My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 04/26/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2005
>
Minutes - Council - 04/26/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 1:48:21 PM
Creation date
4/27/2005 7:39:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/26/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Mr. (~u×zo replied he would like to promise that would be the case; however, he cannot <br />guarantee therc will never be a delivery. He stated he has designed a turn around for the <br />property? similar to what Green Valley Nursery has. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon asked how new the accessory building is. <br /> <br />lvh'. Guzzo replied the accessory building was put in last fall. <br /> <br />(:ommunity Development Director Trudgeon explained the City allows for home offices to <br />operate out of houses, ttowever, it is with the addition of the accessory building that the business <br />ttse of' this property expanded. That is when staff started discussions with Mr. Guzzo. <br /> <br />Mr. (hlzzo stated as far as the employee situation, it has been very unclear to him exactly what <br />constitutes as one employee. Two years ago business owners were considered okay, but now he <br />is being told his company is out of compliance. The reason they are now considered to be over <br />by one employee is that business owners now count as employees. Also, one of the employees is <br />a service technician that does not work out of the facility; the service truck is stored at the <br />employee's house and he is only at the building about 30 percent of the time or less. <br /> <br />(iottncilrnember Cook recommended the Council approve the six-month time period for the <br />interim use permit tonight. He suggested the applicant should use the six months to come into <br />compliance with the rest of the regulations and look at whether there are too many employees. <br />l lc commcntcd when the Council originally discussed this they had discussed employees that are <br />cm staff using the building. The spirit was to not have 12 people working in the building at a <br />time and adding that much traffic. He would recommend that the Council approve this interim <br />use permit as it has been presented tonight with the understanding that this would provide six <br />months lbr the applicant to make improvements to his property that make it amenable for him to <br />have his business there for the two years he was planning. It sounds as though strides have been <br />made lo improve the business and it does not impact the neighborhood as much as it used to. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Elvig, to approve the Interim Use <br />i'ermi~ to operate a sign business in an accessory structure on the property located at 6160 Green <br />Valley Road for six months. <br /> <br />I"urther discussion: Councilmember Olson asked the applicant if the plan is to move the business <br />in two years to five years. Mr. Guzzo replied he had indicated it would be five years, but it <br />would not likely take the full five years. He stated if he needs to restructure his business other <br />cities are looking more attractive in what they offer for light industrial businesses. This location <br />in relation to Highway 10 is where he would like to be if he has to pay rent. Councilmember <br />Cook in/brined Mr. Guzzo this would provide him with an opportunity to take the six months to <br />prove his; compatibility in the area. Mr. Guzzo should show that he is dealing with his deliveries <br />differently than. in the past. He tends to agree with Mr. Guzzo that someone using a service <br />vehicle is not really an employee that is using the property as was described in the spirit of the <br />ordinance. Councilmember Strommen clarified the concerns of staff are above and beyond the <br />employees and relate to the way the buildings are situated on the site. Councilmember Cook <br /> <br />City Council/April 26, 2005 <br /> Page 10 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.