Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> October 22, 2002 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 1 by the cubic foot. This facility would store thousands of bankers boxes filled with <br /> 2 important documents their clients need to retain. The boxes are stacked on pallets, <br /> 3 palletized, and loaded with forklifts onto high racks. He stated currently the owners of <br /> 4 this company own the entire site and have several other sister companies that would be <br /> 5 moved to other locations. Then they would demolish those buildings to construct this <br /> 6 new 40,000 square foot building. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Mr. Steeves stated the applicants have been forthright, open, and cooperative. He stated <br /> 9 that no one on the Planning Commission wants to discourage business in St. Anthony or <br /> 10 this applicant from attempting to utilize this site to its fullest capacity. However, in <br /> 11 reviewing the application, the Planning Commission found it difficult, given the size and <br /> 12 construction of the building, to find that it met the requirements for a variance as set forth <br /> 13 in the City's Code. In order to consider a variance, the following findings must be met: <br /> 14 1) The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance; 2) The <br /> 15 circumstances causing the hardship were not created by the owner; 3) The variance, if <br /> 16 granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and, 4) Economic <br /> 17 considerations alone are not the basis of the hardship. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Mr. Steeves stated that for the majority of the Planning Commissioners, it was felt the <br /> 20 applicant wanted to build the maximum sized building. However, they could construct a <br /> 21 building that meets the Code, though it may not be as cost effective. He noted they could <br /> 22 set the building back and lose about 7,000 square feet, drop the roof line to the allowable <br /> 23 height, and have a smaller sized building that could be used for the same purpose of <br /> 24 storage. Due to that, it was difficult for the Planning Commission to find that a variance <br /> 25 should be considered. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Mr. Steeves stated the applicant raised the issue of constraint due to the proximity of the <br /> 28 rail line and an Xcel utility easement through the site. He noted the location of the utility <br /> 29 easement and stated that would have minimal impact to construction as proposed. He <br /> 30 stated that easement has been mitigated quite well with the building shifted somewhat to <br /> 31 accommodate the full turning radius. However, the setback issue is on the Macalaster <br /> 32 Drive side,not the north side. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Mr. Steeves stated the railroad easement does not seem to greatly effect the location of <br /> 35 the building and has been accommodated reasonably well. He stated the stormwater <br /> 36 retention pond is required by the Rice Creek Watershed District and is also <br /> 37 accommodated. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Mr. Steeves stated that considering these issues, the Planning Commission did not find <br /> 40 the rationale met to consider granting a variance. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Councilmember Faust asked if the applicant indicated why the height variance was being <br /> 43 requested. Mr. Steeves stated the building height is partly driven by what is inside, large <br /> 44 racks that hold pallets. <br /> 45 <br />