10/07/2008 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c` Public Hearing, Ordinance No. 2008-117 October 7, 2008 question why on a piece of property that you could, under current zoning, put 14 or 15 units on it, why we would allow a plan that would double the number of people that possibly would be in harm's way. That is not prudent and does not make a lot of sense. When the developer is gone and somebody gets hit by a golf ball, the golf course and the city will get the call. He is aware of this because he plans for it and wants to make sure Council is aware that they have a plan on which they are going to put their stamp of approval and added density which even adds to the. number in this situation. He is concerned that, once the zoning is approved, he would say the plan is reasonable but not a fantastic plan for the property. But, if this developer goes belly-up or decides down the road to sell the property and has the zoning in hand, the city is on the hook for up to 40/41 units. That's a huge change in this piece of property and how it would be developed. But, if they came in with a plan that met all the requirements of the cluster district, the city almost would have no leverage to get them to put it back to the old plan at that point in time because their zoning would be in their favor. At this point in time, the zoning is in favor of the old because that's what's on the table. He would be real cautious about rezoning a piece of property and it's open season at that point in time. The Law Director eventually agreed with him at the Planning Commission meeting that this can happen. Once the zoning is in place, you cannot put conditions on zoning. You would have to put really ironclad deed restrictions on this project so it gets built the way it was presented-with the number of units presented. He would just like to see either those safeguards in mind when this is done or the realization is we have the possibility of even more traffic and even more things happening. There was accident in front of his house this morning that had five police cars at it. And that's not unusual. He doesn't know how many other neighborhoods have that kind of traffic day in and day out, but they really need some relief down there. 5) John Martindale, 26031 Butternut Ridge, his residence for 51 years. The house that he lives in has been there since the presidency of Andrew Jackson in 1835. Zoning laws, and indeed the master plan that this city adopted and published, constitute a kind of a promise to residents who invest their life savings and their lives in living in a particular area and counting on the fact that the city will keep its word and maintain the zoning in the way they promised. What Council is receiving for consideration is a proposition by an individual land owner for his property in the midst of a Class A residential district, that he be permitted to rezone it for his private profit essentially at the cost of everyone who lives around him. That is pretty serious-to put a piece of spot rezoning in the middle of a Class A district like that. It is not the first time it has come before this city's government. As Mr. Gorris observed, it came before Planning Commission 10 years ago. When it was voted down, the exact language of the minutes of that meeting were: "Since this proposal does not meet any of the intents of the Single Family Cluster District, the density is heavy for this area which is a Residential A area, the families in the area bought their homes and lived in the area and deserve to maintain that zoning which they have abutted for many years." The proposition was unanimously voted down. Ladies and gentlemen, what's happened to your zoning? To your master plan? To you word? How many times can this city break its word to these people as it has with the initial location of 480, with the Moen plan, with the Madison development, with the relocation of 252, how many times does it have to happen to them? He seriously searched his own 3