Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/02/17 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF Minutes ST. LOUIS PARK City Council Special Meeting February 17, 1998 6:15 p.m. The meeting convened at 6.15 p m Present at the meeting were Councilmembers, Robert Young, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Ron Latz, Jim Brimeyer and Mayor Gail Dorfman. Staff present City Manager(Mr Meyer), City Attorney (Mr Scott); Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Director of Parks and Recreation(Mr Gears); City Assessor (Mr. Stepnick), City Clerk(Ms Larsen) 1. Hutchinson Spur Trail Bob Close, of Close Landscape Architects, presented to Council a preliminary design proposal for development of the Hutchinson Spur Trail. Council considered options and costs for trail surface, trail head facilities and fencing. Also discussed were options for route and impacts that route may have on private homes, railroad infrastructure and wetlands. Land acquisition costs were considered with respect to the bonding bill currently moving through the legislature Mayor Dorfman and Mr. Gears had recently testified before the legislature and relayed their opinions about the level of legislative commitment for this project. Mr. Gears also informed Council that Hennepin Parks may still be interested in a cooperative effort for developing and maintaining the trail. Following discussion, Council directed staff to initiate purchase negotiations with the necessary property owners. The meeting adjourned at 7.05 p m. 4.' Dorfman, Mayor Recording Secretary CITY OF MINUTES SAT RKLOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING PAST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA February 17, 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: JeffJacobs, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Ron Latz, Robert Young, Jim Brimeyer, and Mayor Gail Dorfman. Also present were the Executive Director(Mr. Meyer); Deputy City Manager(Ms. Kutzler); City Attorney(Mr Scott), Public Works Director(Mr. Rardin); Director of Community Development (Mr Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator(Mr. Anderson), City Engineer (Mr. Moore); and City Planner(Mr Thorvig). 4 Approval of Minutes City Council meeting of February 2, 1998• with corrections noted below, the minutes were approved as presented. Item 8a- Page 3 (second to last paragraph). Change Mayor Dorfman's comments to "Mayor Dorfman stated that the Council would like to see businesses located in our community be economically successful." Item 8d -Page 5 (last paragraph). Add alternate deduct to Councilmember Nelson's motion Study Session meeting of January 26, 1998 with corrections noted below, the minutes were approved as presented. Item 3 -Hutchinson Spur, Page 2 (second to the last paragraph). Add to Councilmember Latz's comments "Councilmember Latz inquired about the present value of the billboard the owner desired to retain and questioned Mr. Stepnick's assumptions and conclusions regarding easement values and total property value." Item 1 - Council Compensation, Page 1. Change to "A handout was distributed regarding the City Charter requirements for Council compensation and a listing of pay scales for other cities of comparable size. Mayor Dorfman stated that the demands of these jobs have changed and requested that Council think about compensation for a future discussion." Item 4 - Commercial Loan Rehab/Proposed New Loan Program (second to last paragraph) Change Mayor Dorfman's comments to "Mayor Dorfman wanted to make sure the program included minority and female owned businesses " 5. Approval of Agendas It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0 It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the agenda The motion passed 7-0. c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived the reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearings a. Case Number 98-1-CP:Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 7200-50 Excelsior Blvd. Resolution #98-38 Mr. Thovig, City Planner reviewed the applicant's request. He stated that the use as Office seemed to be a good transitional use between the Industrial to the East and the Residential to the West and recommended approval He noted that the only change in the resolution was the addition of a designation from Industrial General and Parks and Open Space to Office. Dan Blomquist of Welsh Companies, 8200 Normandale Boulevard was present and stated that because of size and configuration, it was determined that an Office property rather than an Industrial property would be the most suitable use for the property. Mayor Dorfman closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date Councilmember Sanger asked if only the portion where the building was going to be developed could be changed to Office with the wet land portion left as Open Space. Mr. Thovig stated that was an option. Councilmember Sanger raised a concern about potential traffic problems for cars coming from the west that needed to do u-turns at Louisiana Avenue in order to enter the building. She asked if any plans were developed to address this problem. Mr. Thovig stated that there were no plans to mitigate that particular problem. Mr. Harmening stated that the specifics of the site plan have not been submitted to determine 111 the extent of the problem and noted that the area would be re-zoned if Council approved the amendment Councilmember Latz asked how difficult it would be to cut through the median at a later date to allow for turns Mr. Thovig stated that Mr. Moore had indicated that it would be virtually impossible It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to adopt a resolution that designates 7200-7250 Excelsior Boulevard as Office on the Comprehensive Plan land use map subject to Metropolitan Council approval and to approve the summary resolution and authorize publication. Councilmember Sanger offered an amendment to designate as Office that portion which is currently designated as Industrial and to leave as Open Space that portion that is currently designated as Open Space as long as that would allow sufficient space for the office building. Mr. Harmening suggested another way to consider the amendment was to re-guide only that portion of the property that is developable and the rest of it would be guided as Open Space. Councilmember Jacobs asked if the applicant had any comments. Mayor Gail Dorfman asked Mr. Nooryshokry if the amendment was acceptable. Mr. Nooryshokry stated amendment was acceptable. A friendly amendment to the motion was made to designate all property that is not developable as Open Space. The motion passed 7-0. b. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance to incorporate Livable Communities Principles, Vision St. Louis Park Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development reviewed the proposed ordinance amendments and noted the substantial changes in land use policy and shifts in commercial development patterns. John Basill, 6208 Oxford Street, was opposed to the accessory apartments. He stated that it encouraged people to buy homes for rental purposes, not families and that it could accelerate blight in the neighborhood. He recommended that accessory apartments only be allowed by a variance procedure and based on hardship. Mr. Harmening stated that presently cluster-housing is allowed in RI and R2 Zoning Districts by a conditional use permit He stated that the proposed changes allow a higher density for a project that may be located across the street or next to a park 0 Julie Hoff, 563 W Wheelock Parkway, was present on behalf of TwinWest Chamber of Commerce and the St. Louis Park Business Council. She asked the Council to consider setting the second reading for March 16th instead of March 2nd in order for her group to meet and formulate a formal response to the proposed amendments Tim Flemming, 6632 West 18th Street, asked what the safety and public health issues were with moving commercial buildings to within 5 feet of the street in the Cl and C2 districts. Mr Harmening stated that staff did not believe that a public safely was an issue to be concerned with. The intent was to encourage property owners to move buildings up to street and move parking to the rear which related to the livable communities principles. Mayor Dorfman stated that the purpose of the amendment to the zoning ordinance was to encourage development and redevelopment that was at a more human scale with focus on pedestrian and bicycle access so residents could take advantage of a neighborhood retail center. Mayor Dorfman closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date. Councilmember Nelson asked if the minimum front yard setback in the commercial districts was mandatory Mr. Harmening clarified that the change was not mandatory and allowed the minimum front yard setback to be as close as 5 feet rather than 20 feet. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance amendments deleting Item 6: Accessory Apartments and set second reading for March 16, 1998. Councilmember Sanger concurred with Councilmember Nelson in deleting all references to accessory apartments and agreed with Mr Basil's concern of the creation of duplexes in all residential districts. Councilmember Sanger proposed to amend the motion to delete all of the references in the proposed ordinance that would permit a second story office or other room on a garage or other accessory structure in a residential district Councilmember Nelson did not accept Councilmember Sanger's amendment and Mr. Scott, City Attorney advised Council that another motion would be required. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs, to approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance amendments deleting Item 7 f ii from Section 14 5-4 1 (Page 2) of proposed ordinance which allows a second story office up to 25 feet over a garage in a residential district and set second reading for March 16, 1998. Councilmember Sanger provided photographs of an abnormally high garage on a residential property for Council to review Councilmember Latz asked if a garage the height of the one in photo was allowed without building an office and asked what the minimum height allowed for a second floor on a detached garage Council discussed differences in configuration between home office and accessory apartments and height limitations. Mayor Gail Dorfman asked staff to clarify the height limitation of a detached garage under the current ordinance Mr. Peterson, Inspections Director stated the height limitation was 15 feet and noted the top of the ridge level would be about 17 to 18 feet on most large two car detached garages as Councilmember Sanger had indicated. 111 Mayor Gail Dorfman asked if the new provision changed the allowable height. Mr Harmening stated that the height limitation would be 25 feet under the new provision, but reiterated that in no event could the accessory structure be taller that the principle structure. Councilmember Young stated that he believed it was wise to make accessory apartments available to residents and supported leaving that portion in the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Sanger, asked to clarify her amendment. She indicated that Item 7 f.ii under Section 14 5-4 1 residential restrictions and performance standards was the specific reference she wanted deleted from the ordinance. Councilmember Jacobs noted that there were other references relating to an office on a second story of a detached garage in the ordinance and asked if they would also be deleted. Mr Meyer, City Manager stated that if Councilmember's Sanger's motion passed, he recommended that staff go through the ordinance and delete all reference to the garages as Councilmember Sanger made her motion so that no section would be missed. Councilmember Latz stated that that approach was mixing separate issues completely. He believed it was the use of the second floor and the accompanying change in the height limitations which Councilmember Sanger was attempting to address. Councilmember Nelson said he wanted to leave office uses alone, but supported the deletion of that one specific paragraph to prohibit oversized garages Councilmember Latz asked for clarification of the City Manager's recommendation advice to staff to go through and delete everything that dealt with office uses Councilmember Sanger stated that her motion didn't intent to have staff review ordinance and delete other items She stated her primary focus was to get rid of the ability to have a garage up to 25 feet Mayor Dorfman stated that this changed the focus of the motion Councilmember Latz asked if additional references to the maximum height limitation of 25 feet appeared in ordinance and asked staff to clarify how the new provision was determined Mr. Harmening, Community Development Coordinator stated that Judie Erickson was not present to provide an answer, but presumed that 25 feet provided sufficient room for the normal parking use for the garage and a full usable space above that parking garage area. The motion was defeated 3-4 (Councilmembers Latz, Young, Brimeyer, and Mayor Dorfman opposed) It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Young to amend the main motion to reinstate Item 6: Accessory apartments as permitted use in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts Councilmember Latz stated that all of the livable community principles that staff had referred to would be promoted by allowing accessory apartments. It would make the community more walkable, support local businesses, encourage a additional mixture of uses in the community and increase flexibility for individuals to improve their property, and be a more efficient use of the land Mr. Latz was not concerned about creating a duplex, since only 600 square feet of livable space within the an existing structure was allowed. Mr. Latz felt family configurations would find accessory apartments valuable and would promote community stability. The motion passed 4-3 (Councilmembers Jacobs, Nelson, and Sanger opposed). It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance and set second reading for March 16, 1998 The motion passed 4-3 (Councilmembers Jacob, Nelson, and Sanger opposed). Mayor Gail Dorfman asked staff to prepare additional information regarding height limitations for accessory use over garages to be discussed at the next study session. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications a. Variance Appeal, 7200 Cedar Lake Road Michael Knisely, KKE Architects who represented Michael DuPont was present and briefly reviewed the course of development He stated that residential concerns were solicited about the proposed plans and an acoustical consultant was hired to review problems of concern. Mr. Knisely stated a second look at the site was done to propose a revision to the site which would remove the car wash facility from the area of 100 feet adjacent to the residential parcel and leave the motor vehicle service facilities within that zone which would end up being 45 feet from that west property line Mr Knisely stated there was substantial hardship at the site due to location of fire station and the storm water easement to the North Mayor Gail Dorfman clarified that this was not the proposal that went before the Board of Zoning Appeals and was presented to staff today. She asked if staff had enough time to review the new plan Mr. Peterson, Director of Inspections stated that the final variance that was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals dealt with a proposed 22 feet setback from the car wash to the residential development to the West. He indicated that the new site plan had not been thoroughly reviewed by staff and noted upon precursory review the car wash proposed on the north side does not meet the setback requirement The proposal that the applicant was bringing before Council tonight was to move the car wash from the West side, thereby providing more distance and requesting a 46 feet setback on the West side. Mr. Peterson was reluctant to make any recommendation to Council to approve the appeal based on the site plan because staff didn't know if the plan adequately addressed all the issues. He noted that the Council and Planning Commission would receive a more detailed analysis through the conditional use permit process Mr Knisely stated that it was not the applicant's intent to violate any setback requirements with the car wash facilities. Kim Justesen, 2219 Louisiana Avenue, was not in support of the variance. He believed that the proposed development for the site was over built and raised concerns about hours of operation, increased crime, and pedestrian safety. Marilyn Reiter, 2214 Oregon Court, has been a resident for 5 years. Ms. Reiter objected to a car wash on the site because of the problems of increased noise, odors, crime and a lack of pedestrian access to the site. She believed the addition of a car wash would not enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood and urged Council to deny the applicant's request for a variance Councilmember Sanger suggested deferring this issue until staff has had an opportunity to thoroughly review site plan. Mayor Dorfman asked Mr. Knisely how a delay would impact project Mr Knisely stated it would be detrimental to the project schedule. Mayor Dorfman recommended advancing the conditional use permit process to accommodate the applicant. Mr Harmening stated that current procedure was to clear the variance first and then address other subsequent land use issues that developed Councilmember Nelson asked if the applicant would have to apply for an additional variance if it was determined that site plan was not in compliance Mr Harmening stated that was correct Councilmember Young stated that he attended a neighborhood meeting and didn't hear any objections from neighborhing residents to the car wash at its original site. Mr. Young was in support of the development and believed hardship justified the variance, but not down to 22 feet It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to grant the variance to permit a motor service and repair facility with a setback from a Residential District of 46 feet instead of the required 100 feet. Councilmember Jacobs stated that staff would be required to prepare draft findings upholding the variance request stated by Councilmember Young. Councilmember Sanger asked Mr. Knisely to provide a comparison of the amount of noise that might be generated by the service(or lube) facility that is closer to the apartments as compared to the amount of noise that would have been generated by the car wash. Michael Knisely, KKE Architects stated he didn't have any specific decibel readings, however the motor vehicle repair facility which faces Louisiana which people used as walkway had been at the location for over 25 years and minimal complaints have been voiced. Mr. Knisely described components of design and indicated they generated virtually no perceivable noise. Councilmember Sanger wanted to make sure that by granting the variance neighbors wouldn't be subjected to some appreciable amount of noise. Mr. Knisely didn't think this was the case since the car wash exited on the east side so that any noise from the blowers of that portion of the facility would be directed out to the intersection Councilmember Brimeyer shared Councilmember Young's observations and although he believed a car wash was probably a good use of space on the site, he thought the site looked over built. He suggested re-scaling the design and addressing the hours of operation concern. Mr. Knisely addressed the over built nature of design concern He pointed out that size of the building had been reduced considerably since its first concept and that a floor area ratio was allowed in a C-2 zone Councilmember Young asked what was the reduction in size of the convenience store Michael Knisely stated the convenience store was reduced from 3200 square feet to around 2600 square feet to provide two-way traffic between the building and the fire station, and allow access to the parking area to the rear He noted additional landscaping was included in the new site-plan Councilmember Latz asked Councilmember Young if there were any concerns he was aware of with a 46 feet setback if redevelopment in the future were ever to occur Councilmember Young didn't have any concerns and felt that trying to reserve the right of the future property owner shouldn't hold hostage the redevelopment of the area. The motion passed 7-0. 8. Resolutions and Ordinances a. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance regulating parking in residential Zoning Districts including the parking of commercial and recreational vehicles Mr. Harmening, Director of Community Development reviewed the agenda item handout that outlined changes that had been made to the ordinance as a result of discussion at the public hearing of January 20, 1998. Mayor Dorfman thanked Mr. Harmening for his presentation and asked if there were any questions Lance Boole, 7711 13th Lane, expressed several concerns about the ordinance as it related to individual constitutional rights. He presented a prepared statement that requested Council to consider the issues of obeying the law, specific rights of the individual and questioning fines imposed when an ordinance is violated. Mr Scott, City Attorney, stated that he felt the ordinance and the proposed staff findings adequately addressed Mr Boole's concerns. He stated that the specific right affected by this ordinance is the right of an individual to use property that they owned. This right is subject to reasonable rational regulations, in this case, formal regulations adopted through the City of St. Louis Park's zoning ordinance Steve Schultz, 8029 W 26th Street, provided a list of questions for clarification pertaining to definition of signage, screening, measurement of length of trailer, fish house provision, and parking violations on driveways Mr Harmening clarified the stated issues for Mr Schmaltz. Michael Garelich, 7361 W Franklin, said that a deal of animosity had been directed toward him after taking a stand to support the proposed ordinance. He asked Council to go forward with integrity and leadership in dealing with the opposition Mayor Gail Dorfman stated that the great numbers of people she has heard from on both sides of this issue have expressed their concerns in a very fair manner and that she has never felt threatened in any way Maren Beckman, 8711 Boone Court, encouraged Council to progress with courage to approve the proposed ordinance She requested that the screening requirement be reconsidered and that the limit of total number of vehicles outside the garage remain at three. Gary Berscheid, 1604 Blackstone, stated that he had reviewed the ordinance in detail to evaluate practical applications and verbiage and had found several discrepancies in the language that concerned him. Councilmember Latz suggested that Council consider an exemption comparable to the 48 hour recreational vehicle exemption for commercial vehicles used by residents for employment Roger Dufner, 1865 Melrose Avenue, was in support of the zoning ordinance amendments with the exception of deleting the screening requirement. Eleanor Pierce, 3328 Louisiana Avenue, was in support of the ordinance as it was read on January 20, 1998 and expressed her concerns regarding enforcement issues. Steve Braaten, 3116 Dakota Avenue, raised a question about the definition of commercial vehicles and was in support of deleting the screening requirement. John Basill, 6208 Oxford Street, believed the interest of neighbors and community needed to be put before personal interests. He felt that the limit of total number of vehicles allowed should remain at three to avoid potential abuse and enforcement difficulties He also believed some type of screening should be required and that some types of commercial vehicles should be allowed to be parked in a driveway if required for employment. David E Carlson, 1861 Melrose Avenue, stated that he was not able to attend the Public Hearing on January 20, 1998 and that he was opposed to the ordinance. He provided several handouts and read an interpretation of a story meant to illustrate how a human being's instinctual reaction to fear is often expressed in an attempt to eliminate that which is unfamiliar. He believed that logic, rationality and objectivity had been pushed aside in the development of this ordinance and that the fundamental values behind this ordinance should be reassessed Jeff Carlson, 5505 Vermont Street, was opposed to the ordinance He felt his personal freedoms and rights were in jeopardy and that he should be allowed to park his personal property where he desired He felt that substantial opposition justified further examination of the ordinance Tim Fleming, 6632 W 18th Street, produced a list of questions which he felt needed to be answered to clarify amendments to the ordinance Marlane Neuman, 1426 Flag Avenue South, commented on the issues of non-access to the backyard, screening requirements, and additional size restrictions of vehicles. She believed the ordinance was needed to keep properties neat and orderly Bob Kosky, 9051 Minnetonka Boulevard, asked to see the language drafted for parking large vehicles in the front yard as referred to by Mr Harmening Mr. Harmening stated that the optional language provided to Council related to properties where there was no backyard access and simply stated that recreational vehicles which exceeded any of the limits set forth may be parked in the backyard or the front yard if the backyard was not accessible due to the location of the principle structure and garage Mr. Kosky raised a concern that Ordinance section 14.5-3-2 E 10 allowed trailers to be parked, but no motorized vehicles were allowed. According to the ordinance you can park a recreational vehicle, but you can't park it for more that 24 hours if it's in a parking lot. If it's in storage, it can't be motorized. Mr. Harmening stated he would review the contents of that ordinance. Kathleen Benshoof, 1631 Virginia Avenue South, stated she had recently become aware of a Realtor who asked a resident to move a recreational vehicle off-site in order to enhance the chances of selling their home. She raised concerns about screening, parking of cars, and oversized vehicles She felt that a screening requirement was needed and recommended using a landscape architect to determine possible options She felt that the total number of vehicles should be allowed remain at three, and suggested that companies may be telling communities what was going to be in their neighborhoods and Council should check out what options existed. Mayor Dorfman stated that consensus of the Council at the January 26, 1998 study session was that they hadn't had enough time to look at all the implications of screening and how it would affect yard issues The City Manager suggested looking at the ordinance without the screening elements and since the ordinance wouldn't be implemented for a year following passage, the issue of screening could be considered at another at study session. John Iacona, 8900 W 34th Street, stated that he was impressed with the astuteness and number of changes that had been made since first reading, but believed more revisions needed to be made He recommended postponing approval of the ordinance until staff could review new concerns and present additional revisions to Council MOTION - It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to approve the ordinance as passed at first reading on January 20, 1998 AMENDMENT - Councilmember Nelson proposed an amendment to the motion removing the signage requirement from the definition of a motor vehicle Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated that there had been some changes to the draft ordinance approved at first reading which were reflected in the draft ordinance included in the staff report He inquired regarding the intent of Councilmember Sanger's motion. Councilmember Sanger, stated that her intent was to move for approval of the ordinance that was passed four weeks ago because she was not personally comfortable with all of the drafting changes that had been made by staff in the interim Councilmember Nelson suggested that Council consider the ordinance in the staff report as a basis for discussion and then talk about pulling each amendment out and changing it back to the old language so that we would have the most modern language Councilmember Sanger believed the same result would be accomplished either way. MOTION - It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to amend the motion that was on the table to substitute the language in the staff report. Mr. Scott, City Attorney suggested withdrawing the original motion from the table and advised Council to step back and address by topic the types of things they'd like to see in or out of the ordinance. Council could then vote those topics up or down to find out what will go in or stay out. He suggested that after they had gone through that process they could get to the actual ordinance. Councilmember Latz stated he was willing to withdraw his motion to accommodate the Council, but he thought that Council had reached a certain level of understanding on a number of things that generated a lot of the current staff language He didn't see any point in revisiting each one of those in the course of the discussion. The motion passed 5-2 (Councilmembers Sanger and Young opposed) Councilmember Sanger asked to discuss Section l0a of the ordinance dealing with the number of cars allowed to be parked outside a garage. She was concerned that there was no cap on the number of vehicles that could be parked outside a garage and felt that although it was an individual's right to use a garage for other purposes,than storing a vehicle, she didn't believe the ordinance should be altered to condone that MOTION - It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young to amend Section l0a of the ordinance in two respects adding language"if they can't be parked in a garage", and "not to exceed 5 vehicles parked outside" Recommended language to be added to Section l0a(Page 5 ) highlighted is noted below Section 10a - "If there are more than three persons residing at a single family dwelling who have valid Minnesota driver's licenses showing the residence address, then the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked outside, if they can't be parked in a garage, is increased to a number equal to the number of licensed drivers residing at the property, not to exceed 5 vehicles parked outside." Mayor Dorfman asked Mr. Scott if language could be added that directs people how they can use their garage. Mr. Scott stated that if someone were using their garage for storage space, they could put up to 5 vehicles outside under the proposed ordinance, but they could be tagged for converting their garage space to storage space under language included in Section 14 Councilmember Sanger stated that since language in Section 14 would obtain the same results as her intent, she asked that only cap language be added to Section 10a. RESTATEMENT OF MOTION- It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to amend Section 10a of the ordinance to add cap language"not to exceed 5 vehicles parked outside". The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Brimeyer opposed). MOTION - It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to postpone approval of second reading of Zoning Ordinance amendments to March 2, 1998 with the condition that no public hearing was to take place. The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed). b. Special Assessment of fire Sprinkler System at 4330 Cedar Lake Road South Resolution #98-39 By consent, Council adopted the resolution authorizing the fire sprinkler project and directing the Mayor and City Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner 9 Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Neighborhood Revitalization Commission Minutes of January 14, 1998 By consent, Council accepted report for filing b. Housing Authority Minutes of January 14, 1998 By consent, Council accepted report for filing c. Human Rights Commission Meeting Notes of January 21, 1998 By consent, Council accepted report for filing d. Vendor Claims By consent, Council accepted report for filing 10. Unfinished Business -None 11. New Business a. 1998 Major Equipment Purchases Resolution #98-40 Mr. Rardin, Public Works Director briefly highlighted report. It was moved by Councilmember Jacobs, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt the resolution accepting the report and authorizing staff to acquire equipment scheduled for replacement in 1998 as allowed by Statute, Charter or Ordinance The motion passed 7-0. 12. Miscellaneous- Appointment It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Jacobs to appoint Jim Lanenburg to the Police Civil Service Commission. The motion passed 7-0. 13. Appropriations. Contract Payments-None 14 Communications From the Mayor-None From the City Manager-Mr. Meyer mentioned the Home Remodeling Fair to be held on Sunday, February 22nd at the Eisenhower Community Center from 10:30 a.m. -4 30 p.m. 15 Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Dorfman The meeting adjourned at 11 55 p m Th motion passed 7-0. c VV ayor Gail Dorfman Recording Secretary