00-0299R REPLACEMENT 2
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO DENIAL OF RESOLUTION 00-0207, APPLICATION BY SHERMAN ASSOCIATES FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
BY PRESIDENT GILBERT:

BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions supporting the denial of a special use permit to Sherman Associates to build townhouses or group dwellings at 6700-6800 West Gate Boulevard:

(a)  Sherman Associates properly applied for a special use permit, submitting an application containing a detailed site plan dated December 15, 1999;

(b)  The application was reviewed by staff and submitted to the planning commission. The planning commission made a study and report, held a public hearing, and reported its approval to the city council;

(c)  The city council addressed the matter at an agenda session, a special committee meeting, and its regular meeting on April 10, 2000;

(d)  On April 3, 2000, at a public meeting, the council was informed by a citizen that a stream on the proposed property site could be a tributary to a designated trout stream;

(e)  The city shoreland ordinance does not identify the existence of the stream. The city staff tried to confirm whether the stream had been identified by Minnesota department of natural resources (DNR) and classified;

(f)  The city must comply with and enforce the shoreland management criteria of the DNR;

(g)  Citizens had raised the issues of the effect of the proposed use on a snowmobile trail that crosses the proposed site, and drainage patterns, and adequacy of the road;

(h)  Resolution 00-0207 was on the agenda for the regularly scheduled meeting of the city council on April 10, 2000. That resolution would have granted the special use permit for the proposed West Gate townhouse or group dwelling development;

(i)  On April 10, 2000, the DNR confirmed to the city that the stream on the proposed site was a tributary to a designated trout stream.  By correspondence from DNR, a copy of which is on file with the clerk as Public Document No. __________________, which is a part of this resolution, the city learned that a 50 foot setback, grading, cover and shade trees would be recommended by DNR in order to protect the stream.  This could not be accomplished within the December 15, 1999, site plan dimensions.  At least one building significantly encroached upon the protected stream area;

(j)  Operation of M.S.A. §15.99 would grant the special use permit by default before the next city council meeting;

(k)  City staff prepared a new site plan that showed the location of the stream set back lines, but no new plan was offered to the city council;

(l)  City Code Sections 50-32.1 and 50-32.2 require the planning commission to process applications and site plans;

(m)  No councilor had knowledge of what, if any, site plan would be appropriate, in compliance with law, and acceptable to the applicant.

The council then made the following conclusions:
(a)  The application containing the site plan was not suitable for a special use permit because of issues of noncompliance with DNR recommendations and city shoreland protection regulations recommendations;

(b)  If the applicant wishes to modify the proposed configuration, that proposal should be processed as set out in the ordinance;

(c)  The ordinance, Chapter 50, requires a new submission to the planning commission in order to accommodate the recommended 50 foot set back;

(d)  The issues of the drainage, snowmobile trail and street need to be addressed;

(e)  The Resolution 00-0207 was defeated by a vote of 7 - 0, Councilors Stenberg and Ness abstaining;

(f)  This resolution, the records of the city council, the records of the planning commission, the records of the planning department constitute the record in this matter.


STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: This resolution memorializes the events surrounding the council's action on Resolution 00-0207 and makes the record of its actions, stating the council's findings of fact and conclusions.  The purpose of the resolution is to satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.