CC MINUTES 10222002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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