08/07/1979 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

288 August 7, 1979 when he had read the ordinances, he had assumed special use permits ran forever unless a time or conditional limitation was made at the time of the motion. Mr. McLean moved that Ordinance No. 56, Secotion 6.21, zoning change performance, be enforced as written from this point on in all cases where applicable. There was further discussion on this, and Mr. McLean clarified that his intent was that section 6.21 implicity meant that special use permits are subject to exactily the same interpretation as rezoning even if the wording is left out. This refers to the second to the last sentence in 6.21, "The rezoning shall be void and revert to its original zoning prior to the rezoning." Mr. Zelinka noted that whichever way the Council interpreted section 6.21, the other side could sue and have an equally good chance of winning the case. He asked the two attorneys present to give their interpretation of Section 6.21. Dave Cody, an attorney and a homeowner, felt he would agree with Mr. Locher's views of the ordinance, in that it pertained to the special use permits as well. Mr. Talle, attorney for the developer, asked Mr. Locher how he rationalized section 5.04 which talked about special uses under Ordinance No. 6, which then had to be administratively considered as rezones and had to be changed by the appropriate hearing and so forth as required for zoning. He asked why section 6.21 would take precedence over the language explicit in section 5.04. Mr. Locher replied that Ordinance No. 56, section 5.04, in his interpretation applied to special use or rezone itself, which would not be an actual in- process use. In reference to a specail use being treated administratively as a rezone, section 6.21 addressed itself to that situation where nothing had occurre it cancelled rezoning, and in his interpretation, special use permits, where construction had not been begun during the stated tome period. Although townhouse projects had been planned for the area, no construction or use had resulted. Mr. Talle pointed out in reference to the history of twonhouses in the area that the City had admitted more than a year after Ordinance No 56 was adopted that the special use permits were still in force, and had published public notice that outlot G had been zoned as an R -5 use. He felt the ordinance was capable of different interpre- tations, but since the City had acted in this manner in the past, that by changing it now, the Counti would be doing so, in effect, to stop the quadriminium project. He noted that reliance gets to be a factor as will, in terms of the owners who had purchased the properties in reliance of the zoning, and that the Council would have to take affirmative action to take that asway. That couldn't be done by just passing Ordinance No. 56. He also referred to the previously raised question as to whether this was an official Council meeting and whether the Council could vote officially to enforce an ordinance in a manner different than it had been enforced previously. Although the Council felt it could take official action at this time, the stated purpose of the meeting had not been to take action but to _take a position of mediating between the two parties. It was felt there should be further consideration before the special use issue was decided. Mr. Locher was asked to get intouch with Mr. VanHousen, the planner who drafted Ordinance No. 56, for his interpretation and clarification on this and /or any specific notes he may have on it. The meeting was opened to discussion from the sudience. Mr. DeNuccio, from the homeowners group, felt that the issues in Section 6.21 could be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan in terms of handling