pm_031203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a. The attached garage being limited to a depth of 24 feet, a length of 56 feet, and an overall size of 1 ,433 sq. ft. b. A minimum rear yard (applied to the north property line) setback of 21 feet and a minimum setback adjacent a street (applied to the west property line) of 12 feet. c. The attached garage shall be limited to the storage of residential vehicles, lawn and garden items, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items (snowmobiles), household items. No home occupation will be allowed within the garage. d. Windows being placed on the north, south, and east building wall to break-up the building wall (as per the applicant submittal). e. Gutters installed along the eves of the attached garage to direct roof drainage away from the adjacent residential property to the north. Specifically, drainage must be directed toward the street in a westerly direction. 1. A maximum driveway apron width within the public right-of-way of 26 feet. g. The parcel being limited to a maximum impervious coverage of 4,491 sq. ft. h. No parking of vehicles on the driveway. All vehicles, trailers and other items must be stored or parked within the attached garage. i. The existing driveway must be removed. j. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent with the approved plans and variance. Chair Mulder closed the hearing. Motion: Chair Mulder moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to recommend approval of a 20' variance (to allow for a 26 foot deep structure) to Section 1004.02D4 (Setback Adjacent a Public Street) based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 (after removing item "C" regarding building height) and noting that no product or inventory can be stored on the site of the project report dated December 3, 2003. Member Bakeman requested a clarification of the home occupation definition - discussion ensued. Member Traynor said there are many business owners who bring trucks home. Member Peper explained he could find no advantage to the reduction in size (by 8 feet). Chair Mulder explained that there is no hardship on the rear yard setback, and that he was concerned about consistency in future cases, but he explained that there is a city induced hardship (road) on the side yard. Ayes: 6 Nays: 1 Motion carried. 6-1 Motion: Chair Mulder moved, seconded by Member Peper, to recommend denial of a 9 foot variance (to allow further encroachment into the rear yard) to Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions - Rear Yard Setback) of the Roseville City Code because no hardship exists. The site can be put to a reasonable use, the land owner is creating the circumstances for the variance, and such a variance could alter the character of the neighborhood. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. . c. Planning File 3509: Request by Target Corporation & Wellington Management, Inc. for consideration of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and General Concept Planned Unit Development for parcels located at 1515 County Road B, 2194 State Farm Road & 1500 Commerce Street. The proposal will allow for redevelopment of the existing Target properties and a portion of the Wellington properties into a mixed use retail development anchored by a Target Superstore and having 3 retail sites with up to 41,000 square feet of leaseable area and 2 outlots. The City Planner advised the Commission that the application by Target has been determined incomplete, requiring further analysis and information, and that the Community Development Department did not notify any adjacent property owners. The City Planner added that Target is tentatively scheduled for Commission consideration on January 7, 2003 and that no action is necessary at this time.