Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout(04a) Minutes 10-14-08October 14, 2008 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM in the St. Joseph Council Chambers. Members Present: Mayor AI Rassier, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Steve Frank, Rick Schultz, Administrator Judy Weyrens. City Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorneys Tom Jovanovich and Lori Athman Graceview Estates: Mayor Rassier opened the meeting and stated that Councilors Schultz and Frank requested a special meeting to review and discuss all options regarding the proposed Graceview Estates Apartments. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 21.01 subd. 2 includesa provision whereby two members of the Council may request a special meeting. Therefore, at this time;;l~assier turned the floor over to Councilor Schultz. ,.c =, ' s1 ~5 ,'', Schultz stated that he, as well as other members of the Cou'b#l ha~~received numerous emails with regard to the proposed Graceview Estates Apartments. ccdrding to SGtiultz, there has been a lot of recent discussion regarding the proposal and many nfused as to where they are at with respect to ~ .~,. the process. He, along with Councilor Frank, has ~d a list of questions and have forwarded them to Weyrens and the City Attorney. At this time, this ~~ ssion is for informationa~:purposes only. Frank questioned why the Council must make a decisibn~pri Minnesota Statute requires governing bodies to act on lant~, a:. completed application. Governing Bod ` '~ Ilowed to ex days. The application was considered c July 29, additional 60 days. Therefore, based on t `,e ri mifi on the application no later than November 008. is considered approved: . Jovanovich stated th< following information: Q: Where is the to tuber 24. W`~ e s stated that cations within 6 ays of accepting a ~e action requirement an additional 60 ' nd the Council extended the time the d d the extension, the City must act ion i ade by this date, the application and provided the ~/'s role? ~ Planning Commission holding a public prepare the findings of fact for the approval or Council. following options once they receive a recommendation Jovanovich added thf'the Council is to take any action other than approving the plan as presented, they must have evidence based on the public hearing. He advised the Council that they cannot rely on emails that they have received after the hearing was closed. The Ordinance does; however, allow for the Council to hold another public hearing. Jovanovich suggested that the Council hold a second public hearing on November 6 to collect more evidence. The City must keep a record of the decisions made regarding the application. If the landowner is unhappy with the decision made, he/she can appeal the decision to the district court. He reminded the Council that they must have evidence to support their decision and if it is not consistent with that of the Planning Commission, they must prepare new facts of findings. October 14, 2008 Page 2 of 4 He suggested that the following information be presented to the Council in preparation for the public hearing. o Record of past hearings regarding the proposed development o All documents submitted o Engineering Reports o Drawings and Specifications o Minutes/Resolutions from 2002 o Emails from citizens He advised the Councilors that citizen input in opposition to the proposed development is not enough to deny a land use request. They must have facts in order to deny the application. Weyrens reminded them that after the Public Hearing is closed, any additional emails would not be considered as evidence. Jovanovich stated that the developer should be notified of the additional public hearing as they may want to be present. Jovanovich advised the Council that St. Joseph Code of ©rdinances 52.07 Subd. 3(e) sets the standards that must be used as a guide when determining approval or denial of the special use permit. With respect to the proposed project,,Jovanovich stated that the facts of finding should be prepared for as an approval as well as a denial. The citizens are requesting a denial of the application; whereas, the developer is requesting approval of the application. The facts of finding approved by the Planning Commission were written by one;of the Planning Commission members. ~ ~~°. ~_ „ Q: What processes have not been followed.?,-What documents are missing? What are the ramifications of '~ .~. ~* those issues? Jovanovich stated that all of the precedures for 2008 have'been followed. The Council made a i} ~?~. decision in 2002, which people are looking at<m hindsight andsaying that it was not a good decision. He added that in 2002, there was no fo'r`mal application process and there were few records kept. Atahat #ime, the City did not have,a PUD process rather they had a PURD process. The PUD hasvolved and changed since that dime. Due fQ.;the fact that the PURD no longer exists, Frank questioned how it can be amended. Jovanovicti`stated that it can be amended as it was in effect when ahe plans were approved.He added that, at the time it was approved, there was limited docume'~tation. Rassier-then stated #hat this is similar to how things have changed in thetlndustnal~ark. As`the~ity~grows he~stated that some processes need to change. ~° _ rt { u„ _ ~, ,, Q: Dottie Developer n6~d„a variariCe or rezonmg2; a° .. 3.evanovich stated tti~' developer would not be required to request a variance or rezoning. However, if it were a new development today, it would not be developed as an R1. Currently, the area iszoned as a PURD and allows for mixed uses. Due to the fact that there are limited V - records,"the_re are no minutes showing approval of the apartments. They were; however, shown on the concept. plan that was approved. ! =~: Wick questioned,5t.. Joseph Code of Ordinances 54.14 Subd. 1(d) which states "The Planning Commission and~City~ouricil may also review the sketch plan and provide advice at the discretion of the City Administrator. Such informal review by the Planning Commission and/or City Council shall be a matter of public record, however, any advice, comments or recommendations or modifications suggested by the City or Planning Commission are advisory only and shall not constitute approval or a commitment to approve." Weyrens stated that that provision was added after the City began to have issues with approving concept plans. Q: What can the City do if building does proceed? Frank questioned whether the following could be considered legitimate conditions to be placed on the approval of the application: o Limit the number of buildings due to traffic concerns o Require more trees on the berm o Require LED lighting October 14, 2008 Page 3 of 4 o Require that if there are street improvements, they be paid for by the developer Jovanovich stated that these could all be considered legitimate conditions. Frank then questioned whether or not the City can require that background checks be conducted for applicants. This is a condition that Jovanovich stated could be challenged. He stated that all conditions can be negotiated with the developer. Q: Will the City be forced to build the Field Street extension at our expense? Not necessarily. According to Jovanovich, it was previously envisioned that this development would need two accesses to County Road 121 -Callaway Street and Field Street. There is a question as to at what point the southerly extension will be r~eECessary. Jovanovich stated that the City may want to add a condition such as this. He also stated~at it is best to either approve or deny the application with conditions as litigation is extr~lt'ery~xpensive. Q: If this issue goes to court, on what grounds or expectatror~s~' "~'~ Jovanovich advised the Council that if they putn~~ions on~ti ;~~pproval or denial, they must have factual support for the condition. Frank skei Jovanovich~or~~~ explanation of the differences between a fact and an opinion f,'F ~;~,.,, Q: At the Planning Commission meeting, Wick que d the setb cks. Frank for clarification. Jovanovich stated that in 2002 there were onl ngle-fa mes, duple d apartments. There were no such things as homes, etc. ~' "~ ~ owever, envisio 'n the request. The townhomes would fall and rrent R4 Or~' and those setbacks are much less than those of the R3 Ordinance. _ With the mixing of the 2002 and 20~ The current zonin roperty is would be consi A ~ e 2008 • Wick Jovanovich to be followed? ~). The re-plat of the initial plat Statute .358 Sub ~": s addresse~"in the attorney memo. ollowi reliminary oval and for two years following final approval, ' id munici agree otherwise, no amendment to a ~siv trot s a~„apply to or affect the use, development `size, out, or n platting required or permitted by fhe approved erea ursuant t ~ gulations, the municipality may extend the period e 'th the ivider and subject to all application performance conditions ;m • or it quire submission of a new application unless substantial ;tivity invest has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved ~ and t ubdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence ement t , bmit a new application." that thi ~~ ` tute creates a lot of grey areas. `For ones unless the by G and • When does a Spe ermit expire with reference to the Zoning Ordinances? Jovanovich stated th ""Special Use Permit expires after one year. In this case, what does the Special Use apply to? He stated that if it applies to the entire PURD, then it would not expire. He added that a Special Use Permit is not required unless there are more than 12 units. Insurance Jovanovich stated that the City does have coverage to pay for such litigation. The insurance covers attorney fees associated with litigation; however, it does not cover items such as punitive damages, attorney fees awarded against the City unless the City was acting within City duties, or costs associated with complying with injunction. Jovanovich advised the Council that if action is delayed, that may be grounds for a lawsuit as the developer could argue that they lost money due to the delay. Weyrens advised the Council that this type of insurance is paid at a different rate October 14, 2008 Page 4 of 4 than a normal insurance claim with a deductible and the financial impact is much greater for the City. It was also noted that a lawsuit will affect future insurance ratings. • Frank questioned whether the City can limit the building(s) to 2 stories. According to Jovanovich, the City can put a condition on the height of the building, but there must be facts to support the condition that fall within the 10 criteria for a Special Use Permit. • Frank stated his request for traffic counts. According to Frank, traffic counts are higher in rental areas than residential areas. He stated that he would like to see a comparison. Symanietz stated that she would also like to see traffic counts. Sabart advised the Councilors that traffic counts are different than traffic projections. He stated that traffic projections have already been completed for different build-out scenarios. Their projections were based on a conservative rate of 10 trips/day. Frank suggested that Sabart prepare projections based on this area being developed as single-family homes or townhomes or a combination of the two. ~. Jovanovich stated that he has read several articles relating to`ttlese types of developments. He stated that they tend to be criticized for pedestrian traffic due to the''curved streets and lack of sidewalks. He added that the trend seems to be to go back to the grid style for development. Adjourn: The Special Meeting regarding Graceview Estates was adjourned by consensus at 6:15 PM. tti Judy Weyrens ' ' '~" Administrator ~ `' ~' Ott ~-.: ~`' - .~: a ~~ k l ~~ .~ u ..~ ~ ~ vs'~F.. i#s~ti, ~° N ~te~~~~'.'-~'~~ V{4 rte. ~> W~ ~. „~ p 4' ~t ~~~;- i .4 ~.