09-01-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 Ms. Olsen stated she had not attended the meetings at the Planning Commission level, in regard to the Theater Project. She stated the discussion regarding the fencing came at the City Council level, and would appreciate staff's review of the City Council minutes. She stated the final determination was the result of the numerous discussions at the City Council level. Ms. Olsen stated it was her understanding that any revision to a Planned Unit Development would require a re-opening and following through of the entire normal process. She stated she believed this would include the construction of the office buildings. Chairperson Peterson explained the Planned Unit Development documents provide an alternate form of zoning, specified in advance, regarding what is acceptable, in terms of its own unique setback requirements, and others. He stated this document specified the uses for the main portion of this development, Outlots A and B, and the issues pertinent to those developments. He stated, if the construction of those areas is done according to the Planned Unit Development requirements, there is no need to reopen it. He stated the reopening was only required if the original plan was to be amended. He stated there was much room for alterations in building styles, and slight location changes, and it was the intent of the PUD document to allow some flexibility in the original plan, while still requiring conformance. He explained this did not necessarily mean that any change would require the reopening of the Planned Unit Development. • Jopke stated this Planned Unit Development included the theater building, the office buildings, and two retail restaurant buildings. He stated his understanding of the process is that the development stage plan of the project was specific and detailed in regard to the theater portion of the property, as well as the three office buildings. He stated the location, parking, and landscaping requirements were defined for those four parts. He stated the two retail restaurants were not defined, because without a tenant, the site layout could not be determined. He stated, in his opinion, the two retail restaurant buildings would have to come through a development stage plan approval process. However, the three office buildings and the theater were covered with the plan which was already approved, because all of the details were defined. Chairperson Peterson stated many of the revisions to this development were made at the Planning Commission level, and the community meetings, even before the formal application was made. He • : _ process continued with the City Council, and there were some changes at the City Council level, with Ms. Olsen agreeing that the City Council minutes, as well as the Planning Commission minutes, should be reviewed in regard to the requirements of the fence. Ms. Olsen stated another issue was that the air conditioners and/or the back of the building were indeed not encroaching anywhere on the 50-foot buffer. Commissioner Johnson stated this was correct. He stated the plan did not show any encroachment upon the 50-foot buffer, and therefore, the developer could not place anything on the buffer, which he was well aware of. • Chairperson Peterson stated the general process for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development, in the event of a modification to the original plan, should be further defined.