| 8/29/2006 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form | |
| 8/29/2006 | Attorney's Office | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 10/12/2006 | |
| 8/30/2006 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Fiscal Note Pending to the Attorney's Office Completed on 8/30/2006 | |
| Notes: Bohrod |
| 8/30/2006 | Attorney's Office | Referred for Introduction | |
| Notes: Plan Commission, Downtown Coordinating Committee, Comptroller (for fiscal note) |
| 9/5/2006 | COMMON COUNCIL | Refer For Public Hearing to the PLAN COMMISSION due on 11/7/2006. Completed on 9/6/2006 | |
| Notes: Due back at the 10/16 Plan Commission Meeting & 11/7/06 Common Council Meeting. |
| 9/6/2006 | PLAN COMMISSION | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 10/12/2006 | |
| 10/12/2006 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Approved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office (AFTER CC INTRO) to the PLAN COMMISSION Completed on 10/12/2006 | |
| Notes: Bohrod |
| 10/16/2006 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Cnare, seconded by Thompson-Frater, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO REREFER - PUBLIC HEARING to the PLAN COMMISSION, due back on October 23, 2006. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| 10/23/2006 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Konkel, seconded by Boll, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO REREFER - PUBLIC HEARING to the PLAN COMMISSION, due back on December 4, 2006. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: The public hearing was recessed. |
| 11/7/2006 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Van Rooy, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Rerefer for Recessed Public Hearing to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| 12/18/2006 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Cnare, seconded by Konkel, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO REREFER - RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING to the PLAN COMMISSION. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| Notes: The Plan Commission referred this matter to the City Attorney's Office to discuss the ordinance revisions discussed at the meeting, including:
- Clarify the "other approvals" language in (2)(a) of the proposed substitute.
- Consider adding the term "existing" before "natural" in (3)(b) of the proposed substitute.
- Reviewing compatibility between the conservation district proposal and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- Revising (3)(c) of the proposed substitute to read: "The standards of the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District must be consistent...";
- Consideration of an appeal process to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Zoning Administrator determinations on conservation district properties;
- Including a section (4)(b) to the proposed substitute that reads: "If a Neighborhood Conservation District is proposed following the completion of the Neighborhood Conservation Study, it shall include the geographic boundaries and the specific criteria to be used in reviewing development proposals."
- Including a section (4)(c) to the proposed substitute that reads: "The procedure to establish a Neighborhood Conservation District shall follow procedures outlined in Wis. Stats. 62.23 (7) and MGO Section 28.12 (10)."
- Revising (4)(a) of the proposed substitute to add a sentence following "...and business representatives of the proposed district." that reads: "All property owners and occupants within the proposed district shall be afforded the opportunity to participate in drafting the conservation plans and shall be notified in writing of the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District at the time of initiation of a Neighborhood Conservation Study. City staff shall create an interested parties registry for conservation areas for future notifications."
-Revising (4)(a)4e to say: "Architectural features including, but not limited to fenestration, roof pitch and building materials."
The revisions were to be circulated to the ordinance sponsors for initial review and concurrence and then to the members of the Plan Commission and others.
As part of the referral, Ald. Golden asked staff to provide an opinion on whether they felt the Zoning Board of Appeals or Plan Commission would be the best body to hear conservation district appeals. He suggested that any variance to a conservation district requirement be modeled on the area exception program and expressed concerns about the inclusion of "natural" in (3)(b) and "but are not limited to" in (4) and (4)(a)4e. |
| 1/5/2007 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form | |
| Notes: Substitute. |
| 1/5/2007 | Attorney's Office | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group Completed on 1/5/2007 | |
| 1/5/2007 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Approved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office (SUBSTITUTES)
to the PLAN COMMISSION Completed on 1/5/2007 | |
| Notes: Bohrod |
| 1/8/2007 | PLAN COMMISSION | A motion was made by Bowser, seconded by Boll, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT - RECESSED PUBLIC HEARING. The motion passed by the following vote: | Pass
(7:1) |
| Notes: The Plan Commission recommended approval of the substitute with the following revisions:
- That a new section (4)(a) be added requiring that the initiation of a Neighborhood Conservation Study by authorized by a resolution approved by the Common Council, and that the rest of section (4) be renumbered thereafter.
- That (4)(a) be revised to read: "...written notice shall be given to all owners and occupants in the area of the proposed for study. The City will create an interested parties registry for conservations areas to allow notifications for future meetings. Because the exact..."
- That (4)(a)2 be revised to read: "the area's built and natural environment"
- That (4)(b) be revised to read: "...in reviewing development proposals, and may authorize area exceptions for particular requirements."
|
| 1/11/2007 | Attorney's Office/Approval Group | Approved As To Form | |
| Notes: 2nd Substitute. |
| 1/11/2007 | Attorney's Office | Fiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group due on 1/11/2007. Completed on 1/11/2007 | |
| 1/11/2007 | Comptroller's Office/Approval Group | Approved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office (SUBSTITUTES)
to the PLAN COMMISSION Completed on 1/11/2007 | |
| Notes: Bohrod |
| 1/16/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Verveer, seconded by Ald. Webber, to Table. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| 1/16/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Bruer, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Take Off The Table. The motion passed by acclamation. | Pass |
| 1/16/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | as follows: add "the City must notify all property owners and occupants and convene a meeting to discuss the proposed neighborhood conservation district". The amendment was proposed by Ald. Olson and seconded by Ald. Verveer. The motion was withdrawn by Ald. Olson. | |
| 1/16/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | as follows: add "The City must survey all property owners and occupants in the proposed neighborhood conservation district and a majority of the respondents must approve the creation of the neighborhood conservation district." The amendment was proposed by Ald. Radomski and seconded by Ald. Compton. The motion was withdrawn by Ald. Radomski.
| |
| 1/16/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. Golden, seconded by Ald. Olson, to Adopt With Amendment(s) as follows: add new 4(c) which will now read "Survey. At the time the Neighborhood Conservation study is completed and an ordinance is introduced to create a Neighborhood Conservation District, the Common Council, on recommendation of the Plan Commission, may order that a survey of affected property owners and residents be made. The Planning Director will determine the scope of the survey. The survey returned within four weeks from the date it is mailed shall be compiled and the results shall be reported to the Plan Commission and be advisory to the Plan Commission and Common Council in determining whether to create the District. The motion failed by the following vote: | Fail
(8:8) |
| Notes: Public Hearing Closed. 2 Registrant(s) in opposition wishing to speak; 1 Registrant(s) neither in support or opposition wishing to speak. The motion to adopt failed. |
| 2/1/2007 | Clerk's Office | Reconsider | |
| Notes: Reconsider and refer to the Plan Commission. |
| 2/6/2007 | COMMON COUNCIL | A motion was made by Ald. King, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Reconsider. The motion failed by the following vote: | Fail
(10:8) |
| Notes: NOTE: There were 5 Registrant(s) in support wishing to speak and 2 Registrant(s) in support not wishing to speak. However, since the motion to reconsider failed, the speakers were not afforded an opportunity to speak. |