PL MINUTES 07211979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• -5- Mr. Fornell then advised that the requirements of VIII D had been • waived for the residential development of the PUD. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Enrooth to recommend to the Council that an unconditional, irrevocable Letter of Credit for $24, 000, for one year after issuance of the building permit, be substituted for the required Performance Bond in VIII D with the Letter of Credit to be released by the City only upon compliance with all the terms of the Detailed Plan. The Board bases this recommendation on the belief the security will be as good or better than under a Performance Bond and found the change "not material to the Concept Plan" under Section 13, Subdivision 6, No. 6f of the City Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hedlund indicated he understood that similar Letters of Credit would be required for the second and third building as well . Mr. Jones had originally tied the release of the Letter of Credit to the completion of the landscaping, driveway, and parking area construction, but eliminated these specifics with the final drafting of the motion. The discussion now centered on the requirements of VI E of the Scheduling Component, with the developer insisting he could not • meet the requirement of having one B tenant take occupancy in each building before any C tenant occupies the same building. When Mr. Soth was adamant in his insistance that modifying this requirement involved a "material change in the Concept Plan which would call for a repeat of the entire development process" , Mr. Haggerty suggested that the matter of whether the change was mater- ial "should be reserved for the Council to decide" , but Mr. Jones told him he was certain the Council would accept the advice of its own counsel just as Mr . Hedlund would defer to Mr. Haggerty ' s opinion and suggested a way of retaining the restriction which might prove satisfactory to all parties . Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Enrooth to indicate to the Council that it is the feeling of the Planning Board that, should Mr. Hedlund move his office into any portion of any building, this would meet the requirements for B use under E- of VI Scheduling Component. The motion was re-worded upon the objections of Mr. Rymarchick that it "did not represent a consensus of the Board since he personally opposed such tactics by a civic body" . Mr . Sopcinski viewed the action as unnecessary and questioned what would happen if Mr. Hedlund no longer owned the property. Mr. Marks said he saw this concession as necessary to assure Mr. Hedlund he would be allowed to use his office to meet the B require- ments and saw no reason not to vote for the motion since it entailed nothing in respect to land use, nor scheduling, nor would it mater- ially affect the PUD.