PL MINUTES 07211979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i -3- VI of the Scheduling Component to be "damaging to his client" and • felt the same issue was involved in F also under VI . The attorney said they had challenged all of A under VIII , but could live with those restrictions if those enumerated under C and D were changed. Mr. Soth then advised the Board which of these restrictions named by Mr. Haggerty he felt, from a legal standpoint, could be waived as long as they did not invovle "change in use", but insisted the requirement that "no more than 50 percent for commercial be allowed for any one building" was one of the points which would require amending the Concept Plan by repeating the whole process by which the PUD was developed. Mr. Rymarchick said there had been much time and effort put into the formulation of the Concept Plan and every detail had been scrutinized carefully before its adoption. Mr. Hedlund agreed this was true of the plan approved by the Board in June , 1977 , but this plan was greatly altered by Council persons Haik and Stauffer at their July meeting and the revised plan was then "railroaded" through by Mayor Miedtke. He insisted he had been restrained by his planner and attorney from objecting to the plan before it was approved. Mr. Fornell agreed that the plan was changed from that approved by the Planning Board, but said that is the prerogative of the Council and Mr. Soth said he was present and saw no "rail- roading" of the PUD which was approved without objection from Mr. Hedlund. The Chairman repeated his question to Mr. Hedlund whether he was in reality asking for a change in the Concept Plan and whether he had made a formal application to do so since these objections were not listed in his application of August 9 for a public hearing on the Detailed Plan. Mr. Soth reiterated the process which would be necessary to amend any portion of the PUD to the extent it involved "a material change in the use" , but said the Board may suggest some changes be made if they aren' t "terribly material or significant" . He said the requirement for listing the tenants and substitution of a Letter of Credit for the Performance Bond "could be waived within the process , but changing the use mix would probably call for a repeat of the process including a public hearing" . He also dis- agreed with Mr . Haggerty that the Board could consider a Detailed Plan except under the approved Concept Plan . He then read provisions of Section 13, Subdivision 6 , Number 6f of the City Zoning Ordinance which "would allow the Planning Board to recommend changes which do not materially alter the use" . The meeting was recessed from 9 : 15 p.m. to 9 : 30 p.m. to allow Mr. Hedlund to confer with his counsel . When the meeting was resumed, it was agreed that accommodations would be explored before an impasse on E and F of VIII might develop. Mr. Jones reminded Mr. Hedlund that a real estate office is a "B" use and an entire building may be utilized for this purpose. Mr. Haggerty said that although he anticipates the majorityof the tenants will be B or service office, he could not make thatg uarantee that night. He added this specific restriction is challenged in Mr. Hedlund' s lawsuit as "arbitrary" and "taking of property without due process" .