Laserfiche WebLink
290 <br />August 7, 1979 <br />Mr. Reinert, as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and not <br />a homeowner, asked for clarification on what Mr. Locher was going to <br />research by the August 22 meeting that had not already been researched <br />and presented at this meeting. In reply. the Council indicated Mr. Locher <br />would endeavor to contact Tom VanHousen, the planner who drafted Ord. <br />No. 56 for his interpretation of section 5.04 and 6.21. <br />Mr. Reinert felt that in reference to the legal interpretation there <br />had already been two opinions, and that from his observations the developer's <br />position was unchanged as was the homeowners' position, and that only <br />action by the Council on the interpretation of Ordinance No. 56 would <br />resolve theissue, which could be done at this time as well as on Aug. 22. <br />Mr. Zelinka felt that the planner might be able to provide the notes on <br />which the ordinance was nased, which would shed some light on the intent <br />of the sections in question. Since legal clarification at this point <br />had been limited to involved parties, he felt that the Council should <br />have a further opinion, suggesting the Attorney General's office. Mayor <br />Karth indicated that the Council wished to avoid the costs of a lawsuit <br />if possible, and that it would be better to take the time now than to <br />spend time later in the courts. Mr. DeNuccio agreed that an objective <br />opinion from another governmental agency was a reasonable approach. Mr. <br />Locher cautioned that it would take time to get an official decision from <br />the Attorney General's Office, and that also the planner may not be able <br />to give an answer because of the length of time involved, not being an <br />attorney, and so forth. He suggested goint to the counsel for the League <br />of Minicipalities for a third opinion. <br />Mr. Schneider noted that the purpose of the meeting had been to initiate <br />dialogue between the two parties, which had not taken place. He felt the <br />developer intended to go ahead with his plans regardless of the homeowners, <br />and that if the special use was upheld they would not consider the home- <br />owners. In reply, Mr. Talle said that when the special use is clear, <br />then the parties should decide what the City wants and what the residents <br />want to do with that use; because if the use is there, guidelines are in <br />place as to density, type of units, setbacks and so on, and that the <br />developer would work with the residents within those guidelines. There <br />was a question raised as to the purpose of the meeting if Mr. Blackbird <br />had been intructed not to sepak. Mr. Talle indicated that they intend <br />to be amicable, and when this question is hurdled, they will get to the <br />other points. Mr. Zelinka inquired as to whether they were willing to <br />deal with the homeowners on a fairly broad basis once they got a reading <br />on where the Council stands on the ordinance issue. Mr. Talle replied <br />that they would, absolutely; that they were more than willing to treat <br />amicably with those who treated with them amicably; and that he could <br />understand if their position did not change if they felt the use law <br />was on their side. He felt they could not proceed further without that <br />decision. Mr. DeNuccioo felt that the developer would not bargain at <br />this point because they might win the legal issue. <br />Mr. Karth inquired as to what the homeowners' position would be, and what <br />they would be willing to give to the builder. Mr. DeNuccio, as an <br />individual, felt that the development had already been turned down for <br />a plan that was substantially the same, with the exception f deleting <br />two units. He felt the developer was maintaining an inflexible position <br />and was unwilling to make any changes at all. Mayor Karth asked if Mr. <br />DeNuccio as an individual was willing to give up a couple of single <br />