Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/12/09 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular 4c MINUTES CITY COUNCIL LONG-RANGE PLANNING SESSION December 9, 1991 1 . Call to order Mayor Hanks called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll call The following Councilmembers were present: Jeff Jacobs, Allen Friedman, Larry Mitchell , Jane Tschida and Lyle Hanks. Staff present included the City Manager, Deputy City Attorney, Director of Inspections, Director of Public Works, Director of Community Development and Planning Coordinator. 3. Ordinance amendment re parking of certain vehicles or trailers in residen- tial neighborhoods The Council addressed the captioned item. Several questions were addressed to the Director of Inspections for further research. It was the consensus this item be placed on the Jan. 6, 1992 Council agenda for action. n. Status report: Use of private housing inspectors Council reviewed the Director of Inspections' update on use of private housing inspectors. A request was made to obtain copies of 8 housing inspect- ions. 5. France Ave. jurisdictional acquisition This report concerns the section of France Ave. noth of Minnetonka Blvd. and the proposal of turnback of France Ave. jurisdiction from Cedar Lake Ave. to the north City limits to the City. In order to control/curb traffic on France Ave. , it may be advisable for the City to gain jurisdiction. A similar situation exists regarding Cedar Lake Rd. Staff was directed to pursue study of this item with an eye toward future action. 6. Transit and transportation planning The consensus of Council was that this item is a definite Long-Range Planning item and should be further pursued by staff. 7. Proposed zoning ordinance The City Manager reviewed the staff memorandum which dealt with staff' s understanding of conclusions reached at the Dec. 1 , 1991 tour by the City Council , the status of the Edgewood Industrial area issue, a report on Planned Unit Development zoning and a report dealing with the amortization 111 on non-conforming land uses. He noted that staff was still recommending the PUD overlay approach as the preferred method of dealing with the Planned Unit Development issue and also indicated that the amortization of non-conforming land uses was proposed to be scaled back in its application and to apply only to non- conforming land uses which would not be permitted anywhere in the City under the proposed zoning ordinance. Following a question by Councilmember Mitchell , there was considerable discussion re the process to be followed by the Council in its continuing review and evaluation of zoning ordinance issues. The question of amortization was discussed in the context of the Minneapolis Golf Club and the fact that the country club portion of the operation would be non-conforming under the draft provisions of the ordinance, and the use would be subject to amortization. While there was concern about amortizing such a land use, there was also concern expressed about the impact of such land use in residential neighborhoods. It was concluded that it would be possible to modify the provisions of the R-1 and R-2 districts regulations to permit a country club as a conditional use. The City Attorney suggested that the non-conforming use section could be modified as a means of addressing this issue rather than changing the listing of permitted land uses. There followed a lengthy discussion over the desirability of the amortization concept and the means by which it would be applied to the zoning ordinance. The City Attorney indicated that it appeared likely the City had the authority to limit the amortization provisions to specific classes of land use, but that some further analysis of that issue would be necessary. It was noted that amortization required that a non-conforming land use had to cease operation at the end of the time period specified in the ordinance and that the time period had to bear some relationship to the remaining useful life of the land use. It was suggested that if the application of amortization were limited to those land uses not permitted under the current ordinance, it would be possible to establish an amortization period on a parcel-specific basis, and in conjunction with that, to add an appeal procedure whereby the property owner could appeal the length of the amortiza- tion period. A discussion followed concerning the difference between condemnation and amortization, the primary difference being that the use is eliminated at the end of a specific period of time under amortization and no compensation is required. It was noted that there is believed to be sufficient basis in law for that approach to be applied in St. Louis Park. Concern was expressed about the specifics of amortization, particularly if it were to be applied to all non-conforming land uses; however, there was also discussion relating to the fact that amortization provides an opportun- ity to achieve the intent of the ordinance in the long term, and as long as an adequate basis for amortization has been established, the concept itself had merit. The question was raised whether amortization was necessary if there were only a very limited number of land uses to be amortized. It was stated that amortization is not a "taking" issue, but rather a policy issue in that it sets a clear direction for future zoning in the City. It was pointed out that the key issue related to amortization is what public interest is served 111 2 . through the amortization process and that a rational basis for amortization related to public welfare needs to be established. It was suggested that the City may want to obtain expert opinions or assistance in determining the amount of time that should be allowed in amortizing specific uses. Opinions from persons qualified to provide the Council with direction regarding the length of time to amortize a particular use will demonstrate that the Council gave thoughtful consideration rather than just arbitrarily picking a number of years. It was generally agreed this be done. At present, it appears that three land uses -- Apple Valley Red-E-Mix Company, the junk yard portion of the Golden Auto site on Lake St. , and Al 's Liquors on Excelsior Blvd. -- would be non-conforming uses not permitted under the current zoning ordinance and would be subject to amortization. The Mayor asked if the fact that they would not be allowed anywhere in the City is a sufficient basis. The City Attorney responded that staff has indicated that these uses are incompatible with surrounding land uses because of their effect on adjacent property values and also because of the generation of nuisance characteristics such as excessive traffic, noise and dust. Based on these reasons, there appears to be substantial public interest in eliminating those land uses. Concerning the items which were addressed on the tour on Dec. 1 , the staff report indicated that Council had reached agreement on seven of the items including the Ken Faulkner property at 4225 W. 36th St. , Vogt Plumbing at 3260 Gorham, Apple Valley Red-E-Mix at 3270 Gorham, Grand Produce at 3384 Brownlow, J. R. Younger at 5624 W. Lake St. , Roller Garden at 5622 W. Lake St. , and the Texas-I-394 area. Mayor Hanks said he did not agree with the understanding on items 5 and 6 relating to the Younger property and the Roller Garden and Councilmember Mitchell indicated that he did not agree with the resolution of the Texas-I-394 area. Council also agreed that the 5 items listed on page 2 of the Dec. 9 staff report relating to the Super Radiator property, Al ' s Liquor, Golden Auto, Cooper Theater and the Edgewood Industrial area were, to some extent, dependent upon the discussion of Planned Unit Development and that action on these would be postponed. In response to a question from the Mayor regarding the possibility of a meeting with the Edgewood Industrial park property owners, staff indicated that a meeting had been held on Dec. 5 with representatives of the industrial property owners as well as representatives of the adjacent residential neighborhood. It was pointed out that staff concluded that in order for progress to be made on this issue, it was necessary that the information which had been requested from the industrial property owners regarding the types of businesses being conducted in the area be provided before a definitive analysis could be made. It was pointed out that this information had been requested on several occasions in the past and had not yet been forthcoming. It was noted that the staff report responded to a request from Council at a previous meeting asking for delineation of the reasons why particular uses were non-conforming and how these issues related to questions of public health, safety and welfare. The Council conducted a lengthy discussion concerning the issue of the Planned Unit Development process and the City Manager noted that the approach which has been recommended with some modifications including a greater number of land uses permitted by PUD appears to give more of the flexibility which Council has sought in applying this process. There was discussion concerning other approaches including contract zoning and con- 3. ditional zoning and it was noted that these approaches are of questionable validity under State law. It was noted that as an alternative to establishing a PUD, a property owner or developer had the option of seeking a rezoning III which would be evaluated on its merits at the time such a request is made. It was concluded that the approach recommended by staff as modified to expand the number of land uses permitted by the PUD process in particular districts seemed to address many of the concerns Council had relating to the difficulties of developing specific parcels and also addressed the need for flexibility which Council felt to be important in the PUD process. In summarizing the meeting, it was indicated that the City Attorney's office would conduct some further analysis of the ability of the City to limit the application of amortization to particular classes of land uses in the community and that staff would work with the Attorney on language changes in the proposed ordinance to accommodate such a process. In addition, staff would work on developing a listing of additional land uses by zoning district which might be included through the PUD process. 8. Governance agreement with School District Council reviewed the changes as suggested by Councilmember Jacobs. A number of suggestions were made and staff was directed to incorporate same and print a new document for review. The City Attorney is to review the proposed agreement with the likelihood that this item would be considered at the January 6, 1992 Council meeting. 9. Schedule of meetings Council set the following meeting schedule: III Meet with Nick Trkla on either the afternoon of Mon. , Jan. 6 or Tues. , Jan. 7. Meet with the Legislators on Tues. , Jan. 7 at 7:30 p.m. for one hour. Meet with the Human Rights Commission to discuss the demographic report on Feb. 4, 1992. 10. Property at 4800 Minnetonka Blvd. , Council discussed at length the status of the tree house at 4800 Minnetonka Blvd. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. 8 ii /J/xCG?- Bill Dixon Recording Secretary III 4.