pf_03224 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

..- "" ....- -~.....- _.-.----...-~... - _.-,,- .-- - --- --~-- -. -,,- ~-_._----~--- .----...------...-.-------------.....-----......---- .-.....--- ~ ... Roseville Review ....- --- -". ---~----...- "..----- ~~~---~..._- PUD. . . Continued from Page 1 not relish the idea of placing a building first place. so close to the roadway that future "Lexington Avenue is not a commer- expansion of Lexington Avenue may cial district; it has a residential flavor to have been impossible. the street and we all want it to remain "I've received comments both ways that way," he added. "It looks to me like on this topic," said Mayor John Kysyly- the property was too expensive for the czyn, in reference to the March public buyer and now they~re trying to jam as hearing where several residents did not much on the site as they can to pay for advocate placing the building so close to it. Three-story buildings are not keeping the road. "Putting that office building in context with the rest of the neighbor- on the corner will make it stick out like hood. This will stick out like a sore toe. a sore thumb. All the rest of the proper- I urge you to do something much less ties in the area are farther back from severe on this lot." Lexington Avenue. Council Member Craig Klausing "Despite the fact that there is a four- agreed with the neighborhood testi- way light on the corner, emergency mony. vehicles may still go through red lights," "I'm puzzled why we're debating this he continued. "I would feel much better now," he told fellow council members at if drivers had an unobstructed line of the May meeting. "The original plan sight. Safety is a major concern. The screened the parking from residents, it parking in the front would not only featured a well-designed building near address that concern, it would add more the intersection and offered great iand- parking for those visiting the site." scaping, which was acceptable to all the' "I too am not a fan of the zero lot neighbors. The only question that line," continued Council Member Greg remained, I thought, was where to place Schroeder. "I tend to gravitate to the the apartment building in the back. plan which moves the building back. It Now this is before us. would keep the building in better har- - "Staff recommended approval of the mony with the setbacks already located original concept," he added~ "Despite along Lexington Avenue and increase the office building up to the property safety." line, staff assured us there was suffi- However, residents in attendance at cient traffic clearance at the intersec- the May meeting were not receptive to tion. There's even a four-way stop light their explanations. on site. The Planning Commission "We've already been impacted by the agreed with that not once, but twice. expansion of the hardware store and the Why are we changing it now?" other business' on the northeast comer The majority of council members of this intersection," stated Judy however, did not like the idea of a zer~ Florine, another townhome owner.' lot line for the office complex. They did "Now we get to look at a sea of parking when we sit on our front porches. "I understood that a Pp:o was put in place to provide more stringent protec- tion for nearby residents and homeown- ers and to increase the council's control over the development," she continued, "otherwise they would have to follow regular zoning rules. Apparently, this council-sees a PUD as 'do-whatever- they-want rule' and plans to ignore everybody else's input." "Massing these two buildings together will only make them look that much bigger," agreed Council Member Dean Maschka. "I agree that this is too much development for this site. At least with the original proposal, (the build- ings) were spread out over the lot and provided some level of transition to the neighborhood. They were closer to human scale." "Our concern is that this property has - been abandoned for a good many years," countered Council Member Tom Kough. "We need to build up that area without inflicting an undue hardship on the builder, as well as the residents. This is a good plan for the site. All the residents agreed with that. We don't want to miss this opportunity to see something happen on that corner." With that, 'the council voted to adopt the modified plan 3-2. Now officials from Accessible Space Inc. (the apartment developer) and VSI Construction (office developer) will refine their conceptual drawings and return to the council sometime later this summer with the final version of their plans.