6.6. SR 03-15-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. In YYedemeyet~, "the freeze applied for a brief period of time while the city council held hearings and considered a moratorium ordinance." Id. the "brief period of time" referred to by the Caurt of Appeals was "only eleven weeks[.]" Id. a. In Wedemeye~, the appellant applied for a conditional use permit to operate a pawn shop on a vacant store site which he had leased. A couple days later, a city council member asked the city attorney to draft a moratorium ordinance on permits, licenses, and other approvals necessary to operate pawnshops in this particular district. A proposed moratorium ordinance was read at the city council meeting later that day and the council referred the matter to the zoning and planning committee for public hearings. Meanwhile, the processing of appellant's conditional use permit application was frozen in accordance with the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances § 534.470(c)(1)(1990). Appellant applied for a waiver from the processing freeze. A public hearing was held, the committee endorsed the proposed moratorium, and the city council adopted the moratorium ordinance. Appellant's waiver application was denied. 5. In Pawn AmeNica, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that "because city employees had advised that there were no application deficiencies, .. the city council's later adoption of the interim ordinance was discriminatory." It noted that "the fact that a city employee says "[e]verything looks great ...," does not prevent the city council from exercising its police powers to preserve the status quo and conduct a planning study." a. The Court ultimately held that "Given that the interim ordinance was enacted for further study and planning purposes, that the city engaged ~n planning, and that the moratorium and study were initiated to address public safety and welfare, we conclude that the interim ordinance was valid."