ordinance, (2) whether the change constitutes a material variance, and (8) whether the action is appropriate for voter participation. Id. at 1124-25. Rather than treating these three questions as elements that must be answered in the affirmative or negative in a sequential order, the district courts should treat this analysis as involving three prongs that are balanced against each other. The district court must consider each of these prongs in context to determine if the disputed action was legislative-thereby amenable to referendum-or administrative. 1 83 A balancing test for this legislative/administrative analysis gives effect to our original holding in Marakis, as each element of it continues to have the potential to be determinative on the entire analysis. See id. at 1125-26 (<HOLDING>). Such a test would remain true to the
recognizing possibility that landlord had administrative claim for postpetition conversion of its property holding that scope of review of administrative decision is the same as that for an appeal in any nonjury case holding that ideas procedural requirements can only be fairly construed to contemplate that once a final favorable administrative decision has been gained by a plaintiff the state will carry out that decision although it may have opposed the position of the plaintiff in the administrative proceedings holding that a decision that the enacting authoritys action was administrative on any of the three elements will eliminate the possibility of a referendum recognizing the possibility but denying relief