Laserfiche WebLink
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council <br />1 FROM: City Planner Herman <br />DATE: December 8, 1988 <br />SUBJECT: VARIANCE AP'EAL FOR PUBLIC STORAGE, INC. <br />On December Sth Staff received the enclosed memo to the Council <br />regarding the variance appeal for the PSI development. The <br />following is intended to clarify various issues raised in them <br />Letter. <br />On the first page it stated City Staff suggested they <br />try fnr rezoning to a PUD. Staff had advised that a PUD <br />would be the only option available to the developer as <br />our Code allows only one principal structure per lot. <br />Section 40.04, Subd. C(4) states "except in the case of <br />planned unit developments as provided for in Section <br />40.24 of this Code, not more than one (1) principal <br />building shall be located on a lot". In reviewing this <br />issue with the buiding official he concluded that each <br />building within the mini -storage site would be <br />considered a principal building. <br />It is because of this Code requirement that Staff <br />�- suggested a PUD zone. Without this designation the <br />developer would have to subdivide his lot for each <br />building proposed and meet all setback requirements. <br />2. The Planning Commission had discussed the various <br />aspects of the development proposal contrary to the <br />letter. They did not forward a recommendation to the <br />Council reacting to the PUD question because the minimum <br />size requirement was not met. It was recognized that <br />without the variance the project could not proceed, <br />therefore, that issue needed to be settled first. On <br />that basis the Planning Commission denied the variance <br />and, therefore, denied the project. By appealing the <br />Planning Commission's decision the developer is <br />requesting the Council to review the variance issue <br />only. <br />It has not been the practice of the City to informally <br />respond to a development proposal before the review <br />process has been completed by both the Planning <br />Commission and Council. <br />3. There have been references made to the approved <br />mini. -storage facility of 1986. This is the Rosewood <br />Corporation proposal which was located in the area <br />adjacent to the Mounds View Business Park. The zoning <br />