02/27/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

-- Elizabeth Butler, 340 Delwood Drive, indicated she had not been notified of the public hearing before the Hearings Official January 19. She said there had been changes made by the Hearings Official that had not been in keeping with the decision made by the Planning Commission. She felt there would have been others at the Hearings Official public hearing had they known. She cited the drainage problems in the area, noting her house was settling, the basement was split, and the driveway had been broken. She also noted the evidence of underground springs under her house. Gary House, 325 West 38th, knew of no one on West 38th or Dell wood who received notice of the January 19 public hearing before the Hearings Offici al even though those persons had testified at the two previous hearings before the Planning Commission. He felt there might be some violation involved. He noted of four houses on the north side of 38th, three had cracking foundation problems. He also expressed difficulty in understanding the logic of the request for Council to approve this item when it had been approved only on a contingency basis. He felt it should have been disapproved by the Hearings Officical and the developer should have been the one to make the appeal. Walther Hahn, 601 West 35th Place, started to address the traffic considerations. Mayor Keller reminded him to confine testimony as instructed by staff. Mr. Hahn just indicated he was concerned about the impact on traffic and felt it had not been sufficiently considered by the Hearings Official. e Mr. Saul, addressing the jurisdictional question dealing with suffi- cient notification, quoted Section 9.514 of the code. It indicated notification be provided to the abutting property owners.not more than 15 or less than five days prior to the hearing; notice had been mailed to all abutting property owners January 4 of the January 19 public hearing. Also, the code states the officially recognized neighborhood organization be notified; Crest Drive Citizens Group was notified November 22 with revised plan notification on December 20, 1977. Further, the code requires notification be posted in at least three different locations in the surrounding area; notices were posted in seven areas. He said the principle question was whether or not the parties who appeared at earlier hearings did or did not receive notification and whether there was an implied promise that notifica- tion would be provided. Parties of interest requesting information would receive notification, but no written requests had been received. He said in light of the issue of implied promise of notification, staff would recommend the Council not take action this evening, but postpone the matter for two weeks to allow those interested to submit written testimony for Council consideration. He said further it was staff's feeling that the legal requirements had been met. - Mr. Bradley returned to his question regarding how Council could remedy any subsequent information that surfaced after a certain stage had been already approved, i nformati on that mi ght be detr;- mental to such a development. Mr. Saul replied the process for 2/27/78--7 131 I,