10/04/1988 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 10/4/88 _2_ this particular project. Law Director's position is to permit the residents to testify as well as council members with respect to this particular litigation. '`mow 2) Has received a brief in opposition to the Law Department's motion for summary judgment in the Faughender Case and is currently preparing a reply brief. 3) With respect to the Developers Diversified Case, would like to set the record straight since there seems to be some confusion. During the last two administra- tions, Developers Diversified has requested various meetings with various members of the administration, city council, and Planning Commission for the purpose of having the property rezoned. Any time a lawsuit is filed, the Law Director's position is to represent the city, advise the members of council, advise the Planning Commission and advise the administration. With respect to this particu- lar law suit, the first thing any attorney does, is to prepare for trial. In the trial preparation for a zoning case, where they are asking that property be declared unconstitutionally zoned, the attorney has to go out and hire experts because basically there aren't really fact issues; it is really opinion issues that exist. Consequently, Law Director Gareau hired two experts to take a compre- hensive look at the zoning as it applied to this property; requested preliminary reports .from both experts, one being an appraiser and the other being a city planner, because there are basic issues that exist in any zoning case such as whether or not it can be economically developed, whether or not it is appropriately zoned and whether or not it is the wisest and most appropriate zoning for that particular land. When the experts' preliminary reports indicated that they could not testify on behalf of the city that the zoning for single family was appropri- ate, the Law Director immediately contacted Mayor Petrigac. Meetings were then held for the purpose of trying to reach some accord, realizing that if this failed, and the case went to trial and the city lost, the court would then give the city an opportunity to rezone the property. If declared to be unconstitutional, the city can then choose another zoning classification other than single family. After a number of meetings, the facts were brought to council since the ultimate decision is council's decision. Many meetings ensued with Developers Diversified, with council in executive session, with the property owners, members of the Planning Commission, and after the input from the Planning Commission, the judg- ment entry was reduced to writing and .attached to Ordinance No. 88-103 which council has before it. At the request of the BZD Committee, the judgment entry was changed to reflect some concerns of the area residents: Item 7 - there will be no access, ingress or egress, on Butternut Ridge Road - the traffic study has to do with signalization on Great Northern Boulevard; Item 8 - the order of construction has to be multi-family first or first in conjunction with other construction; Item 9 - specifically indicates that under no circumstances, to any parcel, will there be ingress or egress onto Butternut Ridge Road; Item 10 - specifically indicates that the corner of Butternut Ridge and Great Northern will. remain landscaped, open and maintained and can be used in conjunction with recreational uses associated with multi-family. These are good suggestions and have been incorporated in the judgment entry.. Decisions that have been made, or are yet to be made, with respect to the Developers Diversified property, have not been made by the Mayor or the Law Director; they can only advise council and hope that their advice is taken. Copies of the judgment entry have been made available tonight and may be picked up from the podium. In the absence of Chairman Bohlmann, Intra-Governmental Relations and Legislation Committee, Mr. Wilamosky reported: 1) Legislative Committee met jointly with Finance Committee to discuss Resolution No. 88-104 which deals with an intent not to initiate a new tax to pay the. city's share for the Crocker/Stearns Exten- sion, if adopted by the voters in November. A majority of those in attendance recommend that this legislation be retained in committee. ~.