Laserfiche WebLink
d <br /> -2- <br /> Mr. Sopcinski was concerned that easements be established now so <br /> • future tenants on the site will be assured of the use of the north- <br /> west exit and not forced to use the Silver Lake Road curb cuts of <br /> which Mr. Hedlund insisted Ramsey County "has to allow at least <br /> six" . Mark Haggerty, of Smith and Juster, 6441 University Avenue , <br /> counsel to Mr. Hedlund, agreed that his client would furnish for <br /> the record a "declaration of intent" to assure at least an easement <br /> over Lot 11 for the benefit of Lot 12 which the Manager and Attorney <br /> viewed as adequate for this application. Mr. Soth assured the Board <br /> that such a declaration would remain a part of the PUD even if the <br /> property should change hands . <br /> The Board was then informed of the lawsuit Mr. Hedlund had initiated <br /> against the City contesting portions of the PUD Concept Plan. One <br /> of the points of the litigation is the "burden to his client" of <br /> proving financial feasibility in advance of the Final Plan approval <br /> by the Board and Council. Mr . Haggerty contended the time element <br /> in seeking such approval might prevent the sale or rental of the <br /> property. He added that though this time element was central to his <br /> client 's challenging the PUD, Mr. Hedlund did not want "to be tied <br /> down to the restricting of his use of any building since his plans <br /> might call for using the entire 33 percent permitted for commercial <br /> development of the PUD for one building" . <br /> Mr. Soth responded by saying "If requiring financial feasibility is <br /> a big burden to the developer, he might recommend the City eliminate <br /> this requirement, but if Mr. Hedlund proposes to change the uses , <br /> that can only be done by amending the PUD through repeating the <br /> process by which it was developed including a public hearing. " He <br /> also said if Mr. Hedlund is able to finance without leases , he did <br /> not see it as essential to the City to have a list of tenants since <br /> even that list could be changed and the terms of the PUD gives the <br /> City control over the use of the property. <br /> Mr. Soth reminded Mr. Haggerty that the Concept Plan had been developed <br /> over an extended time with many hearings which involved many residents <br /> and when it was finally approved there was no objection voiced by <br /> Mr. Hedlund though he had both his planner and attorney present, "And <br /> now he wants to change that Concept Plan. " Mr. Jones interjected the <br /> information that one of the new residents on the Penrod portion of <br /> the PUD site had infomed him he intends to sue the City "if a change <br /> in the PUD is granted" . "Those new residents, purchased their homes <br /> on the basis of a reliance on the Concept Plan" , the City Attorney <br /> said. <br /> Mr. Marks then asked for verification of whether Mr. Hedlund was <br /> asking for approval of the submission for the Detailed Plan or <br /> rather asking for changing the PUD. Mr. Haggerty replied by saying <br /> his client felt the PUD should be changed several ways. Although <br /> he is challenging in his lawsuit No. 1 of B. Use Restrictions , <br /> Mr. Hedlund could live with the restriction of commercial use for the <br /> entire PUD of 33 percent if "one type of tenant is allowed under <br /> item No. 2 for one building or the commercial could all be in the <br /> same building" . He also found waiting for a "B" tenant under E of <br />