Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page'10 <br /> <br />Wednesday, July 5, 1989 <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned whether the setback from the overhang met <br />City standards. Dahlgren clarified the setback requirements. <br />DeBenedet inquired if sidewalk would be required. Johnson <br />replied that it would. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned the location of the cedar shakes, whether <br />there would be mechanical units, and the design of trash <br />containers, Pastorius replied that the shakes would be on the <br />mansard roof, that it had not been determined yet if there would <br />be outside mechanical units and that the trash dumpster would be <br />enclosed. <br /> <br />Berry asked if there was evidence of soil contamination on the <br />site and whether or not the tanks have been removed. Pastorius <br />replied that the tanks have been removed and that the Phase I <br />environmental review had indicated a clean bill of health. <br /> <br />Maschka questioned the color scheme and what company would be <br />running the gas station. Pastorius responded that the building <br />would be designed to fit into the neighborhood, utilizing earth <br />tones, trees, that a specific operation had not been determined <br />yet. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned the amount of square foot of retail in the <br />proposed building and the required amount of parking. Pastorius <br />replied that there would be 2,400 sq. feet of total space in the <br />building. Dahlgren clarified parking requirements. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked .if the applicant had met with the neighborhood and <br />what their response was. Pastorius stated that they had a <br />neighborhood meeting and that the neighborhood was not thrilled <br />with the proposal. Pastorius stated that he believed the <br />neighborhood would only support single family residential on this <br />site. <br /> <br />Mike Maccanelli, 2530 Maple Lane, stated that this proposal was <br />similar to the Food and Fuel proposal that has already been <br />turned down. Maccanelli asked why an office couldn't be built <br />there and pointed out that there are other convenience stores in <br />close proximity to this site and no need for an additional one in <br />the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Pastorius stated that they have not been able to find a <br />development other than this for the site, that empty real estate <br />has become convenient for dumping and parking of vehicles "For <br />Sale" . Pastorius stated that this operation will work on the <br />site and that the separation from other similar uses in the area <br />is not an issue. Johnson stated that it is an issue when <br />rezoning is being considered. <br />