Laserfiche WebLink
<br />th <br />Carl Biederman, 7050 175Avenue, stated that the comment that the notice was not provided well <br />in the past is an understatement. He asked when the City is going to start listening to residents. <br />He stated that the developer does not care what happens after they are done. He shamed staff and <br />the Commission if this is allowed to pass. He believed the City should make the choice to start <br />over and do things right rather than pass this. He stated that they never received a notice,and the <br />City did something wrong. <br />Chairperson Bauer commented that he does not believe that the current Commission members and <br />staff were in position in 2011 and therefore cannot provide those answers. He commented that the <br />City has learned and continues to do more than is required. He stated that the property is zoned <br />for 80-foot lots and the request is in compliance, therefore it is a legal request, and the City cannot <br />deny something allowed. <br />Ms. Palmer asked if the City would be liable to a lawsuit from the developer if they deny the <br />request because of the zoning change in 2011. <br />Chairperson Bauer commented that if an applicant proposes something that meets thezoning <br />requirements it cannot be denied. He stated that there is an active request on the property. <br />Ms. Palmer asked what would happen if a second developer came forward with a plan for the <br />property and whether only one plan is studied at a time. <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl replied that only one plan is reviewed at one time. <br /> <br />Ms. Palmer asked if the citizens could sue the City. She commented that if enough residents do <br />not want a development, something should be allowed to be changed. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bauer commented that the Commission receives information from the country with <br />planning related cases and there are numerous instances where cities are sued for denying requests <br />that meet the ordinance requirements and, in those cases, the developer wins. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated that this is not the developer versus the residents. He stated <br />that the current property owners still own the property and have the right to develop the property. <br />He stated that if the zoning restrictions are changed on an active parcel attempting to be sold, the <br />City could be liable. He commented that zoning can change with time, through the appropriate <br />processes as it did on this property. He commented that there are three Councilmembers present <br />tonight in Chambers and they are very cognizant that the rural character is changing in this area of <br />the city and will keep that in mind when developing the next iteration of the Comprehensive Plan. <br />He stated that the property owner has the right to sell their property with the appropriate price that <br />this zoning provides. He stated that if that right is taken away, that is where the liability would <br />come. <br /> <br />Ms. Palmer commented that instance takes away the opportunity for a regular person to come and <br />purchase part of the property. She asked the distance 700 feet would be from the subject property. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/ October 28, 2021 <br />Page 6 of 23 <br /> <br />