Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />. <br />i <br /> <br />" <br /> <br /> <br />,...~ <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />j <br /> <br />,I <br /> <br />January 16, 1991 <br /> <br />Mr. Mike Brennan <br />Ryan Construction.of Minnesota, <br />900 2nd Avenue South, 1700 <br />Minneapolis, HN 554U2 <br />SUBJECT: INFORMAL REVIEW OF PLANS TO REVISE FOOTPRINT AND CERTAIN OTHER <br />FEATURES OF THE -ROCKfORD ROAD PLAZA- (9005~(MPUD 89-2M) <br />Dear Hr. Brennan: <br /> <br />. ..~: <br /> <br />erN OF <br />Ine.PlYMOUTH- <br /> <br />This will ackncwledge your meeting with the Development Review Committee or. <br />Tuesday. Janua~ 8th. 1991 to discuss your informal proposal to increase the <br />total footprint of the subject shopping center 4400 square feet; reduce the <br />outdoor display area 7000 square feet; and modify tine development plan in <br />several other areas. .. Based on the review of your informal plans the <br />Development Review Committee offers the following comments: <br /> <br />1. The basic conceyt of increasing the footprint by 4400 square feet <br />resulting in a oss of 7000 square feet of outs)de display area and 15 <br />off-street parking spaces could be consid~red a -minor PUD amendmpntM and <br />therefore subject to administrative approval. <br /> <br />2. The proposal to eliminate one of the screen ~a111s covering truck delivery <br />areas on the east side of the building would require a fonnal PUD plan <br />amend~nt. A specific concern of the Planning Commis~ion and City Council <br />in the1r review of thh. plan wa:;' the potent hI appeltrl\Oce of the east <br />elevation of the building to the residential ne'ghbol~oods located east of <br />the site. Any modification to ~hat elevation would ~e significant and <br />requi re a fonnal p Ian aI~ndment. <br /> <br />3. lhe trash enclosure which has been added to the ~a5t side of the building <br />must have a door structwre with a specification CO,tl!,istent with the zoning <br />ordinance. (2 inch thic~ material minimum). <br /> <br />4. Your plans show the elimination of the shopping cart storage area which <br />was in a Jandscaped area 1)n the SOUUI side of the Rainbow foods st.ructure. <br />The eHlllfnation of this c.Jrt storagei iJrea has not been approved. You <br />indicated that the cart s~Drage area inside of~ Raf~bow foods has been <br />increased in ~;fze to correspond with the elimination of t.he outdoor cart <br />storage area. Please pro~ide specific evidence of this s~bstitution. At <br />such time as we have been ,Ible to review this proposal He will advise you <br />as to whether a fonna 1 PilD P I an amendment wi 1 I bt~ reQu i /"ed or whether an <br />administration approval wi i) be possible. <br /> <br />5. Sheet A-8 of the informal plans you submitted depicts ""all signage that <br />appears to be 15-17\ of the wall area to which it is attached. Your <br />approved PUO plan calls for a ~~!lm~, of 10\ wall sfgnage and no plans m~y <br />be approved for si9" insta11atlon that would exceed lhh 10% mdximurn <br />without an ~Mendment to the PUU plan. <br /> <br />'I,~/ '-, ;)f ;<" ';1" 11( I, t" J v^:;." ,.. V','('''''' ",,.~~,r '~""'~.. f, . ~.. <br /> <br />I r'.i. ."; <br /> <br />l-r"""'-,,- .....'1_ <br />