9 - P&Z Admin Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Dawn Bittner April 2, 2007 Page 2 Unbeknownst to me, while I was discussing these issues with the Planning Commission, you had unilaterally made certain revisions to the Settlement Terms. Therefore, although it was my understanding that the Planning Commission was looking at the same document that I had been provided by Mr. Marohn, that understanding was not correct. Obviously, I should have been advised that the Planning Commission was looking at a document that you had altered. Although I am not attributing any malice or wrong doing to your failure to disclose this to me, this lack of disclosure has resulted in the confusion with which we are now confronted. The Planning Commission approved the Settlement Terms, including my suggested revisions. The day after the Planning Commission Meeting, my office sent to your attention a copy of the Settlement Terms sheet that included my proposed revisions which had been approved by the Planning Commission the previous evening. Shortly thereafter, you advised that you had forgotten to tell me that the Planning Commission had actually approved a Settlement Outline that was different from any Settlement Term sheet that I had been previously provided. Upon learning this, I advised that there is no sense in the City proceeding to approve a Settlement Outline that has not yet been accepted by my clients. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission intends to meet tomorrow evening to further discuss this matter. Given these circumstances, I believe that the entire matter should be tabled pending outcome of the actual terms to which the parties have agreed. In this regard, I would note that your alteration of the Settlement Terms that were provided by Mr. Marohn apparently is based on your assumption that Mr. Marohn inaccurately described the Settlement Terms. On the contrary, Mr. Marohn's Settlement Outline is consistent with my recollection. The terms that you altered are apparently inconsistent with both my and Mr. Marohn's recollection of the terms to which the parties agreed. Not only are the revisions inconsistent with our recollection of these terms, I believe the revisions are inconsistent with the terms of the document itself. I discussed my analysis of these issues with you in some detail approximately two weeks ago. Although the Lakes want to amicably resolve this matter and I would expect that these issues can be amicably resolved, I recommend that the issues should be resolved before the City takes any further action with respect to approving a "Settlement" with which the Lakes have not yet agreed. I am optimistic that the City will agree that further pursuit of the Settlement without confirmation of an actual "meeting of the minds"is not efficient. Accordingly, I do not expect to attend the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow evening. L:\Open matters\Lake,Darrell and Gloria\Correspondence\Out\04-02-07 1tr to DBittner re Settlement Terms.doc