My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-25-11 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
07-25-11 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/8/2011 9:45:43 AM
Creation date
8/8/2011 9:45:23 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 27, 2011 <br />Henry also asked if it would be possible to move the garage closer to the <br />east property line rather than maintain the required 10 foot setback. Henry <br />reported that he discuss this with the Building Inspector or indicated that <br />he did not have an issue with it as long as the garage was off the 5 foot <br />utility easement. The City Planner noted that a 10 foot side yard setback <br />is required by Code. Moving the garage further east brings it closer to the <br />neighboring property. Montour pointed out that a Variance would be <br />required to move the garage, and he did not feel there was any basis for <br />granting a Variance. <br />The City Planner encouraged the City to require a steeper roofline on the <br />garage to make the appearance as close to the existing principle building <br />as possible. Blesener agreed, and indicated that Henry should make the <br />roof as steep as possible without exceeding the 15 foot height limitation on <br />the roof mid- point. Henry was informed to work with the Building <br />Official on that issue. I -lenry noted that the steeper the roof, the more <br />expensive it is. Again, the consensus was for as steep a roof as possible <br />without exceeding the 15 foot maximum height at roof mid- point. <br />Montour asked if false dormers would be added to the garage. Henry <br />replied that they would. <br />Montour asked about signage. Henry replied that the signage would be in <br />the same location as the previous sign. He noted that he would have an <br />internally lit sign, rather than the flood lights used by the Corner Coffee <br />House. <br />Blesener asked for an explanation of the business. Henry reported that <br />Prestige Pools constructs swimming pools all over the Twin Cities. The <br />business does not store product for the construction or pools on site. They <br />also hire subcontractors to do the excavation and concrete work for the <br />pools. There will be some materials and chemicals storage in the garage. <br />There will be no outdoor storage. Henry noted that traffic to the site will <br />be much less than it was for the coffee shop. He reported that his business <br />has been located at the Round Lake Plaza on Little Canada Road for the <br />past 20 years. They had the opportunity to purchase this County Road C <br />property and felt it would be a good location for them. Henry noted that <br />their main season is April through October. <br />McGraw asked about the parking of company trucks and employee <br />vehicles on the site. Henry reported that there will be some employee <br />parking, but noted that most of their vans are take -home vehicles. Henry <br />again indicated that nothing will be stored outside. <br />Upon motion by McGraw, seconded by Keis, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.