My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.6. & 6.7. SR 04-18-1994
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1994
>
04/18/1994
>
6.6. & 6.7. SR 04-18-1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:36:32 AM
Creation date
8/22/2006 1:28:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
4/18/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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 />t' <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />4-18-94 <br /> <br />To: Elk River City Council <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />From: James P. Rossman <br />406 Main street <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />Subject: Administrative Subdivision <br />of 406 Main Street <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />I am requesting the Administrative Subdivision of my <br />property so that an office building can be built. The city <br />has no minimum frontage requirement for this process. The <br />lot has been surveyed so that the existing building meets <br />the 15 foot minimum setback from the new lot line. The <br />property currently has two curb cuts, one that enters each <br />of the proposed lots. The easterly lot, which I'm preparing <br />for commercial development, has a curb cut that is well over <br />the required 24'. The other curb cut which services the <br />existing residence is over 18' wide. I feel that the <br />requirements for the lot split have been met, and would <br />appreciate your approval without regard to any conditional <br />use permit. <br /> <br />The conditional use permit I have requested is an issue in <br />itself and I feel that it should be dealt with separately. <br /> <br />A condi tional use permi t has been requested under <br />cooperation with city staff. I initially proposed to the <br />city staff the placement of an office building toward the <br />rear of the easterly lot, with the parking in front. After <br />discovering that city staff would appreciate any <br />construction of an office building toward the front of the <br />lot, it became apparent that a shared drive could be <br />necessary to leave enough room for a suitable building. A <br />building could still be built towards the front of the lot <br />without a shared driveway, but it would have maximum width <br />restrictions. <br /> <br />By no means do I intend to limit the future development of <br />the new lots to only the concept of a shared driveway. I <br />don't have a finalized plan for the lot and would not want <br />to be limited to only the shared driveway concept. With <br />this in mind, if I were limited to only a shared driveway, I <br />would be limiting myself from other options I may have for <br />future construction on these lots. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.