Laserfiche WebLink
• MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS <br /> HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL <br /> TUESDAY,APRIL 27, 2004 <br /> Members Present: Chair Pederson,Commissioners Anderson,Curtis,Lemke,Offerman,Ropp <br /> and Stevens <br /> Members Absent: None <br /> Staff Present: Scott Harlicker,Senior Planner;Chris Leeseberg,Planner,Debbie Huebner, <br /> Recording Secretary <br /> 1. Call Meeting To Order <br /> Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,the meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments <br /> was called to order at 6:30 p.m.by Chair Pederson. <br /> 2. Consider 4/27/04 Board of Adjustments Agenda <br /> MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PETERSON AND SECONDED BY <br /> COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE APRIL 27,2004 BOARD OF <br /> ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. <br /> • 3.1. Request by Olson General Contractors,Inc.for a Variance to the City Code Section 30-934 <br /> -Landscaping Requirements,Case No.V 04-02 <br /> Commissioner Stevens excused himself from discussion on this item due to a conflict of <br /> interest. <br /> Senior Planner Scott Harlicker reviewed the request by Olson General Contractors for a <br /> variance to the landscape ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a 12,000 square <br /> foot building for a masonry contractor with accessory outdoor storage. The property is <br /> located on Lot 2,Block 1,Cascade Industrial Park. <br /> Mr.Harlicker reviewed the five conditions that must be met in order to grant a variance. <br /> Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny the request for a variance based on <br /> the findings stated in the staff report. <br /> Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. <br /> Russ Eros, architect for the project,stated that they would be developing 3/ of the <br /> property and that trees will be placed on the front two-thirds of the site. He feels that the <br /> number of trees they have proposed will be adequate. <br /> Robert Peterson,Andover,MN,adjacent property owner to the north,stated that he <br /> also will be required to plant 40 plus trees on his site. He stated that he felt there is not <br /> adequate space to plant this number of trees. He questioned the intent of requirement,since <br /> industrial property owners do not wish to screen their property from one another. He stated <br /> • that he could understand the screening requirement if they were located next to a residential <br /> development,but he stated this property is in view of the pipe yard. <br />