CCP 06-24-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Michelle Veillette, 2908 Brookshire Lane, opposes the tower and also helped conduct the survey. Maris Bergamanis, 1527 Stinson Boulevard opposes the tower and asks for a park policy regarding cell towers. Karen Fleming, 1700 29th Ave NW, opposes the tower. Motion by Baker, second by Schiferl to CONTINUE THE PuaLtc HEARING. 7 ayes, 0 nays. MOTION APPROVED. Public Hearing: LP2008-004, VA2008-002, VN2008-002, NC2008-002 Site Plan, Vacation, Variance and Nonconforming Use Permit Request to All Construction of a 20,787 s.f. Warehouse Building at 3595 New Brighton Road The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to allow construction of a 20,787 s.f. warehouse building, small mezzanine area, and associated surface parking: • Site Plan: Allows for issuance of a building permit for any exterior improvements to a commercial or industrial zoned property. • Vacation: To allow the vacation of undeveloped 3"1 Ave SE for roadway purposes. • Variance: To allow a parking lot setback of 0' — 6' at the northern lot line when 60' is normally required. • Nonconforming Use Permit: To allow the existing 24' x 28' garage structure at the northeast corner of the site at a setback less than 60' from the eastern and northern lot lines. The applicant has been working with staff over the last several months to ensure a compliant proposal is submitted. Additionally, the property owner requested the City Council of the City of Arden Hills to allow New Brighton to annex the triangular piece of property to the direct north (lot area of approximately 8,700 s.f). This would have allowed the applicant to not need a Variance for a parking lot setback. For reasons unknown to City staff, this request was not approved by the City of Arden Hills. Baker disclosed that Miller Construction had built two buildings for him in his private business. Zisla asked staff for a clarification of a reasonable accommodation to the hardship. Gundlach replied a hardship to the land must be demonstrated, however you also must demonstrate a reasonable use of land. Schiferl asked what the City of Arden Hills thinks of this proposal. Gundlach replied no formal comments on the request have been received from Arden Hills. Schiferl inquired what would happen if the railway were vacated and the parcel sold. Gundlach replied that the Rice Creek Water Shed District would require easements around the water infiltration basin to address the storm water needs of the New Brighton parcel, which should provide adequate protection in ensuring the Arden Hills parcel remains tied together with the New Brighton parcel. Zisla asked staff what would happen if the shed were removed. Gundlach replied that a six-foot setback would be achievable. She also noted it does not meet the required setbacks to the northerly or easterly lot lines. O'Brien voiced his support for the removal of the shed.