My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-01-07_VB_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Variance Board
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Agendas
>
2015-01-07_VB_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2015 9:15:37 AM
Creation date
1/22/2015 9:15:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Variance Board
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/7/2015
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment F <br />spaces and involve a very unique parking lot design to protect a majority of the <br />existing mature trees. The impacts of the Tree Preservation and Replacement <br />requirements coupled with the requirements for landscaping in the Property <br />Performance Standards seek little relief for preservation or existing conditions and <br />instead require numerous tree plantings. It is these restrictions that represent the <br />practical difficulty of the variance request; <br />b. <br />The proposed development is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in <br />that it represents reinvestment in a dilapidated commercial property in a way that is <br />compatible with the surrounding developed commercial area. Moreover, the project <br />represents continuing investment in an existing commercial property and achieves <br />efficient use of the land, provides safe vehicular and pedestrian movements, adequate <br />parking, generous landscaping, and creative quality ensuring aesthetic character. The <br />proposal also achieves a number of the General Land Use Goals and Policies <br />identified in Chapter 4 of the Roseville 2030 Comprehensive Plan; <br />c. <br />The proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances because although <br />the redevelopment will result in a larger building footprint, more paved surface, and <br />some tree removal, the proposed improvements address all other Code requirements <br />other than the ability to install 52 trees (under replacement formula) and maintain 95 <br />on-site parking stall at the expense of 4 parking lot islands. Such substantial <br />reinvestment is the basis of the current Zoning Ordinance; <br />d. <br />“Reasonable” use of the property would be constrained without a variance because <br />strict compliance with the Zoning Code would effectively require some type of <br />variance since it is impossible to preserve a majority of the trees without eliminating <br />required parking spaces. There would also be some amount of replacement required <br />on a site with preexisting conditions that limit where trees can be placed. Moreover, <br />trees required specific spacing versus being planted similar to the existing grove of <br />oaks and, therefore, the site is limited in the number of trees it can support; <br />e. <br />The property possesses the kind of unique characteristics that justify approval of the <br />requested variance for a number of reasons: first, the parcel is long (410 feet) and <br />narrow (150 feet) limiting the creative design necessary to achieve numerous Design <br />and Performance Standards; second, the property has frontage along Lincoln Drive <br />(its access point) and Snelling Avenue (its primary street frontage without access), <br />which creates challenges for building placement, appropriate vehicle movements, and <br />public entry to the building; third, the site is one of the few developed sites that <br />includes numerous mature trees that are difficult to work around; fourth, <br />redevelopment can be challenging and it becomes more challenging when the <br />property is faced with preexisting constraints; lastly, the site cannot support the <br />number of replacement trees required by the Zoning Code, even if additional trees <br />were preserved and the required parking reduced. It is also worth noting that this <br />proposal or others would require some type of variance, since the previous <br />development underutilized the property <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.