Agenda - Council - 02/09/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1~-03-1998 03:35PM ~ROM DORN LA~ gIRM, LTD 4~75545 ~.~ DOP. N Fmc, LTD. Wilbur F. Dom. Jr.. Attorney at Law 12301 Central Avenue Northeast Jody L, Erickson, Certified Paralegal Telephone: (612) 754-t500 Blaine, Minnesota 55434 Fax: (612) 754-1044 59- December 3, 1998 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members oft. he Planning Commission City of Ramsey Kamsey, Minnesota RE: Rezoning Request of Aa:con Devlopment, Inc./Reilley's Estates Partnership Dear Mayor, Council and Planning Commission Members: This correspondence is a supplement to my prev/ous letter on the above subject dated December 1, 1998. While attending the Public Hearing on the currently proposed revised Comprehensive Plan on the evening of December 1, I998, I learned additiorml information which is confirmed by the proposed Findings of Fact prepared by City Staff in connection with the above re-zoning request. Apparently, City Staff is under the impression that the law requires a municipality to re- zone property which carries zoning not in compliance with the current 'comprehensive plan. This is based on an opinion (the "Legal Opinion") rendered by the law firm of Kennedy and Graven, dated April 4, 1997. I have reviewed this opinion letter, and while I a~ee with nearly ali of the conclusions therein, there is one major point upon which I do not agree, and that point is of critical importance to the rationale behind the current rezoning request. The Legal Opinion, after exarnin_ing certain issues pertaining to "automatic zoning", concluded by pointing out that Minnesota S'mtutes Chapter 473.865, which was in effect at the time of the last Ramsey comprehensive plan amendment, required cities to make their zoning ordinances conform to the comprehensive plan, within nine months after adoption of the plan. The Legal Opinion then goes 9n, correctly, to point out that before the nine-month period had elapsed in the Ramsey simtation, the legislature rewrote Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.858, and the effect of the new leg/slation was to extend until December 31, I998, the time in which zoning ordinances must be brought into compliance with the comprehensive plan. However, my point of disagreement with the Legal Opinion has to do with which "comprehensive plan" the 1995 legistation referenced. In the Legal Opinion, the author indicates, that the existing comprehensive £Ian is the plan to which the legislation referred. A careful reading of the statutes, however, reveals that the legislature was not I; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I