Agenda - Council - 04/10/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I Goodrich explained that manifestly unconstitutional takes less interpretation. It something is more likely to be unconstitutional than not. That determination is because the City Council is not obligated to present a petition to the voters for obviously unconstitutional, because there is no sense to spend the money on will be unenforceable. Councilmember Hendriksen stated it would be better available rather than deny it at the end of the process. which Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Ku..?..~.;~: No: Councilmembers Hendriksen and Zimmerman. Case #8: Direct City Attorney to Review 2001 'Petition to Compel Adoption of Density Transition y Referendum and Report City Administrator Norman stated that the Ramsey A~lminis~i~tB'e O~'~'s r~'~'~ived a petition on Friday, February 16, 2001. According to State Statue, the City G~m~.'~il is obligated to schedule a special election if the petition meets all the requirements. The' 1 electing must be held within a 90-day period. The City ~!:~..r..k reviewed the petition an e 'the required amount of s/g'natures of registered ,~ot~:'~ere. submitted. The next step) ocess is to have the C~ty Attorney review the p. et!tm~ .~o com~!i'.,adopt~on of dens~.-tr.an~s~tmn ordinance by referendum to determine if it is in::¢6m~tlance wit~:'fh~,'~Statues and'-tl~'~ State Constitution. Councilmember Zimmerman inquired as't~'"'how m~y!,i~ignatur~i~W~e received. City Adm~mstrator Norman rephed 1,268. ...4,' ~ '~' ..., ; '~'.'.'25~;~ Motion by Cisuncilmembe~. Anderson, seconder, b.~)~}¢ounc~lmember Kurak, to direct the City Attorney ,to reWew the pet~t~r)n:to compel adopti~!oif density transition ordinance by referendum to determine i£ it complies ~lth State Statues a~/~S~ate Constitution. '~ .:. ,'. , '~ ,. :, . -~',..:.', ?~ :!.:~.~,~. Motion carried: .¥oting, Y~S:'~;'MayOr, iGaiia~c, Councilmembers Anderson, Kurak, Hendr/ksen, and Zimmerman. ;.¥~tlrlg No: None. 'r:''''<' '? ' ... ......... Case'#gi', .,. Adopt Ordinanci~.Regarding Commercial Tower Setbacks ~...; .'~,.. Principal Pl~rmer 'rrudge°~:S~'~ited that during discussions regarding the rower Overlay r)is~ct, the City Cou~icil',instruct~d staff to draft an additional amendment to the newly adopted tower ordinance. Spe. cifically, the Council asked that the setback for towers in residential districts be changed from,',L5 times the height of the tower fi:om dwellings to 1.5 times the height of the '~-;~..;.' tower from pr0,Perty lines. The City Council reviewed the proposed draft at its February 13, -'..i.2'001 meeting: and requested that one additional change be made to the proposed ordinance. Specifically, language allowing for lesser setbacks for towers if a licensed engineer can prove that: tl~e collapse of a tower will occur within a lesser distance than the required setback has been removed. City Council/February 27, 2001 Page 19 of 22 -69-