pm_830706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Wednesday, July 6, 1983 Planning Commission ~tinutes -2- Planning File 1442 - Mar-Len Investments, Inc. request for preliminary plat and variance to parking setback at 2535 County Road C. Presentation Mr. Dahlgren indicated Mar-Len Investments proposes to plat land north of County Road C and contiguous to the St. Anthony border into five lots. The northern most lot is an existing tract previously developed with an office warehouse structure. Access to this lot has been provided via a strip of land along the west side of lots 3, 4, and 5 proposed in the preliminary plat. The psoposal includes the construction of a cul-de-sac along the east side of these lots, extending north from County Road C to serve all five lots. The cul-de-sac is to be constructed on the southern half of a long narrow lot now occupied by an existing home. The applicant has a verbal agreement to purchase this lot. Mr. Dahlgren also indicated the plat drawing appears to show the retention of the roadway along the west side of lots 3, 4, and 5. There is nothing wrong with the retention of the roadway, but if it is retained, easements should be recorded so as to provide common access to lots 1, 3, 4, and 5. Mr. Dahlgren explained the variance request deals with the parking setback on the east side of lot 5, on which an office/service building is proposed. The Roseville zoning ordinance requires that in industrial districts, parking be set back 10 feet in the front of the building. In consideration of the retention of trees and greater open space at the southeast corner of the site (where the setback is greater than 40 feet), it would appear appropriate to consider allowing parking in the front of the building within the 40 feet normally required setback area. Mr. Dahlgren suggested the setback be maintained at 20 feet rather than 10 feet, since the 20-foot setback is a common requirement in the metro area. This setback will be established as a precedent for future development in this area. Discussion Moeller indicated he felt the parking setback should be 20 feet, rather than the requested 10 feet. There is adequate land to the north of the building to allow a shift in the building or in parking to allow the 20-foot setback. Matson felt the cul-de-sac would be a minor street; therefore, the 10-foot setback should not be a problem. Dahlgren indicated that with future development along the cul-de-sac, it will not be a minor street. Moeller felt the access to the road to the west of the lots should be ensured for lots 1, 3, 4, and 5 through a common easement.