03/06/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commissioner S~eber stated that Mr. Fults is assuming that any project that involve p~lic{money will be turned down; this charter just puts more responsib£1ity on the developer to sell his project to the public. Discussion ensued as to when the 60 day clock starts and Commissioner Bauerkemper stated that it. begins with the first public hearing. I I Mr. Jack Ippel pointed out that the Charter does not say the 'first' public hearing. There can be more than one public hearing; does the 60 day clock go into affect after each public hearing held on a particular project? Mr. Schnelle stated that public would most likely assume it meant the public hearing that d~'alt with actual costs. I I I I I I I I I Chairman Heitm~n stated that Mr. Ippel's point is credible; there could be hearings dealing with zoning changes required and assessment hearings. Hearings and waiting periods could lead into months. Mr. Ippel stared that a situation could be created where a developer is waiting out the 60~daYls on the project itself and then 10% of the registered voters come in with a. petition opposing the zoning change and the whole project is stopped ~ight ~here. Chairman Heit~an pointed out that right now 5 people can stop the project. We are t~ying.!to create a situation where the developer gets some subsidy from the government without the people having any say. Mr. Ippel Stated that Initiative and Referendum can be good, he is arguing with allowing 110% of the registered voters prohibiting potential development. There ar9 more ways to bring a project to a stand still than brought out in Section 8.05.Q2; if a development requires a zoning change, that zoning ordinance is Subject to initiative and referendum. Chairman ~H~it~an pointed out that a 10% petition of voters only precipitates subjecti~gl the project to an election, chairman Heitman pointed out that Mr. Ippel kee~s creating scenarios where the citizens will do anything they can to stop development. Why is it the citizens should not have that right to determine ~heir lifestyle and environment? Mr. Ippe! replied that a petition by 10% is not enough; it is too easy to come by an~ it can hurt too many people for too long. Why does the Commission want to build'in more and more protection when they have Initiative and Rsferendum? Commissioner Sieber replied that stopping development could be accomplished by Initiativeland Referendum, but there is a better way. The meeting recessed at 11:36 p.m. Chairman Heit~an called the meeting back to order at 11:49 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Gamec and seconded by Chairman Heitman to amend Section 8.05.02 as follows: In the first sentence replace '100%' with '80%'. Motion ca~ied. Voting Yes: Chairman Heitman, Commissioners Bauerkemper, Data, Sie~er, I Gamec. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Greenberg, Buchanan, Lichter, Titterud. CC/February 23, 1984 Page 8 of 11