CCMin_82Mar10_Min/Public_Hearing

Home Browse Search

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING~PU}3LIC HEARING „~ MARCH 10, 1982 PAGE 6 Myles Aikin, 18l~9 Tatum, stated he took offense at the mistatements MYLES AI KIN made by Mr. Westin when he said no one invited him to the meetings, 1819 TATUM when in fact, Mr. Westin did attend a meeting at the Aikin home which was attended by 20 neighbors. Mr. Westin replied that he regretted he had failed to mention that meeting; however, he had offered to attend any of the many meetings held but was not asked to attend. Mark Ascerno, 1871 Tatum, stated he wished to refresh Mr. Westin's MARK ASCERNO memory, as not only was the meeting held, but there were also a 1871 TATUM number of items that were listed as points that were of a tremendous concern to Falcon Woods/Tatum residents, road access, water and density. Mr. Ascerno did not feel that there has been a give and take process as American Shelter has resisted compromise at every turn. He was of the opinion that compromise will be less likely in the future if the plan is approved and he urged Council to reject the proposal. Mr. Westin replied that the matter of water, access and density were HAROLD WESTIN discussed and noted that the matter of water was answered, the question of access was resolved, and the density has been reduced and he felt the developer had been responsive to the residents. Richard Elm, 1765 Tatum, did not believe that the water problem had RICHARD ELM been solved as he felt his three small children and other children 1765 TATUM in the neighborhood will play in the water holes after each rain, and there must be an alternative plan. He strongly urged Council•to reject the plan. Thomas Goodman, Attorney for American Shelter Corporation requested THOMAS GOODM®i Council's indulgence to listen to his remarks on comments already ATTORNEY FOR made during the evening and on some items within his area of expertise AMERICAN which includes making a living off suing city hall a lot of the time. SHELTER He said he did not mean to threaten the city math that, but, do have a peculiar perspective on what a city can or cannot do and they certainly can do this plan. He then stated that the city has spent a great deal of money on professional consultants, both engineers and planners, who have reviewed the plan, had a great deal of input into the negotiating, which the ordinance contemplates, and together with the Planning Commission have approved the plan with the modifications suggested. He reminded those in attendance that Planner Carl Dale has prepared a permit, conditions of wYiich runs with the land, and governs all sorts of things. In answer to concerns regarding maintenance, he stated that the property will not be maintained by single families, but by an association which would assure maintenance of a high grade. Mr. Goodman commented on the plan changes and the fact that changes were designed t o improve with the process, that is the reason for a Planning Commission. He assured that this. preliminary plan, if approved, could not be changed without Council permission. Mr. Goodman said he felt that the objections to the plan, basically, revolves around the density issue aid explained that a certain density is necessary for logical reasons such as anaf'fordable cost to prospective purchasers. He also commented on park land dedication or cash in lieu of land, as that cost would be added on to the cost of the homes. In reply to r/Ir. Steilen°s statement regarding the outcome of court cases in which cities have refused rezoning, Mr. Goodman stated that it is an easy to attach as to defend.