My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-26-00 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
07-26-00 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2009 2:25:34 PM
Creation date
8/6/2008 10:47:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 26, 2000 <br />Valento reported that the accessory building proposed is critical to the <br />business occupying 3179 Spruce Street. Valento pointed out that the City <br />required the removal of two semi trailers from this property which were <br />being used for storage. Lack of storage has been a problem, therefore, the <br />accessory building is now being proposed. <br />Scalze pointed out that the variances for the Belland and Stanke properties <br />were granted because of the shallowness of the property. Scalze pointed <br />out that 3179 Spruce is not a shallow lot. Scalze asked if there was <br />another location on the property that the accessory building could be <br />placed eliminating the need for the variance. Scalze also asked why a <br />building addition was not being proposed rather than an accessory <br />building. <br />Valento reported that at the time the CUP was considered for this <br />property, he was told that an accessory building was preferable to outdoor <br />storage. Valento pointed out that an addition to the building would require <br />that the building be sprinkled. He further indicated that the roof trusses <br />would not support a sprinkler system. <br />Valento reported that he is proposing the setback for the accessory <br />building as 9 feet from the property line and a 3-foot separation between <br />buildings. He has reduced the width of the accessory building to 24 feet. <br />Valento reported that the 3-foot separation between buildings was <br />acceptable as long as the adjacent wall of the accessory building is fire- <br />rated. <br />Valento reported that the St. Paul Water Department has a 60-foot <br />easement across the back of his property. This easement will be <br />renegotiated with the Water Department in 2003, and Valento was <br />concerned that the Water Department may take a portion of this property <br />through eminent domain. <br />Valento noted that there is a concrete apron at the back of the building, <br />and he is proposing to place the accessory building in such a way as to <br />utilize this concrete apron. A forklift will be used to transfer materials <br />from the accessory building to the main building. Therefore, the concrete <br />apron is needed for running the forklift. Valento felt there was no other <br />location on the property to place the accessory building without negatively <br />impacting the operation of the business and/or the flow through the <br />property. <br />Morelan asked if the accessory building would be sprinkled. Valento <br />replied that it would not. Fahey pointed out that if the existing building <br />were added on to, the entire building would have to be sprinkled. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.