Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-29-91 PZM<< CITY O F';L L A K E ELMO JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY ATTORNEY Wednesday, May 29, 1991 7:00 p,m, ::City Hall 1, AGENDA Procedures for Planning/Land Use And Zoning LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING WITH CITY ATTORNEY MAY 29, 1991 Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Present City Council: Dave Johnson, Dick Johnson, Williams, Hunt, Mottaz. Present Planning Commission: John, Johnston, Conlin, Enes, Stevens, Weeks, McLeod, Schubert, DeLapp. Also present: City Attorney Filla, City Planner Black, Administrator Kueffner. Mayor Johnson turned the meeting over to City Attorney Jerry Filla. Mr. Filla stated he wanted this meeting to share some ideas, and for everyone to understand the development process better and how the city is involved in the process. The purpose for developer regulations and zoning is to allow people to enjoy their property as best they can without creating a nuisance to their neighbors. In Minnesota, most of the litigation involving development regulations involves a balancing of the public's right to adopt legislation against the rights of property owners to use their property. If you do a very good job of adopting regulations which are reasonable, then you can restrict use. The other thing that is very clear in Minnesota is that the legislature has said, and the courts agree, you have to move the development process along. Not only can you adopt reasonable regulations, but you have to apply them fairly and in a reasonable time frame. It's not fair for a developer to have to wait a year and a half for development approval from a City. Time is money, and typically the development proposals that this City sees are not that complicated. The process for development approval, in Minnesota, should not take more than 120 days from the beginning of a completed application to preliminary approval. The city can adopt regulations that define a completed application. A completed application means that the developer have A,B,C,D,E,F all lined up, and once the developer has everything together then the time period starts. The City has adequate time to review a proposal as long as the City makes sure the application is complete. The development process means any application for zoning, rezoning, code amendment, subdivision, variance, building permits, anything that requires approval from the City. Most importantly, when someone comes to the City for development approval that they have EVERYTHING we will need BEFORE being put on an agenda. We should not put development applications on Planning Commission agendas or City Council agendas until the item is ready, it's not fair to the City to present an incomplete application, and it's not fair to the applicant. Joint meeting: Planning Commission/City Council May 29, 1991 Page2 The staff role is most important, because they have to make sure the developer understands the regulations and understands what is necessary and what will be required and that they present an application that is complete. This encourages the developer to get their act together because they know that no one will look at the proposal until all those things are in the City file. But we don't have the staff to hold the developers hand. Staff should get a lot of support from the City Council and Planning Commission. The City should make it very clear to developers how we do things, and not give into pressure. Developers have to understand that unless they do what is required then their application will not be processed, in other words the City will be fair in reviewing applications if the developer is diligent in presenting them with all the details required. This message gets to the developer through Mary, Mike, Tom or Jerry. Issues should be sorted out before the application goes to the Planning Commission. A developer application should not come back to the City Council four or five times. When an application is complete, it must be submitted to the Planning Commission and Council in an orderly manner. It should be submitted with some objective recommendations as in stating which Sections of the code it satisfies and which Sections it doesn't if any, and if any variances are required. These objective recommendations must come from staff (Mary, Mike, Tom or Jerry). The City's option, if a development proposal does not satisfy the codes and regulations, is to turn it down, but you must be fair and let the developer know upfront what is required. The Planning Commissions job is to give recommendations. The Planning Commission should be a little more concerned about the overall development and how it fits in with the Comprehensive Plan. These recommendations must be based on facts, and make sure they are not just conclusions. For example: the commission cannot say a proposal is going to create a traffic hazard, this does not help the council. It is better for the commission to say this proposal is going to be a traffice hazard because it will generate 7,000 additional trips per day for a road that is only designed to carry 5,000 vehicles per day. The City should not be afraid to ask a developer for an appraisal, a traffic study, or an engineering study to establish a fact. Don't be afraid to ask for these things right away as necessary. The developer knows that if he/she doesn't comply with these requests, their application can be denied on the basis the City does not have enough information to determine what the impact will be. The Council needs good data, good recommendations, needs everybody that looks at something before them to be prepared so that ultimately they can make a "reasonable" decision. The council's ability to make a reasonable recommendation is hampered if they have bad data and incomplete recommendations. We should all be striving toward a fair decision by the City Council. Joint meeting: Planning Commission/City Council May 29, 1991 Page3 Lake Elmo seems to be getting sued more often than some other cities, but consider staffing, size of city, development pressure. The city has not insisted on developers submitting sufficient data, consiquently, we have made decisions that have not been as good as they could have been. Maybe we don't know how to say no. The City Council has been making decisions based on incomplete information, and partially because of that some of the decisions were not correct, and because of that some developers think that sueing Lake Elmo is a winner. Mr. Filla'handed out an outline in order for the Planning Commission, City Council and City Staff to understand what standards the City is being held to. One point made is the council and commission minutes are not accurate, except for motions, are not complete, and will always be used against the City in litigation. Minutes take a lot of time, create a lot of anxiety, and do not turn out to be as accurate as anyone wants them to be. Mr. Filla would prefer to see more brevity in the council minutes. From a legal stand point all that's necessary is the motions and reasons to support the action taken. Special Use Permits: allows something that is consistent with the code. Special Use Permits run with the land, think of it as a special covenant or as an easement. If someone follows the conditions of their CUP, they can continue using their property in that way forever. If someone does not follwo the conditions then to City must revoke the CUP. Variances: unlike CUP's, allow something that is contrary to the code. A person wanting a variance has a higher standard of proof than someone wanting a CUP. It is very hard to be consistent. If you follow the standards in your code and the state statutes, there would be very few variances granted by anybody because the way hardship is defined. Self created hardship is not a valid reason for granting a variance. Just because you've granted a varine to one person does not justify granting the same kind of variance for another person. Each variance as it's submitted stands alone on its own merits. It's easier for the City to say it will not grant any variances rather than pick and choose. Once you start granting variances to people you may know or whatever, you must grant them fo everybody to be fair. You must understand your standards and codes and apply the standards for variances contained in your code, and you will not be granting very many variances. Councilman Johnson stated our code is not easily understandable. You have to decide as a City what kinds of regulations you want. Then you have to decide as a City that you are going to insist on those regulations being enforced by everybody involved in the process. Some of this becomes what are your resources and how do you want to alocate them. You have to realize that as a slow growth community you are not going to have as many resources as other communities as soon as other communities do. YOU HAVE TO PUT THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE. Joint meeting: Planning Commission/City Council May 29, 1991 Page4 The Council must state clearly, to the staff, what their priorities are. Then staff could adjust their schedule accordingly and feedback to the Council an assessment of what staff's capabilities are, and if help is needed, then it's council's decision on how to accomplish its goals. Staff time to review an application is a cost. Mary stated the application fees have been increased to cover the cost of having the professional planner or attorney review applications. Mary stated she does not feel qualified to make the determination if an application is complete, so Mike Black will make that determinatin and start the clock on applications. If the application is started prematurely, due to developer pressure, that is a disservice to everyoneinvolved including the developer. We should not allow a developer to proceed before he's ready because then the City becomes part of the problem. Councilman Williams stated staff must be diligent about resisting pressure. Mary stated the code states, under preapplication, the burden of making an applicant aware of what will be required is on the Planning Commission. Jerry stated this may not be a good code and the City may want to change it. Mayor Johnson asked if a neighborhood does not want a development in order to remain rural, can it be denied? NO. Zoning is basically a legislative issue in natur, it is a policy decision made by the City Council and they determine the zoning and use. If people don't like the council's decision they're not going to vote for you. If the City does not like its standards, then change them. Don't make up excuses to deny a plat, because what you're saying is you don't have an appropriate regulation. Therefore, make a regulation. The evolution of developer regulations is an ongoing process. No one can anticipate everything. As you're considering applications, be aware of your standards, BE AWARE YOU MUST GIVE FACTS, NOT CONCLUSIONS. Councilman Williams asked is it okay to suggest changes on a preliminary plat? Not if you can't enforce the suggested change with a specific code. If the applicants plat satisfies our code then your looking for reasons to deny it that aren't there. What is you duty? Your duty is to judge development applications in compliance with your regulations. If an application meets your regulations, and you want to change it, then change your. regulations. The City can adopt new codes and req-ue-s-t--the --a-pp-l-ic-a-n-t-to-comply-only before preliminary plat approval. Councilman Johnson stated he does not feel our code book is easy to read, it's lacking detail, confusing and difficult to interprate. This should be a priority: to bring the code book up to date. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL DECISION I. Record on Review. The District Court determines the scope of its review by considering the nature, fairness and accuracy of the proceeding before the City Council. What were the issues? Did all appropriate parties have an opportunity to present information, review data, and ask questions? Was the proceeding accurately recorded? (A) If the City Council proceeding was fair and the record of the proceeding is complete and accurate, the District Court will simply review the record of the proceeding. The District Court will allow admission of additional material evidence on issues raised and considered by the City Council only if there was a good reason for failure to present such information to the City Council. (B) If the City Council proceeding was not fair or if the record was not complete and/or accurate, the District Court will permit a trial or at least an opportunity to augment the record. II. Standards of Review. The goal of the District Court in reviewing development regulation cases, whether legislative in nature (rezonings) or quasi-judicial in nature (special use permit, variance, subdivision) is to determine if the City Council acted reasonably. The District Court does not intend to substitute its judgment for that of the City Council but only seeks to determine if the City Council acted within the scope of its authority, applied the appropriate law, and acted reasonably; and to further determine if the record supports the City Council's decision. If the District Court decision is appealed, the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court review the matter independently of any findings or conclusions of the District Court. (A) In zoning classification cases, the City Council's action is reasonable if it promotes the public's health, safety and welfare and if it does not result in a taking without compensation. (1) Procedural due process rights are minimal. (2) City has a right to determine whether changing conditions or public interest demand an exercise of power to amend a zoning ordinance and to select the measures that are necessary for that purpose. 1 (3) A decline in property value is not a sufficient reason to invalidate a rezoning. The general welfare of the public is paramount in importance to the pecuniary state of an individual property owner affected by the rezoning. (B) In a special use permit case, the reasonableness of the City Council action is measured by compliance with the standards contained in the City's development regulation. (1) Basic due process standards apply to quasi-judicial proceedings. ,q qwr A. a jc-Gnu ev (2) A special use permit allows the use of property in a manner expressly authorized by the development regulations. (3) The absence of expressed standards makes denial of a special use permit more vulnerable to a finding of arbitrariness. (4) General objections, unsupported by facts, of opponents to the granting of a special use permit do not support a finding that the proposed use would be inconsistent with surrounding land uses. (5) A special use permit is in the nature of a contract between the City and a private party for the use of land. Therefore, non-compliance with the conditions attached to the special use permit is more analogous to a breach of contract than to a criminal offense. (6) Mere "aesthetic concerns" of neighbors is not an adequate reason for denial of a special use permit. 2 ( (7) A special use permit runs with the land and remains in effect until the provisions of the permit are violated. (C) In a variance case, the reasonableness of the City Council action is measured by compliance with the standards contained in the City's development regulation. (1) Basic due process standards apply to quasi-judicial proceedings. (2) A variance allows a use which is normally forbidden by a development regulation. If strict application of a development regulations to a parcel of land constitutes a taking, granting a variance is mandatory. To establish an unconstitutional taking, the property owner must demonstrate that he/she has been deprived, through governmental action or inaction, of all reasonable uses of the land. (3) City has broad discretionary power to deny applica- tions for variances. (4) Hardships based upon financial concerns alone are insufficient to justify granting a variance. (5) A self created hardship is not a reason for granting a variance. (6) A property owner is not entitled to a variance simply because similar variances have been granted in the past. (D) In a subdivision case, the reasonableness of the City Council action is measured by compliance with the standards contained in the City's development regulation. (1) Basic due process standards apply to quasi-judicial proceedings. 1 3 (2) If a proposed plat complies with the appropriate development standards, denial of the plat approval is arbitrary as a matter of law. (3) The time for challenging a public use dedication fee requirement is prior to final plat approval. III. Burden of Proof. Normally, the burden of proof is on the party challenging the City Council's action to show that the City Council acted unreasonably. If the action being challenged is legislative in nature, there is a heavy burden on the challenger. If the action being challenged is quasi-judicial in nature, there is a lighter burden on the challenger. (A) A total lack of contemporaneous findings setting forth the City's reasons for its action indicates prima facie arbitrariness on the part of the City Council. (B) Therefore the burden of proof shifts to the City to support its action. (C) The presumption of arbitrariness can be overcome by evidence admitted at trial indicating a rational basis for the City Council's decision. (D) The City must show at least one legally sufficient reason for its action. A legally sufficient reason is one which is supported by facts. C\J\DEV-REG2.OUT 4