CC PACKET 03092021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dear City Councilmembers of St. Anthony, The BLVD Auto carwash CUP application is flawed. Ryan Construction, the applicant’s representative, is an experienced developer and builder. They definitely know what is required to satisfy the elements for a CUP. A CUP is a Request and the City, in its quasi-judicial capacity, must ensure that the four elements required by City ordinance and State law (health, safety, general welfare, and that property values of neighboring properties will not be adversely affected) are completed to make an informed determination as to the worthiness of the project as a City asset. The applicant did not provide the studies required to satisfy the requirements in a CUP application. Sadly, the city planning committee did not outright reject the plan and send the applicant back to complete these studies. Instead, it was sent off to you to approve, based on the city planning committee’s recommendation to approve an incomplete application. Mr. Steve Grittman, in the last council meeting, seemed to think the CUP was adequate. This concerns me greatly. That a paid, contracted, experienced city planner would not know the law or worse, has decided not to follow the applicable ordinances is completely unacceptable. Let me be clear. In speaking with attorneys specializing in land use as well as persons who have worked in city planning for the city of Minneapolis, as well as reading all the applicable laws myself, Mr. Grittman is wrong in his understanding of the law here. It worries me that the city is getting advice from him. I suggested to Mayor Stille, after the last council meeting that what we have here is two opinions with a critical divide and that it might be wise to bring in St. Anthony legal counsel. He said that Steve Grittman is an attorney. I do not know if St. Anthony legal counsel has been brought into the matter, but I maintain that since we have competing understanding of the legal requirements, perhaps a third party, another attorney should weigh in on the issue at hand. Please refer to MN State Statute 462.3595. The applicant is responsible for meeting the 4 elements of the CUP as described in paragraph 1. At his own expense. This is a legal requirement. For the city to “take over” the responsibility of the applicant and do the work the applicant is required to do, creates a real legal dilemma for the city. By completing the studies for the applicant, you are in fact working for the applicant and against those constituents opposed to the project. It is a conflict of interest. You are to be a trier of facts, not the assembler of facts. The applicant is gaining an unfair advantage as the city works to help him with his CUP. This is His work, not the city’s work. As a quasi-judicial body, the city council must be completely divorced from working on this CUP. A complete ordinance review will be coming your way soon. The city must remain true to it’s commitment to equity as stated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This does not seem equitable. As a citizen of over 25 years, I have watched the city wrestle with other developments, the original iterations of Lowry Grove in particular but also the incredibly predictable outcome of 222