pm_990414 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6a. Planning File 3077. Lois Olson, Cryogenic Laboratories, Inc., request for a Planned Unit Development to expand the building at 1944 Lexington Avenue using the Cornerstone guidelines (continued from March 10, 1999). Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested City Planner, Thomas Paschke to provide a summary of the staff report dated March 14, 1999. He explained the location and the request in detail. The comprehensive plan and zoning were described. The details of the site improvements and five-foot setbacks from the east property line, zero feet from Lexington. The building is 12-14 feet in height; the new height is 14-16 feet; a tower is 29 feet in height. No rear access is proposed. A site plan was described. Mr. Paschke explained the details that are required within the project. John Olson and Lois Olson described the plans for their building located at 1940 Lexington Avenue. He explained the work that was completed since the original meeting with the Commission. The setback changed from three feet to five feet along both the north and east side. The Olsons also met with the neighbors and attempted to meet the additional improvements requested by the neighbors. Chair Klausing asked for details of the changes in lighting of the tower; the south setback area adjacent to the hardware store was changed to sod; and adjusted doors and screening along the north side. Tim Cook, speaking for Peggy Jones, 1088 Ryan, asked if the nitrogen tank would be screened. How? The tank will be screened with a brick wall (as wall as the trash container). Mr. Cook asked for details in the sizes of the building 6,800 s.t. expansion. Mr. Olson described the new entry and trash handling areas. Mr. Cook asked for detail of the five foot setback along the north property line. Is there a commitment to build a fence along residential properties and extended along all of Mr. Cook's rear (south) property line? Mr. Cook asked if five feet of setback is adequate to construct a brick wall. Mr. Olson noted that a fence could be constructed along the property line prior to the construction. Mr. Cook said the setbacks and design are acceptable even if he and his sister object to losing "old Roseville". Chair Klausing noted two written comments, one from Bob and Joan Bierscheid opposing the project; and the other from Jim and Jen McCarthy, both of whom live in the Rose Villa townhome project. (Letters Placed in planning file.) Mary Jo Hickok, 1050 Harriet Lane (roseville) asked if the fence will be located on Rose Villa property. How do cornerstone guidelines affect this property? She had an aesthetic concern with a "modernistic design with a 24 foot tower". If the precedent is set with this building, the architecture will again appear on the southeast corner of the site. Claire Keggler, 1075 Harriet, asked what the plans are for landscaping the rear of the building. Thomas Paschke explained the elevation of the building (as revised). He explained the trellis, vines, and arches along the east side of the building. Member Rhody asked if the landscaping will extend across the hardware store (no). the planting will be done entirely on the Cryogenic site. Thomas Paschke explained possible landscape alternatives. Judy Florene, 1049 Harriet Lane, explained the differences between the hardware store and the lab. She noted that the property east of the lab drops into a pond. She explained the 1 OO-year rain and the flooded back yards. Good landscaping is not possible. Would it be possible to enlarge the building for the current business? This proposal would add two new businesses. Why is the entire site impermeable? John Olson responded that five feet on his property and three feet on Rose Villa property. He explained that a retaining wall could be installed, allowing for a five foot planting area. There are four current businesses in the building site. The rooftop drainage will move water away from the pond. Jim McCarthy, 1083 Harriet, updated the Planning Commission on the requirements for the Bachman's plan. No work has taken place on the hardware side of the building. There is a concern about trash on the site. Member Egli asked if there would be reduced sunlight in winter on their site. Tom Cook explained the concerns of adjacent (north property line) properties and the need for an eight foot fence. Lois Florsblad, 1057 Harriet, noted that five feet of setback is not enough, that a 17.5 foot space between buildings is not enough. She disagrees that the property value will increase because it comes closer to the residential property. She explained that parking area was insufficient for both hardware and lab. Trucks with trailers take up significant spaces.