Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-08October 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 includes a provision whereby two members of the Council may request a special meeting. Therefore, at this time, Rassier turned the floor over to Councilor Schultz. Schultz stated that he, as well as other members of the Council, has received numerous emails with regard to the proposed Graceview Estates Apartments. According to Schultz, there has been a lot of recent discussion regarding the proposal and many are confused as to where they are at with respect to the process. He, along with Councilor Frank, has compiled a list of questions and have forwarded them to Weyrens and the City Attorney. At this time, this discussion is for informational purposes only. Frank questioned why the Council must make a decision prior to November 24. Weyrens stated that Minnesota Statute requires governing bodies to act on land use applications within 60 days of accepting a completed application. Governing Bodies are allowed to extend the action requirement an additional 60 days. The application was considered complete on July 29, 2008 and the Council extended the time the additional 60 days. Therefore, based on the original submittal date and the extension, the City must act on the application no later than November 24, 2008. If a decision is not made by this date, the application is considered approved. . Jovanovich stated that he is in receipt of the questions submitted by Councilors and provided the following information: Q: Where is the City at in the process? What is the Council's role? Jovanovich replied that the process begins with the Planning Commission holding a public hearing to review the request after which they must prepare the findings of fact for the approval or the denial, which is then recommended to the City Council. He stated that the Council then has the following options once they receive a recommendation from the Planning Commission: o Approve as presented o Approve with conditions o Deny as presented o Deny with conditions Jovanovich added that if 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 Ordinances 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 procedures for 2008 have been followed. The Council made a decision in 2002, which people are looking at in hindsight and saying that it was not a good decision. He added that in 2002, there was no formal application process and there were few records kept. At that time, the City did not have a PUD process rather they had a PURD process. The PUD has evolved and changed since that time. Due to the fact that the PURD no longer exists, Frank questioned how it can be amended. Jovanovich stated that it can be amended as it was in effect when the plans were approved. He added that, at the time it was approved, there was limited documentation. Rassier then stated that this is similar to how things have changed in the Industrial Park. As the City grows, he stated that some processes need to change. Q: Does the Developer need a variance or rezoning? Jovanovich stated the 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 is zoned as a PURD and allows for mixed uses. Due to the fact that there are limited records, there are no minutes showing approval of the apartments. They were; however, shown on the concept plan that was approved. Wick questioned St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 54.14 Subd. 1(d) which states "The Planning Commission and City Council 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 necessary. Jovanovich stated that the City may want to add a condition such as this. He also stated that it is best to either approve or deny the application with conditions as litigation is extremely expensive. Q: If this issue goes to court on what grounds or expectations? Jovanovich advised the Council that if they put conditions on the approval or denial, they must have factual support for the condition. Frank asked Jovanovich for an explanation of the differences between a fact and an opinion. Q: At the Planning Commission meeting, Wick questioned the setbacks. Frank asked for clarification. Jovanovich stated that in 2002 there were only single-family homes, duplexes and apartments. There were no such things as patio homes, etc. They were; however, envisioned in the request. The townhomes would fall under the current R4 Ordinance and those setbacks are much less than those of the R3 Ordinance. • With the mixing of the 2002 and 2008 Ordinances, which ones are to be followed? The current zoning of the property is R1 with a PURD Overlay (2002). The re-plat of the initial plat would be considered using the 2008 Ordinance. Wick questioned MN Statute 462.358 Subd. 3c as addressed in the attorney memo. "For one year following preliminary approval and for two years following final approval, unless the subdivider and the municipality agree otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, pursuant to its regulations, the municipality may extend the period by agreement with the subdivider and subject to all application performance conditions and requirements, or it may require submission of a new application unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. " Jovanovich stated that this statute creates a lot of grey areas. • When does a Special Use Permit expire with reference to the Zoning Ordinances? Jovanovich stated that a 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 these 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. -~ 1 ~~ ~C ~ ;~~ ,~Udy eyr ns nistrator