Laserfiche WebLink
•y ' ?' ,? , <br />completed prior to next spring, there would be a problem after June. Mr. Morgan <br />stated that realistically it would probably be sometime in the spring, since it <br />would take time to do it correctly. Mr. Grindell pointed aut that if this were <br />reviewed under Section 1136, 60 days are allowed to act on a cluster home <br />proposal; and if the rezoning were coming from the Council, there would be 30 <br />days to act on that request. The owners elected to come to the Planning <br />Commission first, but perha.ps they elected incorrectly. Mr. Dubelko agreed that <br />if Council initiates an ordinance there is a more limited. time. frame for PlarLn-ing <br />Commission to approve, if a Councilperson would deem it was appropriate to <br />recommerx3 a rezoning. Ntr. Molnar, church administrator, stated that all they are <br />trying to do is make this property saleable. They did have a vision to build a <br />commn,n;ty, but the funds did not become available. They have a developer who will <br />buy the land and present his proposal to the Commission when the land is zoned <br />properly. Since they have an on-demand loan with Ameritrust and if they have to <br />wait imtil June, they will be in a very precarious position. Reverend Kuhn <br />pointed out that he did not hear any talk about a master plan during the prior <br />discussion of the golf course development, he heard a willingness to make it <br />worlc. He questioned why, when what they are asking for is within the City zoning <br />codes, they are not hearing the same kind of willingness to work this out. <br />Chairman Gorris stated that he had not realized that this proposal had been <br />changed to ha,ve a11 cluster homes, since the agenda stated that this was to be <br />the sa.me requeste Reverend Kuhn stated that they were trying to avoid the <br />referendum for the multi-family, they have a developer who wants to proceed and <br />that developer will work with the Connission on the specific proposal. Mr. Gorris <br />clarified that he had sent the original plans to two planners who were being <br />considered for the master plan. Both believed that this should be discussed with <br />the master plan, one of these planners stated that the Single Family Cluster <br />would not sell if the access to the multi-family in the back was through the <br />Cluster property. He further pointed out that the golf course land is zoned for <br />"A" residence and could be developed that way, but they are presenting a definite <br />plan which includes retaining the golf course. The church is merely saying that <br />they have to sell the land and would like it rezoned. This has to be approached <br />with a certain amount of caution, because it is not lmown if this is the best use <br />for the land. Mr. Gri.ndell stated that when they first approached the Commission <br />in July it was with the idea that they would be working with them, and they have <br />responded to the Conunission's requests that an all cluster plan be submitted, <br />that the developer be named, and finally that an additional access be included. <br />Under the present zoning there could be hospitals, laboratories with parking <br />lots, and to ask the church to wait 9 months on top of the 3 months that they <br />have already waited on the advice of two planners who get paid by the acre or the <br />size of the project and who want more land in the project is not fair to the <br />church. He maintained that one of these planners had never even seen the site, <br />never heard the traffic. He reiterated that they have lost 3 months now, that <br />there are problems with the bank and that cluster zoning is far better than the <br />present zoning and fax better than the industrial zoning on the north side of <br />480. He maintained that waiting until next July was unreasonable. They are <br />willing to share the cost of a planner and meet with the subcommittee, whatever <br />it takes to get this moving. He maintained that it would be easier to force a <br />rezoning to multi-family through the courts considering what the property is <br />zoned for now. Mr. Orlowski questioned if the developer would still be interested <br />in the property if the land were rezoned for cluster homes in the front section <br />such as the two family proposal and all single family on the remainder of the <br />land. He clarified that the front sector be zoned for cluster homes, and the <br />remainder of the property which goes back with a lot by lot system for duplexes <br />could be zoned as single family. Mr. Grindell doubted that he would considering <br />6