Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roseville Plannlng Commission Minutes <br />October 1, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />wi ski asked whether the truck loading with the docks in front of <br />the buidling could change with the modification of the Standard <br />Oil area. Vanasse replied that he was not sure. <br /> <br />Wiski also stated his concern about the negative impact this <br />development would have on the TIF District with the docks in front <br />of the facility. Elholtz replied that based on his experience in <br />trucking, this is probably the safest type of development. Butler <br />stated that, in his opinion, the trucks could be hidden with the <br />proper landscaping. <br /> <br />Elholtz stated he <br />wants to develop <br />interested, they <br />sell to them. <br /> <br />is more than willing to sell to anyone <br />in a B-4 area. The Price Saver folks <br />are making a commitment, and he would like <br /> <br />that <br />are <br />to <br /> <br />Johnson moved, Berry seconded, to deny the Mar-Len Development <br />Corporation request for Special Use Permit and sign variance at <br />2550 Long Lake Road, based on the following findings of fact: <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />The site plan would have a deleterious impact on the <br />public using the site, and/or other properties <br />immediate area. <br /> <br />general <br />in the <br /> <br />2. The site plan inappropriately places a series of seven loading <br />bays in the front of the structure. <br /> <br />3. A number of the truck loading bays will be inaccessible when <br />other bays are occupied. <br /> <br />4. Access to the principal parking lot to the east of the <br />structure is via a twenty-four foot wide parking access lane. <br />This is a very unsafe condition. <br /> <br />5. The garage doors serving the center to the east open directly <br />to the access lane. <br /> <br />6. The development conflicts with the City's <br />development in targeted areas. <br /> <br />policy <br /> <br />for <br /> <br />7. Three driveways are proposed along Long Lake Road. The two at <br />the south end are too close together, and would represent a <br />traffic hazard. <br /> <br />8. The southerly portion of the site is proposed to accommodate a <br />double row of parking at a significantly higher elevation than <br />the rest of the parking area. <br /> <br />Discussion <br />Moeller stated that <br />stands today, but it <br />allow additional time <br /> <br />he did not support the development as <br />may be appropriate to table the motion, <br />for a new plan. <br /> <br />it <br />to <br />