Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/12/07 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 7, 1992 1 . Call to order Mayor Hanks called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m. 2 . Presentations None 3 . Roll call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call : Jeff Jacobs, George Haun, Keith Meland, Larry Mitchell, Gail Dorfman and Lyle Hanks . Also present were the City Manager (Dixon) , City Attorney (Shapiro) , Director of Community Development (Hagen) , Director of Public Works (Grube) , City Assessor (Stepnick) , Asst. Dir. of Finance (Rambow) , Police Chief (Mitchell) and Interim City Manager (Pires) . 4 . Approval of minutes It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to approve the minutes of the November 16, 1992 minutes with a correction on page 148, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, change " . . . in December 1993 through a neighborhood process . " to . . .as soon as possible through a neighborhood process . " The motion passed 6 -0 . It was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to approve the minutes of the special City Council meeting of November 23 , 1992 . The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilmember Dorfman abstained) . 5 . Approval of agenda It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to approve the consent agenda for December 7, 1992 . The motion passed 6-0 . It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Dorfman to approve the agenda for Dec . 7 . The motion passed 6-0 . PUBLIC HEARINGS 6a. Request for 3 . 2 beer license Salah-Eldeen Khalil (dba New Park Market) , 6312 -152- Minnetonka Blvd. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to approve the request. The motion passed 6-0 . 6b. Tamarind proiect Revenue bond financing Resolution 92-183 There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to adopt Resolution 92-183 entitled "Resolution giving preliminary approval to the refinancing of the multifamily rental housing revenue bonds : Tamarind Project . " The motion passed 6-0 . 6c. Minneapolis Golf Club Special permit amendment to Resolution 92-184 permit expansion of existing parking lot and to allow a dining room addition subject to square footage limitation rather than specific floor plan: 2001 Flag Ave. Ed Christensen, 1830 Flag Ave. So. , Lyle Eakins, 2048 Flag Peggy Reichmuth, 2040 Flag, Steve Petterson, general manager of the Club offered comments on this matter. 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. At Councilmember Mitchell ' s request, Mr. Hagen displayed an overhead showing the berming and layout of the proposed parking lot . Councilmember Mitchell asked how the Club determined how many parking places it needed. Mr. Petterson said they did a two- week study of parking needs . The study determined that the compromise in the parking lot size would solve its parking problems 95% of the time . Councilmember Haun felt that in light of the fact the City always emphasizes getting cars of the street, the Club' s proposal should be seriously considered. It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to adopt Resolution 92-184 entitled "Resolution rescinding Resolution 92-181 adopted on Nov. 16, 1992 and granting special -153- permit under Section 14-126 (2) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow expansion of the parking lot and modifications to the proposed dining room addition at 2001 111 Flag Ave . " Councilmember Dorfman had a concern that first of all the Club, based on a study, requested 77 places; later they state that after a study, 96% of their needs can be handled with 41 spaces . Based on this, she felt she could not support the request . Councilmember Mitchell and Mayor Hanks felt this was the best compromise of the issue. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Dorfman opposed) , 6d. Beverly Enterprises Special permit amendment to install Resolution 92-185 new facility sign There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the hearing with the right of Council to thereafter reopen and continue it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to adopt Resolution 92-185 entitled "A resolution rescinding Resolution 92-56 adopted on May 4, 1992 and granting special permit under Section 14-141 (3) of the St . Louis Park Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow new facility signs for a nursing home at 3201 Virginia Ave. So. " The motion passed 6-0 . 6e. 1993 budget Mayor Hanks gave brief intro- ductory remarks relative to the 1993 budget, followed by a budget message by Mr. Dixon explaining the materials before Council . (See attached labeled Exhibit A) . Lenny Getskin, 2912 Glenhurst Ave. , asked about funding for the police station. Mayor Hanks responded that funding came from the Special Assessments Fund reserves . In other words, there is no additional cost to residents - no additional taxes - for construction of this facility. Mr. Getskin asked about increases in garbage, water & sewer, etc . Mr. Dixon said that for residential properties, it is expected that rates will increase in total about 1 1/2-2 1/2% for 1993 . Mayor Hanks said those were costs the City could not control because they were bid out . He did note that St . Louis Park ' s 111 garbage pickup rate was the lowest in the area. Bill Evidon, •3380 Sumter Ave. So. , Jim VonLorenz, 4332 Brookside -154- Ave. , Mr. Griver, 2400 Cavell Ave. , Bruce Janell, 3601 Sumter Ave. , Dean Nelson, 4317 Mackey had specific questions relative to their properties. The speakers were referred to Mr. Stepnick for specific answers. Mr. Nelson also wondered about cooperative agreements between cities relative to police/fire services. Mr. Dixon responded that St . Louis Park has been in the forefront of such cooperation for a number of years, both in police and fire : mutual aid in the case of fire; response backup in the police area and also exploratory discussions re dispatch, joint task forces including drug control . As a member of LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems) , the City participates with some ten other cities in computer functions and health insurance. Councilmember Dorfman noted that some of the tax increases seen this year were due to State legislation, in some cases to which the City objected. She added the Council, School Board and State Legislators would hold a joint meeting on Dec. 14 to talk about increases and search for reforms during the next legislative session. It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Meland, to approve first reading of the ordinance, set second for December 16, 1992, authorize summary publication and continue the hearing. The motion passed 6-0 . PETITIONS, REQUESTS, COMMUNICATIONS None. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 8a. Zoning ordinance Second reading of ordinance Ordinance 92-1902; Resolution 92-186 The ordinance with accompanying findings of fact passed second reading on a vote of 6-0 (a verbatim transcript of the proceedings was prepared by the Council secretary) . 8b. 1993 water/sewer/refuse rates Second reading of Ordinance 92-1903 ordinance It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to adopt, as amended, Ordinance 92-1903 entitled "Ordinance adjusting the 1993 water and sewer rates and modifying utility assessment language. " The motion passed 6-0 . 8c . Bond financing application -155- Resolution 92-187 It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember 111 Jacobs to adopt Resolution 92-187 entitled "Resolution adopting procedures for application to the City of St . Louis Park for private activity revenue bond financing. " The motion passed 6-0 . 8d. Transfer of funds For Administration and Civil Service budgets It was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to approve first reading, set second for December 16, 1992 and authorize summary publication. The motion passed 6-0 . 8e. Monterey Park 2nd addition Final plat approval Resolution 92-188 It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Dorfman, to adopt Resolution 92-188 entitled "Resolution giving approval for final plat of Monterey Park 2nd Edition. " The motion passed 6-0 . 8f. Disbursements of funds by First reading of ordinance Workmens ' Compensation Administrator It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to approve first reading, set second for December 21, 1992 and authorize summary publication Councilmember Jacobs asked how much money was being talked about . Mr. Syverson said he could not be specific, the amount would be based on the claims actually submitted to the City for payment . The motion passed 6-0 . 9a. Consultant selection Reilly Tar matters Resolution 92-189 It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to adopt Resolution 92-189 entitled "Resolution authorizing execution of agreement with ENSR Consulting and Engineering for professional services related to implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. Remedial Action Plan. " The motion passed 6-0 . 9b. Police station Public safety answering point It was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember -156- Jacobs to approve plans/specifications and direct staff to advertise for bids. The motion passed 6-0 . 9c. Police station Firing range equipment It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to approve plans/specifications and direct staff to advertise for bids . 9d. Void 9e. Waste removal and recycling services Resolution 92-190 It was moved by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to adopt Resolution 92-190 entitled "Resolution "A" accepting proposal and authorizing execution of contract No. 2096 with Randy' s Sanitation for waste removal and recycling services at municipal facilities. " The motion passed 6-0 . 9f . 1993 insurance program Resolution 92-191 It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to adopt Resolution 92 -191 entitled "Resolution awarding contracts for 1993 insurance coverages . " The motion passed 6-0 . 9g. Planning Commission minutes November 18 9h. Human Rights Commission minutes November 18 9i . Cable TV Advisory Commission minutes December 1 Items 9g-9i ordered filed by consent UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10a. Boards and commissions Mayor Hanks suggested holding interviews on Wed. , Dec. 16 NEW BUSINESS lla. Intoxicating liquor license renewals Councilmember Mitchell asked in the future if the list of license holders could be ranked according to police calls for service. Chief Mitchell said there were good police calls and bad police calls and they would provide next year the information as -157- requested by Councilmember Mitchell including more detail on the types of calls. The motion passed 6-0 . lib. Non-intoxicating liquor license renewals It was moved by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to approve. The motion passed 6-0 . lic. 1993 towing contract It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to direct the City Manager to execute a contract with Dick' s Towing Service. The motion passed 6-0 . MISCELLANEOUS 12a. Damage claims Irving Lebo, Myrtle Schultz By consent, claims referred to City Clerk and City Manager 12b. Communications from the Mayor AMM legislative contact Councilmember Dorfman volunteered to become the contact . 12c. Communications from the City Manager The City Manager sought comment from the Council on the proposed legislative report that will be shared with the Legislators on Dec. 14 . CLAIMS, APPROPRIATIONS, CONTRACT PAYMENTS 13a. Verified claims The list of verified claims prepared by the Director of Finance, dated December 7, 1991 was approved and staff authorized to distribute checks in the appropriate amounts : Verified claims : $934, 085 .56 and payroll claims $30 , 135 . 81 . 13b. Contract payments 1 . Final : Advanced Concrete, random concrete replacement City- wide . Amount : $49, 999 . 08 Action: By consent, adopt Resolution 92-192 entitled "Resolution accepting work on random concrete replacement, City-wide . " 2 . Final : Richard Brothers Painting, cleaning, repairing, painting of elevated water tower. Amount : $26 , 769 . 70 . Action: By consent, adopt Resolution 92-193 entitled "Resolution -158- accepting work on cleaning, repairing and painting of 1 . 0 MG elevated water tower. " 3 . Final : TMI Coatings, cleaning, repairing, painting of underground concrete storage reservoir. Amount : $11, 517.55 . Action: By consent, motion to adopt Resolution 92-194 entitled "Resolution accepting work on cleaning, repairing and painting of underground concrete storage reservoir. " 4 . Partial : Valley Paving, Jordan/28th St . and Monterey Dr. , 38th to Belt Line. Amount : $5, 062 .26 5 . Partial : Electric Service Co. , street lighting of I-394 south frontage road, Texas to Utica Ave. Amount : $32, 908 . 6 . Partial : Adolf son & Peterson, Police station. Amount : $259, 798 . 89 7 . Partial : C. S. McCrossan, bituminous paving, curb/gutter, landscaping, street lighting, traffic signals. Amount : $100, 798 . 89 8 . Partial : Faircon, ventilation improvements, Fire Station No. 1. Amount : $16,416 . 00 9 . Partial : C. S. McCrossan, T.H. 7/Louisiana Ave. Amount : $182, 236 .74 Action: By consent, approve and authorize payment III 14 . Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. w / 10/ /61A-7.144-, M;'or a P th recording Secretary -159III - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, DECEMBER 7, 1992 8a. Zoning ordinance Second reading of ordinance Ordinance 92-1902; Resolution 92-186 "VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT" Mayor: As most of you are aware, the public hearing was closed after the last meeting, but as in all meetings that we have here when we 're discussing an item, if you would like to speak to, there 's information that 's come, there ' s information that ' s coming to the Council and before we walk the Council through that, I would like to let anyone speak if they would like to speak and then give the Council an idea to talk to their remarks. I would just like to say some things about this myself first. First of all, regarding the zoning ordinance I 'd like to recognize and compliment the City Manager, City staff in their dedication to professionalism in assisting the City Council with developing this comprehensive zoning ordinance. It 's been over 30 years since our last comprehensive rezoning. I 'm not sure anyone on this Council knew the magnitude of the job that we were getting into when we undertook this. I don't want to single out anyone particularly, but our Planning staff -- Mr. Hagen, Mr. Rye and Ms . Erickson -- for the years of work in this zoning ordinance, but I 'd also like to thank all the other members of the staff for insights and information they provided to us as we worked through the many difficult issues that have faced the City Council in getting to the point we 're at tonight . I 'd like to recommend Mr. Grube, our City Engineer and Acting Director of 111 Inspections and his predecessor, Mr. McPhee, Mr. Ernie Petersen, our Zoning- Administrator, Mr. Manny Camilon, Chief Mancel Mitchell, our Chief of Police, our Superintendent of Streets. I 'd also like to compliment my colleagues on the City Council . If you remember, on August 6, 1991 - 16 months ago almost -- we held the first public hearing on the draft zoning ordinance and after that we reworked the items and held another public hearing on October 23, 1991 . This was after we had a year of citizens ' task force and we tried to involve anyone who wanted to work on that, on zoning. After the public hearing, we realized there were several issues we needed to go back and consider further. Since last October, we've studied a number of issues that were raised at the public hearing and at subsequent Council meetings on Nov. 25, Dec. 9 of 1991, Feb. 4, May 11, June 9, July 13 and August 31 of 1992 . We 've sent many specific issues back to the Planning Commission for further review and recommendations. We've asked City staff to prepare analysis for us regarding the impact of certain regulations on adjacent communities and certain land uses and adjacent properties. In short, we've taken our legislative responsibilities very seriously. We define in our comprehensive plan what we believe are legitimate and appropriate government interests and we've looked for the least burdensome means to accomplish those interests while still protecting and promoting the general health, safety and welfare of our community. In specific cases such as Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Al 's Liquors, St . Louis Park Auto, we 've balanced the benefits the City will derive by terminating certain uses that are not permitted anywhere in the City against the burden on the property owners. We have 1 established an amortization process and procedure that allows us to receive information from affected property owners to help us establish specific amortization periods for existing uses rather than merely using information presently available to the City to establish a reasonable amortization period today. Based on Mr. Gleekel 's testimony and that of Mr. Senecal, we 've directed staff to further investigate the potential impact of both existing and new concrete plants in a district that will be zoned R-4 and is currently adjacent to a residential building. We 've asked our City Attorney to provide us with guidance on what types of facts we can appropriately consider in reaching decisions in connection with certain provisions in the zoning ordinance. I 've lived in St. Louis Park for over 38 years. I watched the City change. We used to have a lot of heavy industrial land use in the City, far more than we have today; in fact, when I came the area we 're talking about just before this was cornfields. Most of that area before it was built up. So the City has become more urban and the industrial uses such as the creosote plant and so forth have been removed and moved on to other places. I do not believe that the industrial uses are compatible with residential uses and our information from Mr. Patchin's letter confirms my opinion. One of my most important objectives as Mayor is to preserve and protect the safety and welfare of this community. Part of the way we can do this is to regulate the location of incompatible land uses. And with that, I would open to any discussion that anyone would like to add before we start working our way through the items that need to be addressed. I know at the last meeting we asked for written information to be in by November 30 . Staff has responded to that and the City Manager will walk us through that. I think everyone who has been affected has received the information. Am I correct? So, if there 's anyone who would like to speak tonight, just come forward and give us your name and address and we are not opening the public hearing but we are still taking testimony. Mr. Mayor, my name is Leland Gottstein. I am here representing my properties at 2231-35 Edgewood Ave. So. and 2219-29 Edgewood Ave. So. I 'm also representing our 14 member business firms in our Edgewood Florida area. We 're not controversial tonight. We think as a result of everything. . .but you've given out some nice laurels, we want to augment those. We have worked for many years. . .Mayor, I 've been here since 1947, I think that 's 45 years. I 've got you beat. I remember when there were cows on Princeton and 28th when Mrs. White had her farm there, so I 've been here a long time. As a matter of fact, I went through the first zoning commission when they had spot zoning, we made the first zoning ordinance. So, I 've seen alot. But we 've had some pleasant experiences the last few months and I want to at this time acknowledge even the help we had 5 years ago from Bill Thibault who helped us work through some knotty problems . We exist in an area which has a residential area that was developed about the same time as we were developing ours. Most of us -- III son & Peterson, Swanson & Youngdale, Beatrice Foods -- we have well over $20 million worth of property in that area. We are paying close to $800, 000 in taxes . We don't use the schools but 2 we feel we are making our contribution to the City of St . Louis Park. We pride ourselves in our housekeeping and the upgrading of our properties. We have diligently tried as a group, as an organized group, to make the area proud not only for our businesses but for the surrounding residences as best we could. Fortunately Don Rye brought on a State arbitrator for our last sessions and I have to say he was most professional, I 've said this before, he did a magnificant job of narrowing the issues from 20 down to about 2 and we got those resolved. That is expert negotiations and it was done in a very professional manner and because of him, we were able to bring this to a very satisfactory conclusion. So, officially on behalf of the 14 member firms, I want to thank Mr. Rye and Mr. Hagen and Ernie Petersen for the wonderful help they gave us and for most of the Council and Mayor who have helped us to try to work this out and understand our problems so that we can hopefully live and co-exist much to your suspicions that that can happen, we have some property owners here and we have a good relationship with them now and an understanding of our goals and objectives and we think we can co- exist and trust eachother for the betterment of the entire City of St . Louis Park. The new ordinance you have proposed is very flexible, it 's liveable, it will be able to accommodate to the changes that may happen to our area and we thank you for that effort. There 's only one small issue and it is non-controversial. I think it was a matter of wording and I may need some help from Don Rye on this and that was the fence issue. You know, when you leave a zoning ordinance, you must remember that we 're not going to be here for the next- 45 years -- somebody else is going to have to read this thing, somebody is going to have to interpret it, and we 've been through this a number of times where they say you gotta fence that fence even if it 's next to a railroad track because that 's what it says. And that 's the issue that we took. It was taken care of with the language that 's been proposed except for the area that may not be visible from the street and is adjacent to other industrial areas. In other words, it may be seen from another warehouse, but solid fences are tough to maintain and expensive and really needless if there isn't anything to hide and if it isn't visible from the street. Now, Don may want to comment on this and I don't know if I said it correctly to pinpoint that one remaining problem that bothers us. The zoning ordinance is not perfect. It isn't everything we hoped for but we think it is interpretable the way it has been rewritten and it is liveable and we thank you for it and I don't know how you resolve this last little small issue from 80 to half a one. But it was a pleasure and it is enjoyable to do business in the park. Mayor: Don, do you have any comment on that or we' ll get to it later. Why don't you comment now. Rye: The language that Mr. Gottstein refers to deals with that issue screening of storage yards in industrial areas and the way the draft language originally started was that a storage yard had to be screened period -- no ifs, ands or buts. The objections that were raised dealt with that issue and whether it was 3 reasonable to require screening in all cases regardless of where the storage yard may be visible from. The material in some respect may be kind of an oversite on our part. The material we 111 got at the public hearing only addressed the issue of adjacent railroad tracks. And the language you have tonight addresses that issue. It does not yet deal with that situation if there is a storage yard adjacent, for example, another warehouse or industrial building. So, I guess at this point it 's the Council ' s call as to how far you want to. . . Mayor: It 's in here to be discussed later? Rye: That issue is not raised in your written material . Mayor: I 'll make a note of it and maybe you' ll be able to find the area and have a suggestion when we get there. O.K. , anyone else. . .oh, wait, I 've got cards here. Better get to them. People fill out cards and I don't get at 'em. Beryl Miller. Beryl Miller. Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council for permitting this opportunity to ask a question of you even though I fully understand that two weeks ago at the hearing that was held and no one from our neighborhood association did come before you to express a matter of interest and concern. Only by accident this past week I learned that one of the provisions in the zoning ordinance would diminish the setback from the rear lot lines and I asked if I could be given the opportunity to see what was the new zoning ordinance pertaining to the rear lot line and I went to the Planning Committee and they were very nice and gave me this little booklet and asked me to look it over. I didn't really have time to read it all but one page did catch my eye and I just want to bring it to your attention. I know full well how carefully and thoroughly you've studied the matter and if there has been any dereliction of being able to properly consider this matter, it very likely falls upon our neighborhood. Nonetheless, this was brought to my attention and I 'm going to ask you a moment 's indulgence if I read to you the purpose and effect of what you have written the new zoning ordinance should try to effect in the single family residence district. It says, "The purpose of the R-1 single family resident district. . . " Mayor: Mr. Miller, can you tell us where you're reading from so staff will also know? Miller: I 'm reading from ordinance No. 14 .5-42 R-1 Single Family resident district . May I just introduce myself a little further. I guess I 've had the pleasure of being here before but I live at 2306 Parkwoods Rd. and I don't have quite the longevity of Mr. Gottstein or Mr. Hanks, but I 've living on Parkwoods Rd. in Lake Forest for over 25 years and I 'm very proud of our neighborhood and very proud of our community and certainly I think you well understand that I come before you only in the very best interests of our community and our neighborhood. I ' ll read again: "The purpose of the R-1 single family resident district is to provide appropriately located areas for single family living on larger 4 lots, ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling. " I certainly agree with this and we in Lake Forest have had this opportunity for all the years I 've lived there and 111 perhaps many years previously and I just wonder why, because I don't really know the answer, and perhaps I 'll be given this very shortly, why the zoning ordinance should have considered this change shortening the setback ' requirements to the rear lot lines. Thank you. Mayor: Staff want to comment on this? Dixon: Yes, I think Mr. Hagen can comment on this . There 's been a brief amount of discussion on it the last couple of days. Hagen: I have to say I 'm not familiar with the exact language that you are referring to with respect to the R-1 district. Perhaps the Planning Coordinator Mr. Rye could address this. Rye: Mayor, Councilmembers, the change that Mr. Miller refers to was a reduction in the rear yard setback in the R-1 district from 35 ft . to 25 ft . The primary reason for that was in looking at cases that had come before the Board of Appeals and Council over the years relating to rear yard setback variances, there were a fair number of them for additions and whatnot and frequently they were at a magnitude of an addition of 8-10 ft . in distance and, I would say, in the large majority of those cases, those variances have been sustained and essentially we took that as indicative that a standard. . .somewhat lesser standard. . .would be acceptable and would reflect what is, in fact, happening in the community. Mayor: I think also this was a result of this Council a few years ago (unintelligible) onto their house and get into the back yard partially, then they were going to move and I think the Council, even though we did not change the zoning, was, I think you're correct probably approved the majority of those variances and I can remember, I think one or two, we 've already had this past year. I think another problem that ' s come out of this, Councilmember Dorfman, you might want to speak to that . Councilmember Dorfman: Perhaps Mr. Rye could also clarify this. In the case of this particular property, you're not even dealing with a 25 ft . or a 35 ft. setback because it 's a pie shaped, triangular lot and therefore under the new zoning ordinance, it 's my understanding there is really no back lot line and there is only a side lot line. Is that correct? Rye: Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Dorfman, that is correct. The existing ordinance. . .this is fun to explain. . . if the lot comes to a point in back, you have to define a line as close to that point as you can get that is 10 ft . long and at that point you measure the rear yard. The reasoning behind deleting that part of the definition was where you have a triangular shaped lot, as it narrows down practically you aren't going to be able to build a house or something down into that point in any case. And what happens on a triangular lot, the side yard setbacks would be 5 extended down into that point and in effect would define the setback in the rear. As you measure, perhaps, it may result in a lesser setback; practically, it may or may not. It all depends on 111 how steep. . .or acute. . .the angle is at the back of that lot. Mayor: If this is a concern about a triangular lot, would there be a major problem with leaving a 10 ft . line as we had in the old one? There ' s not that many lots of that kind in our City. Rye: No, to my knowledge it would be very few cases where we have triangular lots that would apply. I don't think it would be of any major impact . Mayor: O.K. , we 'll bring that one up later. I think that may address part of your concern, Mr. Miller. Mayor: Bill Thibault Thibault : Mayor and Council, we, too, don't have a need to discuss anything of any extent as long as you stay with the modification that you made to the draft last time, 2 weeks ago at the public hearing and the modification you passed at first reading, namely to add retail sales/service uses as a conditional use using PUD in the I-P district the same as we sent to you in the high density residential district . We do need to deal with this, however, if you're going to be considering a modification at the second reading to insert additional language and we've received a report in the mail identifying some 4 . . .we 're classifying as 4 . . .additional points that the staff has suggested be considered, evidently for second reading. If that ' s not your intent, that is, if your intent is to stick with the first reading, the PUD, conditional use, retail sales and service, then as stated before Belt Line Industrial Park is reluctantly willing to accept that. If not, we need to address the new language. Mayor: Bill, can you tell me what those are? Staff, are you aware of the four items? Hagen: Yes. The items that we have suggested as conditions that must be met for allowing retail and service as uses through the PUD process in the I-P district are that the use must be contiguous to other retail or service use either adjacent or across the street from; secondly there must be a demonstration that no appropriate sights for such uses are in appropriately zoned areas, not requiring PUD are available; thirdly, there must be a minimum of 10 acres, that is, the PUD must be at least 10 acres in size; and finally, one we feel is very important -- an area-wide concept plan for redevelopment must be prepared by the applicant, approved by the City, and that the PUD then must conform to that area-wide redevelopment plan. Those are on, I believe, pages 8 and 9 . Mayor: This is a staff recommendation, am I right? Hagen: It is. . . it was our impression that at the last hearing 6 when you had the first reading, you were giving concept approval to a number of things and we were clear in our report to indicate that we would be comfortable with this if certain conditions for PUD use, retail and service uses in the I-P district would be attached, and so that 's what we 're giving you this evening as the conditions that we would recommend be attached to retail and service uses in the I-P district . Mayor: O.K. , I guess as long as they're recommended, you better address them at this point and the Council will have to react to that later. Thibault : My name is Bill Thibault, 450 Ford Rd. , St . Louis Park. With me is John McCain from Belt Line Industrial Park and he resides at 4714 Ottawa Court, SLP. When we discussed this at the public hearing two weeks ago, we indicated at that time the preference of the owners of the property was to leave the zoning as it is -- existing zoning which is I-2 industrial which, however, permits as outright uses meaning that they are permitted without having to go through any plan process at the Planning Commission or Council, it does allow retail sales and service uses. So the proposed amendment that you have tonight would remove those uses. Now at the last meeting two weeks ago, when the Council was deliberating, and very conscientiously I felt, on the various issues presented that evening, one of the issues deliberated upon was the I-P district and the PUD conditional use section. I believe it might have been Councilperson Friedman that made the motion to incorporate through the conditional use process and under PUD provisions the allowance for retail sales and service facilities. And I also believe it might have been Councilmember Haun that seconded that motion. That motion passed. Later on after you deliberated the other items, you passed first reading on a vote of 6-0 meaning at that time, in the eyes of myself and Belt Line Industrial Park, that you had essentially amended the ordinance at first reading to incorporate the PUD retail sales and service uses as we had discussed and in the documentation we had presented which we used was page 129, the high density residential district . And I believe today in the ordinance that ' s page 131. And I might also mention that two weeks prior to that time, and I believe the meeting before that time at a study session, the Council indicated that you were leaning toward two alternatives; in fact, I think Ms. Dorfman was at that meeting and the Mayor and Ms. Dorfman favored wording in the ordinance that would specify it as being a transitional use or a traditional zoning district and there were others that felt allowing it through PUD would be a more appropriate alternative and directed staff to bring back both alternatives. So when the two alternatives were brought back, we discussed at the last meeting the PUD alternative through conditional use permit and these four items brought up tonight were not part specifically of that discussion -- such things as the acerage. Now, what I 'd like to do is take a moment just to go back through these four items and make it clear that we have, of course, at the existing time the ordinance allows for retail sales and service uses on this property, and so the objection would be fully reinstated and all 7 the documentation we presented would be fully reinstated if this new wording were to be inserted in the ordinance. And we say that because of the following factors : First of all, the ten acres . I 'm identifying them in somewhat the same order that they are identified starting on page 8 of the report, the 10 acre minimum. The existing ordinance has several locations where PUD is allowed through a conditional use permit and that requirement is two acres. This would be a five times the amount, a five-fold increase and we think if it is appropriate you can allow a PUD conditional use permit of retail sales and service in a residential district -- you were talking earlier about the incompatibility of industrial -- well, here you have an ordinance as proposed to allow it in the residential districts, and. . .the high density residential district, the same sort of thing. And the minimum size to apply doesn't mean you're going to get it to apply is two acres . So, we say why not keep your uniformity and have it retained at two acres instead of five times that amount in this particular district. And, secondly, you might want to keep in mind that the PUD process itself is a ten-page process. It 's nothing you simply ask for and kind of either get or don't get, you have to go through a significant process that is spelled out over a series of ten pages, it starts on page 298 . Thirdly, you have to meet the conditional use permit provisions which are on another page. So, again, you have to meet substantial amount of requirements in terms of the depth and comprehensiveness that they have. So, the owners of Belt Line Industrial Park would be opposed to making that change to require 10 acres instead of the two acres that exist in the rest of the PUD sections. The second item which is listed as item kind of B, small 1 and small 2 or small i ' s deals with this area-wide redevelopment. Now in spite of having the 10 pages of PUD process in the conditional use permit process, they're suggesting you superimpose before that process an area-wide redevelopment plan. Area-wide is not defined; we don't know who would decide that; does it include public and private activities; would it include property other than the property of the owner involved; would it mean that it would go, of course, no doubt through staff, it would go to the Council and it says that the Council would have to approve that; does it mean then that it becomes a Council redevelopment plan; who gets responsibility for implementation; what if there are some public activities; are you going to require, in this case, Belt Line Industrial Park to come up with guarantees on funding or to go out and seek public funding; it just raises a whole set of additional standards and you have, at the present time, this ten pages I mentioned already under he PUD process and already are allowing it in that form under the high density residential zoning category. There are some 10 areas that I counted, at least, that you have zoned that way or proposed to zone that way. So, that raises too many questions in the minds of the owners of the property to feel that they would have any comfort with that kind of provision. And lastly, in that PUD process I might mention it 's a 3-step process: you have to prepare a concept PUD, there has to be a preliminary PUD which is the subject of a public hearing and the final PUD which the Council under the new ordinance can have another public hearing. So. you have a huge 8 massive process under the PUD regulations, why complicate, superimpose what is called a new area-wide redevelopment thing that is not really described. The third item that is on page 8 deals with the use being adjacent or across the street from existing retail sales or retail service uses, either or. In the case of Belt Line Industrial Park, they have property across the street that ' s in the park and open space area; in fact, the City' s most active park and open space area exists there: the Recreation Center, the swimming pool, the ice area, tennis courts, the picnic area, the shelter -- all of that is across the street from this property. Then on the other side is the more passive, but pretty active area, for running, walking, soccer over at Bass Lake. Now, one could construe that at least part of this property might be adjacent to something that could be classified or interpreted as service, mainly Federal Express. You go the other way, there 's a Federal Express. But the owners of Belt Line Industrial Park are concerned about that : First of all, it 's a judgment factor. Some people might say, no, Federal Express is an industrial function, so you don't qualify. What if Federal Express moves to a different facility and something else goes in there like an office. That could be construed as not being service. Therefore, this requirement would not be met which would mean that the owners couldn't even apply. Fourth, the fourth item, the applicant must demonstrate that there 's an appropriate site available where the PUD process would not be required. We think that ' s what 's meant, but if you read "d" there on page 8, the wording is difficult to understand. But . . . Dixon: Execuse me, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Thibault . The word "or" should be "where. " Thibault : O.k. , so we 've interpreted what that means essentially is that you have to demonstrate that there is no site available or sites available where PUD process would not be required. Well, how do you demonstrate this? Do you demonstrate it by looking at all properties within a certain distance, how far do you go, what does available mean. Does it have to be for sale? Let 's take a situation where there is agreement that there is one site available, that is vacant and it ' s somewhere in the area. Does that mean that that property owner then potentially could hold you up for sort of almost economic blackmail in saying, Ah, ha, you can't do anything and can't use your PUD because we have this one vacant property and the price goes up accordingly. So, we think it puts the burden on the applicant to come up with a conclusion as to what is a demonstrated need, how far does it go beyond the property area and then it could end up in a property owner getting substantial economic benefit because they have the last remaining parcel that has to be built before something can be built in this particular. So, in conclusion, when you take those four points together, the owners of Belt Line Industrial Inc. would, if adopted as suggested by staff as part of the second reading which was not, of course, in the first reading, they would take their original position and it would fully reinstate that position and they would essentially say that as they have stated in the past and through that documentation, they 9 would find this proposed zoning not acceptable and they would further ask that the comments tonight be made part of the record to document their objections to the proposed zoning. Secondly, we'd like to point out that we reached, we felt an agreement the last time that you know they were reluctantly accepting the PUD process through conditional use permit, that even though they'd be losing the retail sales and service uses that have been there for 32 years, and I 've been around here since the 60 's, I don' t go back that far but I can tell you I 've studied some of the old history that goes back to the 1850 's, that would be a substantial loss and a substantial bordering on taking, as we see it. Thirdly, the opportunity to make use of this provision in the ordinance basically vanishes with these provisions; therefore, it does not provide for any relief as discussed at the first reading. Specifically, it could be interpreted they do not have retail sales or service uses across the street . It could be interpreted that the redevelopment requirements are so vague that they possibly, and so nebulous, that they may never be met and therefore may never qualify and it could be interpreted that you have confusion when you have the fully documented process that you already have in the ordinance under PUD to superimpose this, sort of, new, undefined process on top of it . So, in conclusion, they would say that there position is as they said originally, leave the zoning as it is. Secondly, they would still stick by what they said the last time, they would reluctantly accept the first reading as it was approved. Thank you. Mayor: Any questions? Mr. Hagen. Hagen: Mr. Mayor, I 'd like an opportunity to comment on Mr. Thibault 's remarks at some point. Would this be the appropriate time? Mayor: Ya, I think so. Hagen: O.K. The proposed conditions that we 're recommending for attachment to these uses through the PUD process in the I-P district is based on a rationale, first of all, there ' s a limited amount of retail and service area, square footage in terms of buildings, that can be supported in a trade area, and the best location for retail and service in a trade area to enhance the economic viability of the existing retail and service uses is next to existing retail and service, not in the middle of an area that is otherwise industrial in use. That rationale supports the two conditions relating to contiguity, that is being adjacent to retail or service, and the other one relating to a demonstration that there are no appropriate sites appropriately zoned for retail and service uses. The desired uses that were identified by Mr. Thibault in an earlier report averaged in size approximately 4 .5 acres. In order to get the 10 acre minimum size, you would then need two uses together in order to achieve that ten acre size and we feel that that does make sense in order for the City to justify a PUD to derive the benefits that the City gets out of it. And then, finally, redevelopment of larger sites requires consolidation of parcels of land. And I think that the 10 redevelopment we 've seen to the desirable uses as noted in Mr. Thibault 's earlier reports involved redevelopment. . . fragmentation of existing parcels, not assemblage or consolidation of parcels. We 're looking at in the future the need to consolidate in order to achieve the 4 . 5 or 5 acre size that current uses are getting to. Redevelopment also requires realignment of the street layout in order to improve traffic circulation and in the Belt Line area I think that those needs for consolidation of parcels and realignment of street layout are very obvious, and in order to ensure that we can appropriately layout development, that we don't in effect end up redeveloping with a new building a site that is in the middle of where we need to extend a street, it 's for that reason that we need to require than an area-wide concept plan is prepared by the applicant, approved by the City and that the PUD must then conform to that. We need to give. . .not that it needs to be something that 's cast in stone, but we do need to be thinking beyond the particular parcel on which the proposal is made. I would just like to take a brief minute to show you on a layout the Belt Line area and what I think the result might be if you don't look in the long run towards area-wide redevelopment . (Goes to overhead) . This is a mosiac of maps put together that shows in this particular location the Belt Line Industrial Park. It 's bounded on the south by W. 36th St. , on the east by Belt Line Blvd. , on the north by railroad tracks and then on the west by State Hwy. 100 . The parcels of land here in this Belt Line Industrial Park average 2 acres in size. The average size of the parcels of the desired uses as shaded in purple here . . .you can perhaps pick some of those up. . . is I mentioned earlier 4 . 5 acres in size. If . . I think the logical route for a street to go when this area is redeveloped, if it 's redeveloped with retail and service uses, is extending Belt Line Blvd. or Park Center Blvd. rather to the north directly across and then linking up with this cul-de-sac. At the present time, we have in this area due to the fact there are smaller parcels we have more streets than we really need in the area for maximum utiliztion of the land. And so, if this is redeveloped, it would be logical to eliminate this street, create larger parcels of land, link up Park Center Blvd. with this cul-de-sac and have just one street running through here. Now, you can imagine what would be involved here if this parcel happened to redevelop first and then we would need to come in and acquire part of that parcel in order to create that traffic circulation system that would be desirable. Mayor: O.K Thibault : Brief comment . Without me looking in the book, but I 'll assure you in the proposed ordinance, traffic considerations are already part of the PUD process. You must absolutely look at that in considering any PUD application. Secondly, if it ' s necessary to have a minimum of 10 acres, in this case, to have a beneficial PUD, then I think you should go and suggest or state that 's the requirement in all of the districts, that they have 10-acre PUDs, because how can you conclude that in the other cases a two-acre PUD minimum size is o.k. , but in this particular case it must be 10 acres. And thirdly, I guess with respect to the size of the 11 parcels, one of the most interesting and stimulating parcels that was developed in that area is Parkshore Place, probably the highest valued building on a per square foot basis in the City. 111 And tax-wise generates fantastic dollars in terms of taxes . The minimum value when I was here was, I think, was $8, 600, 000 on three acres, that 's a three-acre parcel . I understand now they're interested in expanding a little bit to the north. But that gives you a scale of what you can do on just a three-acre parcel. But five times the amount the standard you have in the other PUD is going from two acres to 10, there is a substantial difference. And I would say, sure, larger area can benefit probably more, but then better make sure you say that in all other PUD districts. Mayor: O.K. Mitchell : Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Thibault . Mr. Thibault, you mention the PUD process in terms of traffic having to be a consideration. Let 's give that example of the one he just used there if that particular location was to be developed. How would a Council or planning body deal with the issue of traffic by saying that we can't allow that to go forward because our hope is to have a road to connect there someday. Would you argue that that 's a position a Council or planning agency or commission could take in reference to a particular development knowing that they have some sense of where they want to go with traffic? How would you see traffic being (unintelligble) ? Thibault : First of all, I would say on page 291 of the yellow ordinance that I have and I think some of you have, I believe that would be the page number called Standards and Conditions for Conditional Use Permits. . .No 4 : Shall not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. You have the general health, safety and welfare; you have. . . it shall be consistent in support of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. If for example that road were to become a collector type route, a commercial collector type route. to be extended, then it could be shown on the Comprehensive Plan. In the PUD section, 298c, by the way 298 if Planned Unit Development PUD, item c, more efficient and effective use of streets, utilities, public facilities support high-quality development at a lesser cost . H discusses redevelopment. . . Mitchell : Wouldn't the really key one be there the Comprehensive Plan. . .of the ones you've mentioned, that would really be . . . Thibault : It might be if that road that Mr. Hagen. . . Mitchell : It would be difficult to argue that . Thibault : I think one of the things you'd have to do is you'd have to look at the cost benefit of extending a collector there compared to retaining an existing street. . .maybe the loop that exists there. One of the benefits is you have two access points there -- you have a T-intersection which is pretty safe the way the one is there, less points of accident potential at a key 12 intersection. You have a grade differential going across, as I recall the hill there is quite steep before you get to Park Place. That grade right there is probably 30% or so right at that 111 northerly line. Doesn't mean you can't fund the cost of doing it, but I think you'd better be careful about when you add new roads what you're gaining in terms of right of way, in terms of area and right of way and what you do with the remainder -- do you move the utilities over? If you don't move the utilities over, then you've got to retain a utility easement so you've fragmented it maybe more. So you've got to look at what 's under the ground as well as on top of the ground. But I would say that very kind of thing you would expect to look at when you go through your conceptual . . .again, the PUD is a 3-step process : concept PUD, preliminary PUD and final PUD. Mayor: O.K. , any other questions? Hagen: Mr. Mayor, I would like to point out that the conditional use permit criteria that were pointed out by Mr. Thibault are not considered through the Planned Unit Development process, so there wouldn't be that insurance. Thibault : Could I have a clarification on that? Isn' t the PUD a conditional use permit? Hagen: No, it is not . It 's a process separate from the conditional use permit process. Thibault : Well, if you look at page 131 as an example, you're saying you don't apply any of the conditional use processes, so if it ' s not a zoning change and is not conditional use, I 'm not sure what it is. Hagen: It 's a process whereby the applicant is given flexibility from some of the restrictions of the ordinance. Mayor: Anyone else wishing to discuss the item before the Council reviews. Tony Gleekel : Council and Mr. Mayor, my name is Tony Gleekel from the law firm of Segal, Grow, Gruber & Duffy. I apologize I wasn't able to give you a card. As you know, I represent Apple Valley Red-E-Mix and Park Auto. I just want to make a few comments. As you know, you should have in your packet, I sent the Mayor and City Council, Don Rye and the City Attorney a letter dated Nov. 30, 1992 . . . Mayor: We 've all received that . Have you received the reply to some of the items, I think you were sent by our attorney? Gleekel : Yes, and I wanted to. . . I 've received a reply and this afternoon reviewed the letters of Mr. Patchin and Mr. Bonner and I 'd just like to reassert our objections to the ordinance itself, the terms of the ordinance, and without getting into. . .you've heard those, you've read them in the letter, you know what our 13 objections are. I reassert those even after reviewing the City Attorney's response and would like to reassert our request for a different form for public hearing and I believe that this is 111 supported by the fact that on Nov. 23 after I made my comments regarding certain evidence that we did not believe was in the record appears following closing of the public hearing the letter from Mr. Patchin and Mr. Bonner regarding decreased property values next to industrial uses and alleged dust and whatnot that come out of ready mix plants and my understanding is those were dated the second and third of December and although I know those will be made part of the record as they had been submitted prior to the Council 's decision, I believe that that, with all due respect to the Council and the time the Council spent on this entire ordinance, provides evidence that there is not sufficient evidence to determine two things: (1) is to eliminate ready mix plants as a use within the City of St . Louis Park and I still reiterate and reassert the claim regarding the first Apple Valley Red-E-Mix case which I believe you have as part of the record, I believe it was Exhibit 2, that in 1973 when the ordinance was passed, it asked Apple Valley Red-E-Mix. . .that ordinance does not apply to the elimination of ready mix plants. So, the ordinance has not been amended since as to ready mix plants. The allegation, my understanding, is that this ordinance while it does not allow ready mix plants as a non-conforming use as a use permitted with conditions as a permitted use is in a sense eliminated ready mix plants just as it was done in '73 . Mayor: I don't think the elimination was done in '73 . A case was won in court. Can I ask you a question? Gleekel : Sure you can. Mayor: Would you buy a house right next to a ready mix plant? Gleekel : Would I buy a house by a ready mix plant? Mayor: Right next to a ready mix plant . I 'd like that answer. Gleekel : Well, I can answer that two-fold. One is my understanding from the history. . .when you look at zoning, you look at how, how, zoning grows and how land use grows and how land use grows, the ready mix plant was there when most of the residential units were built . So, I believe when the condominiums were built and 3300 On the Park was built, that that ready mix plant was there. So in all deference to Mr. Mayor, the question of would I buy a a house next to a ready mix plant, I don't believe is relevant . What I believe is relevant is what people expect when they buy or build, what type of use is there when they see that and have expectations that that 's going to be there as a non-conforming use which is what it is and can be eliminated as a non-conforming use. Mayor: Well, I believe our duty is to the citizens. I believe that the calls I 've received on that plant, 5 :00 in the morning, you want to come over Mayor and listen to the trucks go, and so 14 forth. . .they are the things that concern me of why we can't have that in our City. And whatever, you know. . .you've got law, I 've got the people that are concerned and I drive down the street and I see the mess, the water trucks, it 's dangerous. I go down there and slid almost on to Louisiana and no one 's out there taking care of it . So, I have a major concern and you're bringing it up so I 'm going to tell you my major concern and our citizens have it . And it ' s not just the ones on 3300, it 's the ones who call and say now they're going down the street on Louisiana Ave. In my estimation and I don't know the rest at all for themselves, but I have a tough time and that 's what zoning is for. And we can discuss, you know, the terms at a different time, as I understand. But I mean I think you made a statement no one has given good proof -- I 've seen it, I 've heard it and so forth. So I 'm just giving you my side. Gleekel : I respect that, Mr. Mayor. My response to that is one of the points I brought up in the Nov. 23 public hearing, and that is as the City has a right to, on two separate occasions -- just to set the record as far as what I would respond to that . . .those concerns, the City can enforce its zoning ordinance by criminal complaint if it feels there has been a violation. It did so on two separate occasions. Two of the issues that were brought up by the neighbor. . .by 3300 on the Park residents were noise and dust. On two separate occasions and two separate criminal complaints there was criminal complaints brought against Apple Valley Red-E- Mix -- one on noise and one on dust . So there is a mechanism to do so and they were both dismissed. Mayor: Why do you think that was done? Do you think the City went out and looked for it? Gleekel : No. . . Mayor: The citizens asked us to do what we could do because they had to live with it. Sir, we did not go out looking for that, but that 's the reason it went. The Court chose not to feel concerned about the citizens, but I think this Council and this zoning is very concerned. And that is. . .as far. . . I understand your position, you're representing them. I 've got to let your know because I think in your letter you made a statement listening to few people on 3300 didn't matter. Well, now you've got to start listening to us that are listening to all over this city about it, and I don't know whether my other colleagues, I 'm sure they get the same complaints, so it 's not just the 3300 block. Gleekel : I understand that. I understand the concerns going into making zoning decisions. And as representing my client and looking at my client and saying, my client has existed there or its predecessors have, it 's a very lucrative business, it 's a financial burden, I have to come here and say it the way I see this. . . Mayor: I understand. 15 Gleekel : . . .all the point I 'm making as far as the complaints. I 'm not saying whether they're valid or not, whether the people heard them or had dust or not . I was not there. The point is, is the burden and the evidence it has to be reached to say yes, there 's dust here; yes, there 's noise here, yes there 's safety hazards here. Apart from a resident saying, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Mr. Police Chief, Mr. Don Rye, Mr. City Manager, get Apple Valley Red-E-Mix out of there, there' s dust, there ' s noise . One of the mechanisms was bringing criminal complaints which was done. In order to do that was to support those complaints based on the complaints and based on some empirical evidence as far as what level. . .where was that at as to whether met a health, safety and welfare factor. My point is it didn't meet that burden in the criminal side and there has not been empirical evidence. I respect that you got those complaints, that 's how I 'm responding to that. Mayor: I realize what you're responding to. I 'm just responding to the fact that we 're trying to decide what ' s best for our community that has changed over the years. Right across the street you had a worse industrial even than Apple Valley is by far now. And we had them all over the community. But this community is gradually involving into more residential type community who those kinds of uses, I believe, in the zoning need to be looked at as far as moving them somewhere where they don't have the number of people they affect . I don't disagree with the position you're taking and the clients you're representing but I did from the letter have to think that as one person, I had to speak up and say, you know, what we 're hearing and what 's actually happening out here . O.K? Gleekel : I understand. I just wanted to take the opportunity to reiterate my client 's position since I 'm here this evening and have it on the record that I 've made those requests and the City will make its decision based on the evidence before it . Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else? Dick Carlson: Yes, my name is Dick Carlson. I live at 3300 on the Park. We and some other residents were at your last hearing meeting. We have subsequently passed a petition around and if you want support of more people north of us and back of the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, we 'll be more than happy to get them. We fully support the ordinance, we fully support it in terms as it relates to amortization plan for Apple Valley Red-E-Mix. We do feel they are a definite nuisance . We would invite the gentleman representing Apple Valley Red-E-Mix or anyone of you to come on our patios during the summer and have a luncheon with us and find out if it is not a nuisance or not . We have, and I don't go back to the history of 10 years ago -- I 'm only a resident of about 5 years ago -- and I understand there has been some ongoing discussion with you people. All I want to do is assure you and all members of the Council that we fully support this . If we do have problems with this, yes, we are going to ban together and do whatever we can to get some cooperation. We feel in the past there has been work done in terms of trying to work with Apple 16 Valley Red-E-Mix to try to resolve some problems. We 've invited them to meetings and they have not shown up. So we have, in good faith, tried to resolve the issues and here again, it is up to you. We support you. Yes, we really appreciate the new ordinance plan. Thank you. Mayor: Anyone else wishing to speak. David Payne. Mayor and Council, I 'm David Payne, one of the owners of Al 's Liquors and as I was listening to the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, we're also under the amortization technicality here and I guess what I 'd like to find out is. . . I can understand neighborhood complaints. We, as far as I 'm aware, have never had any neighborhood complaints in 21 years that I 've been there, I 've never had a neighborhood complaint to me. If there have been some to the City Council or anything else, I 'm just wondering how. . .because we're going to C-1 and there is a number of kitchen factors and things there. I 'd just like to find out exactly what the motivation is and if somehow we can rectify that coming up through some negotiation with the Council or, you know, after the ordinance has been passed. Mayor: I think I 'm going to let our City Attorney, if she can handle that one, speaking about amortization and the items that 's right now in the ordinance would be. . .there would be an amortization hearing held on this I understand at this time. Maybe you can explain that . City Attorney: And I don't think that was your question. Payne : No, no. . . City Attorney: If I understand your question correctly, it was will the Council change its mind and not apply the amortization provisions to your property. Is there somehow that you might be able to negotiate that . Payne : Right, and I guess. . . City Attorney: That is a policy question that I cannot respond to, Mr. Mayor. Mayor: I think I can answer it. You're establishment, I think, comes under a category. . .can you help me, Mr. Hagen? Hagen: Al 's. . .the zoning designation? Mayor: Well, not the zoning, no. Hagen: It 's a bar and it ' s not permitted anywhere in the City as a conditional or permitted with conditions or permitted use. Mayor: Unless. . . City Attorney: To clarify, under the proposed ordinance, it 17 wouldn't be permitted since it doesn't have a food establishment . Payne: . . .which we are willing to put in. I 've talked to Jerry III (?) , I 've talked to Don, I means it ' s something we 've. . .we'd be willing to put in, but we can't if it goes to a C-1 rather than a C-2 . Mayor: The reasoning behind this is that we feel that liquor establishments should be serving food to get a liquor license and that 's part. . .has been our program although you've been grandfathered in up til now. The big thing that 's happened is the. . .are things that we feel in the community that if someone came in and wanted to put in, we don't feel are compatible with our community which would be another plain bar as yours and so forth. And so they have been basically not put in the new zoning ordinance to be allowed in the community. And so there would be amortization looked at. Now I think you're zone C-1 because most of the business. . .and I think you're aware that we 've approved how many concepts over there, one or two, in the last few years. . . Payne: Well, we're under a PUD now. . . Mayor: I think what would happen at this point if you're zoned C- 1. . . I think all the bars and liquor establishments in town are in the C-1 zoning, am I correct . Payne: No, they're in C-2 . Mayor: Are they C-2? Hagen: C-2 Mayor: And of course there would have to be hearing and I 'm sure if you went to food and expanding of your business, you're probably well aware of probably would come up from the back side of your business. . .who have worked quite well with you, I think. . . Payne: Right, right Mayor: And so that 's why at the present time situation is where it is, but. . . Payne: I guess I just wanted to say that from what I 've heard from the neighborhood, the majority of them would like us to have food because a lot of them are customers and they wish we had food like the other places have. Mayor: Except I 'm not sure they know what all comes with that when you expand big enough to put in food and so forth. I mean I 'm not saying they would or wouldn't . And of course zoning at this point is, you know, zoning it and this is the point where you people are at this point. 18 Payne: O.K. , right, I just. . . Mayor: Appreciate trying to explain where we are. City Attorney: Mr. Mayor, I might point out that zoning is a flexible process and to the extent anyone would ever come forward, there is nothing that precludes text amendment changes and subsequent amendments to the zoning ordinance if you feel that is appropriate. Mayor: Mr. City Manager, anything else? Thibault : One last comment . I have to give your staff a lot of credit. I think you're pioneering in going into this PUD without it being an actual zoning change and without it being a conditional use permit. So that would be a great thing. So I would like to restate my comments : If the conditional use permit process does not apply -- and I can see now in rereading the ordinance that that could be the way it could be used -- then the question about traffic and the rest of it can be found in the PUD process as you have it on page 298, item c More Efficient and Effective Use of Street, Utilities, Public Facilities for High Quality Development; item e Purpose and Intent of the City Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance is mentioned and then on page 299, item e it has consistency with the Comprehensive Plan that deals more with modifications; however, in the section below it on Building and Site Design, it has in the bottom of that first paragraph, Relevant Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan before a PUD Plan may be Approved, and A underneath that has in its first paragraph, "By ensuring architectural compatibility of all structures, efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, esthetically pleasing landscaping and so forth, " and then below it maximum compatibility. So I think all of the things you would ever want to get in your so-called redevelopment plan, especially with respect to roadways and pedestrian facilities, would be included. Hagen: May I respond to that? My concern is that we need to mandate a specific process that requires us to look at overall, area-wide redevelopment . I think that 's an important requirement . Mayor: You know, I don't disagree with you, Mr. Hagen, but I got to ask you one question: How do you assimilate that or are you expecting the owner of that to come forward to redevelop the whole thing. I think that 's my big problem as a Council person. I mean, if I owned that and I know something about the different tenants in it and knowing the owner of the property and all this, I don't think that person is going to want to go back in St. Louis Park and put all those together and redevelop it all in a new way. And so, that ' s my question is there an in-between way, does the PUD as put in there allow us the ability to question this all the way through as we go because I do see. . . I see where you're going and I think if we were laying out a new town, new city, it would be very simple to certainly do what you're saying, but I find it tough and I 'm wondering. . .actually a PUD doesn't 19 bind the Council to a thing and they could ask all these questions. But it does not necessarily, and I understand some of the concerns. You know, if tomorrow. . .you know that area as well as I do. . .one of the middle buildings, let 's say, at this point they lost their tenant, and so they want to bring in at the present time as a, quote, as we got in other places in this community, "landbanking" , really is what I would call it where some people have put material on land and holding it until it 's worth more money. With this process we might not be able to do it with a PUD. You might be able to put length of time and so forth on that that you could use. I certainly don't disagree with your concept . I just sitting here on the Council say how do we implement that unless the alternatives if we got enough money to go in and buy it and redevelop it . We spent a long time on the last land we bought up to tonight ' s agreement, and I 'm not sure the Council 's ready to go at that again right away. Mitchell : Here 's how I 'd like to look at . . .one of the things that we were looking for or trying to accomplish in this long process was compatibility. . .we had a lot of incompatibility between our zoning and our Comprehensive Plan. And I guess I 'm looking for a comment or response to what the impact of that could be if we were to make this change and allow PUD and I think we 're. . . I 'd like to know if we 're not going to have situations where we 're going to have that inconsistency redevelop. Mayor: Can you answer that? Hagen: I think that by their nature, retail and service uses are not compatible generally with industrial uses . You have a lot more truck traffic with industrial uses so there is an issue of compatibility. I think that more important are some economic objectives for the community that we're trying to get at with these proposed conditions. Enhancing the economic viability of existing retail and service areas, making sure the development of retail and service occurs contiguous to existing retail and service rather than leapfrogging across some industrial uses, those kinds of things. I think the economic objectives probably are more significant here than are the compatibility issues. I think you can deal with some of the compatibility factors with proper site design, landscaping, buffer yards, etc. That would be my. . . I think if we allow retail and service indiscriminately' throughout the community we end up with not enough pressure for retail and service uses along Excelsior Blvd. , the corridor that we are trying to sort of set the tone for with our Tower Place redevelopment. It is our anticipation that that 's going to inject some economic rejuvenation, if you will, into that area and if we allow retail and service to go into industrial areas, we 're not going to capitalize on that pent up potential that I think exists for rejuvenation of Excelsior Blvd. Mayor: But I think. . .again, I 'd agree 100% with you except it 's. . .your philosophy I think is super and I don't even think the client would disagree with the philosophy that you're looking for. I mean the Belt Line Blvd. I just think that the PUD 20 probably gives us the chance to say no to something that, you know, if Snyder Drug Store wanted to move down in the middle of Belt Line Blvd. with a PUD, I think that this Council would say no to them. Now, if you want something that 's down there and has a partial retail, that might be different. And I think the PUD can bring in the length of time that you allow it to go while its changing. I would hate to be in the position knowing that my buildings are getting older that there is going to be a change. I don't have a big magnet with money that wants to come in and redevelop the whole area and I can understand the concern, speaking only for myself. Mitchell : The problem I have. . . I 'm not sure its salvagable for what we've intended and what we 're trying to address this in the 11th hour, 12th hour almost . And that 's where I 'm having a hard time. I don't know that simply implementing the PUD process which in a large part this is trying to get away from. We 've used that extensively historically and this. . .and we're going to allow it to implement primarily in this area. . . it 's kind of a step backward, not whether it 's right or wrong, it 's kind of a step backward in terms of the process. I see incompatibilities, I see we 're trying to quickly adjust in an area to accommodate different needs and I 'm not sure we 're going to end up with something we aren't going to have problems. That 's the concern I have. I don't know that we have spent the time. . .maybe we should have focused more on the transition than to think that PUD is the answer. I don't think that ' s necessarily the case. That 's why earlier on I kind of supported that transition although I don't know if that didn't have problems, too. But this is truly an 11th hour exercise here that is . . . I 'm not comfortable with. I 'm not pleased that we 're trying to put this thing together at the last minute. And if I have to overcompensate one side or the other, I guess at this point I 'd have to be more supportive of staff. We 've been at this a long time. Thibault : Two brief comments: One is across the street, we can understand the logic for that . In this case, across the street is the Recreation Center, swimming pool, ice arena, tennis courts, picnic area and Bass Lake, and you're not going to change those. So, we 've got a built-in problem there. If you had all housing over there, single family, sure, it would be a real problem, wouldn't it? But it isn't -- it 's a major athletic, the biggest public activity area outside of City Hall in the whole community is right there as far as public space. The owners can't change the land use across the street and if you look directly across. that map they have, directly across the street is where the Rec Center is and Bass Lake the other side. And it 's too nebulous as to whether Federal Express is a service use or not. Far as the trucking goes, the major streets and roadways. . .if you have trucks from that industrial area, unfortunately they're going to use 36th St . , Monterey and maybe Park Center Blvd. especially if it ' s extended. I think you have more of a disadvantage if you have trucks there, so you want uses I would think are non- trucking type uses. So, if you could change the uses across the street, that would be something different. But I think that adds 21 to the diversity. It is an important diversity -- it provides alot of the beauty of Parkshore Place and one of the reasons that area works so well is the park. I can remember when the park was tax free land, tax deed property and there were people that were ignoring that after they saw what the City did in terms of some filling and fixing up that area. That had single family houses on it next to the block plant. There were people willing to buy that property ten times over. And it would have been developed with something other than park and open space but that 's the major park and open space and activity center in the City and that won't change. So, across the street in this case is a real problem. Mitchell : Oh, I just wanted. . . I have really one last question on this and that is what would staff 's position be if this were to go PUD in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. Would they, in all likelihood, come back to us asking us to address that for its inconsistency? Mayor: PUD is zoning Mitchell : No, I 'm sorry. Well, the Comprehensive Plan is still going to be a problem once we go into the implications of that as we go through that. The next couple of years as we go through that process will have implications, I think, for the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan tied back to zoning. Mayor: We've had to make those changes. Mitchell : Well, I wondered if their position would be that they find they can work with that or would they more likely come back to us and say that we ought to address the Comprehensive Plan and address the whole issue together with what we want to do with it . Hagen: Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Mitchell, I think that if we apply some conditions that are above the general PUD process, that we don't have a problem because what we 're doing is we 're saying then that you have to demonstrate special things in order to get the PUD process for retail and service in the industrial zone. The industrial zone is. . .the ordinance and Comp Plan do recognize the importance of maintaining the industrial base in the community that we have. I 'm not referring to the heavier industrial types of uses that we had so many problems with adjacent residences on, but there are some very desirable industrial uses and I think that as long as we apply a stricter standard to the PUD process for these uses in the I=P zone, I think we can remain consistent with the Comp Plan. But if we 're not going to differentiate, then I think we have a definite problem. Mayor: Anyone else wishing to speak? illHaun: I think we forgot about perception of reality here. You know, we 're sitting down there with 120-180 acres of open space adjoining this industrial area. I think we have to realize it 's a 22 transition area as Councilman Mitchell points out but still I think we have to realize that the reality of what 's happening down there and without any PUD process to work with, that we 're trying to get people to come into that area. We have one of our biggest commitments we have on a task base in the Recreation Center and the facilities that adjoin that, and yet we 're saying we want to go to a complete industrial area across the street without any potential for retail . I can't agree with that at all . I just think. . . I 've lived in this community. . .everybody' s talked about how long they've lived here. . . I 've lived here longer than anybody, I 've lived here almost 50 years. So, if that means anything, what does that cut? It tells me something that I know a little bit about what goes down there and I 've seen what 's happened and I think we have to be realistic when we talk about these areas. The biggest problem I have with this is the inconsistency doing it in one area and not being able. . .and having to do it in the other two or three industrial areas we have. I think we have to be cognizant of what 's really happening there and what ' s really going to happen there. I just can't believe that that 's going to. . .the redevelopment plan if we. . . I hope I 'm not on the Council when we put Park Center Blvd. over that hill . I hope I 'm not here because I don't want to vote on that one. That 's a tough one. It 's a case where I think we have to be realistic what ' s going on, it 's a tough question, but I 'm still going to go along with my feelings that I had 3 weeks ago that I think we ought to use that PUD process. Mitchell : Can I ask a question of. . . Mayor: Maybe there are people that want to get other items on and then we're going to come and discuss, so unless someone really has a hot item, I think we 've been on this one. I guess I would like anyone else now that would like to speak on any other items. Hearing no one then, Councilmember Mitchell. Mitchell : I 'm not. . . I think we 're going to have to work with that. Do you have any sentiments in terms of the 10-acre, 2 acre, 5 acre, PUD process what staff recommends. Or do you see that as still an industrail . . .an attempt to have industrial . I 'm curious as to what your thoughts are on the PUD. Haun: Well, to answer you Larry, 10 acres is pretty big, pretty big piece of property. Realistically, ten acres. . .you're getting industrial when you get to 10 acres. I just think we may have to reduce that down somewhat, there isn't that much land down there number one, you know, to go to 10 acres. If we were starting out, as someone pointed out, a new community, what staff is recommending is fine. I mean, if we had 300 acres or 1000 acres to deal with, it 's a different situation. But we 're dealing with a very complex, compacted area down there. The density level now is about what it will absorb as far, but if you go to. . .again, we 're assuming that what 's happening down there now is going to go to pieces and we 're going to have to redevelop it . As I look at those buildings down there and look at a lot of other areas, not only in this community but in other communities, I don't perceive that as just crumbling down and falling apart . I think 23 it 's a transition zone, but I think it 's something we 're talking about may not realistically happen for quite a few years . II Mayor: O.K. , maybe one way of proceeding is the City Manager will walk us through the item you have on resolution/ordinance changes and we're going to come back to some of these and each one he will go through and we will need a motion to go somewhere with them, and then when we get completely through that, then I would like to have each of the Councilmembers. . .anything that you have if you've read. . .not if you've read. . .when you've read the items, anything that you have concern about that we should address tonight. I do have to say one thing, that I 've been on the Council long enough to know that comprehensive plans and zoning do change. And so, you know, things are not cast in stone. We. . .years ago came up with a DDD district which was something completely new and so maybe we should ressurect that for down there is a DDD. So, Mr. City Manager, let 's move forward as I think I 've taken everyone who wanted to speak. Dixon: O.K. , Mayor, Councilmembers, what we're going to be doing just to set the stage in an outline fashion here is that there are a number of individual items that need to be resolved. I will present them individually and the Council be asked to vote individually on them. There will then be the ordinance itself, as I understand it, Mayor, the zoning ordinance itself, then comments from the Council and then we ' ll also have a vote on the summary publication, your approval of that. So, if the Council wants to follow along unlike the presentation I made two weeks ago which was lengthy and all the way through, I ' ll be stopping frequently in this presentation for you to vote. I ' ll be using the staff report and under the heading on page 1, Roman numberal I Requested Modification, this section of the memorandum sets forth language to modify the proposed zoning ordinance according to changes approved in concept by the Council at your last meeting on Nov. 23 and deals with changes requested which require further discussion. All changes and modifications are to the Oct . 28, 1992 draft of the proposed ordinance which was given first reading on Nov. 23 . Procedurally, each section change should be acted upon by separate motion as I noted which either includes and excludes the suggested language in the ordinance. Departures from the recommended language changes should be specifically noted in the record. Turning then to page 2, there is a heading entitled "Language for Changes Approved in Concept . " The first of these is to add Retail as an accessory use in the I-P industrial park district. This modification is a technical correction and there would be a change on page 188 and if the Council is supportive of that, a motion at this time to change to add that language that you see there would be in order. Mayor: Someone want to make a motion? Mitchell : So move. Dorfman: Second. 24 Mayor: OK, there 's a motion by Council member Mitchell, seconded by Councilmember Dorfman on page 188 to add the following: Retail sales are limited to a maximum of 15% of the gross floor area of the development . Any discussion? All in favor say I . Motion passed 5-1 . Dixon: Item 2 : Define conditions for retail and restaurants with liquor in the 0 Office District . Modifications directed by the Council were to relax the conditions for retail uses as uses permitted with conditions in restaurants with liquor as conditional uses in the 0 district. There is then in your memorandum, your staff report which is part of the record, a reference to page 168 under item 17, Retail add language as stated in the report . And if that 's the Council 's desire, a motion at this time. Mayor: Do I hear a motion? Mitchell : So move, Mr. Mayor. Mayor: Motion by Councilmember Mitchell, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs and this would read then on page 168 under 17, If the land upon which the retail 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 conditions A and C above and on page 171 under 2 Restaurants with Liquor, add the following to Condition A: If the land upon which the restaurant with liquor 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. Any discussion? All in favor say I . Motion carries 6-0 . Dixon: Moving then to the top of page 3, item 3 , conditional use permit conditions, (a) Add consideration of redevelopment plan or development district. The first issue dealt with allowing redevelopment plans and development district programs to be considered when acting on conditional use permits. A change should be made if that is still the Council ' s desire. That change will be on page 291 and the Mayor has been reading these following Council motions. So, I ' ll stop at this time. Mayor: OK, page 291 in section 14 .65 . 1 in line 6 following "adjacent properties" insert the following: The City Council may consider the provisions relating to the use of the land of any redevelopment plan or development district program approved pursuant to Minnesota Statute as amended from time to time and may incorporate such provisions in a conditional use permit when deemed necessary. And discussion? Need a motion. Jacobs: So move, Mayor. Mitchell : Second Mayor: Moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell. Any discussion? All in favor say I . Motion passed 6-0 . 25 Dixon: Item b under Conditional Use Permit conditions . Add an option to impose additional and/or more stringent conditions in certain cases. This issue relates to clarification of the circumstances under which additional conditions can be attached to the conditional use report . A change should be made at page 292 substituting Section 8 as drafted with the following, and there is a fairly lengthy section there to read or make reference to. The City Attorney feels it should be read. Mayor: On page 292, substitute Section 8 as drafted with the following: Shall be subject to the imposition of additional conditions as part of the conditional use permit when in the opinion of the City Council such additional conditions are necessary to protect the general welfare, public safety and neighborhood character. Such additional conditions may be imposed on those situations where the other dimensional standards, performance standards, conditions or requirements in this ordinance are insufficient to achieve the objectives contained in Section 14 . 1-1 . 2 of this ordinance. In these circumstances, the City Council may impose restrictions and conditions on the conditional use permit which are more stringent than those set forth in this ordinance and which are consistent with the general conditions above. Jacobs : Move approval, Mr. Mayor. Mitchell : Second Mayor: Motion by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell. Any discussion? Motion passed 6-0 . Dixon: The fourth category for those items that have previously been approved in concept and which the Council tonight is approving by motion or amending the zoning ordinance by motion pertains to golf courses and country clubs. At its last meeting, the Council approved a motion to put golf courses in a separate land use category and to regulate them either as a use permitted with conditions or as a conditional use. Additionally, staff was directed to make provisions for allowing the club house function to remain as a conditional use. Item A under the section, the separation from parks and open space land use category, it 's staff suggesting that this being accomplished by deleting golf courses from the definition of parks and open space and by creating separate land use categories for golf courses and country clubs. The following changes would accommodate this and I 'll read them to give the Mayor a break. On page 69, number 6 in the definition of Parks and Open Space, delete the phrase "and golf courses. " On page 69 following item 11, insert the following land use description: "12 . Golf Course - A facility for playing golf outdoors which consists of golf holes, club house facilities which may contain lockers, shower rooms and incidental sale of golf-related items and off-street parking facilities. 13 - Country Club - A golf course and associated club house which may contain in addition to locker and shower rooms, dining and bar facilities, meeting rooms and other spaces for large social 26 functions . Typically open only to members and characteristics may include significant trip generation on evenings and weekends. " 111 Jacobs: Move approval of that portion. Haun: Second Mayor: Moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun. All in favor say I . Motion passed 6-0 . Dixon: Continuing. (b) May conditional use in R-1 single family residence district . "Finally golf courses and country clubs would be added as conditional uses in the R-1 zoning district. The following change will accommodate this: On page 85 modify section 14 :5-4 .2d inserting the following: 3 . Golf courses - Conditions. (a) All structures shall be located a minimum of 30 ft. from any adjacent lot in an R-use district for country clubs conditions. All structures shall be located a minimum of 30 ft . from any adjacent lot in an R-use district. Jacobs: Move approval, Mayor Mitchell : Second Mayor: Motion by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell . Any discussion? All in favor say I . Motion passed 6-0 . Dixon: Continuing Mayor and Council, we now move at the middle of page 5 to a category or a listing of items that might require some discussion; they may not, also. These are items that the Council has discussed previously. There should not be surprises among these, but you are seeing the actual language to implement the direction that you previously provided. Several modifications to the ordinance which require further Council discussion are listed. This subsection describes those and provides the language. The first is adult uses prohibiting peep shows or booths. This emerged from the Nov. 23 public hearing. Staff was directed to prepare language. In consultation with the Chief of Police, staff determined that the so-called peep shows fall within the definition of adult mini theaters contained in the ordinance. The Council 's directive may be realized by prohibiting adult mini theaters in the I-G general industrial district . There is language -- it 's grief -- that would eliminate peep shows as a permitted use in the I-G district . On page 192, Section 14 :5-734 add the following condition h. Adult Mini Theaters are prohibited. Jacobs: Move approval Haun: Second Mayor: I 've got a motion made by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun. We only need to add this on to the industrial areas because we're only allowing adult uses in that 27 area, am I correct? 111 Hagen: Yes Mayor: OK, I 'm asking, we have made the assumption in consultation that the Chief of Police is calling the peep shows adult mini theaters. I guess I would feel more secure if we had them both listed. Is there any reason why we should not? I mean anyone coming in to start a business may say well, this is certainly not a mini theater. This is just a booth. And I understand what the Police Chief 's saying, but I mean for our ordinance and I don't disagree with it . Would there be any problem with just having it right out in so many terms so that people look at our ordinance and say we really brought that item up and it ' s not addressed. Mitchell : Here ' s another way of . . . is this. . .the communities that have prohibited this use, is this the language that they're using for that . I think Minneapolis prohibits the use, does it now? Mayor: I don't know. Mitchell : It seems to me you would want to use the language of the communities that 's consistently used in the law to reference these. Mayor: I guess after our last discussion I just would feel . . .maybe the Chief wants to speak to this because I think he's the one that 's quoted here as saying that it ' s. . .concern adult mini theater. Chief : Mayor and Council, perhaps you could just add the use to further define mini theaters or viewing rooms. Mayor: I 'd feel more comfortable. Jacobs: That 's certainly fine with the maker of the motion Mayor: All in favor say I . Opposed? Motion carries 6-0 . Dixon: The next subject under that heading of Adult Uses pertains to measuring distance between adult uses. There was discussion of that at the hearing. There was discussion on parking lots and the measuring from what corner to what corner of the building. Alyce Ten Cate spoke and identified five changes she felt should be made. Those pertain to a licensing requirement, an amortization period, prohibiting peep booths, reworking the spacing requirements and reducing the percent of floor area from 30% to 10%. The prohibition on peep booths has been addressed and staff believes the spacing issue is adequately covered in the proposed ordinance. No direction was given to Council to develop CP additional language on licensing amortization or reduction in percentage of floor area; as a result, there is no language here for the Council to act upon. I ' ll just pause in case someone would want to offer something. 28 Mayor: I don't believe any of those three would be zoning issues. That ' s my opinion. Anyone disagree with that? I 'm not saying this Council may not address them, but I think in the zoning ordinance they're not . Dixon: Moving on, then. The next subject is pawnshops . At the meeting of the 16th, Council approved the inclusion of pawnshops in the C-2 commercial district . That action will necessitate the development of a definition of pawnshops and modifying the language of the C-2 district to allow pawnshops. The following language will accomplish these purposes : On page 73 of the proposed ordinance add the following language to Section 14 : 5-3d following item 19 Outdoor Sales : "Pawnshop: A facility where money is loaned based on the value of goods deposited at the facility by the borrower of the money, which goods are held by the lender of the money occupying the facility as collateral for the loan. Items held by the lender which are not redeemed by the borrower may be put up for sale at the facility to the general public. The characteristics of this use are similar to those for retail uses. Items 20-26 in the remainder of the section shall be renumbered 21-27. On page 145 of the draft ordinance, Section 14 :5-5 .3, Section B is amended by adding the following: "16 . Transit Stations: 17 . Pawnshops. " Mayor: Is there a motion: Meland: So moved. Jacobs: Second Mitchell: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any opposition to the definition of pawnshops, only to the district it 's in. I think I 've stated. . . Mayor: All right. Anyone else? All in favor of the motion say I . Opposed? Motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Mitchell opposed) . Dixon: The next item is service and retail uses in the I-P district. This is something the Council has discussed earlier this evening. Before the proposed zoning ordinance was given its first reading on Nov. 23, a decision was made to permit retail and service uses in the I-P industrial park district in some fashion through the Planned Unit Development process. Allowing greater flexibility of land use and PUDs is justified in that much of the negative impact of allowing flexibility through PUD is internalized and can be mitigated through site design and in that through the PUD process, the City can negotiate to achieve a better project than would otherwise ' be the case. Staff ' s interpretation of Council 's decision to allow retail and service uses in the I-P district through the PUD process rather than as outright permitted uses is that retail and service uses have the potential to, but do not necessarily, serve a greater public good than industrial uses in the I-P District . Staff did not interpret the decision as a rejection of the goals and objectives established in the Comprehensive Plan of maintaing the integrity 29 of industrial area to retain higher paying industrial jobs, to maintain lower traffic volumes, to provide a higher level of predictability of development and to maintain diversity of the City's economic base. If you then turn to page 8 at the top there is language that would implement the Council ' s philosophical direction at its last meeting. That language is pretty lengthy and I would be happy to read it . I don't know if that ' s the Council 's pleasure or not . Mayor: I think we 've discussed it enough so we 've been walked through it. I don't know if I agree with one statement that you made that that was the Council 's philosophical . . . I think this is staff 's method of being concerned about the Council ' s. . .and I don't blame them for that which I 've said. I think it 's a question of whether we look at these. . .any part of them. . .or whether we go with the PUD process as was presented to us by Mr. Thibault in his presentation. Or combinations. I leave this open to the Council . Here 's where we have to get down to where we 're going. We've discussed it, it 's been our longest item of the night . Haun: Mr. Mayor, I move we move the PUD process as we did in the first reading. Mayor: As the yellow item does? Haun: Yeh, in the first reading Mayor: Is there a second? Dorfman: Second Mayor: Motion by Councilmember Haun, seconded by Councilmember Dorfman, to move the PUD process. Mitchell : I guess I can go along with it, although I think I 'm concerned what we 're going to do is to approve this process, we will wait for a problem to come up which I think will come up eventually. This is probably an area we need to address, not forget about. . .come back to. . .because we've done this in the 11th hour, I think we're going to have problems there that we should address fairly soon, but I think this is the best we can do at this point. Mayor: I think this will address what we have presently. I think what staff is talking about is maybe where we need to be able to start getting in and making a plan that we feel looks . . .that we can work with the owner to try to draw up something so that we can get something down that we could be "leading to. " Mitchell : Mr. Mayor, I think what the problem is I think we have in all of this kind of told us we don't know what we 've designated for that area under the Comp Plan and what we did earlier under zoning is what we want there. 30 Jacobs: I don't want to beat this to death because we 've talked enough about it tonight . I guess I do want to share a couple of concerns I have about this. I 'm going to support the motion. I have to say I 'm not very comfortable with it. I 'm not very happy about the fact this issue came up very much at the 11th hour. . .this has been a many, many year long process and all of a sudden, at the last instant we got this dropped in our laps. I don't like that . And staff did a great job in trying to deal with it and it was dropped into our laps literally in the last month of a many year process, but I do think we want to revisit this very quickly to make sure we ' doing something which is right in the community. Mayor: OK, the motion would be uses permitted by PUD and it would be added into the I-P district, as I would read it . And the motion would be those structure land in the I-P district shall be used for the following uses except by the PUD process. And those are retail other than accessory and service other than accessory. Is that correct? Hagen: Yes. City Attorney: Mr. Mayor, just as a point of clarification so it 's helpful for the record, I think what you just voted on. . . Mayor: We haven't voted, it 's just a motion. CA: Could I cite where it should be? On page 188, substitute the language that you're voting on on Uses Permitted by PUD as (e) . Make the present (e) Dimensional Standards as (f) and that would do the renumbering. Mayor: OK. All right, all in favor of motion say I . Opposed? Motion carries 6-0 . I guess I would say one thing as we finish that to the people in that area. I think we're concerned about it, and I think you people are concerned about it and maybe it 's an area where we sort of need to work together and try and come up with something for future. Dixon: Moving on the bottom of page 9 there has been discussion this evening about Apple Valley Red-E-Mix so I will simply reference the proposed change to the ordinance that 's before the Council for consideration. That is on page 318, amend Section 14 :74d4 to read as follows: 4 . City Council to establish an amortization period. The City Council shall amend the zoning ordinance to establish an amortization period for individual land uses not permitted in the City. The amortization period shall commence from publication of the ordinance establishing the 'length of the amortization period. Mayor: Can you explain that, how that will work, City Attorney? CA: Mayor, Councilmembers, there is a detailed process in the proposed ordinance that if you adopt will set out a registration procedure, information a property owner would have to supply to 31 you and decision criteria and standards you would look at and consider as part of a process of determining what may be an appropriate and reasonable amortization period. Once you have the information you need and a recommendation from staff, the actual process of establishing the period itself as applied to a particular property would come to the Council in the form of an proposed amendment to this zoning ordinance. So therefore all the public hearing, the notice requirements, protections you have by statute for amendments to zoning ordinances for area of five acres or less would apply here Jacobs : Move approval Mayor: Second? Dorfman: Second Mayor: Motion by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Dorfman. Any discussion? All in favor say I . Opposed? Motion carries 6 -0 . Dixon: Mayor, then turning to page 10 under the heading of industrial uses, there are three items, I believe, that were brought to the Council 's attention. Perhaps there were five. . . I see a, b, c, d and e extending through page 13 . I was going to read summaries on each of these and we 'll still do that in the interest of timing. The first is modification of definition of warehouse and storage. Based on Council discussion and staff review, the recommendation is that the proposed language not be adopted. Let me go then to b. And give you an overview of these five. B is to reduce parking requirements for outside storage areas. Based on material submitted and an observation of such activities in the community by staff, it 's believed that the inclusion of the proposed language in the ordinance is appropriate and there is language furnished for the Council . Mayor: Let 's stop and take care of that. Does anyone want to do anything with it . All right, B then on page 240, the ordinance would amend No. 45 to read: Outdoor storage will require one parking space be provided for each 20, 000 sq. ft. of land devoted to outside storage. Jacobs : Move approval, Mayor. Haun: Second Mayor: Motion to Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun. All in favor so I . Opposed? Motion passed 6 -0 . Dixon: Turning to page 12, item C, eliminate the fencing requirement for outside storage in certain cases. Staff agrees with the concept that portions of storage yards abutting railroad tracks should not be required to be screened from view with a decorative fence. To that end, language should be added and I ' ll 32 read that language: On page 187, Section 5 Outdoor Storage, subheading (a) , the following should be added: Where properties abut a railroad track, fencing shall not be required on the side of the storage yard which faces or is adjacent to the railroad track, unless the average grade of the railroad track is less than 6 ft . higher than the average grade of the storage yard. On page 195, Section 11 Outdoor Storage, subheading (a) , the following language should be added: Where properties abut a railroad track, fencing shall not be required on the side of storage yard which faces or is adjacent to the railroad track unless the average grade of the railroad track is less than 6 ft . higher than the average grade of the storage yard. Mayor: And this is the one, I think, that Mr. Gottstein addressed and felt that in the back yard it also shouldn't be required. Do you have any language that would accomplish that? Rye: I believe the language already exists. On page 187, Section 5 (a) , the requirement is that the storage area shall be screened from all abutting public streets and from any property in an R and C use district . So if the abutting property were industrial, the way we read that there is no requirement for screened fencing. Mayor: Thank you. Is there a motion? Jacobs : So move Mr. Mayor. Meland: Second Mayor: Motion by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Meland. All in favor say I . Opposed? Motion passed 6-0 . Dixon: Top of page 13 item D. There was a request to eliminate parking requirements from mezzanines. Staff believes the ordinance should remain as written. Mayor: Anyone feel different? Dixon: Item E, there was a suggestion of a change from gross to net square feet in calculating parking. Staff recommends the language in the ordinance be retained and that gross floor area continue to be the method by which off-street parking requirements are required. Mayor: Any discussion on that, any problems? Leave that . Dixon: Additional information. We have a letter from Methodist Hosptial which basically outlines their understanding of the ordinance as applies to their property. They request that the provisions of the new ordinance be applied to them in an equitable manner which is always the City's intent . They concluded with a request that their letter be acknowledged and that ' s been done. Mayor, do you have other items prior to the Council voting on the entire ordinance. 33 Mayor: Yes, I do, plus I want to check with each of the Councilmembers to see if they are. . . I would like to ask staff, is there any problem with putting back in. . .could you tell us where if we put in a 10 ft. backyard back in for the triangular lot . Dorfman: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make two points on that. One, this unfortunately was an issue that came to the impacted community very late in the game and they haven't had much opportunity to discuss it unlike many other issues we 're talking about . Secondly, it 's an issue that really may impact only this one particular parcel or certainly very, very few and so I think it 's appropriate to treat it as a unique situation. And because they've haven't had much time to look at it, I would suggest that not only do we keep the 10 ft . back lot, but essentially keep it at 35 ft. as it currently is zoned and not change that . I know that differs from the backyard setback through the City, but this is a unique situation. Mayor: I can go along with your first one but I would like to get the backyards moved so we don't end up with all the variances which we're granting anyhow. I think the triangular lot is an important issue that someone. . if you don't have a backyard and can push a house back into that triangle, it might look odd but it might still be there. And I guess that 's a concern. And I 'm only speaking for myself, I don't know what the rest of the Council . . . Maybe we need to try some motions here and then staff can figure out where they would be inserted. Dorfman: Well, I 'd like to move Mr. Mayor that we view the triangular lot with a 10 ft. back lot definition and 35 ft . setback. Mitchell : Second Mayor: For just a triangular lot? Dorfman: Just a triangular lot Mayor: Can we do that? I guess I 'd ask staff . Can we write anywhere in the R-1 specific for a triangular lot? Hagen: I think we want to give that some thought before responding to that question. Perhaps in consultation with the City Attorney. Dorfman: I want to make the point that when I talked to staff today they indicated that although they didn't have time to do a comprehensive search that there were probably very few triangular lots. . .maybe a handful. . .and in fact if you look at triangular lots that are undeveloped, there may in fact only be this one parcel . So we 're not talking about. , . . Mayor: No, I know we're not talking about a lot . I think the problem is we've got an R-1 district and whether there ' s a way we can legally talk about a triangular lot . . .how did we discuss that 34 before? Was that in our zoning before when we had a measurement of 10 ft. of the backyard that we measured the 25 ft. setback? That had to be in there before somehow. IIIRye: It was a 35 ft . setback. Mayor: Well, or whether it was 25 . Now, how is it in there before. Rye : That would be measured from that 10 ft . line. Mayor: How was that put in? Was that put in as a triangular lot or what? Rye: It talked about in cases where a lot came to a point or someother circumstances. It was a little more general in its application. We have some odd shaped lots that have 5, 6, 7 sides and that was intended to deal with that. The current ordinance specifically deals with a triangular lot where you have a front, two sides that come to a point ostensibly in the back. Mayor: So, are you saying if we passed the ordinance without this motion, a house would have to be 25 ft . from the point. Or I think the question is. . . Rye: No. III Mayor: There is no backyard. Rye: Yes, in a triangular lot, there is no longer a rear yard defined. You have side yards that converge to that point . So they will define some kind of a setback and it will vary depending on the angularity of that lot . And just the practical width you've got to fit a building into. Now, if we change the definition relating to triangular lots and reincorporate that 10 ft . line, then that gets us back pretty much to where we were before. Without having to specify a greater additional setback. So, I guess what I 'm suggesting is that we define the 10 ft. line in the back of that lot and then the 25 ft. setback would apply to that. Mayor: OK, so it 'd be 35 ft. from the point . Rye: Well, depending on. . .30 or 35 probably. Mayor: But I mean, that would be no different in the back from anyone else ' s lot, then? Rye: Virtually Mayor: OK, the motion would be then to reinsert the 10 ft line. . . III Dorfman: Well, the motion that is on the table is 35 and I think I didn't hear an answer to the question of whether that is a viable option or not. I understand that staff prefers to have a 35 25 ft but have it be consistent with the back lot setback. Is there a way of making an exception in this unique circumstance? Rye: Mayor, Councilmember Dorfman, I have a concern, I don't know if it ' s justified legally or not in terms of whether we 're treating everybody alike in the R-1 district in terms of setback. If it 's 25 ft . setback for one, it should be 25 for all . I 'm not sure legally we can get ourselves out with a different setback standard. Dorfman: I will withdraw that and offer a motion for the 10 ft . back lot line and a 25 ft . setback. Mayor: Everything is going to be 25 ft. in the R-1, am I correct? Do you know where that will go? CA: Mr. Mayor, correct me Mr. Rye if I 'm wrong. Section 14 : 5-4 . 1 Residential Restrictions and Performance Standards. I think you could add it as (j ) and what would be helpful before you vote finally on the ordinance tonight is if we were able to get the language from the existing zoning ordinance so we could read it into exactly what they're voting on. Rye: Mr. Mayor, another way to accomplish that I think is to modify our definition of what constitutes a rear lot line. That 's what 's created the circumstance because that definition was changed from the current ordinance to the proposed ordinance. If we modify that language, then I think we 've taken care of our problems. . . Mayor: We'll vote on that motion giving you direction to give language. Mitchell : I 'll take back my first second and second this . Mayor: All in favor say I . Opposed? Motion passed 6-0 . Mayor: I 'll now turn to the Council. You're got the ordinance, you've all read it. You've all been through all the long hearings on it . I guess I would like to ask each of you. . .Number one to answer these questions or just a yes to them if you have nothing else. . .whether you've read and reviewed the proposed findings of fact; whether you concur in the proposed findings of fact; whether you would like to speak to any of the proposed findings of fact; whether you would like to amend any of the proposed findings of fact or add additional findings of fact . I 36 So, this gives you a chance to speak to the ordinance. I 've given you the four questions and whether you'd like to speak or not, I would like on the record that you are in agreement with those four things that you heard. So, I 'll open it to the Council for any discussion you have on the ordinance. If none of you want to get going, I will . Meland: I 'd like to make a few comments. I 've read the findings of fact that support the decisions we 're about to make about the present and future use of land in the City. I 've lived in St. Louis Park for nearly 44 years so I guess I 'm getting into that crowd that 's been here all evening. Over the years I 've seen the nature and character of the City change and I can remember 30 years ago the City had a lot of heavy industry such as heavy equipment manufacturing companies, gravel pits, railroad classification yards, contractor yards, heavy equipment storage, wood and lumber treatment plants, acetlyene plant, gain elevators, landfills, brick yard and bromine gas plant . Today St . Louis Park is a first-ring residential suburb of Minneapolis and heavy industrial uses are incompatible with our many residential neighborhoods. I believe it is important as a City Council that we maintain the quality of our residential community and ensure against diminution and property values and preserve our residential tax base. We have a very strict housing maintenance program that requires homeowners to bring their properties up to code before they can sell them. We are doing this to preserve and protect the quality of our housing stock. We are considering a proposed ordinance that would require landlords and owners of one-two family rental properties to register their properties and obtain periodic housing inspections. We are doing this to preserve and protect the quality of our housing stock. We have ordinances that permit us to tow junk vehicles from residential neighborhoods and require homeowners to shovel snow and cut weeds from their yards. We do this to protect public safety and maintain the quality and appearance of our neighborhoods. This zoning ordinance contains a fairly strict standard to regulate the size and locations of signs and banners. We are doing this to protect the quality, safety and esthetics of our neighborhoods. In my mind, promoting and protecting the peaceful use and enjoyment of our residential neighborhoods is one of our foremost responsibilities as City Council. The Planning Commission, Citizens Task Force, Zoning Task Force and City Council have spent almost six years in developing land use goals. . . it actually seems more like 19 years, the length of time I 've been on the Council . . .and developing the zoning ordinance to implement the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. I 'd just like to reiterate two specific goals of the Comprehensive Plan: To develop a community which has a safe and pleasant environment and which enhances social, economic and ecological welfare; reduces adverse effects associated with intense land uses to a level compatible with adjacent less intense uses. In the I-P districts like the Edgewood Industrial Area, we have done this by imposing performance standards on the operation of industrial and commercial businesses in order to promote as much harmony as we 37 can between the business and residential properties . In other cases, we 've not permitted certain types of intense industrial uses to locate in areas that will be residential under this 111 zoning ordinance because of the potential adverse impacts it may create on neighboring residential properties. Mr. Patchin has advised us that intense land uses near residential properties may cause a depreciation in property values. One of the toughest things we 're doing in the zoning ordinance is eliminating after a reasonable amortization period those existing land uses that are incompatible with the goals of our Comprehensive Plan, particularly the two specific goals I 've alredy mentioned. This decision has been a difficult one for all of us on the Council . We've spent a lot of time at study sessions discussing why we should use amortization to terminate certain types of land uses. We 've talked to our City Planner about the impacts on Apple Valley and the benefits to the neighborhood. Since the October 23, 1991 public hearing on the draft zoning ordinance, Mrs. Flugar talked about the heavy truck traffic going in and out of Apple Valley. I 've worried about the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on Louisiana Ave. This is in the third ward where I represent these people. While I 'm sure Apple Valley's truck drivers are very careful, the heavy truck traffic from Apple Valley creates a potential for a serious accident . This concern was reinforced when I read the letter from Mr. Douglas Bonner that a fully loaded concrete truck can weight up to 70 tons. A heavy truck like this cannot stop or maneuver quickly to avoid an accident . I 'm not a doctor and I can't be sure the dust from Apple Valley caused Mrs. Segal 's asthma, but I do believe that the dust from Apple Valley may lead to certain types of respiratory and pulmonary problems, particularly for older people who may live near the plant. I suspect that goes as well for very young children and infants. As a City Council, I believe we have a responsibility to do as much as we can to protect the health of our citizens and I think requiring Apple Valley to close after a reasonable amortization period helps to protect the health of people living near the plant. I think it is reasonable for us to assume, particularly after Mr. Patchin's letter, . that Apple Valley's existing concrete plant, or even a new concrete plant, in a residential district affects property values. I do not believe there are any reasonable measures including landscaping, buffer yards, setbacks and fencing that we could impose that would effectively and adequately protect the neighboring residential properties from the likely secondary impacts of a concrete plant in a residential district. And I think industrial and residential are compatible uses in a residential district . Mayor, one final comment : Until the zoning ordinance, the City has relied solely on its ordinances relating to non-conforming uses to provide for the eventual elimination of non-conforming uses . What we've seen is that with reasonable maintenance, some non-conforming uses continue to remain indefinitely. And we cannot count in all cases that normal wear and tear on buildings and machinery will eventually cause a property owner to abandon a non-conforming use. Apple Valley Red-E-Mix has been a non- conforming use for many years and it is still continuing to operate. I believe using amortization to provide for its eventual 38 termination is an appropriate use of our police powers because it will ensure a pleasanter and more economical environment in which residents across the street can live free from the annoyances and disturbances from the plant that will ultimately enhance property values, maintain our tax base because the residents will not move out of the area. For the record, I do have some photographs indicating dust coming from the plant that I would like to get into the record and also a record of police and emergency service calls. Mayor: You've done your work well, Third Ward Councilmember. These will be entered as part of the record. Do we want to give a number to these tonight? Are we starting with No. 1 on December 7, 1992 . Hagen: I think we 're up to No. 6 . Mayor: All right, we have four pictures. Hagen: I 'm informed we 're up to No. 12 so perhaps we should start with. . . City Attorney: No. 1 tonight. Mayor: OK, four pictures that have been put in exhibit, it will be 1-4 and the police record will be No. 5 . CA: Mayor, you might just want to reference what they are pictures of. Mayor: This is dust from mixing at plant, just a view of the readymix plant; and another picture with the dust going strong. I 'll pass them around. CA: It would appear the pictures were taken from 3300 On the Park. Mayor: And the police record will be No. 5, so I will pass those to the City Manager who may give them to staff. Anyone else? Jacobs: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of comments and some possible additions to make to the. . .at least findings of fact that have been prepared by our staff. First of all, let me say that I, too, have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the findings of fact that were prepared. In answer to your specific questions, Mayor, yes, I have read through the ordinance over and over. I don't remember all the other questions, but I think my answer to them was always yes. If you ask me if I have something to say tonight and talk a little bit, the answer to that is virtually always yes and I ' ll do that . I 've spent considerable time both as a Councilmember on this Council and also before that as a member of the Zoning Advisory Task Force going back several years III studying the ordinance, studying the conditions within the City that give rise to ordinances like this and I believe our staff has done an outstanding job on the ordinance in its various 39 permutations over the course of time. The Council has spent an awful lot of time in many, many hearings -- each one potentially resulting, if fact as I recall back over it, I don't remember a meeting where there wasn't some change to be made in this zoning ordinance. And our staff has done an outstanding job of following the twists and turns of the Council and to the twists and turns of what is has desired as different facts have come up, and they have done an admirable job in keeping up with the amendments proposed by the Council and members of the public. I 'd also like to thank all of the citizens who were involved in the formulation of this document. There were many, many citizen committees, business owners, people from the Edgewood Industrial district and the Eliot View neighborhood and on and on and on. I don't want. . . I can't remember them all at this point, but I think they've all done an outstanding job in coming up with a document that may not be perfect but I think it reflects literally thousands of hours of thought and work and I think it will provide this community with a road map that it needs as we enter the next century. With that said, I have a couple of specific comments. I read through the specific findings of fact and unfortunately I read through them to the point where my copy of it is pretty well marked up. I 'd like to add at the end of the findings a clause that reads: "The Council desires to provide for the eventual abatement of incompatible land uses within the City and for the abatement of those uses which have over the course of time become nuisance-like or which have nuisance-like qualities or have the potential for becoming nuisances within the City. " I see there is some reference made to that within the findings III itself, but I think we need to make a specific and separate finding of that if we could. Mayor: OK, maybe I can ask. . .do you make that as a motion? Jacobs: I do, as a matter of fact. I 'd like to move that we add that clause. And that would be number. . .whatever the last one is here, it would be in addition to that . I don't know if we need a comprehensive renumbering. . .No. 88, that 's fine. Should we vote on that now? Mayor: All in favor of that motion say I . Opposed? Motion passed 6-0 . Jacobs: Couple of other comments if I could? I ' ll try to make this as brief as I can. I have not lived in the City as long as some members of this Council. . . I 've been here on and off since 1980, but even since then I 've noticed the differing makeup of the City and I 've noticed that certain areas have changed in character in neighborhood makeup. One of the areas is certainly the neighborhood what is around the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix plant and the 3300 On the Park area even in the 12 years I 've lived here. I 'm very concerned about the possible health hazards created by the use there. I 've reviewed Mr. Patchin' s report, I drive by that area five times a week and I 've seen that plant in operation in all kinds of weather, in virtually all kinds of weather conditions, I 've seen it in the winter, I see the ice and 40 sleet that gets put on the streets by the trucks as they pull out of there, I see the dust in the summer, and I 'm very concerned about the health hazards that may be occurring there for residents in that area. In my practice, I 'm an attorney, and I represent injured workers who suffer from industrial injuries like that . I have represented people that have had various different kinds of lung problems as a result of being exposed to silica dust and diesel fumes, one of whom worked in fact for Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, and he was injured permanently enough that he can't be a truck driver for them anymore. I 've represented people who have actually died from silicosis and lung-related disorders when they work in plants where the kinds of things that are used are cement plants get in their lungs. And over the course of time, it doesn't happen right away, but over the course of time it does create some health problems. I 'm not a doctor either, but I see it on the end of it where I watch what happens to these people after they are exposed to it over long periods of time. My concern is while that was an industrially- based area years ago, it 's not industrially-based now -- now it 's a residential area with a cement plant parked in the middle of it. In addition, I 'm concerned we have a rational basis for the legislative decisions we 're going to make here tonight . I 've reviewed, while I don't pretend to have reviewed all of the case law and I don't want to get into a legal argument at this point because this isn't a court of law, we're not going to adjudicate things here, we 're sitting in our capacity as a City Council . I have looked at the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix case that Council provided to us, I 've reviewed the Naegele case from before that and I 've listened to the arguments presented on both sides of that. I do not agree with the conclusions reached by Apple Valley Red-E-Mix's counsel . I 've read that case as prohibiting the attempt in the early 70 's to seek to remove the readymix plant but leaving very much open the prospect that it could be amortized later on. That 's the way I read the case. . .the court may disagree. . . but my sense is that that is in fact what it says. The future it seems . . .well at this point, let me back up. When I was thinking about this in some detail this weekend, I remember one of the very first cases I ever read when I was in law school, a long time ago, that involved a piggery. Now you ask, what does a piggery have to do with a cement factory? It seems that in the late 1940 's someplace in Massachuttes somebody opened up a pig farm, and in the course of time, pigs being pigs, smelt like pigs and that was o.k. when the place was a farmland. But over the course of time and the scope and course of human events, people started to move in there to the point where it wasn't agricultural land anymore, it became a residential use around a pig farm. And again, you can well imagine that during sultry evenings in the summer in Massachuttes the backyard barbecues started to small a lot less like roast pork as much as it did pigs . And so the residential landowners hired a lawyer and the enjoined the use of the piggery. And I 'm not sure whether that case would have any particular application to the readymix factory but the point being that the court in the case in the 70 's essentially said, Look, even though the pig farm was there first, because of the fact that the nature of entire community 41 had changed, that residential use became incompatible with the use of the pig farm. That, in fact, in my estimation is very much what 's happened here -- yeh, the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix plant was here before a lot of the residents, but when it was here, when it was originally here -- I think it was built in the mid-50 's, we had the creosote plant across the street, as I recall . We had a whole slew of industrial-related uses all around that plant . Now, we don't have that . We have 3300 On the Park across the street from that; we have houses all around it; we have a restaurant use literally across the street directly to the south. That area isn't industrial anymore. And I see an analogy here, I see an analogy that the use of that land has now changed in such a way that it is entirely incompatible with that industrial use and here I think we 've got to make the decision like the court did in my pig case and that was that they gave the pig farm a reasonable time to move. And that 's what we 're doing here and that makes sense to me. It makes sense to me because the uses are that incompatible at this point. Now. . .and I base my decision on a number of factors here. I haven't based my decision to support amortization lightly. Amortization, in my estimation, is a fairly drastic step. And I have not based it solely upon the comments of the people at 3300 On the Park, although I 've certainly listened to that and they make a part of my decision to support this. I base it on the case law, I base it on the residential character of that neighborhood now as it relates to the cement factory and I think. . . I 've looked at this, and I 've looked at this from a number of different avenues, and I believe this Council has the discretion to further the public health, safety and welfare to impose the amortization• of that use over a reasonable period of time. A couple of specific comments about what I heard here tonight . First, what I heard Apple Valley Red-E-Mix's counsel say was that they didn't have. . .that somehow there was an insufficient basis for our decision here tonight. That, as I recall, is the first time I 've heard that . I don't remember that that was raised before. Now, maybe I 'm wrong and the transcripts of that may bear that out. But my recollection is that as early as October of 1991, Mr. Brill from the same firm representing Apple Valley Red-E-Mix and representing the Roller Garden as I recall . . .and again the transcripts are going to bear me out on this one way or the other. . .but my recollection is that he stood up in front of this Council and said, "The Naegele case controls this issue. " And, again, I would refer our City Attorney to look at those transcripts, but my recollection is that he indicated that the Naegele case governes the issue of amortization. And if that is the case, then I think we have more than a rational basis for doing what we're doing. Second of all, I understand there have been efforts to bring criminal complaints against Apple Valley Red-E-Mix and they have had varying levels of success. As far as I 'm concerned, I think there is a radical difference between a criminal complaint being brought against a commercial landowner and our decision tonight, sitting as a. . .making a legislative decision. . .as to whether or not to amortize that . There is a different standard of proof, there is a different issue involved and I don't that it makes any difference one way or the other. The criminal complaints were not successful, as I 42 understand it, but we 're not here. . .as I understand it . . .a criminal complaint is not a prerequisite for our zoning decisions in all of this. Now, so I don't want you to think I 'm beatin' up on Apple Valley Red-E-Mix all night long here tonight, I 've got a couple of other comments here on automobile salvage yards. First of all, as I understand it, the automobile salvage yard that we 're talking about is a lessee on that property down there and that they have far fewer property rights to that property than would the (unintelliglbe) , and I don't know what effect that has, but it seems to me it gives them much less of some sort of property interest in that than the owner of the property would have. The auto salvage yard, as I understand it, it an extraordinarily dangerous source of hazardous pollution. We 've had enough experience in this city with hazardous groundwater waste pollution. . . I mean, cars that sit on yunk yards essentially they leak lead from the acid. .or lead and battery acid into the ground, gasoline, oil and a whole host of other hazardous waste that ends up going into our groundwater. You know, the media focuses so much attention on pollution in this day and age and rightfully so and we don't need anymore of it, we 've had enough of it. So, as far as I 'm concerned, the fact that the auto salvage yard isn't near a residential district, I don't even care to tell you the truth. . .it is here and I don't want it here anymore. We've had enough in terms of groundwater pollution in any way, shape or form. And finally, Mr. Mayor, I 'm comin' to the end here, you know, I 'm not on the clock so I 'm just doin' this for the fun of it, so I want to make sure we make an adequate record. But my sense is. . . in closing let me simply say. . .and there is one other issue I want to talk about here a little bit . My estimation is, you know, no truly complete. . .no true discussion of zoning would be complete without a little pornography, in my estimation. So I want to tell you why I voted on some of the issues and why I 've supported certain of the issues on adult uses. I want to take a little time on that . I support treating them as non-conforming in commercial zones and moving them as we have to I-G districts. Pornography is a difficult subject to deal with, but it is unfortunately here and we have to deal with it. Pornography, it seems may be one of the more undesirable products of a free society. Let me be very clear about it. . .pornography scares me, it scares me a great deal . I don't want them near my schools, I don't want them near my churches, I don't want adult use bookstores near my residential neighborhoods; however, the only that scares me more than pornography is a society that won't allow it . And I will not abrogate the dictates of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because some Attorney General in St. Paul thinks I ought to. And frankly, I 'm not in to that. In a democracy, and I don't want this to become Civics 1001, but my sense is we walk in a democracy kind of on top of a triangle in the sense that from there we can see quite a distance out into the future and we countenance a wonderful view. But the triangles are triangles and they are very narrow at the top and are possessed of very treacherous and steep sides on either side, and once you begin down one of those sides they are very slippery and you have a very difficult time regaining the top. One need only look at the 43 landscape from there to see what results if that happens: on one side of the triangle, you have the wreckage of societies that have fallen into a virtual abyss of decadence and erosion of their moral standards. These societies, some once very great, have literally crumbled from within, their moral standards having succumbed to what can only be described as human failure. On the other side of the triangle, I see societies that have fallen into an equally dark and abysmal state where intolerance and oppression are the order of the day; in short, they are at times. . .when guys in funny hats throw the books they don't like into a big fire in the village square. I 'm not going to buy into that either. And so, our perch ontop of this triangle is a very precarious one, indeed. And to do the right thing, in my estimation, we as a City Council have to be very, very cognizant of and ever vigilant against forces in the society that would push or pull us too far in one direction. I conclude by saying that what we have hear is perhaps not perfect, but it is, I think, a pretty good document . It has entailed an awful lot of work and I think it will carry us forward very successfully well into the 21st century. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I 'm done. Mayor: Anyone want to follow Keith and Jeff? Dorfman: Lucky for everyone here I 'm about to lose my voice. So I 'm going to be brief. I 'm like many people both on the Council and in the audience, I 've only been here five years. . . in St . Louis Park. . .and I think I bring a fresh and healthy perspective to all of this. But I do want to say that even though I 'm of short tenure on the Council and in the City, that I think I care as much as you do, Mr. Mayor. We own a home here, I have children in the schools and so we all, I think, have a stake in the future of St. Louis Park. And because of that, I knew the importance of the zoning code and even though I came into this process late, I went back and read the minutes of the Task Force and I read and followed the Planning Commission. Certainly there were many issues and I have to commend the Planning Commission for their hours of work and their diligence. There certainly were many issues that the Planning Commission looked at that came to us and we sent it back sometimes once, sometimes twice for refinement so they put a lot of time into it . I think it can truly be said that this final document we have is a collaborative effort . Certainly many citizens all across St . Louis Park contributed to the process, the business community certainly contributed to the process, the people in Edgewood -- both businesses and citizens - - put alot of time in trying to resolve the differences in that area, and they are to be commended for their efforts along those lines. And so, it is a collaborative effort and I think this is a document that really provides the framework that we can move into the future and make decisions about the future of St . Louis Park based on this framework and fortunately it 's a flexibile framework and so it will undoubtedly be amended over time. I 'm pleased to have been a part of it . Mayor: Anyone else? 44 Mitchell : I, I think along with yourself, and I think Councilmember Jacobs prior to serving on the Council, were involved with the Task Force -- it seems like some time ago -- it 's been a long process. In answer to your four questions, the answers are yes . In addition to that, there were many, many items that were read that were. . .didn't end up in the final document . I sometime wonder what it would be like to stack it all together on how many feet we would have that would be the total document. But I think it 's been a good process, I think it 's been a necessary process because this, I think, goes back to the Comprehensive Plan with the intent of then addressing zoning. We have done that, it has taken considerable amount of time, effort, meetings, discussions and I particularly compliment Councilmembers Jacobs and Meland for so effectively articulating the position I totally agree with and particularly the lengthy discussions we had on the subjects. Mayor: Councilmember Haun, anything to. . . ? Haun: Well, I 'll just add from a crochety old man standpoint . My learned colleagues have eloquently, I think, put everything in the process that we have gone through. I guess the only think I would add to this is in the 35 years I 've been involved in government in one form or other I 've always considered myself an environmentalist . Building the park system in this community, I think we have to take that into consideration. And I think one of the things we 've done here with our Comprehensive Plan and our 111 zoning ordinance is to take into consideration the environment which is the most delicate thing we have to work with. In retrospect, the Apple Valley situation as we eliminated the Republic Creosote plant, we have approximately 120 acres of park land adjoining within a two block area of Apple Valley Red-E-Mix. Many time down there when I was Park and Rec Director, we do get filteration of concrete dust in the surface, we've been using for soccer fields, it 's a contaminant that the youth tend to get down and get the hands down in it, it goes up to their mouths which is a bad situation. As you know, when we had the Republic Creosote plant there, I recall back in 1948, 1949, many years ago playing football for St . Louis Park High School and smelling the creosote coming from that plant, and I remember we couldn't understand why we 'd get sick once in awhile because of playing games on our athletic field which was located about 3 or 4 blocks away. So, it does have an effect on what happens in the area. And I guess my final statement would be again to reaffirm the fact that everything we've done with our Comprehensive Plan and zoning -- we're no longer a smoke stack city. We 're a city that 's an inner ring suburb, a place where people like to come and live, raise their children, put them through school, have a good park system and recreation system and generally housing stock is kept up. I think that based on all those facts, the decisions we 've made here on this zoning ordinance certainly merit all those things we 've discussed. Again, I would like to thank the staff and the Planning Commission -- they've done an excellent job. I know it hasn't been easy. The City Council ' s come back many times with changes, it 's been very hard for them to incorporate them, but I 45 think -- we may not have the best document in the world, but I think we've got something here that I certainly could stand for and will substantiate any criticsm and I think we need to go forward and enforce what we 've already done. Thank you. Mayor: I guess the final analysis of this makes me very proud of the community, makes me very proud of our staff, makes me very proud of the people that even came here including Mr. Gleekel who has differences with us, who certainly comes here in a manner that I 've appreciated and discussed and I don't think on the Council earlier in the evening we had a tough issue and tough issues are what we 're getting paid huge sums to do. And I think that this was one project that I 'm very glad to see finished. I 'm extremely glad to see it finished before our City Manager decided to pull up stakes and leave us in the middle of it. And I 'm just very happy tonight . . . I do have to say one thing. I don't think that anything that was done in here was not done without about as much discussion and staff ' s brought us their ideas and we 've monitored those ideas and changed them and I 'm sure they've gone downstairs at times and cussed out all seven of us but, you know, it 's give and take and I always used to say and I will say that if I 'm a planner or in the planning department my object is to create the blue sky out there and what 's the best for the world. And I think tonight a blue sky was created and I think Council gets to the position how much blue sky can your community afford and what still keeps it operating. And so, I think I read a statement at the beginning that pretty well covered everything. I just think that if this ordinance has problems with them, they will come up as other ordinances have and this Council will not be above addressing them. This Council has been very responsive to people addressing their concerns and I think if we can work together on what 's in this ordinance, even with the people who have problems with what it 's doing to them, hopefully we can work together and come to a solution of those problems. So with that, unless there's more, we have two things that need to be done . We need a motion to pass the ordinance. First we need a motion to adopt the ordinance with the findings of fact. Meland: So move. Jacobs : Second Mayor: Motion by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to adopt the ordinance with findings of fact . Any discussion? We 've done probably enough. All in favor so I . Opposed? Motion passed 6-0 . And we need a motion to authorize summary publication. We 're not going to publicize the whole thing. I think that we got a quote on publicizing it all . . .publishing it for $7000 . . .and I think that after having the budget hearing earlier, this Council 's going to look at . . .authorize summary publication. Jacobs: So move Meland: Second 46 Hagen: Mr. Mayor, I need to point out that a couple of corrections are in order on that summary of publication text. Section 3 , the City Council makes 88 specific findings; and again in Section 3, V, we should cross out "D. Sexually oriented businesses" ; and add in Section 4, in lieu of "L Adult Uses" change that to read "regulate location of sexually oriented businesses. " Mayor: Those all right with the motion? All right . That will be the summary publication. All in favor say I . Opposed? Motion carries 6-0 . Now do we need another motion to approve publishing it? City Attorney: We have a resolution approving the text of the summary. Mayor: OK, we need a motion approving the text of the summary. That 's this. . .Someone want to make a motion. Meland: So move Jacobs: Second Mayor: Motion by Councilmember Meland, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to approve the text of the summary. All in favor say I . Opposed? Motion passed 6-0 . I believe that completes everything. Again, I want to give my thanks to everyone that worked on this. This was a community project . I think we had over a year of over 30 some people on the Task Force. And I think probably the Planning Department can look at something else for a little bit . And I think you've got things to get started on too that we came upon earlier this evening. Again, thank you all and thank you people for coming. 47