My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.12. SR 10-16-1995
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1995
>
10-16-1995
>
5.12. SR 10-16-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/3/2010 8:34:14 AM
Creation date
5/3/2010 10:17:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
10/16/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
the three conditions were still not met. I called Mr. Rohlf and agreed to meet <br />• him at the site to look at the trees and discuss his CUP conditions. <br />Mr. Rohlf feels that the signage requirements are unfair and that, although the <br />trees are not planted according to the drainage plans, he has an adequate <br />number of trees. <br />Mr. Rohlf indicated that he believes that the conditions attached to his CUP <br />were too restrictive and that he would address the Council during the open mike <br />section of its October 16, 1995 meeting. He will request that Council amend his <br />CUP so that he will not be required to place the signs on his property or add any <br />more trees. <br />Analysis <br />Inspection of two other mini-storage facilities in Elk River and their CUPS <br />(issued in 1992 and 1993), shows that they were not required to place speed <br />limit and "exit only" and "enter only" signs on their property, but they were both <br />required to plant additional trees. Only one of the facilities appears to be in <br />compliance with their CUP. The other mini-storage, although well maintained, <br />has not planted the trees required by the CUP and will be sent a letter <br />requesting that the trees be planted as required. <br />• Staff feels that the signage requirements for Mr. Rohlf may not be necessary. <br />During the five inspections done in the last month and a half, I have only seen <br />one car at the facility, therefore, the signs are probably an unnecessary <br />requirement. However, the tree requirement should not be waived. During both <br />of Mr. Rohlf's CUP applications, the City felt that additional trees were needed <br />for screening. Mr. Rohlf's conditional use permits required that he plant <br />nineteen (19) new trees on the two properties. Trees were to be ash, maple, <br />locust, linden and pine or spruce species. The tree plantings were not completed. <br />Recommendation <br />If so requested by Mr. Rohlf, Staff recommends an amendment to CU 90-07 and <br />CU 89-10 which would eliminate the 5 mph speed limit signs and the "enter <br />only" and "exit only" signs. However, Mr. Rohlf should be required to plant the <br />additional trees on his properties, as per the drainage plans. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.