My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 03/25/1997
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1997
>
Agenda - Council - 03/25/1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 4:14:20 PM
Creation date
9/19/2003 11:11:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
03/25/1997
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
248
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
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that such contracts £or specific <br />zoning between a city and a developer are both proper and enforceable. Housing & <br />Redevelopment Authority v. !orgenson, 328 N.W.2d 740, 742 (Minn. 1983). In the <br />!orgenson case, the city of Tyler entered into a cooperation agreement with the local <br />development agency whereby the developer would secure loans to build low-rent <br />housing in exchange for the city's agreement to make reasonable and necessary <br />zoning changes for the project. The city later refused to make the zoning changes <br />under pressure from neighbors. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the city <br />was required to make the zoning changes under the agreement with the <br />development agency. <br /> <br /> Mr. Barthold abandoned the hog farm at the City's request and the City <br />included the property within the MUSA line under the amendment to the <br />Comprehensive Plan. It would be unfair and improper for the City to. go back on its <br />word concerning the rights of Mr. Barthold at this point. <br /> <br />IV. Application of the Proposed Moratorium to the Apple Ridge Subdivision <br /> Would Be Improper under Minnesota Law. <br /> <br /> The Ramsey City Council properly concluded that the Apple Ridge <br />subdivision must be excluded from the proposed moratorium under Minnesota's <br />Moratorium statute, Minn. Stat. § 462.355 Subd.4. The statute clearly states that "[n]o <br />interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision which has been given <br />preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance." The City <br />Council granted preliminary approval to the Apple Ridge subdivision, sketch plan <br /> <br /> 9 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.