HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-84 Zoning & Vacation Qlnmrntflrn Erpul t •
E tilt tdnmmnn eounril of tfp (Mg of Onutff iirnb: ZONING AND VACATION COMMITTEE
The March 12, 1984 meeting of the Zoning and Vacation Committee
was called to order at 4 : 00 p.m. by its Chairman Councilman John Voorde
in the Council informal meeting room.
Persons in attendance included: Councilmen Beck, Zakrzewski, Paszek,
Puzzello, Crone, Braboy, Voorde, Serge; Citizen Douglas Carpenter, Rich Hill,
Jim Wensits, Dick Maginot, and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand.
Councilman Voorde noted the purpose of the meeting was to discuss
Bill No. 19-84 which would re-zone approximately 31 acres near State Route
23 . Councilman Voorde noted that the Area Plan Commission gave a favorable
recommendation to the bill. He then called upon a City Attorney to update
the Committee.
Mr. Hill then reviewed his letter dated March 8, 1984 (copy attached)
which outlines the history of the area in question from 1980 through the
present. He noted that the attorney for the Area Plan Commission and the
City Attorney 's office were in agreement that the proposed bill was the best
approach to use in order to _remove "any cloud" over existing businesses who
wish to convey title-.or who wish to expand as a Cam-Commercial use.
Councilman Puzzello, the District Councilman for the area noted that
the residents and businesses are in favor of the re-zoning. She made reference
to her letter of March 8th and the map of the area (copies attached) which
she had recently- sent, She also noted that according to her information
the project may not be a Hilton.
Douglas Carpenter pointed out various items on the map of the
proposed site and expressed concern over the proposed re-zoning.
Councilman Crone questioned several areas as to the effect the
proposed re-zoning would have on a project like the Hilton. She questioned
whether the agreement of • August of 1981 had dny legal effect, and whether the
construction which had started meets the agreement language.
Mr. Hill explained that "inverse condemnation" applies when an owner
relies on the existing zoning to their detriment. Mr. 'Hill noted that in his
opinion the proposed developer does not have an existing non-conforming use.
The initial site plan of April, 1981 was extended for one year. In his
opinion the beginning of construction did not constitute a non-conforming use.
The County permit was issued in March of 1982 and the last contact by the City
to Mr. Miller was in September, 1983. It was noted that the County restrict-
ions were not as restrictive as the City and that agreement to comply with
• the City' s parking requirements any maximum of 810 feet above sea level had
been agreed. Mr. Hill noted that the 1981 agreement presumed that the C-
Commercial, A height in area was in existence and that the re-zoning would not
place the developer in a difference position that he was in 1980 . •
Mr. Carpenter noted that he had been involved with the project for
approximately five years. Many of the problems experienced by the developer
were inherent to getting financing during the difficult time of high interest
rates. He noted that the Area Plan Commission acted on a preliminary site
plan and such areas as screening and engineering for drainage had been
•..e ..e.. � .v■t.r.w,H• co.
Page 2 .
re-negotiated. He believed that the developer had made a concerted effort
to receive the necessary financing of the projected $15 ,000,000 total project.
He questioned cutting the parcel into part residential and part commercial.
Mr. Hill noted, however, that when a parcel comes into the City
it is zoned A-Residential, A Height in Area.
Councilman Voorde suggested changing the boundaries to address
the present existing businessess. The Council Attorney noted that the bottom
line question should be what is the highest and best use for the property in
question and not whether the developer .has adequate financing.
Councilman Beck noted that it was her understanding that the developer
did have difficulty securing financing. She also questioned whether the
Council was protected from any potential liability on this case. Mr. Hill
noted that the Council was protected by State law. Mr. Hill also noted that
he was unaware of any case where the developer had taken so long to initiate
a project.
Following further discussion Councilman Beck made a motion to
recommend=:Bill No. 19-84 without a recommendation to the full Council. The
motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Serge then made a motion to recommend that Bill No. 19-84
be continued until the March 26th meeting. Councilman Beck seconded the
motion. The motion passed 4-1 with Councilman Puzzello in the minority.
Councilman Zakrzewski made a motion that the meeting be adjourned
seconded by Councilman Beck. The meeting was adjourned at 5 : 00 p.m, with
Councilman Voorde recommending that the Council, City Attorney 's office and
the Staff of the Area Plan Commission meet prior to March 26th to pursue
the possibility of a change of boundary for the proposed re-zoning.
Respectfully submitted,
John Voorde, Chairman