Minutes - Council - 02/27/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Goodrich explained that manifestly unconstitutional takes less interpretation. It means that something is more likely to be unconstitutional than not. That determination is important because the City Council is not obligated to present a petition to the voters for anything that is obviously unconstitutional, because there is no sense to spend the money on something which will be unenforceable. Councilmember Hendriksen stated it would be better to have that insight available rather than deny it at the end of the process. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Kurak, and Anderson. Voting No: Councilmembers Hendriksen and Zimmerman. Case #8: Direct City Attorney to Review February 16, 2001 Petition to Compel Adoption of Density Transition Ordinance by Referendum and Report on Sufficiency City Administrator Norman stated that the Ramsey Administrative Offices received a petition on Friday, February 16, 2001. According to State Statute, the City Council is obligated to schedule a special election if the petition meets all the requirements. The special election must be held within a 90-day period. The City Clerk reviewed the petition and verified that the required amount of signatures of registered voters were submitted. The next step in the process is to have the City Attorney review the petition to compel adoption of density transition ordinance by referendum to determine if it is in compliance with the State Statutes and the State Constitution. Councilmember Zimmerman inquired as to how many signatures were received. City Administrator Norman replied 1,268. Motion by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to direct the City Attorney to review the petition to compel adoption of density transition ordinance by referendum to determine if it complies with State Statutes and State Constitution. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Anderson, Kurak, Hendriksen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Case #9: Adopt Ordinance Regarding Commercial Tower Setbacks Principal Planner Trudgeon stated that during discussions regarding the Tower Overlay District, the City Council instructed staff to draft an additional amendment to the newly adopted tower ordinance. Specifically, the Council asked that the setback for towers in residential districts be changed from 1.5 times the height of the tower from dwellings to 1.5 times the height of the tower from property lines. The City Council reviewed the proposed draft at its February 13, 2001 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 the 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 23