Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br /> Cate: 03/22/99 <br /> Item No: D-8 <br /> ,R gart Went Approval: Manager Approved: Agenda Section: <br /> CONSENT <br /> ham Decri ptio n: Lois Olson request for CONCEPT approval of a Business PUD to allow <br /> expansion the building at 1944 Lexington Avenue North using the <br /> Cornerstone guidelines (PF-43077 . <br /> The Roseville Planning Commission, at their meetin of March 10., 1999, <br /> voted (64) to continue the request by Lois Olson to their meeting of April <br /> 14, paneling provision of additional information regarding concerns <br /> expressed by adjacent residents and those of the Commission. <br /> 1.0 Requested Action <br /> 1.1 Lois Olson is requesting approval to expand the building at 1944 Lexington Avenue for <br /> use as a multi-tenant facility. The proposal would require renovation of the existing <br /> 41000 s.f structure and add two new additions. The first is a 1,600 s.f retail addition to <br /> be constructed on the ftont (vest) of the existing Cryogenic facility. The second is a <br /> 7,462 s.f retail# office and warehouse addition to be constructed on the rear (east) of the <br /> existing Cryogenic facility and extending to the adjacent Suburban Hardware Store. The <br /> proposed expansion would utilize some of the Cornerstone guidelines and concepts, <br /> bringing the building closer to Lexington Avenue and providing joint parking with <br /> Suburban Hardware to the south. Because of building and fence sereem'ng, parking <br /> would not be visible from the east or north adjoining neighbors. <br /> 2.0 Background <br /> 2.1 on March 10, the Roseville Planning Connmission hell the required public hearing <br /> regarding the above request. At this meeting a number of adjacent residents addressed <br /> the Commission regarding concerns with the location of the proposed structure and its <br /> Y proximity to the north and east property limes. Further, concerns were raised regarding <br /> screening and landscaping of the building that would be provided along the north and east <br /> property boundary. The residents also suggested that the entry tower be lowered. <br /> (currently proposed at 31 feet in height) <br /> 2.2 The Planning Commission also raised a number of these concerns and requested further <br /> information by the petitioner regarding side (north) and rear yard (east) setbacks, <br /> landscaping, and architectural modifications, prior to receiving a vote on the concept <br /> PUD request. <br /> PF3 077-RCA(03-22-99)-Page 1 of 2 <br />