Laserfiche WebLink
tonight. She asked if under initiative and referendum, if the zoning <br />ordinance is adopted tonight, is there time for people to petition to <br />put this issue to a ballot. Also, must a petition be worded in a <br />specific way to be valid. <br /> <br />Roger Buchanan, 15230 Kangaroo, stated that he thought an airport was a <br />good idea but after hearing people's comments, he is changing his mind. <br />He asked the Council to explain what the rights of the people are; let <br />them understand what they can do. <br /> <br />Tom Parker, Coon Rapids - is a pilot and presently flies out of the <br />airport. He stated that he does not see this as an airport expansion <br />but a means of making the airport safer and of better use. <br /> <br />At this time Mr. Hartley, Mr. Otto, and Mr. Goodrich responded to the citizen <br />comments as follows: <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich, the City Attorney, explained that the City is a Chartered City and <br />in the City Charter, Chapter 5 entitled "Initiative, Referendum, and Recall" <br />there is a series of procedures outlined for the public to go about initiating <br />an ordinance or law, or have a referendum on a law which the City is adopting or <br />about to adopt. He particularly reviewed in detail, the steps for referendum. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto explained the process and timetable that the City would follow to <br />acquire the necessary properties if the airport ordinance is adopted. The City <br />Attorney added that affected property owners will have the option to take suit <br />against the City but they will be required by the courts to prove "substantial <br />and measureable decrease in value" of their property. All other restrictions to <br />property development will have to be considered in this light. <br /> <br />The City Attorney addressed the issue of subdivision of property as it relates <br />to the installation of sewer and water utilities. He stated that sewer and <br />water are not being considered for properties in the proposed airport zones so <br />it is not a valid issue for discussion at this time. <br /> <br />The City Attorney stated that a State Statute requires that the Met Council must <br />review all action with regards to all landfill sites and improvements. The City <br />Attorney stated that the airport ordinance will not abolish the landfill nor be <br />an improvement and therefore it is his opinion that the City does not need to <br />respond to the Met Council. <br /> <br />As regards Northern Oxygen's concerns, Mr. Otto stated that although initially <br />the company was within the B Zone, it is now totally ouside of the B Zone and <br />the approach area. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that Liability Insurance for an airport is not difficult for <br />municipalities to obtain. Hanger Keepers Insurance should not be a problem if <br />it is taken out in the name of the City. Individuals may have more difficulty <br />especially if their hanger is a portable. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley addressed the issue of rescinding the airport zoning at a later date. <br />He stated that although it is a possibility, the airport owner would have <br />property rights equal to other private property owners, and could bring suit <br /> <br />City Council/August 25, 1987 <br /> Page 7 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />