PL MINUTES 03201979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■ "F" of the Scheduling Component "the developer must provide a list of ten- ants proposed -to occupy at least 50% of the area of a building and a list of all proposed "C" tenants in the building" before a building permit can be issued. He also said the PUD ordinance requires a review by City staff of the Detailed Plan before action can be taken by the Board. The various requirements which must be met for the Detailed Plan were reviewed with Mr. Hedlund. Mr. Hedlund said he could "abide by providing only the type of business" but did not believe "it fair to require me to have an exact listing of who 's going in there before I can get a building permit" , and said he didn't be- lieve it "can be legally required" . He insisted he was going to "abide by the uses in the PUD" . Because he felt Mr. Hedlund had provided only 20% of the information re- quired for a Detailed Plan of the PUD, Mr. Bjorklund made the following motion which was seconded by Mr. Rymarchick: To table action on the request from Mr. Hedlund for concept approval of plans for one of three buildings to be constructed on the south 230 feet of the Silver Lake Road side of Lot 12 , Block 1 , Penrod Addition, with the re- quest to Mr. Hedlund that he submit the appropriate information which is stipulated as required for the Detailed Plan of the original Hedlund PUD approved July 12, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hedlund then objected to the fact that the Board had not been given copies of the preliminary plat he had given the Manager. Mr. Sopcinski agreed with Mr. Fornell there was no way in which such copies could have been prepared nor opportunity provided for Staff, to review the plat in the half day before such documentation could be put in the Agenda for Board consideration. Mr. Fornell reiterated the PUD requirement that the Detailed Plan must be worked out with City Staff and told Mr. Hedlund it might even be necessary for him to have a planner work on the final draft of the Detailed Plan to aid him in the final deliberations . Mr. Hedlund said he was willing to work with the Staff but objected to incurring additional expenses to pay for a planner. He said the preliminary plan alone had cost him $200 .00 be- " cause of its required size . Mr. Berg then reported to the Board that Elmer Hansen had requested Board review of the City Staff 's interpretation of the actions taken by both the Planning Board and Council regarding the granting of variances for Mr. Hansen' s proposed single family dwelling on Silver Lake Terrace. Mr. Hansen's current plans are to increase the size of the house as compared to the plans he submitted for Council approval . Mr. Berg reiterated his concern as stated in his March 16th memorandum to the Planning Board, that the new proposal will result in a decrease in rear yard setback to within 12 feet of the lakeshore at some points as opposed • to the setback originally proposed by Mr. Hansen which stipulated such a setback as varying from 22 . 5 feet to 40 feet from the shore. (3)