Co Par settlement front and center (5 updates)

[Update 4 5/4 4:45pm]

Mr. Nephew discusses one aspect of the decision: the constrained decision making authority of the council when considering a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

[Update 5 5/4 8:00pm]

Mr. Nephew has added to his discussion with a post titled Comp Plan Versus Zoning




[original post begins here]


Pioneer Press Thu, 01 May 2008 23:16:30 -0600
Developer's lawsuit against city of Maplewood may end

A nearly two-year-old lawsuit against the city of Maplewood may soon end with a developer getting the contract it originally wanted and the city avoiding an expensive settlement. The City Council met Thursday to discuss a proposed agreement with CoPar Cos., which sued Maplewood in 2006 over a development deal gone sour. The potential agreement would grant a conditional use permit to CoPar for a 165-home development in the city's south leg, thus dismissing the lawsuit. City officials will meet Monday to vote on the matter. The lawsuit was sparked by a "disagreement over development rights" for a 73-acre site that sits west of Interstate 494 and south of Carver Avenue, said Howard Roston, CoPar's attorney. An initial 300-unit plan by the developer for the Carver Crossing project was blocked by the City Council, which said the venture conflicted with the city's long-term vision for the area. Some city officials said they were interested in protecting one of the city's last undeveloped areas, while others supported the residential development plan. The council voted 3-2 against a scaled back plan with 191 homes in September 2006 and CoPar sued, saying the denial was unfair and "violated (Maplewood's) own ordinances and Comprehensive Plan." Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, city officials implemented a moratorium on development in the southern leg of the city, protecting more than 400 acres of land south of Carver Avenue. ... The city's planning commission has recommended that the council deny the permit, but city staff recommends approval. While everyone hopes the lawsuit can be settled, it is unclear how the council will vote Monday.

[update 5/2 12:00pm]

Alex Davy's 4/30/08 Lillie Newspapers article League of Minnesota Cities jacks up Maplewood insurance rates reviews the insurance situation, including some land use coverage information

Earlier this month, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust announced that it might drop Maplewood's litigation liability insurance, after a string of expensive lawsuits that have exceeded $1 million in damages.

The years 2006 through 2008 are far and away the priciest since the League began insuring Maplewood in 1986.

The League (which insures all but six cities in Minnesota) has agreed to keep Maplewood insured - but at a steep price.

Maplewood's adjusted premiums will rise 13.5 percent in 2008, to $189,952 for the year. An additional 15 percent surcharge may apply, adding about $28,500 to the total bill. Those rates are about 123 percent of what an average city would pay. It's per-claim deductible will shoot from $50,000 to $200,000.
...
The League also offers coverage that private firms won't touch, like insurance for the defense costs of land-use cases, a highly technical form of litigation that can cost a lot in legal fees.

Two land-use cases were part of the expenses Maplewood occurred over the last few years; the biggest stemming from the City Council's denial of a permit for a CoPar residential development on land zoned for agricultural use.

"After two years and God knows how many thousands of dollars, we're trying to settle out of court," Hjelle says.

[update 5/2 12:30pm]

The City has published the packet [11mb pdf] for the May 5th settlement discussion meeting. Maplewood Voices has extracted the staff memo [1.2mb graphic pdf] which outlines the development plan and financial aspects of the settlement. In it, Mr. Ahl, Mr. Kantrud and league appointed attorney Baker describe a $1,00,000 cost to the City for its share of public improvements to the Carver Crossing site. This cost would not be covered by the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) policy, since according to this note in the memo, the City does not have land use coverage.

Note: The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust will not help pay any of these costs. The City does not have land use claim coverage. (p.3)

Since LMCIT is supplying the City's attorney for the case, there is clearly some form of coverage.Since the city's insurance coverage is a current issue, we have asked Mr. Ahl for a brief explanation of the relevant coverage under the existing LMCIT policies.

[update 5/2 4:30pm]

The land use insurance coverage explanation from Mr. Ahl is

The City of Maplewood has coverage for land-use matters that provides for the legal representation. The comment in the staff report is intended to reference the payment of funds to reduce the number of units such that the Council can consider reducing the number of units in the project from 191 units to 165 units. LMCIT will not contribute to that cost, because Maplewood does not have that type of coverage for land use issues.

So, legal defense in a land use dispute - covered. Actions required or other consequences of resolving the dispute - not covered.

[[keywords: LandUse;Legal;PropertyTax;Maplewood;]]