Development Moratorium - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

As we stand here on April 8, 1997, you will see the map we relied on and we spent $40,000 to 50,000 of our money relying on that map. Someone has to pay that. In good conscience - as a matter of honor - that's the official record of the City. His proposed solution is as follows: adopt the moratorium to look at the impact of development on environmental issues. There was no mention of the MUSA line. He did not think Council needs to confuse the moratorium by adding the MUSA questions. He suggested the MUSA questions be handled independently. There is no reason that has to be held up for six months. Conditions could be added to the plat. Mr. Peterson continued that it came to his attention today, for the first time, that this 10 acres was potentially not in the MUSA. We are willing to move forward with this plat without resolution of that 10 acres in the northeast corner. Loren Knott, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, counsel for Good Value Homes, stated that most of the arguments made by Mr. Peterson relate to the moratorium. He stated he would like to speak to the MUSA issue. The City of Ramsey has accepted the extension of the MUSA. The only real question is maybe where the boundary is. It's clear what eventually went to the Met Council included Mr. Barthold's property. Mr. Barthold was told that and the City's zoning map shows that. His client (Good Value Homes) looked at that map and spent money in full reliance that this was the MUSA and zoning. Mr. Peterson is entitled to have his project exempted from the moratorium. Councilmember Haas Steffen noted that Mr. Peterson offered a solution, however, that solution gets us only to a zoning question. That property has not been legally zoned. We are not past any kinds of questions by exempting Apple Ridge from the moratorium. This is a property rights matter. Mr. Knott handed out a letter to Mayor and Council wherein he respectfully disagrees with the conclusion reached by the City's counsel of Kennedy & Graven, regarding the date by which the City of Ramsey was required to amend its zoning ordinances to conform with its comprehensive plan. Good Value concurs with the conclusion reached by Ronald Batty of Kennedy & Graven in a letter dated April 3, 1997, that the City's comprehensive plan went into effect in January 1995. However, in a letter dated April 4, Mr. Batty wrongly concludes that the 1995 amendments to the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act delayed until December 31, 1998, the deadline for the City to amend its zoning ordinances to comply with its comprehensive plan. To the contrary, the City's zoning ordinances were automatically amended to confirm with the comprehensive plan in October 1995, under provisions of the State Statutes. State Statutes provides that any zoning ordinance in conflict with a city's comprehensive plan must be brought into compliance with the plan within nine months after adoption of an amendment to the comprehensive plan. He noted that Ramsey was required to rezone non -complying property by October 1995, and he feels that was all taken care of. Deb Landwehr, 5821 - 159th Lane NW, Ramsey, stated she is a citizen of Ramsey and a landowner adjacent to the proposed Apple Ridge. She reported that she has handed in a petition to ask the City to do an Environmental Assessment Worksheet on Apple Ridge. She stated that she had talked with the Environmental Quality Board and the environmental impacts have to be addressed before any plat approval and zoning can be done. She cited a 1988 case where the City of Blaine was sued by the League of Women Voters because it did not properly look into City Council/April 8, 1997 Page 8 of 19