pf_03125 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Bennett, Cathy From: Sent: To: Subject: cklaw [cklaw@usweslnetJ Thursday, April 08,19999:43 AM 'Cathy Bennett' Gateway Business Park Bulld-out De,4'1~" .s I Fyr, X w4 ...f4\l +k:u ,i) ""-' p (p "- o...i4b htV<- f'L<. 7/1=' ~ /tW/~ '1 ~ l#~ fOpCNUJ-L ~30 & ~ p..c.cJ- ; '" ~ f,.olJJ . -~ last Wednesday you provided me with a copy of the marketing report for Gateway Business Park, a copy of the PUD, and other information regarding the build-out of the Park. You asked me to review the documents and to provide you with an opinion as to whether the Developer has complied with the terms and conditions of the PUD or whether an amendment of the PUD agreement is necessary in order to avoid a default. In my opinion, it appears that the Developer has substantially complied with the terms of the PUD. Paragraph 1 of the PUD approves a "34 acre industrial business park Including up to five buildings and approximately 359,000 square feet of development at build-out." Based on the information you provided to me, it appears four buildings were constructed (one of ( which occupies two lots) comprising approximately 324,000 square feet of ~ (1.. development. While Paragraph 29 specifies that significant proposed ~ amendments which would increase the project size, parking or roadway system - will be considered a major amendment to the Planned Unit Development and will require amendment hearings and approval by the City" the Agreement "\) _ _ . .,.- does not include any similar requirement for modifications to the master \~n _ _ 1- plans which reduce the scope of the development. ~dI ~, Given that the target build-out was specified as "approximately 359,000 . _.. ~ square feaf' it is my opinion that the project as built-out Is ~ /\AJlA^J , substantially in accord with the written agreement, that there has not been a default. and that no City action is therefore required at this time. ~~ rY'I,~V'\o-J If you need additional information or a more detailed analysis. please ~ contact me. Joel 1