My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1974.08.14 CC Minutes
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1974 CC Minutes
>
1974.08.14 CC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2017 1:45:09 PM
Creation date
9/28/2015 2:52:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
8/14/1974
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
mi. i/inch the minimum absorbtion area for a two bedroom home would be 400 sq-. <br /> .ora total of 200 lineal ft. of drainfield trench. By changing the use <br /> of the property from seasonal to year round I am assuming that laundry <br /> and bathing facilities would be added to the building. I do not see how <br /> any additional amount of drainfield could_ be installed on a lot that <br /> small and still remain within health standards set. <br /> The foundation design is quite doubtful .as to meeting Minn. State . <br /> Bldg. Code . requirements. The existing one is a floating slab. It . seems <br /> to support ' the present structure, but to increase the .size or 'add the <br /> additional weight. of a second story,extensive foundation work would have <br /> to be done. Code „states' footings shall extend 42” below grade which ` <br /> • <br /> - would involve putting in frost footings and underpinning the present <br /> 4•. slab. <br /> The present building is heated by a space heater and the bathroom • <br /> • facilities consist of' a lavatory and water closet, no bathtub or. shower. <br /> To add the .desired second story, new ceiling joists would have to <br /> be installed to carry the additional load. There is also the possibility <br /> that the window and door headers will have to be increased in size to take <br /> the additional loading, _tearing walls .Dr beams also have to be <br /> Provided `to carry the second story. <br /> I have talked to the planning commission members and Mr. Bill <br /> Schwab and they stated that because this is a sub-standard lot ifs would <br /> not be suited to the change Mr. Card is seeking a permit for. <br /> In conclusion, I have not issued a permit to Mr. .;Card as I think ..this <br /> project would involve a major remodeling'and rebuilding .job' for which <br /> present and/or future. facilities would be inadequ:lte. The lot . is far <br /> below todays minimum accepted standards for single family dwellings and <br /> I see no way that it can come close to being acceptable by Minnesota <br /> Public- Health Standards, Rice Creek Watershed Standards .or Pollution Conteoll <br /> Agency Standards. I don't think it would be fair to surrounding pro- <br /> perty owners to jeopordize their health and well being by issuing a build <br /> ina permit for this work. _ _ ._ _ . _ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.