PL MINUTES 07211979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- Mr. Fornell reminded Mr. Hedlund that these restrictions were not added by the Council, but were part of the plan receiving Planning Board approval in June, 1977 . Mr. Jones felt that since Mr. Hedlund will be restricted to a 33 percent total commercial use, some leeway should be allowed regarding the mix of uses and did not agree with Mr. Soth that allowing this deviation would be detrimental to the PUD or should be considered "material" . It was Mr. Soth' s contention that the matter must be referred to the Council to decide whether or not it is critical. A building permit could be issued and Item E enforced only when a C use occupies the building, according to the Manager. Under the guidance of the City Attorney the following recommendations to the Council were formulated: Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Jones to recommend to the Council that the provision of a listing of tenants under F of VI of the Hedlund PUD be waived finding under Section 13, Subdivision 6 , Number 6f of the City Zoning Ordinance , the restriction is "not mater- ial and only informational" . Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr . Enrooth to recommend to the Council that the first sentence of Item C of VIII of the Concept Plan • be waived finding under Section 13, Subdivision 6 , Number 6f of the City Zoning Ordinance, that this restriction is "not material but r a t h e r informational" since the City does not have the right to either approve nor disapprove specific tenants . Motion carried unanimously. When addressing the "burden" Sentence No. 2 of VIII C of the Concept Plan would place on the developer, Mr. Haggerty insisted the time element involved in going to the Board and Council could be very important to Mr. Hedlund when he is marketing a joint venture for the development of the site, but agreed that if the determination were left to staff , the developer "would be able to live with the restriction" . Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Enroo,th to recommend to the Council that the requirements of the second Sentence of VIII C of the Concept Plan regarding conclusive proof of financial feasibility, does not have to be complied with for the final approval of the Detailed Plan but rather before a building permit can be issued and the authority for determining whether this requirement is complied with shall be granted to the City Manager. Before a vote was taken, " Mr. Sopcinski questioned whether this action was necessary in view of the move to waive the first sentence , but the Atzorney advised leaving it in and the motion passed unanimously.