Agenda Packets - 2003/05/12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No: 09A Meeting Date: May 12, 2003 Type of Business: PH & CB City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View City Council From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing Continuation and Consideration of Resolution 5997, a Resolution Regarding a Proposed PUD Amendment for the Property Located at 2442 County Highway 10 Introduction: On May 11, 1998, the Mounds View City Council approved Resolution 5226, a resolution approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement for a theater development on a parcel bounded by County Road H2 to the south, Long Lake Road to the west and Highway 10 (now County Highway 10) to the north. The PUD agreement established uses for the parcels within the site which were as follows: • Multi-screen movie theater • Office uses • Parking • Restaurants • Retail The PUD agreement was specific as to which uses would be located on which lots. Since its approval, four of the seven parcels have been developed: The theater, the parking lot (which is its own lot since it is separated form the theater by Edgewood Drive right of way) and an office building. Recently, Jake’s of Mounds View entered into a purchase agreement with the developer to improve the second of the three office lots for additional parking to serve Jake’s. (The remaining office parcel is also being considered for additional parking by Carmike Cinemas.) The only two remaining undeveloped lots then are identified by the developer as Outparcel “A” and Outparcel “B”. Outparcel B is the undeveloped lot next to the theater which was planned for use as a restaurant or retail, or a combination of the both. Outparcel A, the parcel within the PUD currently being considered for amendment, was originally established for a restaurant use. Since the theater opened, the developer’s representatives have marketed the site to potential restaurateurs and franchise groups, however they have not succeeded in securing an appropriate restaurant tenant, which has prompted them to consider alternative uses for the parcel. In addition to the restaurant use, the developer would like to add “office” as a permitted use for the parcel. At the Council’s last regular meeting on April 28, 2003, this item was tabled due to issues relating to parking and concerns with the proposed office use. The developer will be in attendance and will be able to respond to any question you may have.