11-19-96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved Zisla said the staff report talked about the problems that would be created by conforming to a 30% floor-area ratio. Why is the project not feasible if the floor-area ratio is 30% instead of 33%? Kramer answered the Water Works needs that capacity to realize the greatest cost benefit. Thirty percent is only 28 or 29 million, which falls short of the goal to meet the goal of two-days’ supply of water. The Water Works has one other site that would be building on in the future. Both sites need to have a 40 million-gallon capacity. Zisla stated that means if the Minneapolis Water Works does not build a 40 million-gallon capacity reservoir, the goal of two-days’ supply of water would not be met. That does not mean the project is not feasible; it just means it is not large enough for some objective the City of Minneapolis might have. In what sense is the project no doable? Kramer answered that the project may be doable, but the issue is the goal of a 40 million-gallon capacity reservoir. A 28 million-gallon reservoir is small for that site, considering the cost to build a reservoir and the capacity to be gained. The City of Minneapolis uses 70 to 75 million gallons of water daily. Zisla stated the argument is that the site the City of Minneapolis owns is subject to a Zoning Ordinance that says that 30% of the area can be covered. Essentially, the City of Minneapolis is saying that it wants more than the Zoning Code allows. Kramer said the reservoir structure was mostly underground and the City of Minneapolis feels there are other mitigating circumstances. The 30% floor-area ratio is for residential construction. Zisla stated he had a problem with that thinking because the Zoning Code does not allow for such an exception. We need a reason to change the code other than the City of Minneapolis wants a bigger reservoir. It is not an industrial site. The City Attorney should review the ramifications of a request to make an exception to the floor-area ratio in a residential district. Mattila said the City Attorney was reviewing that request and we will bring that information forward to the City Council. Baker asked if a variance would not be the alternative to changing the Zoning Code. Mattila responded that, in the opinion of the City Attorney, the basis for a variance does not exist because no unique circumstance or hardship is involved. Baker said he thought a variance would be appropriate because there would be no parking or personnel on the site. There is usually parking involved in addition to the building. Mattila said he presented these facts and the fact the reservoir will be covered by earth. The City Attorney responded that the reservoir is still a structure and should be treated as such. Zisla commented that, during discussion on the height limitation on the US West building, the hardship was determined to be the change in conditions for operating that type of building and that technology outstripped the Ordinance. The argument may be appropriate for a water reservoir covered with earth. Changing a zoning provision is difficult because of one project. Baker said he agreed with Zisla’s opinion on changing the ordinance. Baker said a change might be appropriate in relation to this reservoir, but we cannot know the repercussions could be years from now. Baker said he would rather consider this proposal as a variance. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1996\11-19-96.WPD 5