PL MINUTES 03201979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. �l material presented only partially fulfilled the comprehensive planning re- quired in the next phase of the PUD as Detailed Plan. Before such a ruling from the Chair was made, Mr. Rymarchick said he thought the Board should at least spend 15 minutes reacting to the request in an attempt to help the applicant understand which requirements of the second phase of the PUD had not been met. It was agreed that the Board would consider the matter until 7 : 40 p.m. The Board commenced an item by item consideration of the 22 references under Section 13, Subdivision 6, Paragraph two of the City Zoning Ordinance for a PUD which had been listed by Mr. Hedlund. They indicated satisfaction with proof of ownership of the property by Mr. Hedlund but did not have a consensus of agreement that the letter from the New Brighton Bank sufficiently indicated financial ability for the total development of the PUD as required. Mr. Hedlund arrived at 7 :40 p.m. and disputed this conclusion saying he did not believe he was "required to be in a financial position to assume the responsibility for the entire PUD at this time" . He said his attorney, Wymann Smith, whom he had recently retained, "feels you are demanding too much" especially by requiring specific identification of tenants for the three buildings. Mr. Klick told Mr. Hedlund he did not see how the Board could give even concept consideration when they were "seeing only a portion of the PUD requirements in the plans for only one building" . Mr. Hedlund responded by saying the proposed building is "the first of three identical buildings" to be erected on Lot 12 . Mr. Hedlund also said if the Board did not approve of his facing the building towards the resi- dential development on Penrod it could be turned around, although he felt the residents might prefer looking at the front of the buildings to park- ing lots next to their homes. Mr. Bjorklund commented on the fact that the proposal seemed to provide only 27 parking spaces for the first building and said multiplying this figure by three left the PUD very short of the required 95 parking spaces . The developer said he thought that "that much parking was not necessary and it might be better to have greenery instead" . However, his major ob- jection to the PUD requirements was that he has to specify "who's going to be in the building" , which he viewed as "illegal to require" . He added that though he saw the PUD as "too tough" , he was not at this time applying for a variance. Mr. Rymarchick told Mr. Hedlund that he did not believe specific naming of the tenants was required in the Detailed Plan but the PUD had listed the uses which will be allowed in the commercial development of the PUD. How- ever, he saw Mr. Hedlund's proposal as lacking the requirements for speci- fics as to land area, height of buildings, floor areas , landscaping, etc. , for a Detailed Plan which he did not see in the material provided for that meeting. He did not feel a blue line drawing of the building was adequate to give the Board sufficient information on which to base a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Fornell said he did not believe Mr. Hedlund was required to specifical- ly identify the tenants of the building in the Detailed Plan but, said under (2)