Agenda - Council - 05/28/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

required under Minnesota case law, and construing terms according to their plain and ordinary meanings, the Court finds that the Ramsey City Council's conclusion to be in error. The Court concludes that plaintiWs application for a Conditional Use Permit is not a rezoning request, and would not result in "spot zoning." 3. The Court's finding that the plaintiff's CUP application is not a rezoning request does not require an automatic granting of plaintiff's motion to compel the issuance of the CUP. It would not be appropriate to compel the City of Ramsey to grant the plaintiff's CUP application absent any considerations of the adverse effects of the proposed change. It would be reasonable and appropriate for the Ramsey City Council to consider the application in light of the factors relating to a Conditional Use Permit application enumerated in the Ramsey zoning ordinance, and make its determination and findings on whether to issue the permit based upon guidelines prescribed by the ordinance. Based upon the above Conclusions of Law, the Court issues the following: ORDER 1. The Plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment in favor of the Plaintiff and ordering the Defendant to issue the requested Conditional Use Permit is GRANTED IN PART, as follows: Defendant shall reconsider the Plaintiff's application for a Conditional Use Permit and, in arriving at a decision to grant or deny such application, shall make appropriate and detailed findings regarding the basis for its decision, as prescribed by Ramsey's zoning ordinance, Section 9.03.04. 2. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant that Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's application for a Conditional Use Permit was appropriate as a matter of law is !. DENIED. Dated: BY THE COURT: Thomas D. Hayes Judge of District Court Tenth Judicial District 4 i I I I I I I I' I I I I I I