Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/02/16 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular MINUTES illCITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNEOSTA February 16, 1988 1 . Call to order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Lyle Hanks 2. Presentations The Mayor read a proclamation for Drug Awareness Week which was presented to Elaine Lerdahl , representing the School District 3. Roll call The following members were present at roll call : Bruce Battaglia Larry Mitchell Thomas Duffy David Strand Allen Friedman Lyle Hanks Also present were the City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Planning, Director of Public Works and the City Assessor. 4. Approval of minutes It was moved by Councilmember Strand, 1110 seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to approve the minutes of the point legislative meeting held February 1 , 1988. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Councilmembers Duffy and Mitchell abstained) . It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia to approve the minutes of the February 1 , 1988 City Council meeting. The motion passed 4-0-2 (Councilmembers Mitchell and Duffy abstained) . It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Duffy, to approve the minutes of the Council study session held on February 8, 1988. The motion passed 6-0. 5. Approval of the agenda It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Duffy to approve the consent agenda for February 16 with the removal of item 9a (at the request of Councilmember Friedman) . The motion passed 6-0. _ It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell to 11110 approve the agenda for February 16 with-the following addition: 10b. Olympics. The motion passed 6-0. --il- City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS 411 6a. Variance: 7600 Hwy. 7 Variance in parking requirements at 7600 Hwy. 7 The applicant requested that their variance request not be addressed tonight but at the following meeting if possible. If that were not possible, he requested to withdraw his request. Mayor Hanks asked if the Council had to act within a certain period of time on variances or could this be continued. The Planning Director said the alloted time had been used up. Councilmember Strand asked if the applicant could remove the request and save whatever fees may have been paid for reinstating the application at a future date. The City Manager said waiver of fees should the application come up again would be at the discretion of Council . In answer to a question from the Mayor, the City Attorney recommended the public hearing be closed before deliberation on whether to accept the request for withdrawal or to deny. There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a 4111 future date. Councilmember Duffy said he was opposed to the request 60 days ago when it first came before Council and that he still felt that way. He saw no justification for a variance to the parking ordinance. It was moved by Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell to waive reading and adopt Resolution 88-27 entitled "A resolution of findings regarding the application of Beverly Enterprises,' Pharmacy Corp. of America (Kevin LaCasse) for variances under Sections 17-187(2) and 14-187(4(r) of the St. Louis Park ordinance code relating to zoning to permit a parking lot with a setback of zero (0) feet instead of the required 25 feet and having 25 stalls instead of the required 60 stalls for property located in the R-B residential business district at 7600 Highway 7." Councilmember. Battaglia asked if the applicant could ever come before Council again with this request. The City Attorney said that City procedures have a relatnrelyliberal reconsideration for similar motion provisions, so in the discretion of the Council , a similar motion could be filed. Mayor Hanks said he could not support the motion as the applicant does have property upon which he is paying taxes, but based on his letter in which he said different options were being explored, he was of the opinion the request for withdrawal could be accepted. Councilmember Mitchell felt denial should have been approved the first time -32- City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 that what he had proposed was unacceptable. He felt leaving the situation illohanging would possibly be ,confusing. He said he would be amenable to reviewing any proposal in the future that was more appropriate for the property. The motion passed 5-1 (Mayor Hanks opposed) . 6c. Proposed zoning change From B-3 to R-3 for property on the east side of Virginia Ave. south of the Burlington Northern Railroad It was felt it was appropriate to consider this item prior to item 6b concerning the same piece of property. John Smith, architect for the project, gave a lengthy presentation on what was planned for the property. He was followed by William Smith, sales and marketing director for the property; Jim Benshool , Benshool Associates who have conducted traffic studies for the property and John Schomburg, attorney for the applicant. Councilmember Strand had several questions: ( 1 ) why did the developer buy this parcel when it was known that the Comprehensive Plan designated it as medium density residential and yet the developer is not interested in developing residential properties. Mr. Schomburg said at the time' of purchase it was consistent with existing zoning and that he was not directly involved at the time of purchase so was unable to answer any question relative to the IIIComprehensive Plan. Councilmember Strand asked if they were to proceed with development under a B-3 designation, did he know of any legal mechanism wereby the City could try to influence what they developed. Mr. Schomburg felt there were a number of controls and discretionary processes the developer would be subject to irrespective of the vote on zoning before the Council . Councilmember Mitchell asked if the interim zoning of the property was not the zoning proposed. The Director of Planning said the term interim zoning comes about because of the Planning Commission's consideration of an entirely new ordinance throughout the City. Councilmember Mitchell noted alternative No. 4 which in effect eliminates the possibility of multi-family development. The City Planner said alterna- tive No. 4 does not provide for multi-family housing. The zoning being recommended by the Planning Commission is R-3 and B-3 which does not allow for apartment-type construction. Members of the audience addressed the item including David Murray, 2512 Virginia Ave. So. , who wished the zoning to remain R-3 residential in keeping with the flavor of the neighborhood ,and expressed his concerns over potential increase in traffic; he also read a letter of opposition from Dennis Walters, 2821 Sumter Ave. who wish the zoning to remain residential ; Sherman Friedman, 3219 Aquila Lane who expressed several concerns among which was the neighborhood not being 116 sufficiently informed as to what was being planned for this piece of property; Phil Brownley, 7930 W. 25th St. who questioned the traffic consultant ' s figure of 10 trips per apartment per day should an apartment be built; Arlis Grossman, 1640 Virginia Ave. So. who asked that her comments be added to the official minutes of the Council meeting: Catherine Fitzgerald, 7913 W. 26th St. whose -33- City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 backyard will overlook the proposed development which they do not want; Kevin4111, Sorensen, 2811 Sumter Ave. So. , who didn't believe Mr. Smith's proposal was going to have the impact as expressed by others and welcomed the project to his neighborhood; Jim Maloso , 2819 Aquila Ave. who was concerned how many units would end up on the 11 acres; Delwin DeVries, 2800 Texas Ave. who wanted to see any impact on the neighborhood minimized; Slavco Brichta, 2705 Virginia Ave. who felt an increase in truck travel on City streets would necessitate strengthening of the roadways at taxpayers' expense. Mr. Smith said they had done a survey of the surrounding neighborhood. They visited 266 households of which 142 were on the south side of the railroad tracks and 124 households were on the north. Out of the 266, they found 143 individuals at home who were surveyed. Out of the 143 polled, 53 were not interested or did not have an opinion. Twenty-two were undecided and 30 preferred the residential and 38 signed the petition for the proposal . He also read a letter from Harriet Rice, part-owner of the property, who was in favor of the proposal for office warehouse. "ith reference to a previous question from Mrs. Grossman as to whether the developer would contemplate legal action against the City should the request be denied, Mr. Shomburg said that to rezone the west half of the property to R-3 and leave the east half zoned B-3 without reasonable access to the landlocked parcel constitutes a taking and downgrading of the east half. However, it was their intention to continue to work through this situation in a cooperative way. Phil Bromley, 7930 W. 25th St. , was bothered by the figures relative to411/ trip generation and the fact that the developer who had conducted a survey also was circulating a petition. He questioned the credibility of the results. There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. Councilman Strand moved and Couhcilmember Mitchell seconded to waive reading of the ordinance and set second reading for March 7, 1988 Councilmember Strand had several reasons for his motion. First, he viewed this property as essentially residential . He was also concerned about that area which was not residential , the nursing home and senior citizen high rise. He did not think it fair to put a commercial/industrial use in their backyards. He felt the character of the traffic was important to note in that it remain cars, not truck. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan designation has been in place since 1980 and carries some weight. He also felt tax base was not being given away because commercial/industrial would not be allowed. He said a report from the Planning staff showing medium density residential shows a doubling of commercial tax base. Councilmember Duffy agreed with Councilmember Strand in many of his comments. However, he did feel strongly that if the east side were to be zoned B-3, some access to the property would have to be found. 411 Mayor Hanks shared the same concern and asked the Planning staff for clarifica- tion. -34- 1 .e. City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 illThe Planning Director said that if one assumes the access at 27th St. isn't available, then the other two logical locations for access would be off of Rhode Island through some sort of a private easement which would be possible under PUD zoning or off of Texas Ave. Councilmember Duffy said if the developer goes to that property owner to see an easement, that property owner can well say that his value has just increased on this little piece of property that you need for an easement because the alterrjative is to go all the way down to Texas Ave. and build a road back into to your property. He can't build on the R-3 property because a shoreland ordinance has not been adopted or unless you go ahead with an EAW. Councilmember Strand said it seemed to him that that person does not know the intent of the City to allow access off of Rhode Island. Councilmember Duffy agreed, but , stated that up to that point, there is a problem that all concerned must try to work out. The developer can't be left just hanging high and dry. Councilmember Duffy said if the City was going to definitely say it would work to take a City easement over the Rhode Island property to provide access to the property, he would feel comfortable. He would also be comfortable with the City using the eminent domain process to take the roadway. Councilmember Mitchell said it didn't seem to him, since the developer had not discussed it, there was much interest in working the development around to a Texas Ave. access, that their preference obviously was a 27th St. access. He thought access off Rhode Island is something that could be looked into. He said the reason he seconded the motion was that in listening to all aspects of what ought to happen to this land, all had presented their arguments rather well and that the matter had been handled well by all concerned. He felt what the Planning Commission had come up with was a good compromise in trying to accommodate both interests. Councilmember Battaglia said that no matter what Council did, there were a number of unresolved issues connected to the property: a shoreland ordinance, the Official Map to deal with, and access to the property. He felt the question came down to is this a residential use for a piece of property or a commercial use for the property and what is in the best interests of the City. He did not believe the developer's presence should color Council ' s decision and he was therefore in support of the motion. Councilmember Mitchell had another concern that if the motion were to pass and go forward, Council would need to address the Comprehensive Plan because it would then be inconsistent. He would want Council to give clear direction as how to proceed with the report involving a variety of changes. Councilmember Battaglia said he would request the City Attorney to closely review the materials before second reading of the ordinance so that Council is apprised of any and all legal ramifications of the various courses 11110 of action open to Council . Mayor Hanks felt this was a very difficult issue which was getting more difficult all the time. He shared Councilmember Duffy' s concerns re ,access. He felt if the eastern portion were zoned B-3 and the westerly portion SIGN HERE 117116. 7..% ...:.... City Council meeting minutes ,,:.:.:.•: .••••••••• February 16, 1988 R-3, with a roadway needing to come from Texas Ave. to access it, this was indeed a very different plan with trucks etc. traffic coming completely Ai- Ilig from Texas Ave. A major concern of his was that no one really knew at this point what .was going into a B-3 district. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Mayor Hanks abstained) . Councilmember Friedman said he had lived in the subject area for eight years and was concerned about proper use of land and land values in the City. He was not sure the proposed zoning was correct. He believed that when citizens of a community speak out and oppose a proposal - as long as it does not have a deleterious effect on the whole community - he would vote in favor of their wishes. Mayor Hanks asked that staff research the trail item prior to the next meeting. He recalled that when land was to be bought, developed, zoned etc. the surrounding neighborhood would be apprised of such potential action. He would like that recollection verified. 6b. Smith property Appeal of John Smith to official map for property located on the east side of Virginia Ave. south of the Burlington Northern Railroad Mr. Schomburg said the developer had met twice with staff and referred iii to a new site plan showing the trail relocated to the south adjacent to the property line. He asked that this relocation be adopted irrespective of the zoning. Several persons who spoke earlier again expressed their concern about any action being taken that evening especially in light of the fact that a number of people in the audience had left. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell ,,, seconded by Councilmember Strand to continue the item to March 7, 1988. Mayor Hanks asked for a research of the record regarding the trail :and residents' request for input be included when -this report returns on March 7 and also all pertinent information relative to residents being informed as to potential proposals along the trail system. It was moved by Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia to call the question. The motion passed 6-0. The motion to continue passed 6-0. 5d. Hwy. 12/I-394 corridor First reading on an interim ordinance establishing development restrictions along Highway 12/1-394 corridor David Sellergren, MEPC Properties, spoke to Council and referred to materials previously submitted to Council . He alluded to a master plan for this southwest quadrant area owned by MEPC. He said the interim ordinance under discussion was a precussor to a long-term approach as how to implement the implications of the traffic study. MEPC was in agreement that, it was -36- .! .� (/fin/..IIP t1H Arils Grossaman Erwin&Adis Groanmt ". 1640 Virginia Ave.80. f Undo Pork MN UWE Public Hearing - City Council February 16, 1988 I ' d like to pose an interesting question. If no developer had purchased the property along the Burlington Northern site, how would the •Council vote for zoning in terms of : 1 . The best usuage of the land 2. The interests of the residents and the impact on the neighborhood. • 3. The future development and interest of St. Louis Park Now I ask the question -- shouldn't the Council use this same criteria upon which to base their decision even tho a developer has purchased the land. Certainly I 'm not so naive as to think that this issue is black and white and that concern over the developer' s rights 1111 shouldn' t enter the Council' s deliberations . A legal battle is something the Council would like to avoid, but the bottom line is that the Council must act to protect the best interests of St. Louis Park -- and tonite' s public hearing is , to help determine what those best interests are. Let's start with my first criteria -- What is the best usuage of the land? In 1981 , after years of study (and taxpayer dollars) , the City .of St. Louis Park approved its Comprehensive Plan for the years 1980-2000 . That comprehensive plan designated the western 10 . 3 acres as medium density residential , the southerly and easterly 4 . 24 acres as high density residential. 9 acres as community facilities and 1 . 17 acres as industrial park. On December 16 . 1981 at the Public Hearing„ I submitted a letter indicating my concern that the B3 zoning be changed without delay to prevent any "problems that might arise from any potential requests for development not in keeping with the neighborhood d•�sires and the goal of the Comprehensive Plan. " I submit a copy of that letter for your information. 116 On December 29 , 1983, the planning commission began an an indepth study of this parcel of land The most recent recommendations of the planning commission on January 20 , 1988 reconfirm the Comprehensive Plan' s designation of the westerly portion as medium density . 11111 Page 2 There has been discussion that no developer would want to develope residential property along the tracks and that the present market for townhouses is weak. The history of land use in St. Louis Park clearly shows effective townhouse development near the Jewish Community Center and recent townhouses near Brunswick Ave. off of Cedar Lake Road. It must also be noted that lovely single family residential homes are directly across the tracks on West 26th Street and also adjacent to the tracks in the expensive Westling Development. Mr. Smith, purchased this land in 1986 with the knowledge that the Comprehensive Plan had designated a change in the zoning that was not in keeping with his plan for development of the land. It was no secret to any knowledgable developer that a shoreland ordinance had to be passed or an Environmental Impact Statement was required before building could be done within 1000 ft of Lake Victoria. The official map with its trail designation was also readily available at the time the property title should have been researched before purchase . The property owner purchased the land with these known obstacles in his way. However, at its January 20th meeting, the Planning Commission did address the interests of the developer and recommended a compromise that hopefully will protect the residential quality of the adjoining neighborhoods while still allowing the developer a sizeable portion of land for his proposed office warehouse project. Since 1981 , the recommendation for the best land use has consistently been residential in keeping with the character of the adjoining land usuages . This brings me to my second criteria -- the interests of the residents and the impact on the neighborhood. This neighborhood has long been vocal in its attempts to preserve the residential quality of the neighborhood . Among the concerns have been increased traffic which' would be further aggravated by the addition of the developer' s estimated 100 truck trips per day There is also deep concern over creeping industrialism intruding into what is one of the niciest residential areas of St. Louis Park. J Page 3 And finally, the 3rd criteria -- The future development and interests of St. Louis Park. Allowing the developer to build under the present B-3 zoning, as he requested at the council meeting on January 19, 1988, allows development without the control or direction of the planning dept and the concerns of the adjoining neighborhoods. There is no guarantee that the plans he has shown the neighbors will be built as shown -- or that any future owner would be a good neighbor. Under the present zoning, the neighborhood faces the risk of industrial development which could erode property values in this entire northwest corner of St. Louis Park. 1110 I started my comments by asking one important question . Now I ' d like to conclude by asking 2 more : The first to the developer: Mr. Smith -- If the Council denies the Official Map Appeal and changes the zoning to correspond to the comprehensive 'plan -- will you take legal action? The second to the Council : What are you prepared to do to legally defend the will of the residents and proceed with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the long term goals for development in this residential area of St. Louis Park? THIS PUTS THE ISSUE ON THE TABLE ! Please do not delay your decision. My letter has been waiting for your response since 1981 . The Developer has been looking for a guide to develope his property since 1986 . And the residents are here and are watching on television waiting for your decision tonite ZeLL74.4,1109 Signed Dated - - 't'6''S-C10 //4 l-9 ILO /0 4 G7 4-{'-1 ?1--L $ 1 /jam-rt 2 City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 important to look at both short and long-term development potential associated with the I-394 construction. He said MEPC's plan for expansion, in their opinion, should have appeared under the moderate growth scenario, but did not. MEPC will be working with the TwinWest Chamber landowners group which has been formed to work with the cities to examine land use assumptions and the potential problems which might result therefrom. MEPC was suggesting some modifications to the moratorium ordinance. MEPC was suggesting conducting an environmental impact statement and that their plans be studied in the context of such an EIS. He stated conducting this study did not give MEPC a permit to proceed. He said MEPC would be willing to sign a waiver to any claim for rights for either state or local permits because of the EIS. They would further agree in writing not to apply for a state permit, the critical one being the indirect sorce permit, without the City' s consent until the EIS is completed. He said from their calculations, with this approval there will be a 41-month delay before another building is constructed in this project. He said the second thing they were asking for is an exception with regard to parking facilities. He said the task force report indicates that they believe MEPC's position is covered in the language which now exists. Although they were not entirely in agreement, this is language they can live with. With respect to the language that more parking spaces will create more cars, MEPC is willing to put out of service other surface parking spaces should the Council be concerned that there is going to be more parking and therefore more cars. If the language in the ordinance would include no net gain of parking spaces, MEPC is ,perfectly comfor ithe IIIwith the language. He alluded to the Minnetonka moratorium ordinance7 has an exception for planned development, and the judgement made in Minnetonka was that there was a lot of discretion on whether or not to approve a PD; the dominant criteria being traffic studies. He said the City had similar standards in ODDs relative to special permits and approval and MEPC was suggesting that applies in the present instance as well . They were suggesting this worked for Minnetonka and would work for St. Louis Park because if the Council is not comfortable with the traffic situation, a special permit is not issued. Finally, they were asking for the moratorium to be six months in length. . There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Friedman, to waive first reading, set second reading for March 7, 1988 and authorize summary publication. Mayor Hanks asked if staff could look at the question before second reading ifs when MEPC is looking at building something more efficient which took other parkingycould this be left out of the ordinance per their request. The' City Manager responded if they lost 50 spaces, they would be allowed to replace it with 50 spaces. I.f they wanted to build 150 spaces, this ordinance would not permit that. If they wanted to relocate 150 spaces and put in green space and have the same number of spaces when they got all done, he supposed that would be allowable although that had not been discussed. , Councilmember Stran& suggested as a matter of procedures that questions loch as those raised by MEPC go to the task force for deliberation by -37- City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 both Councils and city representatives at the same time. Councilmembers Battaglia and Mitchel both felt it was appropriate for MEPC's points to be referred to the task force rather than for Council to unilaterally approve or deny. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilmember Battaglia, seconded by Councilmember Duffy that the requested amendments brought by MEPC be referred to the task force. Councilmember Strand said he was not opposed to the motion, but he wanted Council to know that all of this was not new information, it was material that has been reviewed by the task force. The motion passed 6-0. Mayor Hanks asked if things were indeed moving forward. The City Manager said they were within government parameters. He said a proposal has already been received from the consultant on how trip generation would be figured from the various land uses. Councilmember Strand said that if the task force were not dealing with all the exceptions to the ordinance, they would be further along. 6e. Registered land survey Property at 2518 France Ave. and Resolution 88-20 2517 Huntington 4111 There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember Duffy, to waive reading and adopt resolution 88-20 entitled "Resolution giving approval for registered land survey." The motion passed 6-0. 6f. Daycare facility Special permit for daycare facility Resolution 88-21 at 5219 Wayzata Blvd. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council .to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Strand, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 88-21 entitled "A resolution granting special permit under Section 14-124(2) (a) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a day care facility for property zoned DDD, Diversified Development District at 5219 Wayzata Blvd." Councilmember Battaglia noted some of the environmental considerations were borderline and would the construction of 1-394 impact these considerations. -38- y Council meeting minutes bruary 16, 1988 The City Manager said that one of the causes of pollution is standing cars and with I-394 that will not be a problem. Secondly, with increased traffic, pollution will have to continue to be monitored. The motion passed 6-0. 5g. Project 87-55 Assessment hearing, concrete alley Resolution 8812 There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Strand, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia to waive reading and adopt Resolution 88-22 entitled "Resolution adopting assessment for Improvement No. 87-55, alley paving. " The motion passed 6-0. 6h. Project 87-03 ," Assessment hearing, concrete alley Resolution 88-23 There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember Strand, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 88-23 entitled "Resolution adopting assessment for Improvement project 87-03, alley paving." The motion passed 6-0. 6i . Project 87-34 Assessment hearing, concrete alley Resolution 88-24 There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Battaglia,' to waive reading and adopt Resolution 88-24 entitled "Resolution adopting assessment for Improvement No. 87-34, alley paving." The motion passed 6-0. 5j. Project 87-42 Assessment hearing, concrete alley Resolution 88-25 There being no one further wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the hearing closed with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Strand, to waive reading and adopt Resolution 88-25 entitled "Resolution adopting assessment for Improvement 87-42, alley paving." ei The. Not n®n passad • ' -39- City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 PETITIONS, REQUESTS, COMMUNICATIONS 7a. Nortel Cable Gerry Kazma,' president of Nortel Cable, gave a presentation briefly touching on Nortel 's plans for the St. Louis Park cable system and the franchise renewal process. He also high- lighted some of the accomplishments made by the cable company since its purchase in 1986. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 8a. Ordinance re billboards Second reading of ordinance Ruth Licht, 3320 Hillsboro Ave. spoke to Council about her concerns about billboards. She noted that most surrounding communities have a reduced number of billboards or none at all . She also felt billboards in St. Louis Park rarely advertised St. Louis Park businesses. She also thought so many billboards so close together on major arteries caused a public safety issue. She felt the preponderance of billboards lessened values in St. Louis Park and how people perceive the city. Steven Grittman, 2801 Webster Ave. said that in his capacity as an urban planner, he viewed billboards as a particular visual blight. He said from his fourth floor office on Excelsior Blvd. the predominant skyline feature is three billboards. He reiterated Ms. Licht's statement that the City derives to monetary benefit from the billboards. He felt sure MEPC and AI the developers of On the Avenue had no interest in having billboards on their property cognizant of the negative effect they have on quality design. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Strand, to waive reading and adopt the ordinance. Councilmember Mitchell said this requires five votes and there are not five votes to pass it. Initially the vote was 4-3 and he didn't think there was one more vote. In the interim four years since this item came up, he had come to several conclusions. He continues to feel that taking ugly signs off of rooftops or standards and putting them on posts merely now left ugly signs on ugly posts. He also felt that negotiating with Naegele in the past has always ended up working to their advantage and this has now resulted in their offer to do some sort of downsizing of present boards and expand into other areas. He felt to pass this ordinance would truly get- Naegele's attention. He felt that by tabling it, the issue could be reopened in the future should conditions change. It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Friedman to table the matter. The motion failed 3-3 (Councilmembers Battaglia, Duffy, Strand opposed) . Councilmember Mitchell said if a motion fails for want of five votes, the whole thing will have to go through the system, the hearing process all over again in order to come back to Council . The City Attorney said there was a problem with tabling in that there is a code provision which requires action within 60 days. He said whether that code provision applies to an ordinance initiated by the City Council is unclear. He said tabling leaves open the option of taking it off the City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 table which then raises the question whether or not that code provision applies to this ordinance. Councilmember Mitchell went back to his original motion to waive reading and adopt the ordinance. Mayor Hanks said the reason he and some others have not supported this is that they have committed themselves to the homeowners in the Excelsior Blvd. area to get the billboards downsized. If the ordinance is passed, all billboards will remain as is. Councilmember Strand said it was his understanding of what was asked of Naegele was for them to come up with just that and their response was not any downsizing but rather an expansion. Now they want to put them on Louisiana Ave. He felt they had had their chance. Councilmember Duffy want to say that the ordinance does not remove billboards from St. Louis Park. All it does is make existing billboards non-conforming which means nothing will be done with them. What the City is doing is building obsolesence into the billboard ordinance. He felt if there was any chance to work with Naegele, this ordinance wasn't going to make it any better one way, or the other - the billboards will still be there looking just as bad as they do today. Councilmember Friedman couldn't understand the uncooperativeness of Naegel who purports to be a good business neighbor. He didn't see how the City could do anything else to try to work with Naegele. Councilmember Battaglia concurred, feeling that Naegele was not going to work with the City to downsize or reduce billboards, that what they will do is maintain and upgrade what they have and even try to add additional billboards. The motion failed 4-2 (Councilmember Duffy, Mayor Hanks opposed) . 8b. Assessment policies ' Resolution relating to assessment policies It was moved by Councilmember Battaglia, seconded -by Councilmember Strand, to waive reading and adopt resolution. The City Attorney said there was a question under Section B, alley paving. He would recommend deletion of Section B. The attorney's office has provided the City Manager's office with a memorandum presenting an alternative way to look at this. He said Section B as drafted does violate state statute. Councilmember Friedman said he was pushing for this since he's been on the Council and since he has not seen the attorney' s memo, he was not in a position to vote on the item. It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell to defer the item to March 7, 1988. The motion passed 6-0. -41- City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 8c. Yard waste separation. First reading of ordinance) re mandatory separation of yard waste. Councilmember Strand said he wanted to make some amendments to the ordinance but that he would moved to waive first reading and set second reading for March 7, 1988. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mitchell . Councilmember had two concerns: one was the question of rates and the dif- ference between someone who recycles with yard waste and someone who is a none—recycler with no yard waste, and whether they should pay less. It seemed to him someone who has recycled all along but is not participating in yard waste is going to be penalized and if that was fair. Councilmember Battaglia thought there would be incentives for people to recycle. What was before Council was actually creating a mandatory recycling program for yard waste and if someone does not recycle, then they are penalized. To clarify, the City Manager said the non-recycler with yard waste pays the most. The next category is the recycler also with yard waste. He said - because of the expense for yard waste collection, the program was going to be more expensive. Councilmember Strand also questioned whether the mandatory system was the way to go. Or whether a financial incentive approach should be tried for a period of time to see if that has the same effect. The City Manager said it was only mandatory if one chose to participate but refused to pay. But one does not have to participate - you can choose to have your own yard waste removed or do it yourself. Various other aspects of the ordinance were discussed. Councilmember Mitchell felt that additional clarification was needed. Councilmember Strand withdrew his motion. The matter was referred to the February 29, 1988 study session. 8d. Hwy. 100/I-394 update It was moved by Councilmember Resolution 88-26 Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Battaglia to waive reading and adopt Resolution 88-26 entitled "Resolution supporting the amendment of the design concept ,for the I-394 south frontage road between the west limits and Colorado Ave. and Vernon Ave. and Utica Ave'." The motion passed 6-0. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES 9a. Hwy. 100/W. 36th St. Councilmember Friedman asked what labor additives were. The City Manager said as he understands it is the actual cost -times a factor of li or 1 .75 which is a standard billing rate any consultant charges. -42- City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 In answer to a question whether the state was going to pay this, the Director of Public Works said he was told the MnDOT representative looked favorably on taking it up but that there was no guarantee. 9b. City loss reserve funding , It was moved by Councilmember Duffy, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell , to establish a reserve as of Dec. 31 , 198? and to increase the reserve annually for four years. The motion passed 5-0. 9c. Sandoz; Storm water detention construction It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Battaglia, to accept the report for filing, establish an improvement hearing date of Mar. 21 , 1988 and direct staff to sponsor appropriate neighborhood meetings to inform those affected by the proposed improvement. 1 The motion passed 6-0. 9d. Communication from MTC % It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell , seconded by Councilmember Duffy, to receive the communication for filing. 11110 The motion passed 6-0. 9e. HRA minutes Jan. 26, 1988 9f. January 1988 financial report Minutes and financial report received for filing by consent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Boards and Commissions Councilmember Friedman said he had expressed his interest in serving on the Regional Transit Board. Mayor Hanks said he received a letter relating to the summer Olympics of 1996. He was asking Council 's feeling and if they were wanting to go along with a bid being proposed. No action was taken. NEW BUSINESS lla. Taxi fare increase By consent, motion to approve requests for fare increases by Town Taxi , Suburban Green & White and Suburban Yellow Cab. llb. Gambling license renewal ] By consent, a request for gambling -11110 license renewal from the American Legion, Minnesota Brass, was approved. Y v -43- City Council meeting minutes February 16, 1988 llc. Diseased tree removal contract By consent, motion to approve extension of unit prices for tree removal through Dec. 31 , 1988 with Ceres Tree Service. MISCELLANEOUS 12a. Claims Mark Glassman, 2730 Ottawa Ave. Robert Chapek Timothy Lundahl , 4129 39th Ave. Wayne Miller Terri McKeon Elizabeth Mandel By consent, all claims referred to City Clerk and City Manager. 12b. Communications from Mayor None. 12c. Communications from City Manager The City Manager noted an invitation to a Met Council State of the Region meeting on March 2. Anyone interested in signing up should contact the city manager's office. CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS, CONTRACT PAYMENTS 13a. Verified claims By consent, , the list of verified claims prepared by the Director41111 of Finance, dated February 16, 1988 was approved in the amounts of $611 ,190.71 for vendor claims and $16,903. 13 for payroll claims be approved and that the City Treasurer and City ;ianager be authorized to execute checks in the proper amounts. 14. Adjournment The meeting 'was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. 6), /4-4a-4 Hay`' Recir ing Secretary -44-