PL MINUTES 05171977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• for the two buildings as presented, subject to Staff review for con- formance. Mr. Gay also was told that there would be a requirement for a performance bond for landscaping. Theeeting was recessed at 7: 55 and reconvened at 8 :04 P.M. by the Chairman for a discussion of the Public Hearing which had been scheduled to consider a PUD on the Hedlund property. Mr. Cowan arrived during the recess. A number of residents who had received notice of the hearing were pre- sent and Mr. Fornell explained the requirements and mechanics of a Planned Unit Development as set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance. He reiterated some of the points he had made regarding Mr. Hedlund's PUD application in his memo to the Board of May 12th, including the fact that the application for a Development Concept Plan lacks the submission requirements as set forth in Subdivision 5 , Number 4 . The Chairman than asked Mr. Hedlund whether he was prepared to present the effectu- ating documents which he had been advised would be required that evening. Mr. Hedlund's attorney, John Daubney, replied that, though Mr. Hedlund did not have some of the documents with him, he was prepared to supply the information orally. Mr. Marks said some of the information could obviously only be given in a written document but felt Mr. Daubney should be allowed to give orally • any pertinent information he could. Mr. Daubney then proceeded to address items (A) through (F) which the Administrative Assistant had indicated were missing. He identified the location of the tract and said Mr. Hedlund had been its owner for 13 or 14 years and then mentioned Carl Dale, Barb Lukerman and himself as the consultants to Mr. Hedlund. He addressed (B) by saying Mr. Hedlund owns and controls all the property in question with the exception of the house he rents and there is no other fee owner but there is a Con- tract for Deed held by Kenneth Lee. Mr. Daubney identified Mr. Lee and said he was prepared to act in support of the application for a PUD. The attorney then indicated the requirement (C) a Certified Abstract of Title, would be submitted but said he did not fully understand the requirement of a statement of financial capability under (D) since Mr. Hedlund may or may not be the contractor for the development. He felt the zoning map, which he then presented and which had been included in Mr. Carol 's previous exhibits , should fulfill the requirements of (E) and said there are no water bodies inthe tract and therefore it was his belief that requirement (F) could be met by the statement from the owner that such is the case. The Board agreed that the Public Hearing on the Development Concept Plan could not legally be held since all submission requirements had not been met and were concerned why the hearing had been scheduled without adequate indication that the conditions for such a hearing had been met. • Mr. Fornell told them the formal application had been received after the notice to the residents had been mailed and published, with "lead time" persuant to state statutes. (2)