Thanks for these specifics.
It seems that issues with a developers' failures and shortcomings could
be dealt with through additional "conditions" to a "Conditional Use
Permit," and additional financial assurance via bonding, insurance, cash
deposit, line of credit, to make sure they do what they're supposed to
do and hold them accountable if they don't.
Local units of government do have the option of adding conditions where
the record supports it and where they can justify it (right now I'm
writing comments on silica sand rules, permitting issues, similar
challenges!). Most local governmental units, however, do not have the
will, do not want to challenge developers, hold them accountable, or
deal with enforcement issues. And most City Attorneys are not the
fierce advocates I think they should be, and don't work on crafting
conditions that could protect their cities, they're too concerned with
"Oh, we're going to get sued." Instead, they advise acquiescence,
because it's the developers that have the money to sue cities and/or
threaten cities with suits where they try to protect the public
interest; whereas the people, the public trying to protect the public
interest, rarely can afford to challenge a permit or permit conditions.
I am an attorney! ... and that and $0.50...
Carol A. Overland
Red Wing, MN formerly of Prestigious East Phillips
On 3/17/2015 9:19 AM, Evelyn Turner wrote:
> I hope to partially answer some of the questions asked in the previous posts.
>
> I was city planner/zoning administrator in the area for nearly 30 years. but
not for the City of Minneapolis. My duties were primarily concerned with
development review, mostly to guide decisions made by planning commissions and
city councils. I sat through the public hearings on these proposals. The
question of why the proposal was being considered because the developer had a
"bad reputation" was a common one.
>
> If a developer submits a compete application the law requires the city
process it. What is reviewed is the development, not the developer. A
conditional use permit is granted to the property, not the developer/owner. It
should be reviewed against the requirements that must be satisfied for a
conditional use permit to be granted. (A conditional use is one that is
appropriate in some locations within a zoning district but not all. It is not
the same as a variance.)
>
> It's the job of city staff to ensure the development is constructed according
to the plan approved by the planning commission or city council. It's my
understanding that 1800 Lake was constructed according to the approved plan. I
hope the City is conducting an internal review to determine how it came to be
approved, not to assign blame, but to find out if the engineers involved did
not anticipate a problem or if the issue fell through the cracks of the city's
development review process. My experience with errors of this magnitude is
that they are usually not premeditated.
>
> Overlay zoning districts modify some of the regulations of the underlying
zoning district. They may also supplement it. They do this to accomplish a
special purpose. Overlay regulations are laws just as the rest of the zoning
code.
>
> Whether or not an environmental assessment worksheet or environmental impact
statement is required is specified by state statutes. I don't recall the
triggers for these, but if one was required the City would have been
responsible for it. I am also unsure what sort of “neighborhood review” was
required by the Minneapolis zoning code in this situation. I used quotes in
the previous sentence because usually neighborhood review usually means
meetings with an organization that purports to represent the neighborhood and
perhaps whoever shows up at the meetings.
>
> This information is based on my personal experience and education as a City
Planner. It is not intended to be legal advice; I am not an attorney.