My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
12/06/83
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Planning and Zoning
>
Agendas
>
1980's
>
1983
>
12/06/83
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2025 3:49:18 PM
Creation date
7/17/2006 12:25:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Planning and Zoning Commission
Document Date
12/06/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Co:nmission proceeded to review and arrend Chapter B, Revision 2. <br /> <br />Cl1apter B .01 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />No change. <br /> <br />Cl1apter 8.02 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />No change. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Chapter 8.03 <br /> <br />Delete the last sentence. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Commissioner Lichter stated that this should be checked with Mr. Darn. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Commissioner Data pointed out that Mounds View's charter was scrutinized by <br />the Attorney General's office. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lichter agreed to deleting the last sentence of 8.03. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Olapter 8.04 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />No change. <br /> <br />Olapter 8.04.01 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to go with a 3 petition system. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Commissioner Lichter <br />and allowing for one <br />is too complicated. <br />gets two attempts at <br />stop it. <br /> <br />suggested raising initial petition requirements to 51% <br />petition in opposition. He feels that a 3 petition system <br />The 3 petition system favors the developer; developer <br />a project and the opposition only gets one attempt to <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Commissioners Sieber and Bauerkemper are in favor of the 3 petition system. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Commissioner Data abstained. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Commissioner Sieber, in reply to Commissioners argument, stated that the burden <br />is on the people in favor of a project because in order to get it done they <br />lIIEY have to petition twice. We also have to keep in mind that redevelopment <br />will happen in Ramse"' one of these days, we just can't focus on new development. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Commissioner Data stated that he is in favor of the 3 petition system. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />It was also pointed out that in order to avoid the 3rd petition, the opposing <br />petitioners should strive for 51% signatures. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Ccmmissioner Greenberg summed it up as the first petition being the initiative <br />ar.d the counter peti~ions are the referendum with Council serving as election <br />j\Odges. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Ccmmissio~ consensus is to leave this section as is, to go with a 3 petition <br />system. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />CC/OCtober 27, 1983 <br />Page 11 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.