Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> Planning Commission Meeting Minutes <br /> October 15, 2002 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 2 Jim White reviewed the bounds of the site and noted Macalaster Drive was a dead end. <br /> 3 He stated this development would upgrade the safety on this site and update the <br /> 4 appearance of the exterior. He noted the two variances were for a side yard setback of 5 <br /> 5 feet when a 40-yard setback is the City requirement along with a building height variance <br /> 6 to allow for a 44-foot building when the City ordinance requires 35 feet. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Chair Melsha asked if there are ways to avoid the five-foot side yard setback. Mr. White <br /> 9 indicated turning radiuses and parking would be jeopardized if not allowed to be planned <br /> 10 as proposed. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Mr. White summarized the reasons why he feels this project will benefit the City of St. <br /> 13 Anthony as being an update in safety features, the reduction in traffic along Macalaster <br /> 14 Drive, update in exterior appearance with the new building, and demolition of existing <br /> 15 buildings. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Commissioner Hanson asked if the side yard setback is not granted how much space <br /> 18 would be lost. Mr. White stated approximately 7,000 square feet of space would be lost. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Chair Melsha questioned if this building would move forward if the side setback was not <br /> approved. Mr. Murlowski noted nothing would be done right away if the side yard <br /> setback was not granted since a much smaller scale building would be proposed for this <br /> 24 site in this location. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Commissioner Steeves questioned why the height variance was needed. Mr. White stated <br /> 27 the volume of storage needed for this facility requires the proposed size for the storage <br /> 28 needs of people in this market. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Commissioner Hanson asked if the height variance could be increased to reduce the need <br /> 31 for the side yard setback. Mr. Murlowski noted he would have to check on this as an <br /> 32 option. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Commissioner Steeves asked what drove the building to be this size. Mr. White noted <br /> 35 this was based on a cost per cubic foot to build this building. He stated from an <br /> 36 operations standpoint, it is the most efficient for man power as well. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Mr. Murlowski added that his company enjoys working with the City of St. Anthony and <br /> 39 noted he created a similar structure in the City of New Brighton. He indicated the <br /> 40 projections and proposed building are based on his client's storage need projections. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Chair Melsha asked what would be stored in this storage site. Mr. Murlowski stated the <br /> 43 four existing tenants within the four buildings that would be demolished would be moved <br /> 16 or relocated with a new facility created for document storage. <br /> 46 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. <br /> 47 <br />