Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/01/20 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF MINUTES ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA Tuesday, January 20th, 1998 1. Call to Order Mayor Dorfman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations-None 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present: Jeff Jacobs, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Ron _ Latz, Robert Young, Jim Brimeyer; and Mayor Gail Dorfman. Also present were the City Manger(Mr. Meyer), Deputy City Manager(Ms. Kutzler); City Attorney(Mr. Scott); Director of Community Development(Mr. Harmening);Planning Coordinator(Judy Erickson); Director of Inspections (Mr. Peterson); Zoning Administrator (Scott Moore); and City Clerk(Ms. Larsen). 4. Approval of Minutes City Council meeting of January 5, 1998• minutes were approved as presented. Truth in Taxation meeting minutes of December 3, 1997• minutes were approved as presented. Special City Council meeting of January 5, 1998: minutes were approved as presented. 5. Approval of Agendas It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the agenda The motion passed 7-0. c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances. 6. Public Hearing a. First Reading of Amendment to Zoning Ordinance regulating parking in Residential Zoning Districts including the parking of commercial and recreational vehicles. Mayor Gail Dorfman briefly commented on the proposed parking ordinance and explained that it was designed to regulate the size, location and number of commercial and recreational vehicles people can have on their property. The Mayor thanked all the residents of St. Louis Park at the meeting for coming, the residents who called or communicated their perspective and the Task Force for their participation. The Mayor asked Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development, to provide a brief overview of the development of the ordinance and Judy Erickson, Planning Coordinator, to provide a simplified explanation of what the proposed ordinance was intended to accomplish. Mr. Harmening made a visual presentation describing the issues and problems the ordinance addressed. He explained why the City of St. Louis Park was the appropriate body to address this issues and briefly outlined the process that was used to develop the ordinance. Mr. Scott, City Attorney, clarified that Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 gave the City authority to do comprehensive planning and adopt zoning ordinances Ms. Erickson, Planning Coordinator, gave a visual presentation outlining four essential parts of the ordinance, total number of vehicles, size of vehicles, vehicle parking location and vehicle screening. Ms. Erickson presented diagrams of what is permitted and what would be permitted under proposed ordinance. The following residents were present and spoke on the issue. Nancy Pascoe, 4090 Colorado Avenue N.E., has been a resident of St. Louis Park for 28 years. She is in favor of the ordinance Her family chose to live in St. Louis Park because they liked children going to school in the public system and liked good diversity(ethnic, age and educational and economic differences) She is a member of the Creekside Steering Committee and League of Women Voter's She shared some advice and made analogies of the parking issue to the movie"Titanic" and parenting. She believes that St. Louis Park is experiencing a power struggle as a result of different perspectives of individuals Her perspective is that nothing in this issue is about class politics, discrimination of personal or business interests, and not an issue of the NRA or ALCU. She believes that the City is looking at the big overall picture and desires to protect their child, the community, with a very good compromise. She believes that safety for all, convenience for maintenance, and aesthetics for the good of all needs to be addressed Diane Schultz, 2921 Dakota Avenue South, was opposed to the ordinance. She questioned why the City Council was opposed to family since the vehicles that the City poses to restrict are used by families to do things together. She stated that although some people believe that the presence of these vehicles are causing neighborhood decay, the problem areas in the City do not have these vehicles parked there. She believes that the City Council is making it harder or even impossible for the people who are trying to do family activities together, as a result of a few peoples ideas of what looks good. Ms. Schultz said she had spoken to Councilmember Sanger who had said that the issue was due to blocks where there were many vehicles parked all over the front yards. Ms. Schultz said she had asked Councilmember Sanger the location of these areas because she wanted to look at these areas, but that Councilmember Sanger didn't provide the information. Ms. Schultz thought that this problem was covered under the nuisance ordinance, because Mr. Harmening told her personally that all vehicles had to be currently licensed, streetworthy and parked on a driveway Mr. Harmening didn't recall this. She believed that the governing body could spend its time, money and resources for more positive things. John E. Iacono, 8900 W. 34th Street, has been a resident there since 1974 and Yukon area for six years before there. He was opposed to the ordinance He stated that he is not anybody's child and he is not going to be parented by the City. He claims he is a citizen, pays taxes and he believes the officials are elected to represent the citizens views. He distributed a document stating his position that laws which are not enforced as written are bad laws and only invite litigation expense. Regardless of the problems it attempts to address, he believes the ordinance is bad law and should be sent back for rewriting. Mayor Gail Dorfman asked Mr. Harmening to comment on temporary parking allowances. Mr. Harmening explained that the current proposed ordinance does provide an exemption for larger commercial vehicles to be parked on residential properties if they are currently providing services for the property and if the ordinance would be adopted at first reading that clarification would be made to exempt smaller commercial vehicles He stated also that the ordinance was not intended to disallow anybody from visiting somebody for a period of time and parking on the driveway. Jim(who chose not to give his last name), a citizen of Maple Grove and an employee of Shorewood R.V. Center, described the wide variety of recreational vehicles available today for family enjoyment and relaxation. The proposed ordinance limits choices by only allowing a $3,000 pop-up camper in the driveway. He was asked by Steve Schultz, 8029 West 26th, to speak. He stated that there are 37,000 RV's in Minnesota today and the number will continue to increase as the baby boomers retire. He asked many people at a recent boat show whether they would purchase a RV if they could not park it at home and two thirds stated they would not He stated that Maple Grove has an ordinance adopted in 1990 which allows RV's on your paved driveway or on gravel or grass in the rear yard and property values have continued to increase. He encouraged City Council not to adopt the ordinance and let people with RV's live in and move into St. Louis Park Steve Schultz, 8029 West 26th, was a Task Force member, has been a resident of St. Louis Park for 44 years He was opposed to the ordinance. He owns a recreation trailer that does not meet the requirements of the ordinance. He believes such a strict ordinance is not justified by the minimal complaints and there was no evidence of declining property values due to recreational vehicle storage. He recommended grandfathering and asked that the issue be voted on by referendum. Robert Gendreau, 3057 Ottawa Avenue, was opposed to the ordinance because of the way it was written. He felt that adopting this ordinance could create multiple problems by pitting neighbor against neighbor. He stated that existing ordinances are not currently being enforced by the'City. Robert Dufner, 1865 Melrose Avenue, was in favor of the ordinance because of a bad experience he had with a neighbor who owned a"commercial truck and boat trailer which was stored on property. He was against grandfathering. Jim Hyde, 2205 Texas Avenue, has been a resident for 41 years. As a member of the Citizens Relations Committee in 1970 he has experienced the progressive nature of this issue. He is in full support of the ordinance and believes that if the ordinance is not passed, the City is doomed and he will move. David Niemann, 1828 Dakota Avenue South, has been a resident for 49 years. He is opposed to the ordinance because he believes it is his constitutional right to own a RV and park it where he wants to He sees no evidence of declining property values. He is also employed by a company that requires him to bring home a vehicle which under the new ordinance would not be allowed to park in his driveway. He stated that he didn't want to live under a dictatorship. II Mr. Harmening clarified that up to two commercial vehicles can be parked in a garage, and if it not taller than 8' for longer than 22' you can park in the side yard, and if you don't have a side yard or access to a rear yard, you can park it on the front yard in the driveway. Lance Boole, 7711 13th Lane, has been a resident for 40 years. He was opposed to the ordinance. He questioned the compelling state interest and believed the ordinance would deny residents the right to own property. He stated that his constitutional rights would be impinged upon and he has concerns about over-regulation by the government. Mayor Dorfman asked Mr. Scott, City Attorney to clarify the compelling interest issue. Mr. Scott, City Attorney, stated that the City did have authority to have reasonable regulations through its zoning ordinance to regulate parking throughout the City, and in this case specifically pertaining to recreational vehicles. Mr. Boole asked what the compelling interest was. Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated the legislature has given the City the authority to legislate for the health and welfare for the community, and in this case, through a zoning ordinance Jeff Carlson, 5505 Vermont Street, was a member of the Task Force and believed the process to be a hoax. He stated that the outcome of the Task Force was not a reflection of the majority of the group and there were several personal conflicts between Task Force members. He said he didn't think all residents were being considered, but favor was given to the "squeaky wheels". He was opposed to the ordinance and believes it was unfair that those residents wintering in warmer climates with their RV's could not be present at the meeting. Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone, has been a resident for 20 years. He is opposed to the ordinance. He asked that if temporary parking was going to be allowed that it be documented in the ordinance. He questioned the credibility of the Council and believes the Council is being caught in the middle. He believes the conflict is a multi-generational issue. He suggested that time be taken to review and clarify these problems. He proposed that the issue be taken to the residents in a form of a questionnaire or an independent survey to see a collective interest Ms. Erickson clarified that there were no current temporary parking provisions in the ordinance for vehicles. David Runde, 7501 North Street, has been a resident for 15 years. He was opposed to the ordinance because under the ordinance, any boat that is longer than 16' will not be allowed to be parked in the driveway He would like to see the ordinance tabled. Mr. Harmening clarified that the tongue which comes out from the frame of the trailer is not counted in the requirement. Also, if the boat and trailer is larger than 8' by 22' it is still considered a recreational vehicle and can be parked in the backyard He also pointed out the provision in the ordinance that if you do not have an alley or access to the backyard and have a one car garage you can park it in the front yard driveway. Robin Carlson, 5505 Vermont Street, was opposed to the ordinance. She agrees that the existing ordinance needs to be updated, but believes the initiation and process for developing the proposed ordinance was a farce She questioned the criteria for the selection of the Task Force and how much of the Task Force's conclusions were included in the ordinance. Mr. Harmening briefly reviewed the selection process of the Task Force. Michael Garelick, 7361 W. Franklin, was in favor of the ordinance. He was a member of the Task Force and was very frustrated as many people on the Task Force had their own specific agenda and spoke only for themselves rather than dealing with the issue as it relates to the entire resident population. As a Realtor and a resident since 1952 he was concerned with the City looking like a parking lot and property values in the future if this ordinance is not passed. Kathy Benshoof, 1631 Virginia Avenue South, was a Task Force member and in favor of the ordinance. She recently attended that Board Meeting for the Comprehensive Plan for her area where long term residents of the community were concerned about changes in the community in terms of neighborhood appearance. She believes that there are several residents who are in favor of the ordinance not present at the meeting because they are intimidated by the opposition. She stated that the proposed ordinance is very liberal and starts to bring back a neighborhood balance and integrity that will help maintain good property values She believes that although everyone has a right to own things, there is a responsibility to store possessions in such a manner that it does not impact our neighbors negatively. She asked the Council to support the ordinance to end the visual blight caused by too many or too large of possessions in driveways of yards. Tim Rolek, 3052 Salem Avenue South, was in favor of the ordinance.' He believes this issue is not one of rights, because no where in the federal or state constitution, or even in the City charter is the issue of parking addressed, nor is there an implicit right to a lifestyle. The issue is one of neighborliness. Sharie Frank, 1625 Virginia Avenue South, was in favor of the ordinance. As a Realtor, she has,worked with several sellers and buyers who have experienced difficulties due to the aesthetics of the community. She believes that although property values have continued to increase, regulation is required. Jerald L. Rytis, 7046 W. 24th, was opposed to the ordinance. He was concerned with the Realtors concern of the potential declining property values and pointed out that there are other issues that the City has not addressed which may affect the property values. John Olson, 8600 Virginia Circle North, was opposed to the ordinance. His occupation is dependent on vehicles which need to be parked in his driveway. He asked if there was any documentation of the number of complaints filed prior to 1995/1996. He believes that the majority of residents and not the minority should be considered. Mr. Peterson, Director of Inspections, clarified that nine complaints a year had been documented and that complaints are tracked only when action is taken. There have been numerous other complaints which have not been tracked by the system. Maren Beckman, 8711 Boone Court, has been a resident since 1974. She is in favor of the ordinance. In the past she has been involved in the comprehensive plan of the City which includes preserving open space and is concerned about the affects of the increase in number of larger vehicles on properties. With experience as a mental health counselor, she has learned that density and overcrowding does cause stress. She encourages residents not to look at their personal interests, but rather community need. Jon Weber, 9311 Minnetonka Blvd, has been a resident since 1978. He is opposed to the ordinance. He is a Realtor and owns a recreational vehicle which will not be allowed under the new ordinance. He believes that the ordinance is vague and that there is not enough information in the ordinance that covers variations Eric Knudson, 3764 Brunswick Avenue South, is in favor of the ordinance and believes it is quite liberal. Judy Erickson briefly reviewed the options for screening and answered a questions from a member of the audience. Terry Warner, 3020 Florida Avenue South, stated that the ordinance had some merit in addressing the nuisance issue, but believes that enforcement by complaint could create some additional problems between neighbors. Scott Adams, 1607 Virginia Avenue South, is opposed to the ordinance. He believes the ordinance is ambiguous and it impinging on the property rights of the community. In his opinion, the presence of recreational vehicles indicates stability of the City and would not affect property values, contrary to the point of view of the Realtors. Tim Fleming, 6632 W. 18th Street, was a member of the Task Force and had a positive experience. He is opposed to the ordinance. Under the proposed ordinance, his boat and trailer would not be allowed and if passed, he will move out of the St. Louis Park and go to a community where he can have the right to park on his property. He stated that the storage of vehicles off site is inconvenient for the owner and is subject to vandalism. Ron Wilson, 1837 Texas Avenue South, has been a resident for 15 years. He is opposed to the ordinance because he believes that the input of the citizens has been ignored by the City. Nancy Walker, 3243 Aquila Lane, was opposed to the ordinance She believes the goals of the ordinance should be to make it more attractive for buyers to move into the City, and this ordinance would exclude owners of recreational and commercial vehicles. She believes it is too restrictive and should be re-examined. Louise Dufner, 1840 Parker Road, was in favor of the ordinance so that the residents could all live in a beautiful City. Gene Dufner, 1840 Parker Road, was in favor of the ordinance. He has had an experience with a neighbor who owns a commercial vehicle which is a nuisance and doesn't believe this needs to be tolerated. Don Larson, 3016 Idaho Avenue South, was opposed to the ordinance Although the ordinance doesn't personally affect him, he believes that the adoption of the ordinance is an intrusion of government. He recommended the ordinance be tabled and additional discussions be conducted. Jim Benshoof, 1631 Virginia Avenue South, was in favor of the ordinance. He stated the compelling interest to adopt this ordinance was that residents have been negatively affected by the parking of recreational vehicles, there was a concern for reductions in quality of the neighborhoods, concern of Realtors of decline in attractiveness for potential home buyers, and the comprehensive plan with a goal to preserve and enhance the integrity and character of neighborhoods. He believes the development process of the ordinance has been thorough and extensive. Jeff Anderson, 4268 Ottawa Avenue South, was opposed to the ordinance. As an owner of an recreational vehicle, he believes there should be no restrictions as to where he can park on his property. He stated he does not believe the presence of recreational vehicles is an issue related to declining property values and that perhaps the fact that the City is aging may affect its attractiveness. Arlene Joy Kohn, 8724 Minnetonka Blvd,'was opposed to the ordinance. She believes the ordinance is too restrictive and should be tabled to consider special variations. John Basil, 6208 Oxford, was in favor of the ordinance. He agrees that St. Louis Park is a hardworking community, but this does not mean that citizens are not concerned about property attractiveness, community,,or individual neighbors He believes this is a good step which keeps in mind the long term outlook for the community. He believes the interest of neighbors and community needs to be put before personal interests. Bob Kosky, 9051 Minnetonka Boulevard, a member of the Task Force stated that the Task Force did not recommend the ordinance He was opposed to the ordinance. He asked for clarification as to what is stated in Section 14.6-1.2(C)(12) noted under 9G on Page 5 of the ordinance handout. Mr. Kosky questioned the consistency in the language of two parking ordinances and believes clarification is required. He suggested that the Council review the tapes from the last Task Force meeting and noted the fact that a garage to house a recreational vehicle is not allowed. Ms. Erickson clarified the parking section of the zoning ordinance and the-definition of front yard. Lyn Bot, 2533 Rhode Island Avenue South, has been a resident for 25 years and was opposed to the ordinance. She is an owner of a recreational vehicle. She believes the ordinance needs to be considered further in respect to screening and safety and noise issues as part of increasing the quality of neighborhoods. She has seen no evidence of the presence of her recreational vehicle impacting the sales of home in her neighborhood and believes people look at more substantial issues such as education, politics and safety when choosing a neighborhood to live in. Jackie Amundson, 3020 Ottawa Avenue South, was opposed to the ordinance. She felt it was unfair that her grandparents and other residents who own recreational vehicles and are wintering in warmer climates couldn't be present for the meeting to voice their perspectives. She believes that it is a persons right to park their property on their driveway. Richard E. Johnson, 8109 W. Franklin, has been a resident since 1962 and was in favor of the ordinance. He owns a recreation vehicle longer than 22' and has made arrangements to store if off-site. He believes that the ordinance is necessary to maintain the quality of life of all and that ordinances need to be accepted whether popular or unpopular. The following comments were received in written form from citizens who were present, but chose not to speak. James Mattison, 3017 Jersey Avenue South, stated that his home was bounded by two alleys. The spacious feeling afforded by the open back yards across the side alley contributed to his decision to buy the house. His family closed on the house in late spring while one of the neighbors were wintering in Florida. After he moved in, the neighbor came home and parked their 30' airstream in their back yard, along the alley. Mr. Mattison almost felt as if he were in a stainless steel tunnel. If that trailer had been there when he looked at the house, he would not have purchased the house. He and his wife feel that vehicles of that size should not be allowed to negatively impact the neighbors. , Arnold Libby, 1800 Dakota Avenue South, believes the ordinance should be reviewed some more and clarified better. Steve Braaten, 3116 Dakota Avenue South, believes that screening is dangerous for our persons in blue. Neighbors say his RV is there six months, screening is there always. Asked the question, "How do you get 85% screening when maximum height of fence allowed is 6' and RV is 10'6"?" Mayor Gail Dorfman closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date. Councilmember Latz asked for clarification of the allowance of temporary parking privileges in the ordinance. He stated that Section 14:5-4.1(A)(9) does not contain any explicit exemption for vehicles which are at the property providing a temporary service benefiting the property, and thinks this would solve some of the practicality issues of the ordinance if an exemption as noted in Section 8 was adopted He also asked staff to clarify the number of passenger vehicles allowed in the driveway under the ordinance. Councilmember Nelson suggested the establishment of a setback requirement from the street to ensure a community safety standard. Mayor Gail Dorfman asked staff to clarify how this would be determined. Mr. Harmening stated that a standard setback would be from the curb line to any vehicle that is parked in the driveway. , Councilmember Nelson asked for additional clarification about the definition of the front yard and questioned the allowance for 30% of the yard to be paved. He suggested that a sliding scale be established He suggested the possible need for looking at Bloomington's approach as to number of vehicles, recognizing a need for ease of inspection and perhaps making the number of registered vehicles being an affirmative defense. He also raised concerns about the the approach of size rather than a definition of size and that the ordinance needed to be looked at especially in light of yards with no access to the back yard. He wanted the City Attorney to look at whether we needed that "magic box" or whether the ordinance would be too vague without it. He also stated that he believes the City needs stricter enforcement of the existing ordinances to prevent backyard junk yards. Councilmember Jacobs stated his concern with the size requirement of a recreational vehicle allowed in the driveway, if there is no side or backyard access He concurred with Councilmember Nelson's suggestion to establish a driveway set back line. Councilmember Sanger believes that the ordinance would be useful for the community and only minor adjustments are necessary. She stated that this was an effort to try to improve, defend and promote the integrity of our neighborhoods, the quality of life of the residents, and property values. She believes this effort is a preferred compromise and is consistent with the community to promote and strengthen neighborhoods and other aspects of the zoning codes for the-City. Councilmember Young stated his primary concern was the issue of blight and devaluation of the neighborhoods and property values in the City. He believes the ordinance is liberal and is in favor•of it. Councilmember Brimeyer briefly reviewed the issue of individual rights versus community values and emphasized the need to look at the future. He suggested that more time be given when the ordinance goes into effect to allow for adjustments. He favors the concept of the ordinance and believes the Council has a responsibility to look out for the right of all. Mayor Gail Dorfinan reiterated that this issue is about how community is defined and stated that the government has looked at the big picture in St Louis Park and defined community by working together with many residents to establish a vision for the future Mr. Meyer, reviewed the concerns raised by Council and outlined the following recommendations for staff to review and advise - - Define temporary parking and the use of service vehicles. . - Establish a set back requirement from the street if the recreational vehicles are allowed in driveways. - Clarify that there is no parking allowed in the front yard and advise the City Attorney to look at the definitions in the two parts of the ordinance to see if there is any conflict between those definitions and if there is, propose language to clarify the conflict. - Examine the allowance to pave 30% of the front yard. - Discuss the concept of affirmative defense as it related to the 3 vehicle maximum. - Examine enforcement of removal of junk vehicles. - Discuss the possibility of a 1 year delay in the implementation of the ordinance, instead of 6 months in the original proposal. - Evaluate the requirement of the size of a recreational vehicle and determine whether or not losing that type of measurement language makes the ordinance too vague to be enforceable. Councilmember Sanger suggested that any resident who has a hardship apply for an variance as with any other ordinance. Councilmember Latz clarified that grandfathering is not a legal option because of the gap between the ordinances. He stated he would like to examine the findings of staff concerning these issues and commented briefly on striking the balance of private property rights and use and enjoyment of individual property. He stated that he had received numerous calls from residents encouraging action to clean up neighborhoods and believes the ordinance is an effort to accomplish this. The Council briefly discussed when revisions and second reading could he heard. It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance amendments and set second reading for February 17, 1998. The motion passed 7-0 7. Petitions. Requests. Communications-None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances a. Resolution of support for grant application By consent, Council adopted the resolution supporting the grant application. b. Election of Mayor Pro-tem It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to adopt 111 resolution appointing Jeff Jacobs as Mayor Pro-tem. The motion passed 7-0. c. Gambling Premise Renewal Application By consent, Council approved the renewal application. 9. Reports from Officers. Boards. Committees a. Human Rights Commission Meeting Minutes of December 7, 1997 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. b. Vendor Claim Report By consent, Council accepted report for filing. 10. Unfinished Business -None 11. New Business-None 12. Miscellaneous-None , 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments a. Contract Payments-Final Carl Bolander& Sons Company Rec. Center Renaissance Contract#4209 $ 176,731.68 By consent, Council approved the resolution and authorized payment. 14. Communications-none 15. Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Sanger. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. T me ion pa sed 7-0. Aar1 'i• ayor Gail'P orfman Re ording Secretary