Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes - page 3 <br />August 19, 1980 <br /> <br />ORDINANCE NO. 692 <br />CONTINUED <br /> <br />Attorney read the ordinance on second <br />reading by title only. Mayor Waschak <br />opened the public hearing. There were <br />no audience comments. <br />Council comments: <br />Councilman Fauson stated that in sec. 16.28.040 <br />it be changed to state that City Council <br />can call for a review or direct the Plan- <br />ning Commission to call for review. <br />He stated that he did not feel the Planning <br />Commission should call for review without <br />the direction of the Council. <br />Councilman Fauson felt this would keep the <br />Council better informed as to what is going <br />on and not be caught in the middle if <br />Planning would call a special review and <br />then recommend the matter to Council for <br />decision. <br /> <br />Cbmcilman Caranci stated that he did not <br />agree with Councilman Fauson since the <br />Planning Commission does the most com- <br />plete study bl~fore it is presented to Coun- <br />cil and felt that they should be able to <br />call for review if the feel it is necessary. <br /> <br />Councilman Carnival agreed with Councilman <br />Caranci and f4~lt the Ordinance should stay <br />as is, this way the Planning Commission <br />can follow up on their recommendations to <br />make sure they are carried out properly. <br /> <br />Mr. Wurl asked if all three criteria noted <br />on the ordinance must be incomplete before <br />a review can be called. <br /> <br />Dir. Rupp stated that it should be that if <br />only one of the criteria is not met a <br />review can be called. <br /> <br />After discussion Councilman Caranci moved <br />that section 16.28.040 be amended to state <br />" In the event no subdivision agreement has <br />been executed, no construction or required <br />improvements initiated or no building <br />permits issued withing12months after final <br />approval..... ..." Seconded by Councilman <br />Caranci. Motion carried 3-1 Fauson op- <br />posing. <br /> <br />Under section 17.08.403 Recreation Ent. <br />Councilman Fauson stated that he was op- <br />posed to Recreational Ent. being allowed <br />in agricultural zones and felt they should <br />be considered under commercial. <br />