Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 7, 2020 <br />Page 8 of 12 <br /> <br />currently three applications in the planning process that could not move forward with that <br />amendment. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br /> <br />Sherry Sommer, 910 South Palisade Court, asked what the three applications that cannot <br />move forward are. She added she feels the timing on this is bad. <br /> <br />Mayor Pro Tem Maloney asked if the indemnification language is really needed. He thinks <br />applicants will never agree to move forward electronically with that requirement. <br /> <br />City Attorney Kelly stated the intent is to give the applicant a way to move forward or wait <br />for an in person meeting while protecting the City’s interests. <br /> <br />Mayor Stolzmann noted Council received a number of emails on this issue and they have <br />been entered in to the public record. <br /> <br />Councilmember Leh asked why zoning and rezoning matters are subject to the <br />referendum process. City Attorney Kelly stated the courts have determined zoning and <br />rezoning decisions are policy driven and as such are hard to distinguish from other <br />legislative actions. Therefore citizens should have the ability to circulate petitions to have <br />a referendum on those decisions. <br /> <br />She noted zoning and rezoning applications would be subject to this and that includes <br />GDP amendments. <br /> <br />City Attorney Kelly noted there are quasi-judicial matters outside of the land use process <br />this would affect. Approving this resolution would allow a liquor license application to <br />move forward as well as landmarking applications or Board of Adjustment hearings. <br />Basically any quasi-judicial application that is not a zoning or rezoning could move <br />forward. <br /> <br />Councilmember Brown asked if this could be tied to a specific time frame, perhaps only if <br />Council cannot meet in person after a certain date. City Attorney Kelly stated that is up to <br />the Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dickinson stated he supports the resolution so that applicants can move <br />forward with their projects and not have to have the added expense of delays. The <br />process would still be transparent and open to the public. We need to be flexible to keep <br />things moving in this shutdown or future ones. <br /> <br />Mayor Pro Tem Maloney agreed this can be a transparent process electronically and we <br />need to be able to take public comment. He too would like to see options for projects to <br />move forward. He also supports an amendment to note those items subject to referendum <br />cannot be handled electronically.