| Jeff Kragt, 200 E. Long Lake Road, Suite 110, Bloomfield Hills, MI |
|
| 48304 Mr. Kragt stated that he was the Attorney for the Eddington Farms |
|
| Homeowner’s Association. He had sent a communication requesting that |
|
| he be given other residents’ time, and he asked if he could be given a |
|
| little more flexibility, since he was speaking for more than one. Vice |
|
| Chairperson Brnabic agreed that she had received some requests from |
|
| residents giving Mr. Kragt their three minutes, and she asked if he |
|
| considered five minutes reasonable. Mr. Kragt said that he did. He |
|
| stated that it was strictly a Rezoning issue, and while he appreciated Mr. |
|
| Beaton talking about a Site Plan, they all knew that was not why they were |
|
| there. They were there to talk about what the proper zoning was. Mr. |
|
| Gaber wanted the City to give them what they had been looking for all |
|
| along, which was unbridled flexibility when it came to development of the |
|
| property. Mr. Kragt believed that City Staff’s Recommendation was quite |
|
| reasoned when it came to what the underlying zoning should be, and he |
|
| believed that the property should revert back to R-4. He found it a little |
|
| disingenuous from the developer’s standpoint to ask for RM-1 and O-1, |
|
| because they knew that if the PUD went away that the R-4 would rear its |
|
| head again. The only reason it was not R-4 today was because of the |
|
| development. He referred to Mr. Anzek’s March 1, 2010 memo that said, |
|
| “At the time of the new 2010 PUD Agreement, it was understood that if the |
|
| PUD were to become void that the property would revert back to its |
|
| original zoning classification of single-family. The reversion would take |
|
| place automatically or by action of Council.” Mr. Kragt stated that the |
|
| developer knew that was what the zoning should turn into if the PUD went |
|
| away, which happened. The B-2 zoning was only put in place because of |
|
| the PUD. He indicated that Mr. Gaber painted a picture of the MLUP of |
|
| 2007 which showed that the vision was not single-family. The PUD was in |
|
| place in 2004 that made it commercial. He thought that Staff had |
|
| provided great reasons why R-4 was preferable to RM-1 and O-1. |
|
| However, he wondered where the discussion was about not having an |
|
| Overlay district. There was no reason why the City could not turn the |
|
| zoning into purely R-4. That would look like it did before the developer |
|
| came into play. The developer was not foreclosed on the property and |
|
| not stopped from coming back to the City with an actual PUD he could |
|
| sell if he had a buyer. They could do a Conditional Rezoning. If the |
|
| developer wanted a different zoning in the future tied to a particular plan, |
|
| he was not precluded from doing that. Regarding putting the developer in |
|
| a bad economic position, the developer was not in any worse position, |
|
| other than he could not go freely under the zoning he wanted. Mr. Kragt |
|
| said that he had a little trouble as to why an FB-2 Overlay was appropriate |
|
| for residential zoning. He agreed that R-4 was proper. He looked at the |
|
