pf_03077 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

y,\?qq Paschke, Thomas From: Sent: To: Subject: CarolynlWayne Griesel [gries004@umn.edu] Monday, April 12, 19995:18 PM Thomas Paschke Planning File #3077 ~ PUD Plan,ppt Notes on the subject Planning Commission File: 1. It is understood that the existing business at the location in question, Cryogenic Laboratories, has identified a need for additional building space in order to remain at the same location. In addition, there is a desire to consolidate two other family business on the same lot. There appears to be no benefit to the community to have the increased building density just to include two additional retail/office spaces, 2. Initial planning for the subject Business Planned Unit Development (PUD) request included combining the buildings on two lots as well as providing for shared parking between the existing True Value Hardware store and Cryogenics Laboratory facility along with two proposed new office/retail spaces. True Value construction schedules and associated building requirements have precluded the ability of the subject PUD district to include joining of the two buildings, Therefore the only item which remains shared between the two affected lots is the shared parking. 3, Building codes and setback requirements have been established for the common good by providing buffer space and areas on commercial property for plantings and other screening materials, Normally variances from these codes require identification of hardship for the affected property. The Roseville City Codes include provisions for Planned Unit Developments where the intent is " , . . to create a more flexible, creative and efficient approach to the use of land . , ,". The intent with the subject PUD appears to be more oriented to maximizing the use of the land as opposed to being creative and efficient. 4. Typically, a PUD district includes provisions for other amenities in exchange for high density building on a limited portion of the included property. No such exchange, which would benefit the community, has been identified for the property in question. 5, Following presentations, questions and comments at the March 10, 1999 Roseville planning Commission hearing, the Olsons met with neighborhood residents to present another alternative approach. This meeting has not resulted in full agreement on all aspects of the planned development. Concerns still exist with respect to lot setbacks, and views from adjoining property. 6. The attached Microsoft PowerPoint 7.0 file presents a sketch of a suggested alternate approach which would preclude the necessity of side and rear setback variances. This approach includes up to 4100 sq, ft of space for Cryogenic Laboratories expansion plus 1600 sq. ft, for one additional office/retail space. The only variances required would be with respect to count right-of-way easement for Lexington Avenue and an easement of agreement with the owner of True Value Hardware for shared parking. Limiting the addition to one additional office/retail space would reduce the need for additional parking adjacent to the addition and reduce the likelihood of parking conflicts on any of the side streets. Wayne & Carolyn Griesel 1067 Harriet Lane Roseville, MN 55113-6448 1