My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Charter Commission - 08/11/1997 - Special Meeting
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Charter Commission
>
1997
>
Agenda - Charter Commission - 08/11/1997 - Special Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 12:46:16 PM
Creation date
9/23/2003 9:24:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Charter Commission
Document Title
Special Meeting
Document Date
08/11/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Ramsey Charter Commission <br />Page 2 <br />August 6, 1997 <br /> <br />invalid. Presumably, a Charter Amendment creating such <br />a conflict would also be invalid. Any property within <br />the MUSA boundary which is denied urban lot status would <br />be affected by the Amendment, since the City's Compre- <br />hensive Plan contemplates urban size lots within the <br />MUSA. <br /> <br />Pursuant to MS §473.585, Subd. 1 the City also is not <br />allowed to adopt official controls (Zoning Amendments) ". <br />· . which permit activity in conflict with metropolitan <br />system plans. " The Metropolitan Council's Regional <br />Blueprint contemplates increased density within the MUSA <br />area. Again, adoption of the Amendment may very well <br />conflict with this State statute requirement. <br /> <br />Both Article I, Section 10 of the United States Consti- <br />tution and Article I, Section 11, of the Minnesota <br />Constitution prohibit impairment of contract by providing <br />the state shall not pass any law impairing the obli- <br />gation of contracts. The retroactive application of the <br />Amendment to January 1, 1997 may very well be an impair- <br />ment of contract and therefore unconstitutional as <br />applied to specific development contracts the city has <br />entered into with developers prior to the effective date <br />of the Amendment, assuming it does become law. <br /> <br />The Amendment text is ambiguous and therefore perhaps <br />unenforceable because the text requires the subject <br />property (new plat) to conform in density to the density <br />of existing residential lots where there is a common <br />border. However, no provision is made in the case of a <br />new plat which has more than one common border with <br />existing residential lots of varying density. No di- <br />rection in the text is given as to which density the new <br />plat is to conform with. <br /> <br />The following Amendment text interpretation problems <br />exist: <br /> <br />The Amendment text, read literally requires that <br />the density of a new plat shall be the least <br />density of (i) the existing property immediately <br />adjoining the subject property, or (ii) one platted <br />lot per acre. In the event the new plat is <br />adjacent to existing residential lots which are <br />larger than one acre in size, the lesser density <br />requirement would dictate the largest lot size. It <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.