04-19-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983 12. 9, COUNCIL REPORT: A. Dave MbVan - Continued --Vance-" rannis, Willis Hutchinson Attorney By passage of this motion, effectively rezoning the land such action requires a 4/5 vote, Based on the action two weeks ago, the land is now. zoned. As understand what the motion is doing, it is trying to rezone what was rezoned and by State' Law that takes a 4/5 vote, --Gordon Moosbrugger - not rezoning - reconsidering a motion that was passed at the last meeting, --Ray Marshall seems that the result will be just that - a rezoning, unless misinterpret the action, believe the statement is correct and action would take a 4/5 vote just as the original rezoning, --Morgan - cannot see when the due process of law is not followed and then say need a 4/5 vote to undo what was not legal - not talking about rezoning - talking about following the proper, lawful procedure for holding a public hearing. --Eder - appreciate what;g.ou are saying, but right or wrong a motion passed at the last meeting by a 4/5 vote that officially rezoned the land. ,-Ray Marshall - only question is the propriety of the notice - Morgan - would request that another legal opinion be secured besides that of the City Attorney. Have some reasons that have been stated a number of times. I think there is a possibility of a vested interest in that development. --Dunn - warned and advised the Administrator that the City Attorney should be prepared specifically for the question on the notice. --Morgan - requested that Item A. 2. EAW be deleted. --Fraser - requested that Item B. 1. Informational Meeting and a public hearing be deleted. Council agreed to both requests. --Whittaker - asked the City Attorney to comment on the effect of the Council action. --Ray Marshall - think we're right back where we started from. Seems if there wasn't a 4/5 vote nothing can be done about the previous action. Essence of the motion was to rezone and cannot rez, without published notice, notification of the property owner and a 4/5. Council approval. --Fraser - going.to._.accept the view of the City Attorney that a 4/5 vote is required to undo the action taken on April 5. --Morgan- disagrees, previous action was taken in error, therefore, a 4/5 vote does not relate M/S/P Fraser/Eder directing the City Administrator not to take further action on this matter at this time. Carried 3-2. Morgan and Dunn opposed. --Morgan - should establish a policy whereby consideration of large rezonings Ise doiisidered over a two meeting period. M/S/ Dunn/Morgan to instruct the Administrator to present the proposal and actions of the City Planning Commission and City Council to Attorney Jim Lammers for legal opinion. Discussion- --Fraser thinks thiswillonly be needless legal expense. 'harried 3-2. Fraser and Mazzara opposed. --Eder - Advised the Council that he expects that they will accept and follow the opinion of Mr. Lammer.