pm_060712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0712.htm d.Planning File 3775: Walser Automotive Group request for a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to redevelop the existing McCarthy Pontiac dealership at 2775 Highway 35W into a new Walser Buick, Pontiac, GMC dealership. Chair Traynor opened the Public Hearing. City Planner Paschke noted that Walser did not own the property, but had bought out the dealership and had an agreement in place for potential ownership in the future and that the McCarthy Group was supportive of redevelopment of the site.; and in order to improve the property, a conditional use permit was required. Mr. Paschke reviewed the request of Walser Automotive Group, who recently purchased the McCarthy Pontiac-MGC franchise and who desired to redevelop the property located at 2775 Highway 35W. Mr. Paschke advised that the Walser proposal sought to redevelop the site with a new 48,581 square foot Buick-Pontiac-GMC Truck dealership; occurring in two phases, with no delay in construction, with the first phase replacing the existing service area, and the second phase replacing the existing office/showroom area. Mr. Paschke further advised that the proposal indicates initial development of the spaces totaling 32,970 square feet with future additions to all areas (office, showroom, service write-up and parts service) totaling 15,611 square feet to achieve the previously indicated total square footage of 48,581. provisions and requirements. Mr. Paschke noted that the site plan indicated parking up to the required setback, with the exception of the area along Long Lake Road. However, the southern parking lot proposal indicated an encroachment into the adjacent parcel, which encroachment was prohibited. Additionally, the adjacent southern pond experienced periodic flooding, and under City Code, was a storm water pond requiring a minimum 10 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation of the pond. This required setback and the desire of the City to eliminate the existing proposed parking lot encroachment would require a change in the south parking lot design. Mr. Paschke further noted that, should the revised south parking lot design upon meeting the pond and/or property encroachment agreement from the City Council. Mr. Paschke further advised that the site plan indicated a minimum 5 foot parking lot setback from the east property line adjacent to 35W; and that staff was desirous of a minimum 15 foot setback given the design to include a retaining wall and the City Code requirements for landscaping. Mr. Paschke further reviewed site access; surface area of the parking lot and landscaping requirements for increased green space; proposed building materials; structure height; grading; drainage; utility plans; interior storage fro trash and recyclables, rather than exterior storage; lighting restrictions; and Watershed District review and approval. Mr. Paschke noted that all staff-recommended conditions were consistent with code requirements and/or reviewed by the Development Review Committee and suggested as requirements; and noted that overall, staff was supportive of the proposed site improvements and recommended approval, subject to additional conditions to break up the building mass; and other conditions as noted in the Staff Report. Discussion included the proposed size of the structure; screening of roof mechanicals; hydrant connection; parking of vehicles for sale on the grassed area and consistent practice of dealerships in the vicinity; permanent and temporary signage restrictions and compliance; familiarizing dealerships with City Code and applicable Ordinances; and minimum setback requirements. Staff noted that the majority of the concern addressed by the Commission were identified in City Code and would be required for enforcement accordingly; however he noted that additional conditions could be placed on the approval at the discretion of the Planning Commission (i.e., rooftop mechanicals screened; storage of refuse and recycling--including tires--inside, rather than outside, or in a separate detached structure as allowed under City Code). Mr. Paschke noted the existing non-conforming parking lot lying within public property and a stormwater management pond, which would not be legally allowed to continue; emphasizing that the lot needed to meet code; and advised that, depending on the ordinary high water mark--as setback on 35W--staff was eking for an additional in trying to squeeze additional trees on a narrow buffer; but staff was seeking to address concerns and attempt to remedy and protect the public and greater community. agreement, recognizing they are parking vehicles in an area known to flood, and not always with advance notice; and thereby indemnifying the City for any potential damages. 6 of 122/6/2007 11.11