Laserfiche WebLink
` <br /> h1r. Dennis Der. ickson <br /> Page Four <br /> January 11 , 1980 <br /> Building P�rmit. A seconc� possible approach <br /> might Ue the inclusion of appropri_a'ce restrictive <br /> language in the building permit. Th9.s approach was <br /> suggested by one of my clients and I am not certain as <br /> to its feasibility. Again, based upon our understand- <br /> ing of the City ' s concern, I believe my clients could <br /> live with reasonably express limitations sei: forth in <br /> the building permit document. <br /> If neither of the foregoing alternatives would be satisfac- <br /> tory, please feel welcome to suggest other alt-ernatives. <br /> The bottom line of the project feasibility is thal- there be <br /> no recorded document which might jeopardize financing . <br /> Sewer Interceptor . As I recall , the City stafi was <br /> going to provide my clients with the formulas which are <br /> presently available so that they might determine the cost <br /> commitmenl-s proposed by Lhe City. As I recall , the formulas <br /> for the se��rer interceptor contribution is based upon the <br /> proposed affluent into the sewer system. <br /> t4iscellaneous. Piost of the other requirements were <br /> readily acceptable to my cliet�ts. There was addii-ional <br /> discussion concerning the fire code requirements under <br /> Paragraph II of your letter. Ron Gregory wanted assurance <br /> that the City �eould provide suffi.cient water to the site . <br /> If so, he will make sure that adequate pipes are grovided . <br /> As I recall, Clare Oliver was going to be contacted for <br /> further information concernirig the fire code requirement:. . <br /> Timin . There was al,o an extensive oiscussion of <br /> timing . My clients are on a "fast track" as they have a <br /> prospeci:ive tenant for one of their buildings . There was a <br /> yeneral discussicn of the requirements of the City and the <br /> City ' s permit process. The City staff made clear that the <br /> quality of the plans ti•;as an imporcant consideration. The <br /> better the quality ot the plan: , the quicl:er the staff <br /> review and approval . <br /> Given the time censtraints , I would app�'eci.ate your <br /> response to this letter. Of grimary concern is a modifica- <br /> tion of the Linal deelaration of non-significance concerninq <br /> the City ' s reguirements of a pocaer cf attorney for the <br />