My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 04/05/2011 - Special
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2011
>
Agenda - Council - 04/05/2011 - Special
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 2:00:09 PM
Creation date
3/31/2011 5:16:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Title
Special
Document Date
04/05/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
E.Importance of documentation of city <br />decisions on applications <br />City decisions on subdivision applications, just like zoning decisions, may <br />LMCIT risk <br />management memos, <br />result in a lawsuit challenging the city’s approval or denial of the application. <br />The Necessity of <br />Documentation of the city’s basis for denials and approvals is essential to <br />Adequate Findings: <br />Reasons to Support <br />defending the city’s decision in a court of law. <br />Municipal Land Use <br />DecisionsLand <br />, and <br />Use Findings of Fact <br />F.Effect of Approval <br />For a period of one year after approval of a preliminary plat and two years <br />Minn. Stat.§ 462.358 <br />subd 3c <br />after final approval of a plat, amendments to the city’s comprehensive plan <br />and official controls cannot alter or affect the approved development’s: <br />Use <br />Development density <br />Lot size <br />Lot layout <br />Dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved plat. <br />Cities and developers may mutually agree to alterations within these time <br />periods. Cities may also agree by resolution or written agreement to extend <br />Semler Const., Inc. v. <br />City of Hanover <br />,667 <br />these one-and two-year timelines for planned and staged developments. <br />N.W.2d 457(Minn. <br />Once a city has agreed to an extension, it may not unilaterally revoke the <br />Ct. App.,2003). <br />extension. Cities may place conditions on such extensions. <br />Henning v. Village of Where a subdivision has been granted preliminary approval, but final <br />Prior Lake, <br />435 <br />approval has not been applied for in one year,or where final approval is <br />N.W.2d 627(Minn. <br />granted, but the development is not completed within two years, the city may <br />Ct. App.,1989) <br />request that a developer submit a new subdivision application. Cities may not <br />request a new application where: <br />Substantial development and investment have occurred in reliance on the <br />approved preliminary or final plat. <br />The developer will suffer substantial financial damage as a result of the <br />requirement to submit a new application. <br />In these instances, a city maystill require the developer to submit to any <br />applicable conditions and requirements as a prerequisite to an extension. <br />Aninterim ordinance or moratorium may not delay or prohibit a subdivision <br />that has been given preliminary approval, nor extend the time for action <br />See Section III-D <br />Interim ordinances. <br />under the 60-Day Rule with respect to any application filed prior to the <br />effective date of the interim ordinance. <br />24LMC <br />EAGUE OF INNESOTA ITIES <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.