11-13-2002 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FROM LEONARD, 0' BRIEN ET AL (FRI)11. 8' 02 9 :13 /ST. 9:09/N0. 4260507807 P 3 Ladies and Gentlemen Page 2 November 8, 2002 RESOLUTION N0. 2002 -10 -241 - APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PRESERVE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY PLANNER, CITY ENGINEER, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND PLANNING COMMISSION, AND SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S 50 -FOOT PIPELINE SETBACK POLICY AIVD SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATION OF THE WILLIAMS PIPELINE EASEMENT THROUGH TITLE WORK. Prior to voting for the approval of the plat, there was a great deal of discussion and debate relating to the City staffs recommendation that the subdivision comply with the City's pipeline set back policy allegedly adopted on October 9, 2002. Specifically, it was discussed that the City's pipeline set back policy would materially effect the developer's proposed plat to the extent that it would eliminate five to six lots within the proposed plat, At some point during that discussion, the council asked the City's attorney whether the pipeline set back policy was legal. The City's attorney stated that he was not aware of any law precluding such a policy from having such a dramatic economic impact on a plat. As a result of this discussion and the City attorney's comments, the City adopted Resolution No. 2002 -10 -241. The effect of the resolution is that it took away five or six lots within The Preserve essentially making the project economically unfeasible. It is unclear what specific requirements were incorporated into the City's resolution, since the above - referenced language is so overly broad and vague. However, regardless of the vagueness of the resolution, the key condition to the approval remains the City's pipeline policy precludes development of The Preserve. Dayspring remains ready, willing and able to meet all of the City's standard subdivision ordinances in developing The Preserve. Notwithstanding comments of the City's attorney to the contrary, Minnesota law provides that if a subdivision ordinance specifies standards to which a proposed plat must conform, it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat which complies in all respects with the subdivision ordinance. See generally Odell v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 792, 797 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) and Good Value Homes, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 410 N.W.2d 345, 348 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) and BECA of Alexandria, LIP v. County of Douglas, 607 N.W.2d 459, 456 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). Further, courts have made it clear that a plat which complies with a subdivision ordinance must be approved regardless of "policies" to the contrary. BECA, 607 N. W, 2d at 463. Even if it was lawful for the pipeline policy to have some effect on the plat as called for in Resolution 2002 -10 -241, the adoption of this particular policy is also illegal in that the City failed to give proper notice prior to the adoption of the policy as required by Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 3. The effect of the improper notice is that it renders the policy invalid. Because The Preserve complies with the City's standard subdivision ordinance and because the City's pipeline policy is illegal, Dayspring is hereby demanding that the City's resolution approving the plat be modified to remove all requirements relating to the pipeline policy. Once this requirement has been removed, Dayspring Development will move forward with the platting process with The Preserve plat currently on file with the City.