Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br /> <br />Date: 03/22/99 <br />Item No: D- 8 <br /> <br />M~~oved: Agenda Section: <br />c;::iI"- CONSENT <br /> <br />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#3077). <br /> <br />The Roseville Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 10, 1999, <br />voted (6-0) to continue the request by Lois Olson to their meeting of April <br />14, pending provision of additional information regarding concerns <br />expressed by adjacent residents and those of the Commission. <br /> <br />1.0 Requested Action <br /> <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 />4,000 s.f. structure and add two new additions. The first is a 1,600 s.f. retail addition to <br />be constructed on the front (west) 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 screening, parking <br />would not be visible from the east or north adjoining neighbors. <br /> <br />2.0 Background <br /> <br />2.1 On March 10, the Roseville Planning Commission held 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 />proximity to the north and east property lines. 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 /> <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 /> <br />PF3077 - RCA (03-22-99) - Page 1 of2 <br />