Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 09/27/04 <br />Minutes - Page 17 <br /> <br />Commission meeting for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment <br />proposal, given additional agenda items already on the regular <br />Planning Commission meeting agenda of October 6, 2004. Mr. <br />Paschke advised that, upon realizing that the ten-day notification <br />requirement had not been met, he sought legal Council from the <br />City Attorney's Office, and in speaking to City Attorney Eric <br />Hedetke, explaining both the timing issue of the published legal <br />notice at eight days, rather than ten, with mailed notice to <br />property owners within the 350' zone, as well as several <br />neighborhoods beyond the zone, in and around the 14 day <br />timeline. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke noted that, following state statute interpretation <br />discussions, and given the complexity of the Twin Lakes <br />Redevelopment project, it would be beneficial to the interests of <br />the public, Planning Commission, and developer to proceed with <br />the Public Hearing on the October 6, 2004 Planning Commission <br />agenda, with continuation to the October 14, 2004 Special <br />Planning Commission, with no decisions until at least the <br />October 14,2004 meeting. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson opined that he thought staff had <br />appropriately handled the situation; allowing the public a time <br />and place to register their opinions prior to a decision being <br />made. Mr. Anderson cited his experience in land use case law, <br />and with the intent of the State Statute and City Ordinance being <br />fully met, even exceeded. Mr. Anderson further opined that <br />given comments to-date on the project, on reflection he <br />questioned whether one evening to hear comment would be <br />sufficient, and recommended that the circumstances provided <br />may prove more beneficial and provide a more fair procedure for <br />public input. <br /> <br />City Attorney clarified language of the State Statute and City <br />Code, offering his assurances that staff had taken appropriate <br />action to correct the original timing error. <br /> <br />City Manager Beets clarified that the published legal notice had <br />failed to meet the deadline, but that the individual mailed notice <br />via post card to property owners in 350' and beyond to several <br />neighborhoods had been timed correctly. City Manager Beets <br />