City Council Minutes 1998 08 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Keany asked Sam Light, City Attorney, whether the letter of credit currently in place could be held until the generator is screened in a manner acceptable to staff when there is nothing in the letter of credit committing it to do so. He asked if the applicant could ask for release of the letter of credit based upon this. Light replied that if the substance of the letter does not include that specific work as a guaranteed improvement, then, yes, they could say it's not covered. He stated that screening of the generator was not a public improvement, so it was not a part of the original subdivision public improvement agreement and public improvement process which would require a guarantee. He recommended removing the condition from this Resolution and have Planning Department staff investigate compliance of Lot 1 with its approved PUD plans. If they are not in compliance, pursue whatever enforcement remedies the City has with respect to the Lot 1 Final PUD and the generator screening as approved. Keany agreed to remove condition number one from this project. Mayer asked Light, in light of the fact that some of the aspects of the original are being changed, why couldn't the City require an overall PUD amendment with lot line changes, etc. Light replied that the lot line change, of itself, is a replat, so it changes the original subdivision action, which is distinct from the original PUD process. In this case, there is a request for an additional sign, which is not part of Lot 3 and therefore, should be removed from this application. If that sign were desired, they would need to bring that back through a different process for amendment of the overall PUD. Lathrop asked Light whether recording a document that details the responsibilities of Lots 2 and 4 to then meet all the remaining requirements of the PUD would be an acceptable alternative. Light replied that it is correct that the PUD is recorded and binding on the property. It takes a fairly sophisticated buyer to pick up on that, find the documents, and study them. The more notice the City can give, the better. A separate notice could be recorded specifically encumbering Lots 2 and 4, restating they are subject to all applicable requirements of the PUD and any other applicable requirements of the Commercial Development Design Guidelines. That notice might also advise current lot purchasers how much square footage of the lots is left to allocate between the two lots. Howard asked to clarify that the applicant is willing to comply with conditions 1, and 2. Feinberg agreed. Howard asked whether the applicant is willing to eliminate the signage requested. Feinberg agreed.