My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.2. SR 01-20-2009
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2009
>
01-20-2009
>
5.2. SR 01-20-2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2009 9:50:40 AM
Creation date
1/16/2009 9:48:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
1/20/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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 />Elk <br />River <br />REQUEST FOR ACTION <br />FILE COPY <br />To Item Number <br />Planning Commission 5.1. <br />Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by <br />Plannin Items anu 13, 2009 Chris Leeseber ,Park Planner-Planner <br />Item Description Reviewed by <br />Request by Fred McCoy (McCoy's Pub) for Conditional Use erem Barnhart, Plannin Mana er <br />Permit for Patio Addition, Reviewed by <br />Case No. CU 08-24 -Public Hearing <br />Action Requested <br />Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit <br />request for a building expansion, as illustrated on drawings dated 9/29/08, for the following reason: <br />1. Inconsistency with the Shoreland setback regulations. (Sec. 30-2022) Encroaches <br />approximately 30 feet past the bluff line. <br />2. Inconsistency with Impervious Surface regulations. (Sec. 30-2025) Exceeds impervious <br />surface by approximately 33% <br />3. Inconsistency with Downtown Design Guideline approved materials. (Section 30-1026) <br />Should the Planning Commission support and the City Council approve the Conditional Use permit, staff <br />would suggest the approval be conditioned on the following: <br />1. Approval of a formal variance from the Shoreland setback regulations, and the impervious <br />surface regulations. <br />2. All requirements of the Building Code shall be met, including egress. <br />3. City Engineer shall approval, prior to construction, a bluff re-stabilization plan. <br />Background/Discussion <br />The primary concern with the application is its inconsistency with the environmental regulations. In 1991 <br />the city adopted the Shore Land Ordinance and Impervious Surface regulations that the Department of <br />Natural Resources (DNR) established. These regulations, in part, pertain to bluff line setbacks and how <br />much of the property can be covered with impervious surfaces. Although the city did not create these <br />regulations, the city does have an obligation to enforce them. <br />In 1999 the DNR amended the Wild and Scenic line to accommodate all the existing structures in <br />downtown. The Wild and Scenic line used to run approximately down the center of Main Street. This <br />request is not affected by this line. The concern of the proposed addition is the setback from the bluff <br />line. <br />Secondary to the environmental implications are the typical conditional use permit concerns: Light, <br />noise, traffic, etc. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.