10-27-1992 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Elk River Planning Commission October 27, 1992 Page 5 Commissioner Eberley stated that she would like to review the five standards for a variance and how they relate to this request, specifically standard number 1, which deals with undue hardship. Moreover, she perceives this request to be based primarily on economics. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY DAVID GOW TO ALLOW AN 1,100 FOOT DEAD-END ROAD CITING STAFF'S MEMO AND THIS APPROVAL BE CONTINGENT ON PLAT APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ABSTAINED. 9. Consider a Conditional Use Permit Request by Five star Door and Supply Inc./Public Hearing Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, reported that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to convert a pole shed into a light assembly and storage facility for his garage door business. Ms. Szklarski reviewed her memo dated October 22, 1992. Further, she reported that there are unresolved issues regarding easements on the property which should be addressed through the stipulations for the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Nadeau opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chairman Nadeau closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson asked what the DNR's response was to this request. Janelle Szklarski responded that she had spoken with Dale Homuth of the DNR and because the request met the Shoreland Standards for Commercial Uses (i.e., increased setback and 25% impervious surface) the DNR did not have any negative comments on this issue. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PERMIT BY FIVE STAR DOOR AND SUPPLY CITING STAFF'S MEMO STANDARDS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT STIPULATIONS OUTLINED IN STAFF'S MEMO DATED OCTOBER 22, FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS: CONDITIONAL USE AND THE SEVEN TO THE TWELVE 1992, WITH THE 13. THAT THE GARAGE WHICH CROSSES THE LOT LINE IS EITHER MOVED SO IT IS ENTIRELY ON ONE PARCEL OR THE APPLICANT OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT FOR THE BUILDING. 14. THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE PROOF OF LEGAL ACCESS TO HIGHWAY 10 SUBJECT TO CITY REVIEW. 15. THAT THE APPLICANT COMBINES THE TWO LOTS OR OBTAINS LEGAL ACCESS TO THE NORTHERN PARCEL ALONG WITH SCOUT ISLAND, OR PROVE TO THE CITY THAT A LEGAL ACCESS TO THESE PARCELS EXISTS. 16. THAT THE APPLICANT PROVE WHETHER OR NOT AN EASEMENT EXISTS ALONG THE SOUTHERN 30 FEET OF THE PARCEL. IF IT DOES EXISTS, A DETERMINATION SHOULD BE MADE AS TO WHETHER THE CITY'S NEED FOR A UTILITY EASEMENT WILL INTERFERE WITH THIS DRIVEWAY EASEMENT. IF