04-19-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 29, 1983 2 9. COUNCIL REPORTS: C. Moosbrugger Statement - Continued- _.. 7, Basic obvious fact is that there is tremendous public interest in this and these people deserve the right to be heard. Respectfully ask you to rescindthe rezoning resolution, remand this for a public hearing to the Planning Commission. A. Dave Morgan - 1. Hearing Procedure Clarification - After finding out that proper notice -had not been given, called Mr. Barthelmy and Mr. Quast, both were home and there was no problem at all in getting in contact with them. They said they had received no notification of this hearing. After personally reviewing the Ordinance, feel the action taken by the Council was not according to due process of law. Surely the Council in this City wants public participation. A proposal so significant as this one, demands that the public be informed before any action be `taken and the action that is taken be lawful. Therefore submit this following motion: M/S/ Morgan/Dunn that the City Council admit its error and rescind the action taken at the April 5, 1983 meeting, adopting Ordinance 7949, and instructing the Planning Commission to notify adjacent property owners and hold a public hearing in a lawful way. Discussion: --Fraser - requested the opinion of the City Attorney. Essence of what is being brought up is legal technicalities. --Mazzara would like the City Attorney's opinion on the specific questions brought up — test of reasonableness, due process and where the City lies in admitting error and rescinding the rezoning. --City Attorney, Ray Marshall - not in a position to comment on a lot of the factual items that were mentioned. As far as the adequacy.of the notice, it is my understanding that proper procedures were followed, as they normally are. Administrator may be in a better position to speak to this item. May be appropriate to discuss this initially. --Administrator Whittaker - Certain there was published notice - have the affidavit of publication. Do not personally mail out notices. Edna (Beers) recalls doing it and noted it on the office record sheet, but apparently the adjacent property owners did not receive the notice. The names of the adjacent property owners are on the list of property owners within 350' who are to be notified. Appears, from what has been learned from these people around town, that these residents were not notified. Notice was published, and understand that adjacent property owners were present either at the Planning Commission and/or Council meeting where it was considered. --Bill Barthelmy,property owner within 350' - was not present at the Planning Commission meeting/hearing because was not notified. Was at the Council meeting two weeks ago. --Bruce Dunn - two weeks ago was not the hearing. The hearing was the Planning Commission. Quoted Section 301.060 E. 4, of the City Code relating to hearing procedure. Asked the City Attorney for an interpretation of this requirement.