pm_880406 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION page# 9 Wednesday, April 6, 1988 insufficient because their could be more employees if additional services are purchased. Berry expressed a concern about parking and indicated that there is no parking on the streets and no alternatives available. Moeller pointed out that the proposed use makes sense on this site. He indicated that he had some concerns about parking, but also be concerned that excessive unused parking not be required. Maschka indicated that he liked the concept, but that he was concerned about the amount of footprint and parking on the site. He indicated that this was a unique site across from the nursing home and that this proposal might fit. DeBenedet expressed concern about the drastic change in density being proposed, and wondered if underground parking for staff could be provided. Dahlgren indicated that past experience indicated that there was a good chance there would be no problem with parking on the site, but that approval could be conditioned upon providing additional parking. Dahlgren testified that alternative parking could include a ramp on the north side or a parking ramp under the building. He further indicated that the policy of the city was to use the land effectively and attractively to meet a need which was present with this particular proposal. Johnson informed the commission that the concept was okay, but the site was not, and that an alternative development would not necessarily be single family homes or apartments, that a better solution for the site could come along. Berry expressed the opinion that the foot print was too large, and that we have no idea of what it will look like on the site, and that insufficient parking was being provided. DeBenedet moved, Berry seconded to recommend that the comprehensive plan amendment be denied because the proposed land use features are in excess of the density allowed, the proposed structure is too massive for the site, and the proposed parking variance is too extensive. Roll Call: Ayes: Nays: DeBenedet, Berry, Stokes and Johnson Goedeke, Maschka, and Moeller DeBenedet moved and Berry seconded to recommend denial of the rezoning special use permit and variances on the grounds that the zoning and land use is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the building is too massive, the variance to parking it too excessive, and that the hardship for the variance to the parking set back and density was not established.