CC PACKET 11122002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 22, 2002 Page 7 1 they don't get enough square footage, the building is not feasible. He stated this is a free 2 standing, clear span structure and if the ceiling height is lowered, it will loose one full 3 pallet height without question. 4 5 Jim White, JRP Architects representing the applicant, stated his firm was involved to 6 develop the site in New Brighton and has some history with Berger Transfer. He 7 explained that the New Brighton and electronic storage facilities are due too reach 8 capacity within 12 to 18 months. Thence the application to accommodate its increased 9 business. He explained that the cost to construct a building that is more square and tall is 10 lower than a building that is lower and more spread out. He stated that is one of the 11 economics and the optimum is 65 feet in increments. 12 13 Mr. White reviewed the boundaries of the existing site and noted Macalaster Drive is a 14 dead end street which ends in the location of the fence. The nearest residential structure 15 is an apartment building to the east. The project will sprinkle three existing buildings. 16 BDRS has been gradually improving the appearance and safety features of this site and 17 this project will continue that program by removing the four 40-year old buildings and 18 constructing a new structure of maintenance free materials that is sprinkled. The four 19 buildings to be removed are also not ADA compliant. 20 21 Mr. White stated since the Planning Commission meeting they have tweaked the site plan 22 to accommodate better utilization of the site and address some of the issues the Planning 23 Commission had raised. He stated the building will be of pre-cast concrete material 24 similar to the building in New Brighton. It will exceed the height restriction by nine feet 25 and be located in line with the existing electronic media storage building. With a five 26 foot setback there is no issue with snow storage and the Fire Marshal has indicated no 27 objections to the proposed building location or height. The placement accommodates the 28 utility easement and the retention pond being required by the Rice Creek Watershed 29 District. That pond would be located in an unbuildable corner location of the site. 30 31 Mr. White stated the site cross section illustrates the building will be about six or seven 32 feet taller than the highest building as measured from County Road D and would be 33 approximately the same height as the bridge where Silver Lake Road crosses over the 34 railroad tracks. 35 36 Mr. White asked the Council to take note that the City Engineer and Fire Marshal have 37 reviewed their application and voiced no objection. He stated this building will allow 38 BDRS to meet their clients' ever expanding business needs and increase the property tax 39 base by providing a more appealing looking building of maintenance free materials, 40 reduced fire risk, lower traffic congestion than currently exists, and improve the site 41 characteristics. 42 43 Councilmember Faust asked what changed when they "tweaked" of the site plan. Mr. 44 White noted that previously they did not indicate clearly the easement placement, where 45 trucks may be parked at the truck docks, truck turning radius, and need for trucks to park