My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Packet - February 24, 2026
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2021-2030
>
2026
>
02-24-2026
>
Planning Commission Packet - February 24, 2026
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2026 8:03:31 AM
Creation date
2/25/2026 8:03:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
date
2/24/2026
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
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
From:Melanie Curtis <br />To:Chris Leeseberg <br />Cc:Todd Curtis; Miranda Flatten <br />Subject:Public Comment on Knife River CUP; Case CU 26-01 <br />Date:Monday, February 23, 2026 11:24:06 AM <br />You don't often get email from melanie.c.curtis@gmail.com. Learn why this is important <br />Re: Public Hearing – Case No. CU 26-01 <br />Proposed Expansion of Knife River Mining Operation (Ernie Toth Pit), 225th Avenue, Elk River <br /> <br />I am writing in response to the public hearing notice for Case No. CU 26-01 regarding the proposed expansion of <br />Knife River’s mining operation at the Ernie Toth pit off 225th Avenue in Elk River. <br /> <br />My comments primarily concern traffic safety, regulatory compliance, and ongoing operational impacts at the pit <br />entrance and the intersection of 225th Avenue and Highway 169. <br /> <br />1. Traffic Safety, Access, and Increased Truck Volume <br />My neighbors and I have consistently raised concerns regarding gravel truck traffic and roadway safety. In 2024, <br />following a tragic fatality at the 225th Avenue/Highway 169 intersection, residents contacted the City of Elk River, <br />the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and other relevant agencies regarding safety improvements. <br />Since the removal of controlled intersections and traffic signals along Highway 169, access onto 169 from 225th <br />Avenue has become increasingly difficult and unpredictable. While regional traffic flow may have improved, local <br />access has become more challenging and hazardous. <br /> <br />Importantly, the improvements that were made at this intersection to support the landfill and gravel operations — <br />including the widened crossover, acceleration lanes, and turn lanes — make this the safest access point for our <br />neighborhood and for many of the neighborhoods north of us. We do not want this intersection removed. We want <br />it to remain open and to be made safer through appropriate operational controls and enforcement. <br /> <br />At the same time, we have experienced a substantial increase in gravel truck traffic along 225th Avenue during the <br />construction season. Truck traffic has extended north along 112th Street NW into Livonia Township. <br /> <br />Under the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP) issued to Bauerly Brothers in 1997 (CU 97-02), and subsequent CUP <br />approvals, a condition of operation required trucks to access Highway 169 via 225th Avenue and prohibited routing <br />north via 112th Street NW. Despite this condition, trucks are routinely observed traveling north on 225th/112th. <br /> <br />In addition, the sheer number of daily vehicle trips to and from the site is excessive. Residents attempting to access <br />Highway 169 frequently must wait behind five to eight side-dump trucks at the intersection. During that time, <br />additional trucks enter or exit the site, often traveling north. It can take 10–15 minutes to access Highway 169. <br />Combined with the continuous stream of traffic on Highway 169, travel times have become unpredictable and <br />increasingly hazardous. <br /> <br />The 2009 CUP (CU 09-14) imposed a condition limiting the number of “trucks per day.” City staff have explained that <br />this limits the number of individual trucks accessing the site, not the number of vehicle trips per day. This distinction <br />is significant. A limitation on individual trucks does not meaningfully restrict total traffic volume if those trucks make <br />multiple trips per day. <br />I respectfully request clarification on the following: <br />Is compliance with the truck limitation currently being tracked? <br />If so, what methodology is being used? <br />Page 39 of 71
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.