My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/13/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2000
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/13/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 9:59:07 AM
Creation date
9/8/2003 2:56:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
01/13/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mayor Gamec questioned if the request could be considered an emergency ordinance. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that an emergency ordinance is only if life and safety are at risk. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen questioned if the applicant assumed the liability if the ordinance was <br />refused, could they speed up the process and remain within the letter ofthe law. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that if a home was started and an ordinance was denied, the courts <br />would probably not force them to remove the home, but they would not be following the laws if <br />they allowed them to begin construction before the 3D-day waiting period was up. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson inquired that since the County has combined the two lots does that <br />make a difference with the easement. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Shennan stated that the property is now one lot, but the City <br />still retains the easement. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that if they allow the applicant not to wait the 30-days, they could be setting <br />a precedent and cause future problems for the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Burnham stated that every situation is different and that is the reason for a City Council, to <br />review each situation. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that if they allowed the applicant to begin construction without the 30-da <br />waiting period and something did occur, they could have a real problem. <br /> <br />Mr. Burnham questioned what legal implications could happen. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that if the Council agrees to do what the applicant is requesting, <br />they would not be abiding by the City laws. The City needs to uphold the legal processes that <br />are in place. <br /> <br />Mr. Burnham stated he was not asking that they break the law, but noted that he had signatures <br />from people within 350' of his property that stated they did not have a problem with the project. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that the Council has to follow the City Charter that was adopted by the <br />people. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen requested a timeline that would follow the laws, but help the <br />situation. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained that the ordinance could be introduced during the meeting, and <br />adopted three days later. Then the ordinance would need to be published on September 24th <br />which would not make the ordinance effective until October 24, 1999. <br /> <br />City Council/September 14, 1999 <br />Page 6 of 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.