I need a little education on how the site plan process works in Minneapolis. Didn't McCaffery have to submit (and get approval for) a detailed site plan for Block E, including floor plans, exterior building materials, landscaping, etc.?
I'm assuming the nothing McCaffrey does (right down to the color of brick and size and type of tree planted) should come as a surprise to the city council - unless McCaffery is out of compliance with approved site plan (which appears to be the case). If McCaffrey wanted to change the floor plan and eliminate the public corridor and restrooms, he should have received approval for a site plan amendment before making the changes. If he didn't, the city should be able to force compliance with the approved plan if it wants, or require any other changes before revised plan is approved. If this scenario is correct, the city needs to be firm and the staff is absolutely right to withhold new building permits until new plan is approved. Developers need to be held accountable to approved plans or the plans are meaningless; and slowing down the construction schedule is a great tool, because time is definitely money during construction and McCaffery will need to quickly meet the city's requirements to keep construction on schedule. John Rocker Calhoun (sounds better than CARAG) _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
