HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/11/23 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
November 23, 1992
1. Call to order
Mayor Hanks called the meeting to order at 7: 00 p.m.
2. Roll call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jeff
Jacobs, George Haun, Allen Friedman, Keith Meland, Larry Mitchell
and Lyle Hanks.
Staff present were the City Manager, Deputy City Attorney,
Director of Community Development, Director of Public Works,
Planning Coordinator, Zoning Administrator and Interim City Manager.
3 . Cedar Lake Road improvements Consultant selection and
neighborhood meetings
Resolution 92-182
The City Manager gave a brief update of the staff's report.
It was moved by Councilmember Mitchell, seconded by Councilmember
Meland, to adopt Resolution 92-182 entitled "Resolution
authorizing execution of agreement with Short, Elliott,
Hendrickson and Assoc. , Inc. "
Councilmember Friedman asked the City Attorney to comment on
awarding of contract without an RFP.
The Deputy City Attorney said that the proposed work would appear
to fall under the caregory of a professional services contract
and the Council has the authority, without seeking proposals or
bid, to enter into these types of contracts.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Public hearing Proposed zoning ordinance
Mayor Hanks: This evening is coming towards the end of a very
long process that this Council and many citizens have been
through. We were to update our Comprehensive Plan which has been
done; we then moved and this Council felt there should be a group
of citizens and we had a Citizens Task Force that met, I believe,
1
almost the whole year of 1991. Am I correct, Mr. Rye
Mr. Rye: Correct.
Mayor: And went through the zoning ordinance we have and spent
many, many hours on that. This year we've been going through and
working on the zoning, things that they brought to us, listened
to the concerns of people, and tonight we're here to discuss the
proposed zoning, and I think it should be made very clear tonight
that tonight is a discussion of zoning and where things should be
zoned in our community and that is the purpose of tonight's
hearing. I'd like to make the following comments. Anyone who
wishes to speak tonight will be given a reasonable opportunity, I
have taken the cards pretty much as I've gotten them. Maybe when
we get on to some item that appears to go with that before we
leave that item, I might ask if people have cards or want to
speak to it. So, if the speaker intends to use any materials
tonight or charts, the materials or charts should be marked as
Exhibits. We do have material to mark those, someone from our
staff will mark them so that they're entered into the formal
public hearing record. If a chart or Exhibit is used, the speaker
should identify his remarks by referring to the Exhibit number
which we will give you if you have an Exhibit. All staff reports,
minutes, comments received either in writing, records of previous
public hearings, case files on particular properties, Planning
Commission meeting minutes and reports and City Council study
session minutes or issues related to the draft zoning ordinance
that were discussed are included and incorporated into the public
record of this hearing. Speakers may to the extent reasonable and
appropriate ask questions of staff and finally, anyone wishing to
provide additional materials at the close of this public hearing
may do so in writing until 4:30 p.m. , Monday, November 30, 1992.
I would repeat that: Any of you who would like to put anything in
writing, it has to be into our staff by 4:30 p.m. Next Monday.
Staff will then provide the City Council with a report on the
additional information and comments for its December 7, 1992
meeting for the consideration as the second part of the public
record on the draft zoning ordinance.
One other thing, I believe, tonight if you have a legal opinion
that you feel is different, I think we're not here tonight to
argue legal opinions. If you do have that, you can just make a
statement to the effect that you have a disagreement and put it
in writing and we'll certainly ask our legal staff to look at it.
Am I all right with that, City Attorney?
With that, I would like to move in the following manner: I would
like to call on staff; there have been changes to the ordinance,
and I think those should be brought to everyone's attention. Many
of these have been amended along the way as we met with citizens,
as we have had hearings and so forth, so I think I would ask our
City Manager to move forward and then when they are completely
through, we will move to the public testimony.
City Manager: Thank you, Mayor, Councilmembers. The first portion
111
of the staff presentation will be a brief overview from Don Rye,
2
our Planning Coordinator, on the changes of a philosophic nature
from the current zoning ordinance to that which is proposed and
the subject of tonight's hearing. Mr. Rye will present that
information at this time, and then I' ll provide a more detailed
recitation of what has occurred regarding the proposed zoning
ordinance over the past 13 months since the most recent hearing
on this subject was held. Mr. Rye. . .
Mr. Rye: Thank you, Mr. Manager. Mayor Hanks, Councilmembers,
members of the audience. The process we're in the Mayor referred
to as being a lengthy process. It was indeed -- the roots go back
to about 1984 with a major amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
and as indicated, there was a Citizens Task Force that was
appointed, met a significant number of times over about a year
and a half period and reviewed the issues and proposals that were
brought forward to them. The result of all of that was a draft
ordinance that was completed and a public hearing was held on it
in August of 1991. Subsequent to that, there was a second public
hearing in October of 1991. Since that time, as the Mayor has
indicated, there have been a number of discussions both at the
Planning Commission and Council levels relating to changes and
refinements in the ordinance. There are a number of significant
changes in this ordinance from the current zoning ordinance that
the City has been enforcing in one form or another since 1960.
What I' ll do is try and hit the significant point of change
between those two.
The significant changes were as follows:
The proposed zoning ordinance has 10 zoning districts compared to
the 13 in the current ordinance. The proposed ordinance deletes
B3 , I3 , PUD and DDD districts and adds an Office district.
The land use listings in zoning districts have been updated --
they are more generic in nature and less specific in detail.
The number of conditional or special uses has been reduced. There
is a table summarizing all applicablle zoning district
regulations.
The off-street parking section has been modified to reduce the
parking requirements for office and retail land uses. It also
makes provision for shared parking and proof of parking
provisions.
The new ordinance will require erosion control plans for major
developments that disturb the landscape.
The signage section will be modified -- in most cases the effect
being to reduce the total amount of signage permitted on a
particular property.
There is a new provision regarding lighting plans: requirement
for lighting, standards imposed as to the amount of light that
can be generated from one property onto an abutting property.
3
A significant section has been added re landscaping and buffering
between residential and non-residential uses.
A section has been added on architectural design standards
covering such things as design criteria and specification of
architectural materials.
Changes have been made in listing the standards for conditional
uses. There has been an increase in the number of standards as
well as clarification of the conditions under which additional
conditions may be attached to a conditional use permit.
The industrial performance standard section has been modified. A
number of standards have been added relating to such things as
vibration, screening, hours of operation.
The section on adult uses has been modified, most significantly
by restricting such uses to the general industrial district no
longer permitting them in commercial districts.
Limitations are proposed on retail uses in industrial areas.
Creates a planned unit development process in place of the
existing planned unit development district.
The section on non-conformities has been clarified and expanded.
One of the significant features is the provision allowing for the
amortization of land uses which are currently not permitted under
the terms of the zoning ordinance.
There is a provision allowing for the reimbursement to the City
of costs incurred by the City in reviewing major development
proposals.
The flood plain section has been modified pursuant to comments by
the Department of Natural Resources.
There is a new category of land uses called "Uses Permitted With
Conditions. "
There are a number of map changes.
The City Manager requested that the staff report, dated November
23 , 1992 , from which he would making remarks be made part of the
record for the public hearing. The Council first held a public
hearing on the draft zoning ordinance on August 6, 1991. As a
result of that hearing, 27 specific items were identified and
referred to the Planning Commission for its review and comment.
The Planning Commission reviewed the 27 items and made specific
recommendations on each. Following that, the Council held a
second public hearing on October 23, 1991 at which time the
Planning Commission recommendations were heard and additional
testimony from interested persons in the community was received.
Following the public hearings, Council closed the public hearing
4
on October 23 , 1991. Since that time, the Planning Commission and
City Council have reviewed and discussed a number of issues
related to the proposed zoning ordinance. There have been a
111 number of text modifications since the last public hearing.
Discussion items which have resulted in changes to the proposed
zoning ordinance include the following:
Modification in industrial performance standards based on
recommendations resulting from discussions of the Edgewood/Eliot
View Industrial Area; modification of the section dealing with
amortization of non-conforming uses to apply amortization only to
uses not permitted anywhere in the community; modification of the
planned unit development process to permit the conversion of
existing planned unit developments; modification to the
architectural control section to clarify the standards relating
to the type of materials which would be permitted; modification
of the buffer yard and landscaping sections to reduce the number
of buffer yards and to clarify standards relating to type of
materials and amount of materials; deletion of the requirement
pertaining to disclosure of ex parte communication; decrease in
the rear yard setback in the R1 district from 35 ft. to 25 ft;
modifications in the R4 and RC districts to permit hostels, to
combine the definitions for multi-family and cluster housing and
to allow offices by planned unit development in the R4 district;
modifications of the flood plain section to reflect review
comments from the State's Department of Natural Resources;
modification of the front yard parking section to only permit
front yard parking where necessary to meet ordinance
requirements; clarification of conditions under which the City
Council may attach additional conditions to a conditional use
permit; and finally modification of the C2 district provisions to
permit a pawnshop as a permitted use in the C2 district.
He said that since the last public hearing, there had also been
modifications to the map and these changes in the proposed zoning
map were listed: at 3912 Excelsior Blvd. , Al's Liquor Store
property, the proposal had been for R2 and the status now
proposed is Cl; at 4235 W. 36th St. , the Faulkner property, the
proposal was C2 -- the status now is R3; at 7003 W. Lake St. , the
Golden Auto site, the proposal was IP and the proposal now is C2;
at 3356 Gorham Ave. , Super Radiator property, the proposal was
C2, the status is proposed IP; at 3384 Brownlow Ave. , the Grand
Produce Property, it was proposed C2 and is now proposed IP; at
Texas and I-394 frontage road, an existing office development,
technical corrections to the draft ordinance: (1) retail land
uses of up to 15% of the gross building area should be added as
an accessory use in the IP industrial park district consistent
with the manner in which they are permitted in the IG general
industrial district; (2) deletion of the requirement that a
shopping center in the 0, office district, may not constitute
more than 10% of a development. It was intended that shopping
centers could be permitted in the 0 office district through the
PUD process without unduly limiting the size of the retail
development relative to another type of development. Since the
map portion of the ordinance had some areas needing modification,
5
there are two more technical corrections that do not appear in
the staff memorandum that I'd like to identify now and those are
the Faulkner property at 4235 W. 36th St. from C2 to R3 and the
Texas/I-394 frontage road from Cl to R3 . The proposed zoning map
designates the Texas/I-394 area as R11. This is in the
Comprehensive Plan designation which was used in error when the
zoning ordinance was printed. There are also some changes under
consideration by the Council that have not yet been included in
the draft ordinance and those are as follows: The first pertains
to modification allowing consideration of redevelopment plans and
conditional use permits and the recommendation is to amend
Section 14 .6-5.1 to add the following language: "The City Council
may consider the provisions of any redevelopment plan or
development district program approved pursuant to Minnesota
Statute Chapter 469 which relates to the use of land and may
incorporate such provisions in a conditional use permit when
deemed necessary. The second is modifications to the IP
industrial park zoning district requirements. At its September
21, 1992 meeting, Council referred a request from Belt Line
Industrial Park for a change in the IP zoning to the Planning
Commission for its consideration. The Planning Commission
considered this issue on Sept. 30, 1992 and recommended the
language in the proposed zoning ordinance be retained as written.
Council discussed this issue at its Oct. 5, 1992 meeting and the
study session of Nov. 9, 1992. . At the Nov. 9, 1992 meeting, the
Council asked for a listing of the positive and negative aspects
of the proposed IP zoning which is exclusive and Alternate 5 in
the November 9, 1992 staff report which would permit retail and
service uses through the PUD process in the IP district. Staff
provides the Council pursuant to Council direction a listing of
positive and negative aspects of each zoning approach and that's
provided with the report Council received late last week. Also
provided is a letter from Bill Thibault as a representative of
Belt Line Industrial Park reflecting opposition to the proposed
zoning. There are in the staff report some comments about Mr.
Thibault's written presentation. Relating to retaining exclusive
industrial zoning, the idea of including a statement in the
zoning ordinance recognizing the transitional nature of the Belt
Line Industrial Park and indicating that future changes in land
use and indicating that future changes in land use and zoning
designation to commercial may be considered for that area was
discussed by the Council on Nov. 9, 1992. The Comprehensive Plan
is an expression of the City's future intent and staff is of the
opinion that such an idea would more appropriately be added to
the Comprehensive Plan than to the zoning ordinance. The
recommendation from both staff and the Planning Commission in
regard to this particular question is to retain the language in
the proposed ordinance as currently drafted, recognize that the
proposed IP zoning is transitional with respect to the Belt Line
Industrial Park and indicate either in the Comprehensive Plan or
the zoning ordinance that future changes in land use and zoning
designation to commercial to allow the types of uses allowed in
the Excelsior Blvd. Redevelopment District and the Belt Line
Business Park may be supported. The third of five areas where the
Council is considering changes and has not yet made a decision
6
and where direction is needed this evening is modifications to
the Office district. Recently, concerns have been raised that the
emphasis on office uses in the 0, Office district, may unduly
restrict development under current and projected market
conditions. These concerns have been raised with particular
reference to the site of the former Cooper Theater and the
properties owned by MEPC American Properties. It has been
suggested that retail and restaurant uses could be accommodated
to a greater degree by modifying the conditions under which they
may be approved in the 0 district. A representative of the Cooper
Theater has suggested a proposal which would allow restaurants,
both with and without liquor, and retail uses as free-standing
uses in the 0 district when they are adjacent to existing office
developments and where the possibility of shared parking may
exist. Language provided by staff has been suggested as a
modification to the section on Land Uses Permitted with
Conditions in the 0 Office District. Staff believes that the
concept expressed in the language furnished by the Cooper
Theater people is reasonable but recommends modification of the
proposal slightly to read as follows: "If the land upon which the
use is to be located is immediately adjacent to and is able to
share parking with an office building, it shall be deemed to have
complied with this condition. Rather than allowing restaurants
with liquor as a use permitted with condition, staff believes
that it should remain as a conditional use with the modifications
noted above. There is one more area where Council direction is
needed and that's modification excluding golf courses from open
space use category. Recent consideration by the Council, in fact
just last Monday night (Nov. 16, 1992) , of the special permit
amendment for the Minneapolis Golf Club has raised the issue of
the treatment of golf courses in the proposed zoning ordinance.
The specific concern is that a parking lot expansion for a golf
course could occur without requiring Council approval. One option
would be to make golf courses a separate land use and to regulate
them as a use either permitted with conditions or as a
conditional use. Another option would be to remove golf courses
from the definition of parks and open space and include them in
the definition of parks and recreation. Parks and recreation uses
are proposed to be permitted with conditions in all zoning
districts. The staff recommendation is to retain the current use
provision for golf courses pending receipt of feedback at the
Dec. 7, 1992 Council meeting from persons residing near golf
courses as to their satisfaction with a 35 ft. front yard setback
requirement for parking lots for golf courses as the proposed
ordinance requires. The final subject that I will comment on is
adult uses. Review of the proposed ordinance and update on the
Fridley experience -- I'm not going to comment on the Fridley
experience, it's in the staff report and as best we can tell by
contacting officials in that City is inconclusive at this time.
The proposed ordinance treats adult uses as a use permitted with
conditions in the IG General Industrial district. Adult uses
would not be allowed within 1, 000 ft. of another adult use,
school, religious institution, daycare facility, nursery or
within 500 ft. of any R1, R2 , R3 or R4 or RC district or a
residential planned unit development. Adult uses may not sell
7
liquor or be located within 500 ft. of an establishment that does
sell liquor. Persons under the age of 18 are not permitted in
adult use establishments. Allowing adult uses does not allow such
establishments to sell or distribute obscene material. A little
background on that subject: At the August 6, 1991 and October 23,
1991 public hearings on the draft zoning ordinance, concern was
expressed about the secondary impacts of -adult uses on the
community and neighborhoods. The Council listened and considered
a report that was provided by one of the speakers titled "Report
of the Attorney General's Working Group on the Regulation of
Sexually-oriented Businesses. " The report discussed that there
was evidence from studies done in Minneapolis, St. Paul,
Indianapolis and Los Angeles "that there is evidence that sexual-
oriented businesses and the materials from which profit have an
adverse impact on the surrounding community. " As a result,
Council directed staff to prepare a report comparing the
treatment of adult uses under the existing zoning ordinance which
permits adult uses in the B2, Il, I2, I3 and the draft zoning as
proposed on May 9, 1991 which would have permitted adult uses in
the C2 and IG districts. Our City Attorney advised that the City
could rely on studies done in other cities to assess the
secondary impacts of adult uses in the community and that the
City did not have to wait until it experienced adverse effects
from adult uses in St. Louis Park to adopt preventive measures.
As a result, Council directed staff to amend the draft zoning
ordinance which is under consideration tonight to include the
following regulations:
1. To permit adult uses only in the IG district;
2. To add a specific category to the definition of adult use
called adult store;
3. To regulate the distance between an adult use and schools,
religious institutions, existing group daycare facilities,
nursery schools, establishments that dispense non-intoxicating or
intoxicating liquor and residential districts.
That, Mayor, is a quick summary of what has occurred over the
past 13 months since there was last a public hearing on the
proposed zoning ordinance.
Mayor Hanks: In the present zoning ordinance adult uses are
permitted only in the IG or industrial districts in the community
and we have reviewed as a Council the first amendment which does
not allow a City to not have them anywhere in the community. With
that, I'd like to move forward.
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix
Anthony Gleekel, 1350 100 Washington Sq. , Mpls. I am here to
speak about the amortization provision in the non-conforming use
portion of the ordinance, Section 14.7-4. But before that, I was
here in October of 1991 on behalf of another client who was at
6213-6217 W. Lake St. Mr. City Manager, when you were mentioning
8
zoning changes from the original ordinance, I did not hear that
property. I've talked with Mr. Rye about it, whether that's
something that already has been changed, but I think it was
recommended that property be R and the recommendation was changed
to RC and I don't know if that would be part of this ordinance
or if it's already been done.
Mayor: We'll check with staff.
Rye: That change has been made on the proposed map.
Gleekel: I'm here on behalf of Apple Valley Red-E-Mix and was
recently retained by St. Louis Park Auto Body, really the salvage
part of their operation. We object to the proposed amendment to
the Section 14 .7-4 of the City's zoning ordinance which, as you
know, allows for amortization of all uses "not permitted" in any
zoning district. My understanding is that there are only three of
those uses; Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Al's Liquor and the St. Louis
Park Auto. In order to fall within the ordinance, it is my
understanding that the use has to be not permitted within the
City of St. Louis Park. I will take heed to what the Mayor said
about legal opinions, I will not try to propose any legal
opinions here and will present them in writing. But there is one
exhibit I'd like to present to the City (Exhibit 2) . I've given
you a legal opinion from the Court of Appeals and will not get
into it in depth, but the reason I feel this is very relevant is
that in 1954 the plant was constructed and in 1959 the City
amended its ordinance and passed an ordinance that permitted
ready mix plants in industrial districts with a special use
permit as long as the plant was not within 400 ft. of a
residential district. AVR's plant was within 400 ft. of a
residential district so at that time, in 1959, it became a legal,
non-conforming use. In 1973 the City amended its zoning
ordinance. One of the things it did was eliminate ready mix
plants in industrial districts altogether. In the early 80's,
Jerry Duffy who was representing AVR brought a declaratory
judgment action seeking invalidation of that 1973 ordinance
insofar as it provided for elimination of ready mix plants as
permitted uses within industrial districts. Exhibit 2 is a Court
of Appeals decision from 1984 . In that case, the court held that
the City of St. Louis Park failed to provide evidence to support
elimination of ready mix plants as permitted uses in industrial
districts. It further stated and held that the ordinance was void
and of no effect for AVR. The reason I bring this up is because
this ordinance, if passed, only eliminates over a period of time
which would later be determined non-conforming uses which are not
permitted within the City of St. Louis Park. My contention with
this exhibit in this case is that as to AVR, it is a legal non-
conforming use but it does not fall within the category of not
permitted within the City. I think the case speaks for itself and
I will supplement it with a letter with other legal issues to the
Mayor and City Attorney. But I strongly state that what's going
on here as to AVR is the same thing, virtually, that happened in
1973 when there was an attempt to eliminate AVR as a use at that
time. The same thing is going on here and I believe that the case
9
takes AVR out of that category of uses not permitted within the
City under the current ordinance. The court also stated that
absent a determination that the ready mix plant was a nuisance,
the City could not simply legislate the business out of existence
and that's what this legislation is, legislating AVR and St.
Louis Park Auto as well as Al's Liquor, out of business. Whatever
that period of time is set, what it is is legislation, a harsh
piece of legislation stating to this operators that you can no
longer do business within the City. There is no nuisance here as
far as AVR nor do I believe there has been any nuisance proved as
far as St. Louis Park Auto. As far as AVR, on two separate
occasions - one which was within the last 12 months --- there was
criminal complaints brought against AVR as far as one was an air
pollution violation I believe a number of years ago and in
December of 1991, which was litigated in March 1992, was a noise
pollution criminal complaint, a criminal violation. Both of those
were dismissed at the District Court level. The court found that
there was not sufficient evidence and the City's ordinances were
in violation of the State ordinances. So my first point as far as
AVR is concerned is (1) Exhibit 2 takes us out of that category
of uses that are not permitted within the City and if this
ordinance were to be passed, it is our position it would not
apply to AVR; (2) there has been no evidence there is a nuisance
and what this legislation is is legislating a business out of
operation which is in violation of that same Exhibit 2 . The
second issue is that AVR and on behalf of St. Louis Park Auto it
is their opinion we're treating these non-conforming uses, those
uses that are not permitted within the City, differently than
other non-conforming uses within the City, that this is a
discriminatory act and it's a violation of the owners' right to
equal protection. Again, I will not get into that, deferring to
the Mayor's wish not to get into legal arguments. But that is
something that I will grieve to the City Attorney. The third
point I have to make is that even if the City has a right to
prohibit AVR, Al's Liquor, St. Louis Park Auto those three uses
that it has basically defined as those- not permitted within the
City, that the City has not taken sufficient evidence to support
a number of items which are the fundamental building blocks to
this type of ordinance. As was summarized here by Mr. Rye and the
City Manager as to what had occurred over the past 13 months, my
understanding is that there has been a task force, there's been a
draft ordinance, there's been a public hearing in August of 1991
and one on October 23, 1991, there's been some staff memos, I'm
sure there's been attorney memos, but there hasn't been actual,
that we've seen or been notified of, testimony being taken by
whether it be City staff as experts or outside experts, to
support various items of this ordinance. Items for which I'd say
there has been a lack of evidence are as follows: Evidence as to
why the ready mix plant or St. Louis Park Auto is different than
other permitted industrial uses within the City and that goes
under the discrimination/equal protection claim; evidence to
support a "class" in the current proposed ordinance, it needs to
be submitted and how those relate specifically to setting an
amortization period; evidence as to how and why AVR's ready mix
plant is incompatible with the neighbors; evidence that the use
10
is not maintained, either on the St. Louis Park Auto or AVR; and
evidence that AVR is a nuisance. My request tonight, and I do
have Mr. Senecal with me and he is an appraiser who appraises
ready mix plants, the equipment and the going concern, is that
these staff memos and the attorney memos and the task force
recommendations are not sufficient evidence and I would request
because we are prepared to call an economist and land planner and
other parties to rebut City evidence as to the evidence that you
will use to support this ordinance if you do approve it this
evening. And I would ask specifically that an adequate and
complete record be made available to us and specifically ask that
a hearing examiner be appointed to hear evidence on these issues
to allow for cross-examination, to allow us to rebut evidence,
to challenge the foundation of opinions as you could challenge
the foundation of our opinions, to determine whether relevant
evidence had been received and I submit that it has not. And I
would ask that before the evening is over, the Mayor and Council
rule on that specific request for a hearing examiner or an
examination by this Council at another time to take the evidence
of our witnesses that we estimate would take a half day to a day
to bring in. This is a very important, has a major impact on this
business. The bottom line is that one period of time this
business is going to be told by the City of SLP that if this
ordinance passes, that he no longer can operate. This is very
serious to us, it is very serious to St. Louis Park Auto and I'm
sure it is serious to Al's Liquor. And that is why we believe the
City should have the evidence, that it's good policy that the
City take evidence and we have an opportunity to cross-examine
and to present our arguments and you have an opportunity to
cross-examine our witnesses. As to the specific provisions of the
ordinance really quickly: the registration provision -- we
believe if - this is on the asumption that again as far as AVR is
concerned I do not believe the ordinance would apply if it passed
- but if it did, the registration provision is very onnerous upon
the few landowners who would have to comply with it. One in
particular is the tax returns to try to determine the length of
an amortization provision. Even in certain litigation context,
tax returns are not discoverable. So I don't believe that's an
item that should be on that list. Again I don't believe there has
been any evidence that that information being sought relates to
an amortization period that will be set under the ordinance. The
determination of the amortization period following the 90 days
after the application is submitted -- there is no evidence, it is
all written. AVR or the other operators would have no opportunity
to come to another public hearing and be heard as far as the
length of period of time. The way I read the ordinance, and
correct me if I'm wrong, is that once the application is
submitted with all the information, recommendation from staff
goes to the City Council and the City Council will issue a
resolution on the time period. Without that public
hearing, I would contend and again I will reassert this in a
letter that that is a violation of these owners' procedural due
process rights, taking a right away without having a public
hearing on that issue. Another issue is because the way the
ordinance is drafted, it does not appear on its face -- it
11
appears it's a very subjective determination. If someone were to
review the ordinance and determine how long do I, you know, if
I'm a non-conforming use whether I'm going to be amortized out
and how long I have, and I would submit that that makes this
ordinance void for vagueness under the Constitution. As to Mr.
Senecal, it appears that from what the City has decided to do --
and that is go from a position where we're going to amortize all
non-conforming uses in the City to just those that are not
permitted -- that you made a decision that it is a very harsh
ordinance as to those non-conforming uses. I submit that the same
reasons, the same business conclusions, the same common sense
applies to AVR and St. Louis Park Auto Body as well as to why
you tone the ordinance down to only the three uses it has. But it
appears that you focus on these uses and our guess, and that's
all it can be at this point, is that the period of time may be
shorter than the actual useful life of the operation because of
those uses you've decided to take out. And because of that fact
and because the ordinance is drafted in such a way that we cannot
have live testimony when a determination is being made as far as
how long the use is, if the ordinance is passed and if it's
determined it applies at least to AVR, but definitely on behalf
of St. Louis Park Auto. But on AVR's behalf, I have brought Mr.
Senecal here who is an appraiser. Now, my request for a different
hearing at a different time and not taking the people who are
standing behind me's time up with lengthy and boring testimony
for them to listen to, I don't know if you want to rule on it now
because I could bring Mr. Senecal up and have him talk and I
could do that based on your decision that you're not going to
have more time or, he's from Green Bay and we had to bring him
now because his schedule has a lot of conflicts in December.
Mayor: I believe at tonight's public hearing Mr. Senecal should
speak.
Gleekel: O.K. , I'll have him speak and then I guess I'd request
if that is a denial of our request for having this matter heard
either before you at a different time in order to bring our . . .
Mayor: I didn't say anything about that. You asked if he should
speak, don't put words in what I said.
Gleekel: O.K. , your honor, Mr. Mayor. I will have him speak. Mr.
Senecal, you will speak for a very short period of time and I
will submit as Exhibit 3 his resume just so you have it in your
records.
Mayor: Thank you.
Gleekel: You're welcome. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor and the committee, my name is Joe Senecal, I'm from
Green Bay, Wisconsin. I own a business called Midwest Equipment
Company which is a nation-wide company. We specialize only in
concrete equipment, that's concrete plants, concrete trucks,
block plants, pipe plants, anything relating to concrete
12
equipment. We also sell and buy equipment nation-wide. I've had
the opportunity to do appraisal work for practically all of
Minneapolis and the State of Minnesota. I've done it for Apple
111 Valley, for Sandstone, I've done it for all the rest of them
around here and I am a certified appraiser , and I'm probably the
only one in the country that specialize in this field. As far as
the concrete plant belonging to St. Louis Park, this plant is not
a spring chicken plant. It's got some age on it, but a plant can
last an enormous length of time -- it can last for 60-70 years.
I've appraised plants that I thought came across on the Mayflower
and they're still operating. So, plants, if they're well
maintained and they got taken good care of, they can last for a
long time. We're havin' a problem with concrete plants around the
country. This is not the only place. For some reason, everybody
got to have concrete, everybody needs concrete but yet we got a
problem with concrete plants, and it's the zoning that makes the
problem with the concrete plants and because of the zoning, it
now makes the concrete plants very, very valuable. So anybody
that has a concrete plant that's up and operating, it's worth a
lot of money. To move a plant today, similar to the St. Louis
Park one, and relocate it, you'd be talkin' about anywhere from a
million five to a million eight easy. But, I, I don't know.
It's. . .concrete plants getting to be a problem around the
country, but. . .I'd like to answer more, but, I guess I told you
what I think.
Mayor: Have you been out to the Apple Valley plant?
Senecal: Yep, I've been at every one of his plants. I've done
them all.
Mayor: In other words, the statement you're making is sort of the
statement every city's having problems with. . .
Senecal: No, not necessarily. . .
Mayor: I think that's what I understood you to say.
Senecal: Some cities are. . .some cities will go along with it. It
depends where the plants are. There are some plants that are
right downtown, but they're portable plants and portable plants
either the city lets allow that for a certain period of time and
then they move out. In a stationary plant similar to Apple
Valley's, you just can't move it about, and if he's been there
for some time, to rezone him, I can tell you it costs money.
Mayor: Thank you. I think by looking through the cards Rita or
Florence Flugar would probably be on this subject.
Florence Flugar: I'm Florence Flugar from 3320 Louisiana Ave. ,
unit 412 , St. Louis Park, 55426. I am speaking on behalf of the
people at 3300 On the Park which is a condominium of 128 units.
We are right across the street from the AVR plant that has just
111 been discussed. It's. . .to us the noise and the dust from the
plant really are a great nuisance. We support the amortization
13
provision to be free of these disturbances. In the purpose and
effect paragraph on page 111 of the new zoning ordinance, it
states that the city has as one of its purposes for our district,
which is R4 or multiple family residence district, one of the
purposes is to protect the residential properties from noise,
illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration,
heat, glare and other objectionable influences. But actually,
daily there is a great deal of noise and dust and sometimes
vibration coming from the plant. I'd like to read tonight a few
statements from some of the people from 3300 On the Park who
could not be here tonight and they asked me if I would report
back to you what their experiences have been. They're sort of
homely statements and I think they'll tell you very simply and
sort of plainly what the problems are. This first one is from Ann
Thomas, unit 313 . This is what Ann says: "The dust blows right
across the road into my unit. It's like sand. It's miserable. I
keep my windows closed and I can't sit out on my balcony. The
dust is like a brown sediment and settles on everything. When it
rains and pools of water gather on my plastic patio chairs, a
dark sediment floats ontop of the water. " Now, that's the dust,
you see from the plant. Linda Feldman in unit 411 says this:
"During three seasons of the year, I can't open my windows
because of the noise. This past summer, which was very cool and
most people didn't use the air conditioners very often, I had to
run mine in order to get fresh air without admitting the noise,
especially when my young child needed to sleep. I wouldn't have
bought here if I had known about the plant. " Shirley Segal is
unit 413 says: "I have to dust my apartment every other day. A
film is left after just 2 days and it is difficult to clean
because the dust gets sticky. I suffer asthma since moving in
here -- something I've never had before. " I think Shirley moved
in 3 1/2 years ago. Agnes Lawless, unit 107 says: "I dust my
patio every day and I mean really dust often using Windex or a
damp cloth to make the chairs and tables clean enough to be
useable. My patio is screened and I have to clean the screens at
least once a week in summer because they get so dirty. " And Roman
and Heldy Courts of unit 527 just said: "We're sick and tired of
the noise and dust. " In our opinion the constant presence of this
noise and dust does violate the rights of homeowners who live in
this R4 multiple family residential district. Thank you.
Rita Flugar: I live at the same address as my sister, Florence. I
merely wanted to draw your attention to the condition of the
street of Louisiana Ave. right outside by the plant. Very often
in summer you drive out and there's this kind of a funny haze and
dust and little bits of sand. The least they could do is clean it
up.
Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to this particular
item?
Betty Gates: I'm also a resident of 3300 Louisiana Ave. I have
been the chairman of this group that has been working for 3 years
on this problem. As the gentleman said before, there seems to be
no nuisance involved. Well, I'm afraid we as residents disagree,
14
there is a lot of nuisance involved with Apple Valley. In fact,
she not only read some articles from other residents of the
building that could not attend; but we have a number of people
here tonight. I wish they would stand from our condominium. That
is just to prove they're behind us 100%. Now, I understand there
is a possibility of amortization which evidently is being bought.
Now is there a possibility that this will not go through. And
also is there a large enough buffer zone to Apple Valley.
Mayor: We're only taking testimony tonight so I'm not goin' to
sit up here . . .
Betty: " I understand. But we also wonder if something could be
checked on the buffer zone area of Apple Valley which does not
seem to be very large.
Mayor: OK, we can check that.
Betty: I have here a record of the ladies before me that worked
on this committee and my present committee chairmanship notes.
Rather than read it, should I just hand it in?
Mayor: Just give it to the Director. Anyone else wanting to
speak?
Yea, I'm Rich Castillo with St. Louis Park Auto. Just wanted to
state that this ?? really hurt our business cuz customers I've
been doing business with for years are questioning as to whether
we're going to be doing business in the future. They're wondering
if we've been violating any laws because they think they're
amortizing our company. We've been singled out or basically like
we feel we're being discriminated against other businesses in the
area. There are other businesses who do more business than us --
have semis, there's a railroad track, they have more traffic. As
to some of the laws as to why they want us out, or consider us as
a junk yard, we don't see ourselves as a junk yard, we see
ourselves as a recycling center. We provide services for the
community, we recycle batteries, oil, anti-freeze, fluorcarbons
in the environment are no longer being exposed. We have
containments, you know, for that. We recycle precious metals such
as aluminum, lead, brass, steel and that's part of, you know,
what the 90's is all about, is recycling. So we feel we provide a
service for the community as well. We're no longer a junk yard
and that's how we were stated in the newspaper clipping. We also
feel we never got any letters, they never invited us -- although
we know that you can read this, you know, in the newspaper when
next meeting is -- but we felt we were exluded all out of this.
Mayor: Are you the owner of the property?
Rich: I'm the son. . .my dad owns the place.
Mayor: Actually owns the property?
Rich: No, rents the property
15
Mayor: Probably the property owner was the one that was informed.
I believe that property owner has been very consistent and very
concerned about his zoning on that property.
Rich: But it does affect my business even though I do lease from
him.
Mayor: Right, Anyone else? If not then, we've heard the testimony
and we'll move on to the next cards. We thank you for coming,
those that have spoken to this.
Mayor: Randy Hansen
Hansen: Thank you Mayor Hanks, City Manager and City
Councilmembers. I just want to take an opportunity tonight to
urge you to indeed vote for the rezoning of Fantasy House to an
industrial area and to enforce the two year amortization rule. I
am totally behind that and want to express that. I gonna assume
that a major objective of a city council is to provide its
residents a safe and thriving community and on a local level to
provide its residents with their Constitutional right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now in approaching
leadership, if you do nothing out of ignorance, that's kind of
forgiveable; but if once you know the facts, and I want to win
you tonight, not be opposed to you, but I want to be your friend,
but if you know something as a leader then you need to do
something about it too. There was a mention in the report about
the link between pornography and criminal sexual child abuse and
•
there was actually a report cited in there, copies of which I'd
like to submit as Exhibit 1 to the Council.
Mayor: Does this have anything to do with zoning?
Hanson: Yes.
Mayor: I think I must clear up one thing. The only thing we're
amortizing are things that are not allowed anywhere else in the
community after this zoning ordinance.
Hanson: I'm a little bit new to the whole thing, so I did hear
that but I didn't understand that and so, I'll tell you what,
I'll give you this and I've got about 2 minutes here and I'm
done. This is a report done by the Los Angeles Police Department
and it shows the linkage between pornography and criminal sexual
child abuse, actual arrests that are done. You can read that for
yourselves. It does show a statistically significant relationship
between the two. I live. . .we do have before us a low risk method
to further limit the access to items sold at Fantasy House via
the zoning as well as the two year amortization rule, and I
didn't, until doing this study. . . looking at this myself, I didn't
realize I live 3 blocks from the Fantasy House. I didn't realize
I live in a dangerous community, and I fear for my children. I
appeal to you to protect my family's right to a safe community
and urge you not only to vote for the rezoning but also to
enforce the 2 year amortization rule.
16
Mayor: We don't have a two year amortization rule, I got to
repeat that. We've only included amortization to get rid of
businesses that we felt should not be here that we could get rid
of. The First Amendment I believe this Council has reviewed, has
asked our Attorney and allow that somewhere in our community
unless we want to spend thousands of dollars fighting it and
everyone has lost because of the First Amendment, we have moved
the adult uses into the industrial area.
Hanson: That's an industrial area it's in right now?
Mayor: No. But anyone who came in would have to go there.
Hanson: OK. I guess what I'm asking is that if there is anything
else that can legally be done to limit the access to adult
materials that the Council has not entertained yet, that's
what. . .
Mayor: I'm not arguing that point with you at all. I don't think
though that it is a zoning issue. Because we've told you where
we're going to zone it. OK?
Hanson: OK
Paul Olson, 2837 Yosemite, I guess I want to encourage you for
what you're trying to do and certainly we have a great
responsibility to one another and appreciate the zoning that
you've worked on and hopefully trying to work it out to the best
of all of us. I think we realize, too, that we in our nation
including our own city of St. Louis Park, we have come into a
situation where we find it hard to stand up against things that
are harmful to our children, we older folk as well and in
between. I think of it so often as we vote you men into, and
women, into responsibility that you have that we then pray for
those in authority over us and in that as well. You then as well
as us become accountable to God for what we do and God will hold
us accountable to that, so I want you to take that in a kind
manner, not coming from me but coming from God's word. And so, I
thank you and as God's word shares, the sin is a reproach to any
nation and so we need to reach out for that which is right. . .
Mayor: Sir, I don't disagree with you, but we're off the zoning.
Sorry. I've got to keep this on zoning or otherwise when people
read the record, there's going to be questions of what we're
discussing tonight. I'm going through the cards and if I get
someone who's not on this issue, just let me know.
Leland Pommrehn, 3917 Xenwood Ave. I live approximately 2 blocks
from the so-called adult use, Fantasy House. I come before you as
a father and husband concerned for the safety and protection of
my children. If I understand right, we're not really talking
about moving Fantasy House and that greatly concerns me.
Mayor: Only if Fantasy House was going to move in this community
or anything happened to it it would have to relocate in an
17
industrial area according to this zoning.
Pommrehn: I guess I just want to finish what I have here so it
goes on the record as a father and as a husband concerned for my
family. I'm not a member of a group or any organization. I come
here on behalf of my family. I'm concerned about the direction
that our society is going in in the matter or pornography and
sexual immorality. Allow me to quote the Police Chief in a matter
that he wrote in the Sailor newspaper in response to the
abduction of a five year old child: "As a community we all have
the responsibility for the safety of others, particularly those
who are most vulnerable. . . . .It takes a community to keep a child
safe. Adults need to ensure the environment to keep a child safe.
Just as a village educates a child, our community needs to keep
our children safe. " And this means to me my 3 young daughters of
10, 8 and 6. You have made St. Louis Park a model of protecting
the environment where recycling is concerned; you have every tree
that is planted on public property recorded in the zoning and
that's great and very necessary. But now, we the citizens of St.
Louis Park demand that our moral environment be treated with
equal concern with the same fervor. Chief Mitchell's comments fit
right into this issue. I ask that you be leaders in action
against the effects of the cultural toxic waste of pornography by
enacting zoning ordinances to the strictest letter of the law.
And if you do that, you will protect my family, our families and
our children. My hope is that you would make wise and thoughtful
decisions in this new environmental front we face as a society.
The decisions you make now will affect my family and my
children's families. As a community, we cannot afford to become
an environmentally immoral waste land and the questions I have
are: where are we going as a society in this area? where are you
taking us as citizens in St. Louis Park? I believe as a community
we can be in the forefront in this environmental battle. I thank
you for all the hard work and time and effort in making St. Louis
Park a model community that we the citizens can and will be proud
of. Thank you.
Mayor: Thank you. I don't disagree. I think this Council agrees,
that's why it's setting in industrial zoning right now.
Marion Gilbertson, 3940 Zarthan. I'm here tonight on adult
businesses and I was going to say more. I was going to say more
but I guess I won't say what I was gonna say. But I do believe
sex oriented adult businesses do have a negative secondary effect
on a community. It has been proven by not using every available
resource to restrict this form of business would be negligent in
providing a safe community and I do believe there's got to be a
way to get Fantasy House out of our neighborhood. I don't want to
see it grandfathered in. Thank you.
Alyce Ten Cate, 3831 Glenhurst and I represent the group called
Park Citizens Against Pornography. Thank you for zoning any new
sex businesses into the general industrial area away from our
homes. I can see where the misunderstanding is from some of these
people talking about zoning. The new businesses or changes in the
18
present sex-oriented businesses would require them to be moved,
but the present business, I believe, would stay where it is. I
hate coming back to you to beg to include other restrictions but
we want to preserve our family life, our safety and the culture
of our neighborhoods. Our requests are not unreasonable. We're
talking about land use and we have researched the proposals that
we've given before and I'm going to reiterate just briefly
tonight. The Attorney General's Report On The Regulation of
Sexually-Oriented Businesses supports our request. The following
five items are critical to good zoning. Number 1 is licensing -
you tell me it's not zoning but licensing is included in the
legal cases that we've read and so we are including it here. Let
me make it clear that we are asking only for the licensing of
primary use sex businesses, that is licensing only those
businesses which are totally devoted to sex oriented materials.
Second thing is special amortization with a two-year deadline on
the existing sex business. Why would the City Council want to
make a Council decision when the courts already uphold special
amortization. There is no harm in a hardware store being where it
is a non-conforming use, but there is well documented,
identifiable harm in sex-oriented business and we want special
amortization for sex-oriented business to be moved into the
general industrial area. The third is to prohibit peep booths.
With current zoing, they are legal and could be in St. Louis Park
tomorrow, I believe. Save yourselves some time and money by
zoning those out before they move in . Number four: Add more
definitive language in the spacing conditions to keep sex
businesses apart. Do you realize that the wording now, the
current wording, would allow the parking lots of two sex oriented
businesses to adjoin? Our legal advice from Mr. Gene ??. a former
Florida judge and prosecutor gave this advice: Add the words
"from property line to property line. " It would save a lot of
hassle. Number five, and this is the last, reduce the floor space
requirement as the determining factor for a sex-oriented store
from 30% to 10%. Spring Lake Park has adopted the 10% spacing
factor and the City of Ramsey has 10% of its stock in trade or
floor area which you have. . .I think we've changed our wording in
that and it probably is equal in that, trade or floor area. But
this is for adults' primary use and Ramsey's is also for
accessory uses. Just in August of 1992, District Court Judge
Diana Murphy ruled in favor of the City of Ramsey upholding their
present zoning. The five items are not unreasonable. So that you
can see the concern, I'm wondering, I don't know most of these
people here, but I'm wondering if the people that came because of
this issue, asking you to include more restrictive ordinances for
sex businesses would raise their hands? A gentleman council
member from another suburb told me that if 25 or 50 people were
concerned about an issue, it was a time for a council to take
notice and we are serious about this. This is a problem and we
want it made a priority.
Suzanne Pforr, this in regards to a zoning ordinance or
amortization of Fantasy House out of our neighborhood and into an
industrial area because of the incident I will state in my
letter. First of all, my name is Suzanne Pforr and I used to live
19
at 4165 Yosemite for 13 years. I have now moved, I have moved
because of Fantasy House and the fear and anger that it brings to
its surrounding neighborhood. Fantasy House and places like it
have been proven nationwide to draw very undesirable people. This
has also been proven in my old neighborhood which is only two
blocks from Fantasy House and the proof lies in your police
records. Many incidences, many, have occurred with adults and
children alike. But I'll name you just one. It happened April 1 a
couple of years ago. My neighbor two houses away had her two
little girls playing in the front yard. From her window she was
watching them play when a man stopped his car but left the engine
running, stepped out of his car leaving the door open and headed
towards the two little girls. Immediately the husband then came
out of the house and immediately the man took off. What would
have happened if that husband would have not come out? One of
those little girls, I believe, would have been kidnapped. I
believe our block is also a target because of the easy access to
Hwy. 100 where a person could disappear in the traffic. They
don't even have to cross over onto Excelsior Blvd. They can just
take off into the traffic. Now as I close, I ask you one
question, City Council--if you on the City Council consider
yourselves to be intelligent, wise up before your children or our
neighbors' children disappear and zone and move Fantasy House out
of our neighborhood. Thank you.
Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, City Manager and others, my
name is Sue Arnold, I live at 1608 Jersey Ave. So. Although I've
been following the Council's actions regarding the zoning of
sexually-oriented or adult use businesses, this is the first time
I have addressed the City Council and I thank you for theIII
opportunity to do so. In the current zoning proposal you have
included a provision for sexually oriented businesses to be
permitted only in areas zoned for general industrial use. But
there are several areas in which I feel the zoning proposal falls
short in providing adequate means to maintain the quality of
urban life that the citizens of St. Louis Park desire and are
entitled to. I am asking that you add a special amortization to
the zoning ordinance in which existing businesses would be
required to comply with that zoning ordinance. In the Report of
the Attorney General's Working Group on the Regulation of
Sexually-Oriented Businesses, it includes the results from a
study done by the Minneapolis Crime Prevention Center and I
quote: "According to the statistical analysis conducted in the
Minneapolis study, the addition of one sexually oriented business
in a census tract area will cause an increase in the overall
crime rate index in that area by 9. 15 crimes per thousand people
per year even if all other social factors remain unchanged. " I
could quote from many other sources that have substantiated
negative effects of sexually oriented businesses on surrounding
neighborhoods , but I think this one statistic in itself would
lead the majority to agree that the number of years in which
these crimes could continue to be perpetrated on St. Louis Park
citizens should be restricted. The Minnesota Supreme Court has
also stated and I quote: "The Legislature, in giving
municipalities broad land use planning powers, could not have
III
20
intended to render them ineffective by denying to municipalities
the power to eliminate pre-existing non-conforming uses. The U.S.
Court of Appeals upheld a three year amortization period for
zoning of sexually-oriented businesse. In the case of the City
of Dallas vs. Stumas, the court stated that the provision of a
zoning ordinance providing for a 3-year amortization period for a
sexually oriented business deemed a non-conforming use because of
its location was constitutional as a valid mechanism to enforce
valid locational regulations. In the memorandum opinion for that
case, it states that such amortization clauses are uniformly
upheld. For example in Hart Bookstores vs. Edmonson upheld a 6-
month amortization period; in North End Cinema Inc vs. Seattle
upheld a 3-month amortization period; in S. D. J. Inc. vs
Seattle, Houston upheld a 6-month amortization period. The 2-year
amortization period that I would like you to add is more generous
than others that have been upheld as a valid mechanism for
enforcing valid locational regulations and I urge you to use this
tool to reduce the negative effects of sexually oriented
businesses in our community. The law of zoning (unintelligible)
to the citizens of St. Louis Park and to surrounding communities
that the safety and well being of St. Louis Park citizens is a
priority. Thank you.
Tom Maas, 4100 Wooddale Ave. and I'd like to make this short and
hopefully to the point. I'm hear tonight to address the City
Council about the zoning ordinance with regard to sex oriented
adult businesses and especially the Fantasy House. I'm especially
concerned with the fact that the current zoning ordinance does
not prohibit the operation of so-called peep booths or video
arcades within these establishments. As I understand the sex
oriented adult business currently operating in St. Louis Park
does not operate peep booths; however, there is no provision in
the city ordinance which would explicitly prohibit them from
opening one up. I firmly believe that we must clearly prohibit
peep booths and video arcades from being established in order to
protect this community from the numerous secondary effects of
health and safety risk that accompany them. Now, I'd like to
share with you some of the observations and insights gained from
officials from other communities within which porn shops have
been allowed to operate peep booths. What I'm about to share with
you may sound crude, disgusting, absurd, but I feel you should
know the facts as to what does happen in these peep booths and to
also let you know I fear the day when an official of St. Louis
Park might have to get up and share these crude insights with the
press if we do not put this prohibition against peep booths in
the city's ordinance. And both of these officials have had
extensive experience operating and dealing with these peep booths
and the problems that arise from them. According to Sgt. Don
Smith of the Los Angeles Police Dept. , and I quote: "Arcade
booths are nothing more than a location where a guy can
masturbate or have sex with someone else. They are nothing more
than open whore houses. " In addition according to Scott Raft who
is the Asst. D.A. of Brower County in Miami, Florida the health
111 threat associated with peep booths can be enormous. And again, I
quote: "It is very difficult given the nature of the way the
21
business is set up for businesses like this to run without
constantly running the risk of health problems. The conditions of
the booths are horrendous. There has been constant evidence of
fresh and dried semen in puddles dripping from the walls. Used
condoms and the empty jelly packets and so forth on the floor and
all the potential health risk that go along with it. " I don't
know about you but this makes my skin crawl. I contend that it
does not take a Jonas Salk or an AIDS expert to know that the
health risks associated with this type of activity are
insidiously dangerous. It also doesn't take a Carl Jung to tell
us that this type of deviant sexual behavior is not only
psychologically harmful to the person but also to those
vulnerable members of our society who may come into contact with
such a person. It also doesn't take a Nobel prize winning
sociologist to tell you that the people who are drawn to peep
booths are not the type of people that community leaders want
frequenting their neighborhoods at day and especially not at
night. And especially in neighborhoods where children are
present. I beg this Council to assure that the city's zoning
ordinance includes a provision which would explicity prohibit the
establishment or operation of peep booths in St. Louis Park. Not
only do they pose enormous and serious health risks, but they
also attract the sexual deviant behavior that is both a moral and
criminal threat to our children, our neighbors and our community.
As a mere citizen concerned about the future of St. Louis Park, I
beg you to ban peep booths from this city; however, as a citizen
concerned about the safety of our children, I demand that you do
it.
Mayor: Anyone else want to speak on this issue? If not, I thank
you for the testimony on this item and we'll move on to others.
Scott Weicht with Adolphson & Peterson, 6701 W. 23rd, I'm part of
the Edgewood industrial group. Just wanted to mention that the
industrial group is supporting the zoning ordinance as it's been
revised and wanted to just bring to your attention that there are
a couple of items that we still had to get some final language on
and the reason it wasn't done earlier is that it did not pertain
specifically to the neighbors, it was something that was
overlooked earlier with our mediation meetings that we had. And
the item I wanted to mention was with regard to fencing and it's
something that we could probably just work with the department
here and it has to do with the need of having fencing along the
railroad tracks. Where right now it is a little easier for us to
maintain and keep clear of debris, the easement or the area there
between our land and the railroad fence and not having any fence,
so if we could possibly have that as an option to be able to put
a fence up either steel or wood instead of right now the way it
is would actually be required.
Mayor: Maybe you could put that in form of writing and work with
staff and tonight will be the first reading and those adjustments
can possible be looked at before the second reading.
22
Weicht: We've planning on doing that and having something in
writing by the 30th, I believe. That's all I had.
Leland Gottstein, I own property at 2219-29 Edgewood and 2231-35
Edgewood for some years, have been here since 1962. First of all,
Mr. Mayor, I want to compliment the Planning Commission and staff
for the wonderful job they did in helping us with the State
arbitrator. He was truly a professional person and was able to
sort out major differences down to our present status. So I think
that ought to be noted because it helped us. As Scott said the
only reason we're bringing these up this evening is to make it a
matter of record so that we can submit for the second reading the
suggested revisions so the fence is one issue and the other I'd
like to make a note of is the parking for the storage yard
requirement. It has been in existence for some years but we are
in the process of making a survey and we discussed this with Mr.
Rye. We think the parking requirement for storage yards ought to
be rediscussed and redefined. It won't impact anyone and I think
this again will be submitted with recommendations at the second
reading. We just wanted to make a matter of record so that it is
open. The third item that we have is parking ordinance itself. We
think there is too wide a gap between pure warehouse and office
and manufacturing use where the mandate of 10 cars to start a
manufacturing is too punitive and we think there ought to be an
in-between classification that will accommodate the more high
tech office warehouse use that's prevalent today. Here again,
we'll make our recommendations in writing for the second reading.
We just thought we'd make it a matter of record so it is open for
discussion at the next meeting.
Gary Gandrud, 90 So. 7th St. , Mpls. I'm here on behalf of
Cineplex Odeon and Ken Segal the national director of real estate
and would like to say a couple of words to you regarding the
staff report but let me summarize my comments by saying that we
came to the staff with a severe problem. They recognized it and
after a lot of thoughtful discussion and investigation, we came
up with some language that is in the recommendation to you and we
wholeheartedly support that recommendation. I'd like Ken Segal to
address you a little bit to reinforce that statement.
Ken Segal, I'm director of real estate for Cineplex Odeon from
Toronto, Canada. I think Gary summarized it quite effectively. We
did have a serious concern over the 0 zoning with respect to
limiting the flexibility of what we could do with the existing
site. Without getting into any real details, we were concerned it
didn't provide enough flexibility in terms of the high office
vacancy rates that we have in the area, some receiverships in the
area and we didn't see any near or long-term solutions as to what
we could do with this property other than just leave it as a
vacant site which would not do any benefit for the community or
naturally for us. We approached the city, we did find something
that would come to some kind of resolution of the matter that
would allow some flexibility also keeping within the character of
the 0 zoning, and all I'd like to say is that I'd like to
respectfully ask that the Council adopt their recommendations.
23
Bill Thibault, 450 Ford Rd. , SLP. I'm here tonight representing
Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. and also from the firm is John
McCain. Belt Line Industrial Park opposes the proposed zoning to
change the zoning from the existing I-2 industrial to I-P. We
have a number of grounds for that disagreement and that
opposition. I'd like to take just one minute however and briefly
summarize some of the history that we reviewed in reaching our
decision. First of all, we find that the changes that have been
taking place in the area are very significant. You have in the
area a lot of changes north of 36th St. and you have changes that
are not industrial. That happens to be an area once zoned
industrial. To highlight a few of those items would include
Byerly's, Byerly's would not be a permitted use in the I-P
district as it now stands; you have Target - Target would not be
a permitted use in the industrial district as it now stands; you
have a residential facility called Wayside House that would not
be allowed; you have Parkshore Place which is a residential
development which would not be allowed, that was at one time also
zoned I-2 industrial and there is the bank office building which
perhaps would be allowed as a conditional use under the I-P
zoning. You also have before you as I understand it a proposal to
expand the Parkshore Place apartment development. That, of
course, would also be a non-industrial district. If you look at
the industrial area on the other side of Belt Line Industrial
Park in the Park Glen area, you have the Park Glen Apts. , the
Walden Wood Apts. and the Sheehan office building. All of those
items I've mentioned have one thing in common -- at one point
they were zoned industrial, they are now all of the high quality,
some of the best quality buildings you can see in the community,
Parkshore Place as an example, and they are in an area you have
not only allowed but in some cases have economically assisted and
fostered. They also have some commonality with the Belt Line
Industrial Park -- they are all served by the same community
facilities including the roadways: the interchange at Hwy. 100
and W. 36th St. , W. 36th St. itself, Belt Line Blvd. and Monterey
which recently has been widened again. I might also mention that
Belt Line Industrial Park provided some additional right of way
to allow the interchange to happen and the W. 36th St./Belt Line
extension. So the common theme there is that they are all in the
same area, all served by the same community facilities and these
significant and well deserved changes in the community have taken
place. The proposed zoning prohibits retail sales and service
uses but the current zoning does allow it. When I look at some of
the economic factors, we find that the development in the
industrial park area shows that about 50% of the value is in the
land and only 50% percent is in the building so for every
$100, 000 value in that area, $50, 000 is in the land. Contrast
that with those developments I just mentioned, you will find,
say, in the case of Parkshore Place, only 10% of the value is in
the land and 90% is in the building. Your own staff report
identifies that commercial land in that area is $5-$7 which will
allow for private redevelopment without city assistance
recognizing in their own report the land does have this high
value. We also looked at the industrial location and where
they're going and it appears that they have been moving and are
24
continuing to move to second and third suburban areas, they're
moving to areas where the land values are cheaper, they're moving
to areas where there is a generous supply of industrial land and
they tend to be moving into areas that are fairly close or right
on the interstate freeway system. If you look what has happened
recently in this particular area, you're not necessarily getting
new, quality type industrial uses. The museum is not an
industrial use, the recycling center which was in is now out and
then the RC, which is another new use in this particular area,
would not be what you would call a high quality industrial type
use either. If you look at what's happening in the nearby areas
in terms of residential development, there is no single family,
there is no two-family dwellings, no townhouses in this area,
it's essentially all commercial and office, retail sales and
service facilities. In conclusion, what we would like to propose
is essentially this, and we appreciate the opportunity spent at
the last City Council stu-y session to look at a couple of
options which I will mention briefly here: The Belt Line
Industrial Park strongly opposes the proposed I-P which
eliminates the retail sales and service uses; they propose that
you allow retail sales and service uses to continue in that area
just like they've been allowed for the past 32 years which would
allow for the kinds of changes that have taken place in quite an
impressive manner on nearby properties I just mentioned. If you
find that too difficult to accept, Belt Line Industrial Park has
recluctantly accepted alternative you talked about at the last
City Council study session study: One would be to allow retail
sales and service uses as conditional use under the PUD. Now,
we've mentioned that the R-C, high density residential district
which is much more restrictive than your I-P district already
allows, as your proposed ordinance stands, retail sales and
service uses under PUD. The last choice that Belt Line Industrial
Park has would that it be recognized formally that this is
transitional zoning and that that be placed in the zoning
ordinance. I believe, Mayor, you said that was a condition you
could support, that it be placed in the zoning ordinance to
specify that it is a transitional use and that the Council would
consider, actually approve, changes as have been happening and as
have happened in the past in the Excelsior Blvd. Redevelopment
District and in the Park Glen area. We have proposed specific
wording and that is included in our attachment at the bottom and
it states that the City recognizes that the I-P zoning in Belt
Line Industrial Park, First and Second editions, located north of
W. 36th St. and west of Belt Line Blvd. is transitional and in
the future the City will support changes in land use and zoning
similar to that allowed in the Excelsior Blvd. Redevelopment
District and Park Glen development on the plat of Belt Line
Business Park. We appreciate the opportunity to have made these
comments and thank you for your concern and consideration in the
past. We hope that you recognize that this 32 year old
industrial park is nearing its economic life and we propose that
you not freeze the zoning as you are proposing but to leave it
more open, that is to allow retail sales and service uses at
least, if by nothing else, by the PUD process or recognize that
it is a transitional kind of zoning. Belt Line would also like to
25
reconfirm its position with respect to_ the past reports and the
testimony that it has presented at previous Council meetings. We
would like to introduce as the exhibits that we have provided you
in the past and since you've mentioned that tonight, it would be
the Sept. 21 letter, the Sept. 3 report and letter which isIII
revised as of Sept. 21, the Nov. 19 letter and report and we
would like to introduce as an exhibit page 131 of the zoning
ordinance as it's proposed that allows retail sales and service
uses through the PUD process in the R-C residential zoning
district and we would also like that the minutes of our testimony
at the previous meetings also be included as exhibits.
My name is Elmer Kopp, 4328 W. 43 1/2 St. I'm a registered
engineer in the State of Minnesota and 9 other states in this
area. I spend a lot of time working on distressed buildings as a
matter of fact that's all I do now. I am particularly interested
in the architectural design section of the zoning ordinance .
You're wondering why I'm talking, I'm not an architect. I do
believe that we should be aware that the State law requires
drawings for any significant structure to be certified by a
registered architect and registered engineer. That registered
architect and registered engineer are professionals with at least
5 years of college education. I am particularly concerned about
the wording and the class of materials. What you are doing is
telling a professional architect or professional engineer that he
may or may not use particular materials on a building. It is not
the materials that create the problem -- it's how these materials
are used. I notice that, for instance, you have no cast in place
concrete. St. John's Abby, I don't know if any of you are
familiar with it, but certainly one of the significant structures
in the State of Minnesota is cast in place concrete. Pre-cast
concrete many times is used as a stone and I can show you pre-
cast concrete that you can't tell the difference between that and
stone. I believe that we're all interested in having nice looking
buildings. What happens when we get into something like this, I
just want to read: "The rooftop equipment shall be painted to
match the roof or the sky whichever is most effective. " How do
you match the sky: at night? during the day? when it's cloudy?
when the sun is shinning? how do we do that? You talk about
functional and maintenance, yet stucco and brick, and I have more
calls on problems with buildings with stucco and brick, than I
have with pre-cast. We have suggested to you that you look at the
potential of setting up an architectural review board. We also
note that the last part of this particular section in any
instance where the zoning administration denies a permit of
request for preliminary approval, so you do have the last say --
you still can declare what is acceptable and what is not
acceptable. I cannot believe that this Council would ever dictate
to a teacher which books it should use in educating children. I
cannot believe that this Council would dictate to an attorney how
to practice. I cannot believe that this Council would dictate to
a doctor how to practice, yet you are dictating to an architect,
a professional architect and engineer, how they should practice.
I don't think it is correct, I think you should re-review the
111
section and we would be happy to sit down with your people to
26
work on it. Thank you. Mayor: I believe that section has been
redone, right Mr. Rye?
Rye: Mayor, there were a number of changes made since the last
public hearing, that is correct.
Kopp: Sir, what you did was change one area from 60% to 25% for
Class 1 material. And that was about it. And that was changed in
only zones I-G and I-P.
Tom Powers, 2241 Hampsire, I'm here to address the Eliot View
discussion mediation and I just want to say as a member of the
residents side of the mediation, I feel we came up with the best
agreement possible to allow for the protection of the
neighborhood and to run profitable businesses under existing
conditions. I just want to put it on the record.
Mayor: Anyone else wishing to speak.
Bill Saly, 5622 Lake St. Well, I guess I should state I'm just
5622 because for the last year that's all I've been identified in
all the paperwork as 5622 . But I'm Bill Saly of the Roller
Garden. In case any of you don't know where your kids were today,
there were 30 over at the ice center, your taxpayers money,
playing hockey. There were another 343 over at the Roller Garden
roller skating. That's only kindergarten thru 5th grade. We spent
$3, 000 with an attorney to ward off amortization earlier this
year when it was deemed that maybe roller skating wasn't good for
the neighborhood. It's non-conforming, the zoning instead is
111 changing to R-4 which is multi density housing with the general
theme being that hopefully everything that's non-conforming
eventually goes away. We can only assume that at that point those
are using it are non-conforming. A young fellow over here, Mort
Lieder, he's non-conforming. He was skating yesterday morning.
Everett Carlson, he was non-conforming, he's 75, he was skating
Tuesday night on an adult night. There are a couple hundred
birthday kids that have had birthdays lately -- they're all non-
conforming. Simple answer: the people of St. Louis Park are using
the facility, St. Louis Park addresses. I even have a video of
today if anybody wants to watch 343 St. Louis Park kids doing the
bird dance, hokey pokey, all those things. Unlike adult stores,
the only battery operated device that we sell is a flashlight on
a key chain, a lot of fun with those. The simple thing that would
allow all these people to be conforming and doing what they want
to do -- special olympics Minnesota championships last Friday,
all kinds of schools all over -- Cl, commercial business. C1
business across the street from me. Cl business right next door.
Gas station next door - I sit here and I talk about people, they
don't like to be next to cement plants, they don't like to be
next to adult entertainment. I don't know that they would like to
live in a place next to a 24-hour gas station that's lit up. It
presently is doing something that the people of St. Louis Park
utilize. They utilize it. Cl zoning makes it legal. Still have to
do the lighting, the parking, the control. It fits, it just makes
sense. We've sat on it. We've thought, "Goodness, there's nothing
we can do. " After a new president got it, they just don't
27
understand. It dawned on me these are St. Louis Park kids. Lots
and lots of them. We know these kids, we know the families, we
have all along invited anybody to come and see who is skating. We
had a few that none of us did want -- taken care of that. I think
this is a viable option for it. Fits right in around us. Same
zoning. We do have skates that fit all of you, by the way.
Thanks.
Morton Lieder (talked about Roller Garden and how he likes to
skate)
The Deputy City Attorney asked to respond to some of the comments
made by Mr. Gleekel.
City Attorney: It is my recollection that Mr. Gleekel or
his partner Mr. Duffy participated in either the August 6, 1991 or
October 23, 1991 public hearing in 1991 and since then has had an
opportunity, if they chose to do so, to review the city records
and work with city staff, review the reports, so there has been
opportunity for them to look at the basis for the Council's
action and staff has been receptive to receiving additional
information from them. I'd also like to point out that the
proposed amortization provision is a legislative decision of the
Council. With respect to that, the constitutionality of the
proposed ordinance depends in part on two components: first
whether the elimination of the non-conforming use furthers the
substantial government interest. The second test. . .that's a
legislative decision, you as members of the Council looking at
the issues you've considered over the last 2 years, looking at
the record, looking in part at the comments you've received from
the public, it's up to your discretion. The second part of the
test on the constitutionality turns on whether the amortization
period is reasonable under the circumstances of a particular
case. Now, there are cases out there that have upheld
amortization provisions where a Council has decided or picked a
specific length of time. This proposed zoning ordinance gives Mr.
Gleekel and his clients exactly the kind of due process and
participation in a process to determine what is a reasonable
amortization time period. And finally, with respect to the due
process, or the equal protection analysis, I know that Mr.
Gleekel is aware that a denial of equal protection turns, in
part, on a determination as to whether the particular class is a
suspect class and deserves a higher degree of protection. I think
that the types of non-conforming uses that you are considering
amortizing don't fall within classification of suspect class and
therefore your legislative decision needs to rest on a rationale
basis. So, I would appreciate if the Council feels it's
appropriate receiving at least in part a list of the legal
issues that Mr. Gleekel has raised so that we can adequately
provide a response to the Council. You may close the public
hearing subject to its being reopened or you can leave it open.
If you do leave it open you can't have first reading of the
ordinance. This would put us. . .you would then want to consider
doing first reading on Dec. 7.
111
28
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.
Mayor Hanks referred to the draft ordinance.
Technical corrections
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember
Meland, to accept staff's recommendation: Add retail land uses of
up to 15% of the gross building area as accessory uses in the IP
Industrial Park District and delete the limitation to 10% on
retail use in a development through the PUD process in the 0
Office District.
Councilmember Friedman, referencing Belt Line Industrial Park's
request, asked how a use could be limited in one area and
expanded in another.
Mr. Hagen: They are conflicting in the sense that if you later
adopt more lenient standards with respect to the IP, then this
becomes moot.
It was the consensus to withdraw this motion until Belt Line is
addressed.
Map modification
4235 W. 36th St. (Kenneth Faulkner property) was recommended to
change from C2 to R3 and Texas & I-394 frontage road recommended
to change from C1 to R11.
Councilmember Haun so moved, Councilmember Meland seconded. The
motion passed 6-0.
Modification allowing consideration of redevelopment plans in
conditional use permits
It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember
Jacobs to amend Section 143: 6-5.1 to add the following language:
The City Council may consider the provisions of any redevelopment
plan or development district program approved pursuant to
Minnesota Statute Chapter 469 which relates to the use of land
and may incorporate such provisions in a conditional use permit
when deemed necessary.
The motion passed 6 -0.
Modifications to IP Industrial Park zoning district requirements
Councilmember Friedman's feeling was that just because a district
was zoned for certain uses there was no guarantee in the future
that district would get those types of uses.
It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember
Meland, to adopt Alternative 3 : Direct staff to modify the
proposed IP District by allowing retail and service uses through
29
the PUD process.
Councilmember Mitchell would oppose; he was comfortable with
alternative No. 1 and did not want the City to get back in the
PUD business.
Councilmember Friedman felt the Council needed the flexibility.
Also, when approval goes through the PUD process, there is
control to develop areas in a way they will become developed or
they will just sit there as vacant land and be an untaxable
entity.
The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Mitchell opposed) .
Mayor Hanks returned to Technical Corrections in the Draft
Ordinance.
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember
Friedman, to add retail land uses of up to 15% of the gross
building area as accessory uses in the IP Industrial Park
District unless the PUD process is used and to delete the
limitation to 10% on retail use in a development through the PUD
process in the 0 Office district.
The motion passed 6-0.
Item C, Modifications to 0 Office District
It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember
Friedman, to approve Alternative 3: Motion to modify the 0
District to allow restaurants with liquor and retail uses by
modifying the language under which those uses are allowed as
follows: If the land upon which the use is to be located is
immediately adjacent to, and is able to share parking with an
office building, it shall be deemed to have complied with this
condition. Further modify the 0 District so that restaurants with
liquor could continue to be allowed as a conditional use with the
above condition attached.
The motion passed 6-0.
Item D, Modification excluding golf courses from Open Space
category
Councilmember Friedman asked if Council selected one of the
alternatives and the club were to burn down, it could not be
rebuilt under this proposed zoning ordinance.
Mr. Hagen responded that under the proposed ordinance a golf
course building could be rebuilt (that portion that supports the
golf course) ; they could not rebuild the club itself. To rebuild
the golf course facility, the club would have to secure a
conditional use permit under one of the alternatives listed. It
was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember
30
Meland, to select Alternative 2.
Mayor Hanks would like to include golf course and club house as
conditional uses.
Councilmember Friedman preferred them to be voted on separately.
Mr. Hagen explained that staff's reasoning for now making "clubs"
conditional uses in the R District is the fact they are quite
commercial and are not appropriate within residential
neighborhoods.
Mayor Hanks understood but felt as a Councilmember he could not
sit here and say if the Minneapolis Golf Club burned down there
was not going to be a change in the ordinance to allow its
rebuilding. He felt certain the alternative would be a single
family housing development in such an event.
In addressing Alternative 2 (modify the proposed ordinance to
delete golf courses from the Park and Open space use category,
add golf courses to the Park and Recreation use category and make
Park and Recreation uses conditional in the R-1, R-2 and R-3
districts) , Mayor Hanks noted that in all City parks and parks
and recreation facilities there is a stipulation that no liquor
is allowed. It was his suggestion to adopt Alternative 1 (modify
the proposed ordinance to make golf courses a separate land use
and to regulate them either as a use permitted with conditions or
as a conditional use) . Also, to add the word clubhouse.
Councilmember Friedman yielded to Mayor Hanks' modified motion
and Councilmember Meland concurred.
Councilmember Friedman suggested addition of "clubhouses when
used in conjunction with a recognized golf course" to avoid any
confusion with "clubs. "
Mr. Rye said staff would bring back a definition.
The motion passed 6-0.
Adult Uses
Councilmember Haun wanted to have a prohibition of peep booths
and arcades throughout the City and asked the City Attorney how
that could be accomplished. The Deputy City Attorney said she
would have to research whether there is a case that describes the
activity described by the resident as falling within First
Amendment speech protections. Whether or not it can be prohibited
turns on whether it is a protected expression.
It was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember
Jacobs, to delete any such operations from every zoning category.
Mayor Hanks did not understand this type of operation having
anything to do with First Amendment speech protections.
31
Councilmember Mitchell asked for clarification as to what was
being deleted. Mayor Hanks said the motion deletes peep booths
and arcades as described by the resident and that the City
Attorney research the matter further as to precise language for
consideration on Dec. 7, 1992.
The motion passed 6-0.
Councilmember Jacobs, in addressing adult uses, asked that
appropriate language be included that would require a distance
from property line to property line. He asked that staff look at
that and prepare language. Councilmember Haun seconded.
It was the consensus that if a distance restriction is imposed as
far as adult uses are concerned, the ordinance be looked at to
make sure a discrimination was not being imposed relative to
distance requirements.
The City Attorney suggested that to arrive at that the ordinance
could impose a distance requirement between two of the same uses,
two adult uses, for example. This may avoid conflict with other
provisions of the ordinance.
After a lengthy discussion re distance provisions, it was the
consensus that such provisions are already in the ordinance and
probably the speakers this evening were not aware of that.
Mayor Hanks offered wrap-up remarks, asking members of Community
Development staff present to send the thanks of the Council to
the Planning Commission for the many hours of work and effort
that commission had given to development of a new zoning
ordinance.
It was moved by Councilmember Friedman, seconded by Councilmember
Jacobs, to approve first reading, set second reading for December
7, 1992 and authorize summary publication.
The motion passed 6-0.
The hearing adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
Op 14/ )64"44
4e
le W. Hanks, Mayor
9J/uJ1Tt1
ecording Secretary
32