1957-020 Council Ordinances - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Marilyn Anderson, Deputy Clerk Page Two June 8, 1979 The amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not require mailing of notices to land owners within 300 feet of the affected area of the change. If there is rezoning, then pursuant to Minnesota Statute 462.357, "When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholely or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates." However, the City Ordinance requires mailing to all owners within 300 feet, does not limit the size of area of the property, and requires that the mailed notice be by registered mail. I definitely and strongly urge that the City Ordinance, No. 56, be amended to coincide with the Minnesota Statute. When a rezoning is actually had, then notice must be sent to the adjoining land owners and the affected land owner. The adoption of a Comprehensive Plan does not, per se, rezone land. It is merely the outline and if there are changes to be made, each individual parcel must be rezoned, and this will require compliance with the City Ordinance, where it is stronger than the Minnesota Statute. I would also point out that Minnesota Statute 462.355 does not require that there be a hearing before the City Council, only before the planning agency. As to the third item, Ordinance No. 20, viewing same section by section, Rule No. 1, technically, should be amended so that the meeting time is 8 o'clock P.M., however, I do not believe that this, alone, would require an amendment to the Ordinance as no one can complain about the half hour early commencement unless they are specifically prejudiced thereby. As to Rule 2, I recommend no change. As to Rule 3, I recommend no change, and particularly cite Minnesota Statute 412.191, Subdivision 1, which states, in part... "A majority of all the members shall constitute a quorum although a smaller number may adjourn from time to time." As to Rule 4, I believe that the Rule has been followed fairly well, to date. If there are any particular feelings about any additions, deletions or changes in the order of the 14 items, these should be discussed. As to Rule 5, I recommend no change. As to Rule 6, I recommend no change. As to Rule 7, I recommend no change. As to Rule 8, I recommend no change. As to Rule 9, the only change I would recommend is the word "of", in the fourth line. It should be "if." It is indeed possible that the original publication and Ordinance has that correction.