Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" '. ' , <br />Requestfor,Amf!ndment (0 PUD <br />Solutia-Roseville <br /> <br />,Develo II)ent Standard <br />Setbacks: Front' <br />Side <br />Rear <br />Minimum Lot Size <br />Buildin Hei hi <br />Buildi~g Materials <br /> <br />" 'Parking' <br /> <br />Loading Areas <br /> <br />Green S ace <br /> <br />PUD Re uhoement <br />30' - <br />10' <br />20' <br />60,000 S.F. <br />3-Sto <br />Must be a combination of <br />brick"natural sto.ne, masonry <br />tile, architectural'steel and <br />glass on a minimum of 65% <br />- of all vertical surfaces. <br />Consistent with City <br />standards. Setbacks of 5' <br />from the property line. A <br />minimum of 5% o(the <br />parking area shall be 'green ' ' <br />with tre~s. <br />Must be screened from <br />public view. Entrances must <br />be no wider than 28'. ' ' <br />25% minimum <br /> <br />August 6; 2001 <br />'Page 50f7 <br /> <br /> <br />Pro <br /> <br />The 5' minimum setback <br />from property line and the <br />5% minimum interior <br />landscaping are provided on , <br />the ,surface parking lots. - <br /> <br />Will 'be screened ~om public <br />VIew. <br /> <br />25% minimum <br /> <br />, , <br />ENVIRONMENTAL ASESSMENT WORKSHEET (EA W) <br />The city Council originally approved the Centre Poirite Business Park POD in 1997. - As part <br />oi'that approval process, Ryan Companies:_prepared a voluntaryEnvironmentalAs~essment <br />Worksheet'(EA W) for the PUD. After extensive review and public discussion, the City <br />Cou1).cil made a IlnegatiY,edecIaration'~ on the EA W in March of 1997. The City Council in <br />.affect said that tbe proposed development did not have the "po~ential for significant <br />environmental effect", and ~hat no additional env~ronmental review was required. <br /> <br />" ' <br />-The proposed amendment to the ~entre Pointe POD made as part of this narrative and, <br />application.is to increase the amount of office by approximately 15,240 square feet. This <br />,additi()nal office space is not ~ignificantly diff~rent than what was anticipated as-part of the <br />o.riginal pur:>, nor does this additionai office space have the "potential.for significant <br />environmental effect. " <br /> <br />o . TRANSPORT ATION/T,RAFFIC IMPACTS <br />fOllowing isacomparison o.fthe proposedSolutia Consluting development with the <br />previously approved restaurant.' _ _' <br />· ,It is ariticipated that the proposed development will not adversely impact the adjacent <br />intersections in the area, Nor significantly increase the amount of traffic volume during <br />th~ P.M, peak rush hour. Upon full dev~Iopment the intersections will operate within the <br />ranges indicated by the previously,approved E.A.W. <br /> <br />0, '; <br /> <br />:, \.. <br /> <br />- ~ <br />