Loading...
CR 95-115 Hayes VS City Of Hopkins \ y o . JUDe 30, 1995 ~ /,. 0 IJ P K \ "" Council Report 95-115 HAYES VS. CITY OF HOPKINS Proposed Action Staff is recommending adoption of the following motion: Move to accept the Court Order in Hayes vs. City of Hopkins and to not pursue an appeal of the order. Overview In June of 1994, Gregory Hayes filed suit against the City due to the City's denial of a subdivision request on his property. In May of 1995, District Court found in favor ofMr. Hayes and has or- dered the City to approve his subdivision request. Staff, on the basis of legal counsel advice, is recommending that the City Council accept the District Court decision and not appeal the findings. Adoption of this measure will provide direction to legal counsel and staff concerning how to move forward from this point on. e Primary Issues to Consider o What is the background of this subdivision proposal? o What steps would be taken from this point forward? o What options are before the City Council? SUDPortine Information o Analysis of issues ~~~ Steven C. Mielke City Manager e . e e Staff Analvsis of Issues o Background In February of 1993, Hayes applied for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements and a waiver of plat in order to subdivide the property. The variance and waiver were de- nied in April by the City Council since Hayes could not establish undue hardship. In September of 1993, Hayes submitted an application for a concept review to subdivide their property. Both properties met minimum lot size requirements but questions remained regarding access and irregularly shaped lots. A new concept review was submitted in March of 1994 and the Planning Commission reviewed it in March. In April, 1994, the City Council requested a moratorium on subdivision in order to examine possible revisions to the subdivision ordinance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recom- mended approval of the moratorium. Subsequently, plaintiff submitted a formal application for subdivision approval on April 29, 1994. On May 3 the City Council approved for first reading the proposed moratorium on all subdivisions. A second reading was held and the ordinance became effective June ]4, 1994. On May 27, Hayes applied for a variance from the City's moratorium. Ultimately, Hayes was denied the variance from the moratorium in August of 1994. On August 30, the Council completed and approved changes to the sub- division ordinance. On November 1 the City Council denied Hayes subdivision application under the new ordinance, since it did not meet the specifications of the new ordinance. Hayes filed suit in State Court asking for damages and asking the Court to order the City to approve the subdivision. In May of] 995 the Court issued an order requiring the City to approve the subdivision. An earlier decision had denied the damage claim. The City is now in the position of either appealing the District Court order or ending the lawsuit by accepting the order. o What steps are to be taken from this point forward? Assuming the Council accepts the staff recommendation, staff would recommend that Mr. Hayes subdivision be placed on the Council agenda of July 18, 1995 for approval. Should the Council choose an alternate option from which to proceed, obviously different steps would be necessary. o What options exist for the City Council? The City Council could choose to appeal the District Court decision, accept the decision, or seek an alternative path to pursue. Legal counsel has advised against pursuing the appeal for several reasons which have been previously discussed with the Council.