Laserfiche WebLink
7/-z3 <br />CLOSED COUNCIL SESSION <br />FEBRUARY 10, 1992 <br />rational basis to deny the rezone to Planned Unit Development <br />(PUD). He may also say that he invested a great deal of time and <br />money into the development based on the representations of the <br />former City Planner and maybe even the former Mayor. Mr. Radio <br />also explained that the City Council did not provide any actual <br />basis to deny the petition for rezoning. However, if the <br />existing zoning is appropriate, it is up to the landowner to <br />prove his request for a rezone is accurate. <br />Mr. Radio presented a draft of a resolution which sets out the <br />reasons that form the basis for the Council denial of the request <br />for the rezone. He also explained that he did not understand why <br />Mr. Birch was required to go through the two (2) step program for <br />rezoning to PUD. Mr. Schumacher explained that the current City <br />Code does not allow property zoned R -X to be rezoned to such a <br />high density as allowed in the PUD. Mr. Radio also explained <br />that the Council did deny a request for an Environmental <br />Assessment Worksheet. He felt that this may be a problem. <br />There was discussion regarding a rumor that Mr. Birch defaulted <br />on his purchase agreement and may not have owned the property as <br />of January 1, 1992. Mr. Radio said he hoped Mr. Birch still owns <br />the property. If not, he could say that the City caused him <br />undue problems in its development that he had to default. <br />Mr. Radio suggested that he send a brief written discovery, ask <br />for documents, and file a summary judgement of dismissal of the <br />claim. If the summary judgement is approved, the claim of <br />"taking ", violation of constitutional rights and damages will be <br />taken out of the litigation. This means that the City will not <br />be responsible for punitive damages or attorneys fees. In <br />addition, the Federal Judge will remand the litigation to the <br />Anoka State Court. Insurance coverage may also be dropped at <br />this point. Mr. Hawkins explained that if this occurs, the City <br />will continue to retain Mr. Radio and his law firm as in other <br />recent litigations. <br />Mr. Radio asked if there were grounds for settlement of the <br />litigation before any further actions or costs were incurred. He <br />expressed concern regarding how the former City Planner will <br />testify in this matter. He was the professional although staff <br />action is not binding on the City Council. Mr. Radio noted that <br />he had spoken with Mr. Birch's attorney. It appears that Mr. <br />Birch is not in the business of starting lawsuits and is serious <br />about this case. <br />Mr. Radio explained that matters such as this can take six (6) <br />months to two (2) years to resolve. Such action is a disruption <br />of City life, does not get the best press and the City may not <br />PAGE 2 <br />