2001_1022_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6.2 Recently staff received an inquiry regarding the location of a sit-down restaurant in Centre Pointe. Also, the tenants and some property managers in Centre Pointe have indicated the location of a restaurant in Centre Pointe as a specific need. This information has been provided to staff through on-site visits as part of the City's business retention program and as evidenced by the attached letter from Ryan Companies, property manager for many of the buildings in Centre Pointe. 6.3 The DRC concluded that the PUD controls the uses on the site with specific terms and conditions under which parcels and uses shall develop. The PUD indicates that if a restaurant is not developed, an office is an appropriate alternative. However, the site is limited to 6,000 square feet of building, unless a PUD amendment is approved. 6.4 The Community Development Director reviewed the proposed change in the Master Site Plan, the proposed Solutia site plan, the PUD Amendments, and the Draft EAW. The Community Development Director concluded that PUD Agreement is the regulatory document for the vacant parcel and that the proposed use, as an office, is appropriate and permitted, especially if the previous lot owner has demonstrated that there is no market for a restaurant. In addition, the proposed two-story office could increase the parcel's allowable square footage, lot coverage, and impervious coverage; however, these changes do not present heightened environmental concern as evidenced in the Draft EAW. 6.5 The Planning Commission was presented three recommendation options based on the staff considerations indicated above: ➢ Deny the request; retain the 6,000 sq. ft restaurant pad. ➢ Approve a 6,000 sq. ft. one story office building. ➢ After an EAW negative declaration, amend Master Site Plan and PUD to a11ow two-story 21,240 sq. ft. office building 7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 7.1 On October 10, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Solutia Consulting request. At the hearing no citizens addressed the Commission. E-mails were presented to the Commission from tenants and property managers supporting the need for a restaurant on the vacant parcel. However the Commission did ask questions pertaining to the difference in the Master Plan, Master Plan Map, and the adopted PUD. The Commission also asked specific questions pertainin�to the site and use of the building� (see attached draft minutes); PF 3338 -RCA (10/22/01) -Page 7 of 9