pm_870701 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Planning Commission Minutes July 1, 1987 Page 6 2. That the nonconforming sign on the roof be removed. 3. That new concrete curbing be placed, encompassing the island within which the sign is to be placed. 4. That additional landscaping be added upon completion of the curbing work, subject to staff approval. Roll Call, Ayes: DeBenedet, Goedeke, Moeller, Berry, Maschka, and Johnson. Nays: None. Planning File 1774 Fine Associates request for rezoning, Special Use Permits, and variance at 2665 and 2710 Snelling Avenue Frontage Road. Presentation Dahlgren discussed the site layout that pointed out that the request is for a P.U.D., rezoning from B-1 to B-1B, B-1B site plan review, and a parking variance for the furniture store. The developer is proposing a Residence Inn, two small office develop- ments, and a Slumberland store. Tom Gerster, the architect from KKE, proceeded to discuss all items of the plan in greater specificity. Maschka asked what commitments were in place. Gerster replied that Slumberland is virtually a completed deal, and they are negotiating with the other developments at this point in time. Waldron discussed the proposed Tax Increment District, and how it relates to this particular site. DeBenedet stated his concern with respect to shortage in that area. Dahlgren pointed problem did exist, but it is no longer a Fuddrucker's/Stuart Anderson's area. the previous parking out that a parking difficulty in the DeBenedet asked if those existing restaurants meet the City's new restaurant parking requirements. Dahlgren replied that they did not, that they were probably twelve to fifteen spaces under. DeBenedet asked what would happen if a variance was approved for the furniture store and the use changed. Dahlgren stated the permit could be turned down, based on the lack of parking. Cushman stated her concerns with respect to the major parking lots on the corner. Denny Spalla, of Fine Associates, pointed out that the corner could be softened with landscaping, and building could potentially be moved to the west. Gerster pointed out that the building was moved to the interior to break up the "wall" of the development, and allow greater visibility into the total site. He also pointed out that the parking lot would be substantially below grade level, thus limiting its visibility.