My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.6. SR 03-15-2010
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2010
>
03-15-2010
>
6.6. SR 03-15-2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2010 4:00:48 PM
Creation date
3/12/2010 4:03:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/15/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
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
I. A re~a~e rncxlee e i ~e s~tary or o a locaX zonin~ <br />athor~ to ose a ~tse a orator an rer ec~sons <br />rear in a pica~onso <br />A. The power of cities to impose a moratorium temporarily halting <br />decisions regarding particular kinds of development was once implied <br />from cities' broader powers to plan, Almquist, 245 N.W.2d at 825-26. <br />1. The Legislature, which had prev~ausly provided explicit <br />statutory authority to counties abut not cities} to adopt <br />moratoria, then became involved in the proccss, adopting Minn, <br />Stat. ~ 4G~.3 5 5, subd, 4, and then amending it, most recently in <br />the Zo~4 legislative session. <br />2. First the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and later the U.~. <br />Supreme Court, found that moratoria do not result in a <br />categorical taking of property without just compensation, <br />simply because there is a pexiod in which the property may not <br />be put to reasonable economic use. Woodbury Place Partners <br />v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 2S8 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), <br />rev. denied (Minn. Jan, 15, 1993). "Delaying the sale or <br />development of property during the governmental decision- <br />making process may cause fluctuations in value that, absent <br />extraordinary delay, are incidents of ownership rather than <br />compensable takings," Id, See also Tahoe-Sierra Preservation <br />Council, Inc., v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. <br />302 (2002) (a temporary moratorium did not automatically <br />constitute a taking). <br />3. As the Court of Appeals has recognized, "Policy concerns <br />weigh heavily in favor of permitting municipalities to enact <br />interim stays on conditional use permit applications." <br />Wedemeyer~, 540 N.W.2d at 542. "Under the general police <br />powers, municipalities may enact a moratorium on <br />development as long as it is of limited duration and appropriate <br />studies or zoning ordinances are expeditiously adapted." Id. <br />More recently, in Pawn America v. City of St. Louis Park, the <br />Court of Appeals held that "A moratorium falls within a city's <br />general police powers if it is limited in duration, appropriate <br />studies are conducted, and zoning ordinances are expeditiously <br />adopted." (emphasis added). <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.