09-15-1999 - 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. As Ms. Olsen stated it was her understanding that any revision to a PlannedEit Development would require a re-opening and following through of the entire normal :rocess. t ted she believed this would include the construction of the office buildings. Chair Arson PeteiVtignkilped the Planned. Unit Development documents provide an alternate form Q zoning, specified spg0giffAbigue, regaraig in terms of its own unique setbackIti uirement y'and otl r `x< ><�: °sta:e this what is acceptable, q �y� �>�� <> =�. _�:>>�< document specified the uses for the main portion of this de elopmen�,,t Outlots A and�`B, nd the°issues pertinent to those developments. He stated, if the construct a those areas is don according to the Planned Unit Development requirements, there is no n411101:01) n it. He stated the reopening was only required if the original plan was to be amende ` - tgthere was much room for alterations in building styles, and slight location changes, and it was e i t of the PUD document to allow some flexibility in the original plan, while stitloaDiFing conformance. He explained this did not necessarilymean that anychange would re urethe: e ::; ing of thelaned Unit Development. q.F.:..: P...,. dimr Jopke stated this Planned Unit Development'include. thetl at ,r t tlding, the office buildings, and two retail restaurant buildings. He stated`his unders. anding' tf h e process is that the development stage plan of the project was specific,,Oetailed4iWregard tthe theater portion of the property, as well as the three office buildings. He4at'ed thek 'ation, pargng, and landscaping requirements were defined for those four parts. He stated the tworetail restaurants were not defined, because without a tenant,the site layout could t of be determinedzi < e ated, in his opinion, the tworetail restaurant buildings have todlikOughto a deoppent stage planaPProval process. However, the three of eildins and vollgok were covered with the plan which was already approved, because all R011eetails were°c e ed. Chairperson an 1 11 '<::_ `rson : <=mof> re revisions to this development were made at the Planning Commission=level, and heolaunity meetings, even before the formal application was made. He "stated- y-saw-sever-al ` . :, ;; .�' ens of-the-project-prio-_to it bec • l.._Hestate-d_the proc.,,,, -continued with thtouncil, and there were some changes at the City Council level, with . MO , lsen agreeing tha he City Council minutes, as well as the Planning Commission minutes, s.>; d be reviewed in regard to the requirements of the fence. Ar V40 is stated other issue was that the air conditioners and/or the back of the building were •tsindeed of encroaching anywhere on the 50-foot buffer. Commissioner Johnson stated this was corrrect. e stated the plan did not show any encroachment upon the 50-foot buffer, and therefore, the developer could not place anything on the buffe, 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. •