pf_01742 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�J PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNINr, CONSIDERATIONS: • 6 May 1987 1742 Roseville Shoppes Limited Partnership Northwest Corner of County Road C and Highway 36 Frontage Road (see sketch) Variance to Parking Setback 1. Following the approval of the new shopping center development on the old "Glendenning Motorfreight" site, representatives of Lincoln Properties (the developer) and Byerly's held a series of meetings with members of the Roseville staff at our regular Wednesday Office Hours session. The Byerly's people were in the final stages of making their decision to locate in the shopping center and were concerned about a number of details, one of which was adequate parking. They were concerned about having the appropriate number of spaces directly available to the store. Knowing their needs from other new stores developed in the Metropolitan Area, their concerns quite specific. The staff felt strongly that having Byerly's on the site was important to the City. All of the participants worked cooperatively and diligently to alleviate the "Byerly's Concerns". 2. Two techniques suggested for improving the parking capacity near and contiguous to Byerly's included moving the principal access roadway (from the service road) one bay further north and moving the parking area closer to the ponding area in the southeast corner of the site. The setback to the ponding area had initially been drawn at 15 feet since the ponding area was a part of the public right-of-way. Here, it was felt the visual impact of moving the parking closer to the right-of-way would be negligible since the ponding area itself provides this setback with its approximately 80 feet of width. 3. Technically the reduction in setback to the right-of-way constitutes a variance, therefore, we advised the shopping center owners that such a variance should be applied for and processed by the Planning Commission and Council. The reduction is from the required 15 feet to 2 feet. 4. There was an attempt on the part of the developers to acquire the ponding area to increase the parking capacity in this portion of the site, with the intent of moving the ponding area to another area on the site. This, however, proved unworkable resulting in the alternative of increasing the parking capacity to the extent possible without acquisition or movement of the ponding area.