My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 06/22/1982
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1982
>
Agenda - Council - 06/22/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 12:30:49 PM
Creation date
5/20/2004 10:29:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
06/22/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
178
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
! <br />! <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />RAMSEY CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />CITY ATTORNEY <br /> <br />DRIVEWAY ONTO COUNTY ROAD 56 AT 7200 - 152ND AVENUE <br />NORTHWEST (DUANE LEE) <br /> <br />JUNE 17, 1982 <br /> <br />As you will recall, at its June 9, 1982 meeting, the Council <br />directed that the City's maintenance crew remove the above <br />referenced driveway. <br /> <br />After your meeting on June 9, 1982, Mr. Lee's attorney came to <br />my office to discuss the matter. He stated the Lee's were <br />adamant in their position and that if anyone came onto their <br />property they would call the Sheriff for trespassing. The <br />attorney also stated that Lees' legal description showed them <br />owning th.e property up to the center of the road. <br /> <br />I then told City Staff to take no further action on removing the <br />driveway until I had a chance to further examine this matter. <br /> <br />I checked the County Recorder's Office records and have reviewed <br />the County Surveyor's Aerial photo for 1977, 1980 and 1981. <br />Based on that information, I am certain that there was no <br />driveway onto 56 or the service road until sometime in the <br />summer of 1980. The City's Ordinance restricting access onto a <br />collector or thoroughfare street was adopted in January, 1980. <br />Also, there is no question that the Lees have never had direct <br />access onto 56, just access onto the adjacent service road. I <br />do not, therefore, believe that the Lees can successfully raise <br />the defense of being "grandfathered in" in regard to this <br />driveway. <br /> <br />Another question raised is if the City restricts the access <br />rights to the highway, have we in effect taken property rights <br />from the individual for which he should be compensated, e.g. <br />inverse condemnation. <br /> <br />In my opinion, the most important legal question is: Can the <br />City through its Zoning Ordinance take away highway access rights <br />as opposed to paying for these rights through a condemnation <br />action? <br /> <br />Since the highway in question is a County highway, the County <br />would have to bring any condemnation action deemed necessary to <br />acquire the access rights and pay damages for this right. I do <br />not know at this time if the County could or would assign its <br />condemnation rights to the City in order to allow the City to <br />take the condemnation action. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.