Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/07/11 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular MINUTES II PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA July 11, 1995 Amortization Proceedings -Apple Valley Red-E-Mix Mayor Hanks called the hearing to order at 7 00 p m In attendance were Councilmembers Jeff Jacobs, George Haun, Ron Latz, Robert Young and Gail Dorfman; Planning Commission members Stanley Barton, Michelle Bissonnette, Laura Daly, John Palmatier and Susan Sanger City staff present were City Manager(Charlie Meyer), City Attorney(Suesan Pace), Director of Community Development (Tom Harmening), Planning Coordinators (Judie Erickson, Janet Jeremiah), Director of Inspections (Ernie Petersen), City staff attorney (Lee Sheehy) Mr Meyer outlined how the hearing would be conducted It is expected that at the end of the meeting that the Council will continue the heanng to the August 2 meeting of the Planning Commission and ask for a recommendation on an amortization ordinance Mr Petersen gave a brief history of Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, that it became a non-conforming use in 1960 on the effective date of Ordinance 730 which required a special permit for any concrete plant existing within 400 ft. of a residential zoning district. Such a special permit was never applied for nor approved. He quoted from the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1991, Plan By Neighborhood Section, which set forth a policy statement for the Oak Hill Neigborhood (which includes the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix property) "Heavy industrial uses including a concrete ready mix plant and outside storage of heavy equipment are to be phased out and the sites to be used for high density residential " The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1992 to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan He explained procedures for an amortization process are contained on pages 315-316 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and under tab 2 of the report before the Council and Commission Staffproposes that the Planning Commission, after thorough study of all documents, make a recommendation to the City Council on an ordinance establishing the amortization period for Apple Valley Red-E-Mix Mr Sheehy said he will reiterate what the staff report indicates, i e there is some case law in the State of Minnesota governing the City's exercise of its discretion in the case of an amortization proceeding The purpose of the hearing this evening is to develop a record upon which the City will exercise its discretion relative to amortization. 1 City Council/Planrung Commission public heanng July 11, 1995 Mr. Petersen gave a brief slide presentation illustrating the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix property as well as the surrounding property Mr. Harmening provided a brief summary of the various factors the City is required to consider as a part of establishing an amortization period for Apple Valley Red-E-Mix He said he would be explaining the staff recommendation as to the amortization period which is felt appropriate in this case and will provide the rationale for the recommendation Mr. Harmemng said staff was recommending a two-year amortization period from the date of the adoption of an ordinance. The staff report and the information provided this evening was intended to support the recommendation made by staff Anthony Gleekel, attorney for Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, had a number of questions apart from Apple Valley, what was the last plant, permanent or portable, that was in the City, whose was it and how long was it there, when it was removed and under what circumstances Second, are there any plans for multi family redevelopment of any of the properties surrounding Apple Valley Has there been any testing of noise and dust or any traffic analysis done Mr Sheehy would respond to the first question later There are currently no formal plans being reviewed regarding redevelopment of property in the area There has not been any formal testing of noise and dust nor any traffic analysis done for purposes of tonight's proceedings Mr Gleekel continued with his presentation. He said the issue being discussed was the reasonableness of the amortization period He believed Apple Valley was the only party subject to amortization proceedings. He felt it more appropriate to condemn the property Mr. Gleekel discussed the importance of the location of Apple Valley in providing materials to contractors thereby allowing them to provide affordable improvements in public right-of-ways Mr. Gleekel reviewed a letter he had submitted to Council, the Planning Commission and City legal counsel relative to issues of law Mr. Gleekel spoke at length about Apple Valley being put out of business simply because the residents don't like looking at it. He acknowledged there was dust, truck noise, backup bells, a lot of traffic. What bothered him was that these were empirical things that can be tested rather than a neighborhood which wants it to go away Mr. Gleekel said he would address the property value question and the real estate tax issue in writing to Council's legal counsel pnor to the Planning Commission public hearing Mr. Gleekel bnefly touched on relocation and that a proposal had been made a number of years ago to place a state-of-the-art plant on the site. For various reasons, this never came to pass They 2 City Council/Planning Commission public hearing July 11, 1995 have tned to make this a better plant Mr Gleekel indiated there was no reason for AVR to relocate if it had a good location that is serving its customers in the most efficient way possible AVR has looked at possible relocation sites and there are none Mr. Gleekel said he had provided resumes of John Voss and Dale Runkle, consultants to AVR. Mr Voss said his firm prepared a land use report for AVR which discussed operational issues related to the potential relocation of the plant He briefly reviewed the report. Steve Linegar, VP of AVR, described the production of concrete He said what made St Louis Park critical for AVR is its proximity to the various job sites MnDOT, for instance, specifies a 60-minute timeframe to get concrete to a job site Aggregate costs and trucking costs are what keep AVR competitive in the marketplace. For example, if the aggregate had to be trucked to Maple Grove from Apple Valley instead of St Louis Park, their costs would rise dramatically Part of AVR's competitive edge is because they are a single-source supplier Dale Runkle briefly reviewed his background He currently is a real estate brokerage consultant and was hired by AVR to help them find a site for relocation of the St Louis Park plant He described his search for a new location He said they are continuing to search for a location Mr. Gleekel said he would have further documentation available for both the Planning Commission meeting on August 2 and subsequent City Council meeting Councilmember Latz said there was some comment about there not being any apparent violations of the MPCA standards re ambient air quality and noise standards He asked if the City's ordinance indicates that is the standard by which an incompatible use will be judged Mr Sheehy said in 1985 and 1992 the City's prosecutor's office attempted to enforce certain ordinances in criminal proceedings, and in both cases the court struck down the ordinance as inconsistent with State law It is the City Attorney's position that those standards are not determinative of this proceeding. To suggest any use in the City is not violating the law, and therefore can continue in perpetuity is not really the issue, and the City Attorney's office will respond to Mr Gleekel's legal arguments submitted this evening before or at the Planning Commission meeting His view is that the factors before the Council do not require either testing of or proof of a violation of law in order for the Council to amortize the non-conforming use Councilmember Jacobs asked if the Council was not bound by State Statutes with respect to noise and/or dust or other noxious types of emissions or conditions existing on the property Does the Council have the authority or discretion to find that a noxious use exists on the property even though ambient dust quality, noise and whatever else does not violate State Statute Mr. Sheehy said that was the City Attorney's position 3 City Council/Planning Commission public hearing July 11, 1995 Mr. Gleekel noted those standards need to be determined and what is the empirical evidence that is going to stand behind the accusations and the statements heard this evening Councilmember Latz asked if the record for hearing process and adoption of Ordinance 92-1902 could be made a part of the record in these proceedings He would be interested in seeing the transcript of the November 23, 1992 public hearing made a part of this record. Mr Sheehy said it was their position the ordinance has been adopted and not collaterally attacked by AVR. The Council certainly could direct the minutes of all the rezoning proceedings and staff reports be made part of this record. Councilmember Latz said there was a substantial piece of land on I-394 which appears to be used as a site for crushing and reconstruction of concrete used in road work. He wondered if that site was reviewed or considered as an appropriate site for AVR. Mr. Runkle responded that he was told by the Minneapolis Community Development Agency that there was no site available in the 4-5 acre range that would meet the criteria they were looking for Councilmember Latz asked if he knew if the site was owned by Minneapolis, State Department of Transportation, how it was zoned. Mr Runkle did not know, but he would take a look Councilmember Young wondered if asking about 4-5 acre sites only was a limitation or was he willing to accept larger sites Mr. Runkle said MCDA said they had nothing that would fit the 4-5 acre range they sought. Councilmember Young asked if he had anything in writing with regard to his applications to the various cities He would like to receive any documentation they have which shows they have been spurned in any way by any communities. Mr Gleekel said he was pleased to provide this information in wnting. Mr Runkle said the apparent arbitrariness was true primarily because of the function of the major highways and the way they can access them None of them are straight lines Also, locating in Eden Prairie or other outlining city would eliminate the downtown market Mr Gleekel said they would provide everything in writing as to what they have done and not done in the search for a new location. _ 4 City Council/Planning Commission public hearing July 11, 1995 The following residents spoke in favor of the amortization Charlotte Vincent, Ray Melbar; Rita Flugar; Vicki Andren, Ardeth Gaenki, Florence Flugar, Bonnie Condit, Lori Millbauer; Phil Teslow, Dick Carlson Councilmember Latz said he had received phone calls, one anonymously from 3300 On the Park who said AVR should be given credit because they were there before the condo, also he spoke with Chris Kennedy from Oak Park Village who has problems with the dust Mr Sheehy and Mr Linegar engaged in a rather technical discussion about concretes and what is used in the MnDOT projects. They touched briefly on travel time from facilities to sites as well as AVR's current competitive position. Mr Sheehy asked about market area He asked Mr Linegar if it was unreasonable to say that a market area of 15 miles in circumference surrounding any particular facility would be a reasonable market area Mr Linegar said it's more a function of travel time than miles. Upon questioning by Mr Sheehy, Mr Linegar said it could be more than 15 miles depending on traffic. Discussion occurred relative to temporary concrete facilities as opposed to permanent facilities and attendant competition to AVR. Mr Linegar listed the current permanent facilities in the greater metropolitan area. Mr Sheehy asked if it was AVR's position that the the Maple Grove and Burnsville facilities cannot serve the majority of what has been described as the market area Mr Linegar said not from a competitive standpoint because one of the biggest variables in their industry is the cost of trucking. He said if AVR loses the ability to serve jobs from a central location which would increase its trucking costs, they would not be competitive. Mr Sheehy circulated a map with each of AVR's facilities circled It was concluded that the overlap of the markets covers a substantial portion of the markets serviced by the St Louis Park facility As addressed by Mr Gleekel, the question of useful life, burdens on the property owner the City Attorney will address in wnting Mr Sheehy reiterated the goal of the proceedings is to provide a record for the City Council and Planning Commission to evaluate relocation concerns Mr Gleekel said they will look at the map and respond in writing at the August 2 meeting II Mr. Barton asked if there was anything that Apple Valley can do about the alleged infraction of starting their vehicles up early and better housekeeping as far as the debris on the streets. He was concerned about the comments that were almost unanimous from the residents in attendance: 5 City Council/Planning Commission public hearing July 11, 1995 Mr Linegar said he had not been involved in that part of the operation for some years and was not aware of the problem, however, he would look into it Councilmember Young said he had three things he'd like to go over The first one has to do with some of the things that have been brought up by the testimony of the residents Are there any State regulations re truck bed covering and/or mitigation regulations He seemed to recall several years ago the State Legislature passed a law saying trucks had to have either covers or something that prevents spills on the highways He wished to know what the law was and if there had been any violations Secondly, he wondered if there are any City loudspeaker or audio restraints in the zoning district that are being violated or have been violated He noted that several people said instructions were given over a loudspeaker He wanted to make sure that that is a permitted activity. He also mentioned concerns about the hours of operation. He asked whether the City has any record of what the hours of operation are that are allowed in this district and is there any record of violations of that He asked staff to research these 3 things for future hearings Councilmember Latz asked if AVR is aware of the broken fence that was shown in the pictures He was concerned about a child wandering over there and falling down a steep hill Mayor Hanks asked Mr Runkle if he only went to City Halls when looking for public sites Mr Runkle said he went to City Halls to find out the ordinance requirements as to where they would be permitted and any guidance they would have to direct me to private or public locations Ms. Sanger noted AVR services projects that are going on 24 hours a day. How do you do that if you are required to start your preparation within 1 hour of delivery Are you actually starting preparation all night long. Mr. Linegar gave as an example MnDOT is requiring some of the highway patching to be done on Sunday because of the traffic issues. What happens on a lot of the 24 hour production is that they run 24 hours a day with 3 crews This is not done at the SLP facility Ms. Sanger questioned that if the St Louis Park facility is not used, but the job sites are within the market area of the St Louis Park plant, what plants serve these jobs Mr Linegar said on occasion they do As an example, when they're coming north out of Burnsville at one in the morning, they don't have the problems with traffic they do at 7 or 8 a m Mayor Hanks thanked the Planning Commission and City Council , staff and Apple Valley Red-E-Mix It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Haun, to continue the II hearing to the August 2 Planning Commission meeting and refer the subject matter of the 6 proposed amortization to the Planning Commission at that meeting and request theyforward a recommendation to the City Council. The motion passed 6-0 Ma r Lyle Hanks All I l&ItA .(1hecording Secretary 7