents contact Sherburne County Assessor's Office. <br /> <br />There being no further comments from the public, Chairman Tveite closed the <br />public hearing. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONE <br />CHANGE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR THE MINERAL EXCAVATION <br />DISTRICT, PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. ZC 94-09, CITING STAFF'S MEMO AND <br />SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AS FINDING <br />OF FACT. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED <br />4-0-1, Commissioner Kreger abstained. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission recessed at approximately 9:53 p.m. and reconvened at 10:00 <br />p.m. <br /> <br />5,3... ........Col1sideFOvariaf1eeReguest..by..RiverviewSoortsrl'uHlicHedril1a(...Case..Nd,'V.~M#8> <br /> <br />Staff report presented by Troy Langer. Mr. Lundquist, representing Riverview <br />Sports, requested a variance from the City Code sign setback and sign size <br />requirements. For the record, Mr. Langer noted that a smaller sign could be <br />constructed without the need for a variance. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Lundquist, Riverview Sports, explained that he originally wanted to make <br />improvements to his sign however, because the existing sign is a legal non- <br />conforming sign, he realized that the proposed sign would require a variance. <br />Further, due to the construction of the retaining wall along Highway 10 and the <br />roadway elevation, Mr. Lundquist realized that in order for sign to be seen from <br />Highway 10 he would have to erect a larger sign. After some discussion with staff, <br />Mr. Lundquist realized he could make improvements to his existing sign or go <br />through the variance process to construct a new sign. Mr. Lundquist feels that <br />because of circumstances beyond his control (the retaining wall being built along <br />Highway 10) and that fact that he wants to construct a safer sign (the current <br />footings would not safely support a larger sign however, it could be constructed <br />according to City Code) necessitate the need for this request. Mr. Lundquist took <br />