09/29/1980 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

September 29, 1980 Mr. Blackbird said he had met with this gooup several days after the last Council meeting. He said that 18 questions had been raised one of them being the water pollution - the drainage. Mr. Blackbird said he had a study being done on this and would provide a drainage chart to them. RCWB had forwarded a request for a com- posit drainage for all the lands owned by El Rehbein in the area - this included Lakes Add. #6, Lakes Add. #7, and Outlot J. This meant detailed ananlysis of the area. This had been done and hand delivered to the interested parties. 1 The drainage problem of Mr. Benson was discussed and Mr. Blackbird said this area would drain into the ponding area, thus benefiting Mr. Benson. Mr. Blackbird said he had talked to an appraiser from HUD who had said there is not enough history on quads to make a judgement on the effect on property values but in most areas, the existing property values had escalated. Mr. Theimich asked Mr. Blackbird if there was any Federal funding being sought for this project, either now or in the future. Mr. Blackbird said, presently, No, they will use FHA, GI approval. Mr. Theimich asked if this meant this housing would not be sub - mitted for 235 or low income housing? Mr. Blackbird said he did not feel this housing would qualify for this program. Mr. Meister had computed the land area on the lots in question and said they are all over the required 4,000 sq. ft. The only question is the frontage. Mr. McLean said he was confused on the various density figures that have been presented. Mr. Schumacher said it all depends on how you compute the acreage. One method says 3.7 and the other method says 4.4. The first uses the total acreage, the second de- ducts the streets, ponding, etc. Mrs. Elsenpeter asked whether Mr. Locher wanted to make a statement on the special use permit? Mr. Locher explained his reasoning for the making the decision on the existence of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Locher pointed out that this Special Use Permit had been issued under the old Ord. #6. He pointed out that Ord. #56 did not specifically abolish the existing Special Use Permits or Zoning, nor did it abolish the Special Use Permit procedure. Sec. 5.04 requires a hearing, and the Council held that hearing and the Council determined this Special Use Permit was valid. Mr. Hook questioned 6.21 which sets forth the time schedule for construction. Mr. Locher felt the falacy in that section was that it referred only to rezoning, not to special use permits. Mr. Hook felt that Mr. Locher's legal opinion was that this permit was not valid. Mr. Hook said a Council cannot make an illegal action legal and this is what this Council has done. Mrs. Elsenpeter pointed out to Mr. Theimich that his petition information is incor- rect, in that the Comprehensive Plan had not been approved by this Council - it has only received preliminary approval, and is still subject to change. Mr. Johnson felt that since this plan had been submitted to the surronding communi- ties for comment, this would indicate this Council had approved the Plan. Mrs. Elsenpeter pointed out that this Plan must be reviewed by Metro Council and their suggestions must be considered and therefore, this Plan is still subject to change. Mr. Reinert just wanted to indicate that the Planning and ami,,gg in deliberating,