Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that parking requirements would need to be met before site expansion. <br />He then said that the Mermaid site is fully developed and they would need to provide for <br />additional parking before approval of an expansion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn asked if there are any protections for the aesthetics and protection from a <br />large structure for residents in the area. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the protection would be that the City is going to be the one deciding <br />where to locate the buildings and the PUD gives the City the option of additional landscaping <br />and buffering requirements to create a better development. <br /> <br />Director Ericson explained that the City approves the PUD and can say no if it is not what the <br />Commission and Council want to see in the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland asked if there is any impact to City water and sewer for a five-story <br />building. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that the study indicates that City services could support a 1.5 million <br />square foot building. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated Staff could strike Subdivision 12 in its entirety to eliminate the <br />inconsistency but Staff would prefer the language as proposed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland indicated there were no guidelines provided. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that the development would need to satisfy the 10 criteria of purpose <br />and intent listed in the PUD section of the Code. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn said he understands the intent and direction Staff is trying to go but he <br />thinks it is too open ended and causes problems for the surrounding areas and reinforced that <br />regardless of public hearings he can see that if this is followed the City has a tendency to throw <br />up its arms and say there is nothing that can be done to stop it. He then said that if there are a lot <br />of people objecting to the project but the City goes forward with it because it meets the criteria <br />he is concerned about that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn said he does not like the open-ended language. <br /> <br />Director Ericson agreed that it is open-ended but said that is the purpose of the PUD. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn said that he feels that the direct statement of the underlying district governs <br />the height is clear. But, the proposed language opens it up for something residents may not want <br />in an area. He then said sees no protection with the new wording. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson said he feels the City should rely on the 10 stated reasons for approval, and <br />whether to grant a higher building in a PUD will depend on those reasons.