HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-11 CA Memo Re Open Meeting Law Violation Claim Julie Hultman
From: Eric Johnson
Sent: Thursday, August 11' 20221:48PK4
To: nnarynnccomber@ao!zom; '|iUegrens@cmmcost.nct; 'Chuck@wmtemtrestinnus';
mjrunk@comcast.net; carljohnson@conncos1net
Cc: Scott Richards (Scott@planningco.com);Jennifer Pinski; Kevin Sandstrom
Subject: City Atorney Review of Jaime Junker Letter and Comments See Attached.
Attachments: Memo-- Response to Junkers OML violation allegations.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Q/Il/22
rJooJAfte,noon:
TVV� (TFMS,
I
Please see the City Attorney's review of the letter/commentary from Mr.Jaime Junker recently received.
Certain|y, it affirms several realities that there was NOT a violation of an OPEN MEETING law; that Staff is
obliged (and the Council expects) it to provide certain review of applications and that
City Staff are not Project /Applicant advocates.
I have no doubt it will be a meeting that will be more challenging than most, but that is what the public process
caniodude
Please let me know if you have any questions.
This letter of review will be shared with the Planning Commission, Mr,Junker and the related file.
2 It appears that Mr. Junker sent another email —yesterday—listed below commenting on a date error, but also
adds other commentary.
City Staff has not engaged Mr. Junker on any of these (or earlier) items.
Thank You Again
Enc
From:Julie Hultman<jhultman@koarkheightszonm>
Sent: Wednesday,August 10, 2022 1:42 PM
To: Eric Johnson <eajohnson@cityofoakparkheights.com>
Subject: FW: Correction On Date: Potential Open Meeting Law Violation re:J K& K Group, LLP
Planning&Code Enforcement
Office: 651.351.1661
From: iaimecua;a)aoLcnm <jaimecpa@aoicom>
Sent: Wednesday,August 10, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Mary McComber<mmccomber@citvotoakparkheights.com>; Chuck Dougherty
<cdllulerty@cityofoakpa/kheiRhts.com>; Car|yJohnson «ciohnsnn@citynfoakparkheights.com>; mi/unk@comrastnet;
itlicpmI5f6)corocast.net
Cc: kidstrorn@eckberglammers,corn;Julie Hultman<jhu|tman@citynfoakparkheights.com>;Jennifer Pinsk'
<igiT,;1<iri'citypfoakl_a/kheiRhts.com>
Subject: Correction On Date: Potential Open Meeting Law Violation re:J K& K Group, LLP
Good afternoon,
The Plan Commission meeting in question regarding an open meeting law violation because an agenda item was added
to the agenda for my pject at the start of the meeting and no public notice was given that it would be discussed, where
the city administrator made mocking laughter several times when Walk-a-Bout came up and the City Planning Consultant
made his hand gesture rubbing them together and saying, "we haven't had a hot one for awhile". occurred at the June
9th 2022 Plan Commission meeting. Yesterday's communication identified the date as June 8th.
Although no action was taken at the meeting by the Plan Commission regarding VVa|h'a-Bout, that is not the sole |aaue, if
the meeting is determined that it was an open meeting law violation, it raises the question as to whether the Plan
Commission has now been biased and should be conducting tomorrow night's plan commission public hearing, see mr.
Freeman's comments as well for his sweeping comments relating to the expectations of the neighbors to the
south.
If you determine no open meeting law violation occurred on June 9th, and it doesn't create any other issues with a fair
public hearing, I am happy to proceed to the public hearing tomorrow night.
Thank you,
Jaime Junker
J K& K Group, LLP
Original Message
From: ie/msopaao| oonn
To: mZccnmbercityohzokparkheiAhtsoom <mm000mbercityofookparhheightsconn>;
ldpoqher1yAoih/ofoakpa/hheiqhtaoom <cdoughertyAcityofoakparkheights.00m>; cjohnsonoih/ofoakparkheighta.00m
<oohnsunAoih/ofoakparkheigk\s.00m>; |i|eqrennAoomcaaLnet<NegrenoPoomoaeLnet>; njrunkoomoaat.net
<lriruni<d),comcasLnet>
Cc: ksandstromAechberg|ammers.com «ksandstromAeckbeng|mmmersoom>;]hu|tmmncityofookparhheights.00m
<{|-iu|tmanAcitynfoakparkheightscom>; ipinekiAcih/ohoakparkheights.com `qpinskiAcih/ofoakparkheights.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2022 2:29 pm
Subject: Potential Open Meeting Law Violation re: J K& K Gnoup, LLP
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Please review the time sensitive material.
J K& K Group wanted, as did we all a fair public hearing regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application. We
don't feel we are getting that without your action.
Sincerely,
Jaime Junker
J N& K Group, LLP
2
ECKBERG LAMMERS
MEMO
To: Oak Park Heights City Council and Planning Commission
From: City Attorneys Kevin S. Sandstrom and Christina Benson
Date: August 11, 2022
Re: Oak Park Heights—Jaime Junker"Walk A Bout"Development and claimed open
meetin_ law violation(01501-36330)
Introduction
This memo is prepared in response to a letter sent via email on August 9, 2022 to the Oak
Park Heights Mayor and City Council from Jaime Dunker of the J K&K Group, LLP in relation
to his proposed development and pending application for a comprehensive plan amendment to
increase the allowable buildable density on his parcel. There are claims of violations to the Open
Meeting Law and claimed bias against the applicant in the public hearing and application process
of the "Walk-a-Bout"project. This letter has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office and the
allegations have no merit. The City Council, Planning Commission, and City Staff may disregard
the claims toward the city. The following is the analysis of the claims by issue presented.
Issue#1:Minnesota Open Meeting Law at June 0 Planning Commission Meeting
Junker asserts that casual discussion of his project at the PC meeting without advance
notice to him or other interested persons was an open meeting law violation. The Planning
Commission Meeting on June 9th was a regular meeting of the commission. The only notice
requirement for a regular meeting is to have a schedule of the public body's regular meetings
kept on file at its primary offices. If the date,time, and/or place of the regular meeting changes,
only then do special meeting notice requirements apply(Minn. Stat. 13D.04). Open Meeting
Law does not require advance preparation of agendas or minutes by public bodies, and public
bodies are entitled to consider any and all issues within their purview at a regular meeting and
can choose to add topics to their agenda during the course of the meeting itself. The Planning
Commission did not violate open meeting law by requesting and adding an update about the
"Walk-a-Bout"project to the Agenda and did not violate open meeting law by not providing any
additional notice of this issue before the meeting.
Of further note,the discussion of Junker's project at the 6/9/22 meeting was relatively
brief, informal, and high level, more of a"heads up" as to this matter coming before that body in
the future, and no official action was taken on the matter by the Planning Commission. These
facts negate any claimed concern by the applicant.
Issue#2: Scott Richard's Report
Junker complains about the staff report of Scott Richards, as the City Planner, about the
project. The Planner always reviews, analyzes, and issues a report of information and
recommendations for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and any other Land Use-related
Applications. Oak Park Heights Code of Ordinances Section 201.16 establishes the"Office of
the Planning Consultant" and their responsibilities. The responsibilities include:
A. Advise the Council on all matters pertaining to or affecting community development and
planning in the City.
B. Be responsible for the preparation and update of plans, including a comprehensive
municipal plan and area land use plans.
C. Review applications for rezoning, special use permits, variances, and development
proposals, and submit written reports to the Council regarding the same.
D. Attend such meetings, hearings, and other functions as the Council may direct.
E. Perform such additional functions coordinating same through the Office of Community
Development, City Clerk-Treasurer as the Council may from time to time direct.
Per the ordinances of the City of Oak Park Heights, Scott Richards must review applications
pertaining to community development and submit written reports regarding them. It would
appear Junker is concerned about the Planner report more than anything because the final
recommendation is for denial of his request. This does not entitle the Applicant to object to the
report and ask it to be stricken. Notably, staff reports containing opinions and recommendations
are common and expected in all communities across the state. Scott Richards is also responsible
for preparing and updating the comprehensive municipal plan and advising the council on
community development issues. The report Mr. Junker takes issue with is required to be
provided by Scott Richards and is required to include his advice. Simply because Mr. Junker
disagrees with the conclusions of the report or believes additional items should be included in the
report does not make the report biased or improper.
Issue#3: Comments in the March 16`1, 2022 Zoom Meeting
Mr. Junker claims the manner in which city staff acted during a meeting occurring solely
between the applicants and city staff were inappropriate and"can be a liability to the City of Oak
Park Heights". This claim is in response to city staff directing Mr. Junker and his team to take
into consideration the opposition from neighbors adjacent to the property and city staff noting the
request for high density zoning is an"insurmountable" hurdle. It is city staff's job to consider the
impact of a project on a neighborhood. City staff highlighting to Mr. Junker and his team the
great deal of effort required to overcome amending a comprehensive plan in the jurisdiction of
the City of Oak Park Heights, and the Met Council informs the applicant of the amount of time
and effort along with the unlikelihood of amending a comprehensive plan, evidenced by the
rarity of successful amendments to comprehensive plans. The comment of the project being
"insurmountable" is not a bias against the project but simply a comment setting realistic
expectations for the amount of effort and outcome of such an attempt. While this comment was
not welcomed by Mr. Junker and his team, it was not biased. It is not the City's responsibility to
lobby in favor of, advocate for,or assist Mr. Junker in succeeding in his application simply
because he made the decision to spend$20,000 on professional rendering prior to researching
whether the project was within the scope of the comprehensive plan and prior to determining a
comprehensive plan amendment would be required for the project to move forward.
[01501-36330/3112378/1] 2
Overall Conclusion
Mr. Junker is certainly aware that his project is controversial due to the high density nature of it
and being near single family home neighborhoods to the south and east despite the city land
coined as a"buffer zone." He has self-servingly held numerous lengthy community engagement
dialogues with his neighbors to try to assuage their concerns and opposition, and it would appear
significant opposition still exists. This fact is telling to the controversial nature of his request,
and it should not have come as a surprise to him that City Staff might also recommend against
approval. This is particularly true because the City Attorney advised and suggested during a
staff meeting review with Mr. Junker that his team might be better served and have better
likelihood of approval for a request for a change to medium density zoning rather than high
density zoning, and Junker opted to disregard that suggestion.
Sincerely,
ISI Nevin S.Sandakwm
Kevin S. Sandstrom, City Attorney
[01501-36330/3112378/1] 3