HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05-22-2001Adopted Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 22, 2001
A Regular Meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on May 22, 2001.
COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney, Councilmembers Slavik, Johnson, Stein, Black, Harstad,
and Hewitt.
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Ahrens, Police Chief
Gerdes, Fire Chief Kline, Park and Recreation Director Blank, Finance Director Hahn,
Community Development Director Hurlburt, Public Works Director Moore, Financial Analyst
Kohn, Public Works Supervisor Vetsch, Street Supervisor Smith, City Attorney Knutson, and
Deputy City Clerk Hoffman.
Plvmouth Forum
Sam Garst, 5500 Yorktown Lane, representing Harrison Hills Homeowners Association,
submitted a letter from the Harrison Hills Homeowners Association citing landscaping
conditions along Zachary Lane from Schmidt Lake Road to Bass Lake Road. He said planting
and landscaping remains incomplete and should be addressed. He said he has spoken with City
Forester Buck regarding funding for additional plantings. Mayor Tierney acknowledged Mr.
Garst's request and thanked him for bringing it to the Council's attention.
Presentations and Public Information Announcements
4.1) Retirement of Public Works Director Moore
Mayor Tierney proclaimed June 1 as "Fred Moore Day" in recognition of Mr. Moore serving as
Public Works Director for 23 years.
The Council thanked Public Works Director Moore for his service to the City.
Mayor Tierney noted that at 3:00 p.m. on Memorial Day there would be a National Moment of
Remembrance to honor servicemen who have perished.
Mayor Tierney noted the talents of the Plymouth Community Concert Band, which were featured
recently at an area concert.
Approval of Agenda
Mayor Tierney requested to add as Item 9.3, under Reports and Recommendations, the request of
St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran Church to schedule a study session with the Council.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 2 of 19
Councilmember Stein requested to move item No. 8.1 before Public Hearings due to the large
number of youth in attendance.
Motion was and seconded by Councilmember
approve the amended agenda. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
Consent Agenda
City Manager Johnson noted a requested correction to the May 8 minutes, regarding comments
by Councilmember Slavik during the discussion on alcohol compliance checks.
Councilmembers Slavik, Black, and Hewitt thanked all the donors and volunteers for their
donations and assistance with the Millennium Garden project.
Motion was made by Councilmember Slavik, and seconded
prove the amended Consent Agenda which
to
6.01) Minutes from Regular Council Meeting of May 8 (as amended), Board of Review
meeting reconvened of May 1, Special Council Meeting of May 1, and Regular Council Meeting
of March 20.
6.02) Resolution Approving Disbursements for the Period Ending May 19, 2001
Res2001-192).
6.03) Resolution accepting Millennium Garden Donations (Res2001-193).
6.04) Resolution Approving the Final Plat and Development Contract for Parkers Lake Limited
Partnership for Property Located west of Juneau Lane and north of 14`h Avenue (A/K/A
Kingsview Lane) (2001078F — Res2001-194).
6.05) Resolution Approving Funding for Kimberly Lane Elementary School (Res2001-195).
6.06) Resolution Approving a Variance for Brad and Tasha Coats for Impervious Surface
Coverage for Property located at 1820 Peony Lane North (Res2001-196).
6.07) Ordinance amending Chapter 21 (zoning ordinance) of the City Code to classify
approximately 70 acres of land located at 5625 Yucca Lane North and a Resolution Approving
Findings of Fact for Rezoning of Property Located at 5625 Yucca Lane North (2001027)
Ord200-13 & Res2001-197).
6.08) Resolution Adopting Assessment For Abatement Of Hazardous Buildings at 309 Harbor
Lane North (Res2001-198).
6.09) Resolution Approving 2001 Amusement License for Gopher State Expositions, Inc. for a
Carnival at the Four Seasons Mall (Res2001-199).
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 3 of 19
6.10) Resolution Approving a Variance for Impervious Surface Coverage in the Shoreland
Management Overlay District for an Addition for Formation Architects, Inc., on property located
at 16900 41't Avenue North (20132) (Res2001-200).
6.11) Resolution Awarding Contract for 2001 Crack Repair Program (Res2001-201).
6.12) Resolution Awarding Contract for 2001 Seal Coat Program (Res2001-202).
6.13) Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2001-006 Adopting Assessments for Sanitary
Sewer and Watermain Area Assessments for Gramercy Plymouth Northwest and a Resolution
Adopting Assessments for City Project No. 1006, Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Area,
Gramercy Plymouth Northwest (Res2001-203 & Res2001-204).
6.14) Resolution Approving Purchase Agreement for County Road 101 Improvements, 3950
County Road 101, City Project No. 9005 (Res2001-205) and Resolution Approving Purchase
Agreement for County Road 101 Improvements, 4020 County Road 101, City Project No. 9005
Res2001-206).
6.15) Resolution Accepting Proposal for Design and Construction Engineering Services and
Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications, 2001 Major Street Mill and Overlay
Improvements, City Project No. 1020 (Res2001-207).
6.16) Resolution Accepting Proposal for Preparation of Feasibility Report for Upgrades to Lift
Station No's 20 and 22 and Watermain Improvements, City Project No. 1023 (Res2001-208).
6.17) Resolution Requesting Payment No. 3 and Final for Troy Lane Sanitary Sewer north of
County Road 6, City Project No. 7018 (Res2001-209).
6.18) Resolution Approving Change Order No. 2, Pay Estimate No. 7, and Reduction in
Retainage for 1999 Street Reconstruction Project, City Project No. 9001 (Res2001-210).
6.19) Resolution Amending Funding for Public Improvement Projects (Res2001-211).
6.20) Resolution Approving Institution Community Work Program (Res2001-212).
Councilmember Harstad registered a no vote for item No. 6.20.
Councilmember Johnson registered a no vote for item No. 6.12.
Councilmember Black registered a no vote for item No. 6.10.
Motion carried to approve the Consent Agenda.
General Business Item 8.1) Skate Park
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 4 of 19
Park and Recreation Director Blank reported on the request to authorize construction of a skate
park. He said part of the funding would come from Capital Improvement Project funds. He said
an on-going community advisory group has been created to offer input on the proposal.
He stated that this would initially be a tier 1 skate park, considered qualified for beginners, with
risers under 36" in height. He stated this type of park could be included in the City's liability
insurance. If there would be no staff supervision, which is similar to non—guarded City beaches,
the liability exposure would decrease.
Matt Kline, 5105 Quantico Lane, and Andy Bethune, 3280 Olive Lane, presented a 3-D model
plan for the park layout. Mr. Bethune described the construction of the ramps, rails, and other
structures while Mr. Kline explained the use of the park elements.
Councilmember Harstad asked the youth whether a concrete surface was preferable to an asphalt
surface. Mr. Bethune responded that a concrete surface would be preferred as it is a smoother
surface. He noted that the concrete pad located behind the Ice Center would be a good surface.
Mayor Tierney asked if the skate park could accommodate all skill levels. Mr. Kline stated yes.
The quarter pipes and pyramid units would be for beginners and the wedges and other grind rails
would be for the more advanced skill levels.
Mr. Bethune explained any skating opportunities are some distances from the City, and traveling
to them is very difficult for youth.
Councilmember Slavik asked if the pieces are portable. Park and Recreation Director Blank
replied yes.
Park and Recreation Director Blank reported on the locations identified as possible sites. They
include the concrete pad east of the lee Center, a 100 foot square area at the Elm Creek Playfield
west of Wayzata Senior High School, and an area 400 feet east of the Public Works facility on
23rd Avenue.
Councilmember Slavik asked why the concrete pad east of the Ice Center was constructed. Park
and Recreation Director Blank replied this was in anticipation of park construction three years
ago as well as providing additional parking stalls.
Councilmember Johnson asked if LifeTime Fitness assumed the costs for that concrete pad. Park
and Recreation Director Blank replied that all costs were split evenly with the City as part of the
plan for additional parking sites.
Park and Recreation Director Blank reported that if a site were constructed east of the Public
Works facility, the costs would be approximately $40,000. He added an asphalt surface would
add $30,000 to the project.
City Manager Johnson stated there could be an opportunity at the Public Works facility site to
utilize the concrete pad in the near future if this would only be a temporary site. Public Works
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 5 of 19
Director Moore added that within a year or two the City would need additional storage for water
treatment, and the concrete pad could be incorporated in the design.
City Manager Johnson stated another option could be that a temporary area be made on an
asphalt area and then moved after a concrete facility would be constructed.
Councilmember Johnson asked if there is an option for concessions at the Public Works facility
site. Park and Recreation Director Blank stated that is doubtful as that would have to be
contracted with vending companies. However, since it would be an outdoor facility, the City
might be able to provide water and restroom facilities.
Councilmember Black asked about the source of funding for the Public Works facility site. Park
and Recreation Director Blank replied funding would come from either the Capital Improvement
Program fund or the park dedication fund.
Councilmember Black asked how soon the skate park could be constructed. Park and Recreation
Director Blank replied the Ice Center site could be in operation fairly soon. However, the use of
the park would be restricted to the months of June, July, and August due to demands on the space
by the Ice Center. If the Public Works facility site were selected, it wouldn't be operational until
late summer/early fall.
Park and Recreation Director Blank informed the Council that the Wayzata School District has
offered a site-specific grant if there would be access for youth.
Councilmember Slavik asked if other Capital Improvement or Park Dedication projects would be
deleted or postponed because of this project. City Manager Johnson replied no.
Motion was made by Councilmember Stein, seconded by Councilmember Slavik, to adopt a
Resolution Implementine a Tier 1 Skate Park on the Public Works Facilitv nronerty on 23`
Avenue (Res2001-213).
Councilmember Stein stated he supports constructing a skate park. He stated that due to the
opposition from neighbors adjacent to the Ice Center, he supports the Public Works facility site.
Councilmember Harstad voiced his concern that there are no residential areas adjacent to the
Public Works facility site. Therefore, youth would need transportation to the site. He also noted
that this site is in a commercial/industrial trucking area, with heavy vehicle traffic, and no City
personnel would be at the site later in the afternoon. Therefore, he supports a test site behind the
Ice Center.
Councilmember Hewitt said that she supports the Public Works facility site as it has a chance of
succeeding at this site. However, she does not support staff supervision costs at the site.
Motion was made by Councilmember Slavik, seconded by Councilmember Johnson, to amend
the resolution to extend the hours of operation until 8:00 n.m. except for Sunday. which would
be extended until 5:30 p.m.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 6 of 19
Park and Recreation Director Blank noted there would be no lighting at any of the proposed
sites. If the Public Works facility site were selected, and the season would be extended into the
fall, daylight availability could be an issue. Therefore, an 8:00 p.m. closing time has been
recommended by staff and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission.
Councilmember Black stated she could not support the earlier closing time at this site. She would
support a 9:00 p.m. closing, but would prefer closing at sundown.
Councilmember Hewitt concurred with Councilmember Black.
A substitute motion was made by Councilmember Stein, seconded by Councilmember Black, to
to sunset.
With all members voting in favor to amend the amendment for the hours of operation, the motion
to amend the amendment carried.
With all members voting in favor of the amendment for the hours of operation, the motion to
amend the resolution carried.
Councilmember Black stated she supports the elements of the Public Works facility site.
However, she does not support the expense of developing this site if it is only intended to be a
temporary location.
Mayor Tierney voiced her frustration in developing only one site as she would support more than
one skate park in the City.
Councilmember Johnson stated she supports the Public Works facility site as it wouldn't be
located adjacent to residential areas, while still being accessible for youth.
Councilmember Harstad reiterated that he supports a test site behind the Ice Center through the
summer as the Public Works facility site could be more permanent.
Kathleen Thompson, 16010 46th Avenue North, member of the Park and Recreation Advisory
Commission, supports the Ice Center site. However, she stated the Public Works facility site
could be a viable alternative.
Adam Berkland, 4230 Pineview Lane, supports Public Works facility site due to the site not
being located in a residential area.
Ray Kross, no address given, stated that residents adjacent to the Ice Center support the Public
Works facility site.
Georgann Boestler Wenisch, representing the Parkview Ridge Homeowners and Townhomes
Association, Parkbrooke Homeowners Association, and the Creek View Homeowners
Association, stated they support the Public Works facility site.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 7 of 19
Pat McKee, 16935 21St Avenue North, stated he is disappointed that any alternative is being
considered rather than the Ice Center site. An alternate site would create additional costs and a
delay in developing the park. He stated the Ice Center site was originally proposed to be a
multi—use site so that residents could utilize the outdoor pool, the Ice Arena, or LifeTime Fitness
simultaneously.
Anne Marie Herman, 15135 38th Avenue North, representing Parkbrooke Townhomes, offered
her support for the Public Works facility site as noise could be an issue. She suggested that the
Council delay the project for one year if they are unsure of the best location.
Tom Resick, 15160 38h Avenue North, supports the Public Works facility site as it addresses
concerns in containing the activity area as well as safety issues.
Tom Brenner, 4275 Deerwood Lane, supports for the Public Works facility site due to the
isolated location.
Councilmember Black asked Mr. Brenner if there would be a problem in delaying the skate park
until mid June if the Public Works facility site were selected. Mr. Brenner replied they would
like a skate park as quickly as possible but would be willing to wait if necessary.
Terry Faschant, 15224 40th Avenue North, supports the Public Works facility site. He said he is
opposed to the Ice Center site due to the current construction activities on Plymouth Boulevard.
Matt Kline, 5105 Quantico Lane, supports the Ice Center site due to possible transportation
difficulties to the Public Works facility.
Tim Carlson, 5650 Vagabond Lane, supports the Public Works facility site. He noted that if the
Ice Center site were chosen, if there would be bad weather, and the youth would need to take
cover at LifeTime fitness, they could be objects of complaints.
Nancy Mehus, 3660 Yuma Lane, suggested there be a test site at the Ice Center location for three
months. The Council could then review it and consider relocating it to the Public Works facility
site.
Andrew Tiegs, 2820 Norwood Lane, opposes the Public Works facility site when the Ice Center
site is already available. He stated noise would not be an issue because the Skate Park Advisory
Group has agreed not to allow loud music. In addition, this site would be more centrally located
for youth who don't have transportation to other locations.
Caden Borchers, 4535 Terraceview Lane, supports the site behind the Ice Center for youth who
reside north of Highway 55. The site also offers other recreational facilities for the entire family.
He stressed that noise would not be an issue due to the provision of no loud music.
Bruce Tilsner, 3933 Niagara Lane, who is a resident of Parkview Ridge Apartments, stated he is
concerned about safety as skaters practice high risk maneuvers. Therefore, he supports the
Public Works facility site.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 8 of 19
Park and Recreation Director Blank explained the parking area at the Public Works site is
occupied by additional summer staff and by members of the public there on business. He stated
there is no inside shelter location available for inclement weather. He also noted that youth are
not allowed to bring in skates or skateboards into the Ice Center.
There being no further discussion, the Council voted on the main motion. With all members
voting in favor except Black and Harstad, the motion carried.
The Council conducted a recess from 9:10 p.m. until 9:20 p.m.
Public Hearings
7.1) Storm Water Utility Fee
Financial Analyst Kohn reported on the Water Resources Management Plan that contains
recommendations to improve the water quality of lakes located in the City. He stated estimates
indicate that $1.5 million per year would be needed to fully fund the plan and incentive program.
The proposed storm water utility fee would be utilized to fund the cleanup program. He stated
arrangements for reduced fees could be made for property owners who have made efforts to
reduce surface water runoff.
Mayor Tierney opened the public hearing for testimony
Keith Pizzala, 2700 Pineview Lane, asked how many years the fee would be charged as well as
charges in the winter months when there is no run off and for any dry years. He noted that some
of the lakes are contained in other cities who don't currently charge a storm water utility fee. He
is concerned about their share of clean—up costs. He suggested that lake property owners pay a
higher fee.
Marsha Videen, 1151 Kingsview Lane, supports the fee. She requested the fee be applied to
residents on public access lakes such as Medicine Lake and Parkers Lake. She suggested the
City pursue cost sharing arrangements with other cities on the regional lakes.
Richard Schmidt, 14310 13th Avenue North, stated he is opposed to the storm water utility fee.
He stated if the fee would be based on the amount of water run off, how would that be measured?
He asked if a lot were subdivided, how would the fee be altered to reflect a smaller property
size? Lastly, how would reductions in the water run off be measured in order to issue incentives
to property owners? He requested the Council to reconsider the necessity of the proposed fee.
There being no further testimony, Mayor Tierney declared the public hearing closed.
Mayor Tierney noted the proposed fee would have a funding base that would be different than
other fees charged in the City, but the funds would also be used for an educational campaign for
residents.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 9 of 19
Financial Analyst Kohn stated regarding measuring the water runoff, most communities utilize a
system that is a soil conservation surface water measure over a one-year period. Rainfall events
are counted, analyzed, and studied to determine the amount of water that would run off in a
particular area. The analysis doesn't take into account hillside homes or homes in hollows with
non-linear run-off and multiple unit residential homes. He stated that commercial and industrial
properties would have higher impervious levels and would be charged a different rate. He stated
initially, it is proposed that the fee would recover capital costs for improvements at Parkers Lake,
Medicine Lake, and perhaps Bass Lake, and could possibly be extend ten years. The City would
have the opportunity to evaluate other lakes in the City during that time.
Councilmember Black stated in some of the lakes there are situations where the sediments have
reached a level where it would take a very long time to determine improvement at any level.
Water quality improvements would not be categorized as short-term.
Councilmember Johnson asked what type of incentives would be offered to reduce the runoff.
Public Works Director Moore replied during the past eight years, all properties have been
required to supply water runoff and treatment plans. Some of the incentives would be applied to
the more recent developments by encouraging the use of natural vegetation and infiltration to
avoid rapid run-off. Regarding industrial developments, there could be the incentive for the
property owner to construct their own water treatment operations.
Councilmember Johnson asked how tax exempt properties would be charged. Public Works
Director Moore replied that all developed properties would be charged the fee regardless of tax
status. City Manager Johnson added that the fee would not be charged to school properties for
one year because of how their fiscal year is set.
Motion was made by Councilmember Black, seconded by Councilmember Harstad, to direct
staff to prepare an ordinance establishing a storm water utility fee for the June 12 2001 Cit
Council Meeting.
Councilmember Harstad voiced his support for the proposed fee, and he stated it is very similar
to the City's recycling program fee.
Councilmember Slavik indicated her support for the proposed fee.
Councilmember Stein reiterated the funds derived from the fee would be utilized for improving
water quality of area lakes and should not be considered a tax.
There being no further discussion and with all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
Public Hearings
7.2) Adopt an Official Map for the Highway 55 frontage road east of West Medicine Lake
Drive. City of Plymouth. (2001033)
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 10 of 19
Planning Supervisor Barb Senness introduced the proposal to adopt an official map for the
Highway 55 frontage road east of West Medicine Lake Drive. She reported that this is the
second consideration of an official map for this area. She stated the previous plan divided two
parcels, on which a prospective buyer proposes to operate two related businesses in conjunction
with each other. She explained the affected properties would be modified by the precise location
of a frontage road alignment. The goals is to relocate the intersection between West Medicine
Lake Drive and the frontage road away from Highway 55 to improve safety. Identification of the
intersection would be a tool to protect the area for future public improvements that could be
inhibited by the need to purchase land.
She stated staff has worked with the owners of the site which is proposed to be developed as a
Gas N' Splash operation, and everyone is in general agreement on the designation of the new
intersection. She stated the request for adoption of an official map for the frontage road would
be independent of any determination of alignment or right--of—way for the property, but would
only identify the area the City would like to preserve.
Mayor Tierney opened the public hearing for testimony.
Andy Bond, 17825 3rd Avenue North, the attorney representing Dwight Larson who is owner of
the properties, stated that his client's acceptance of the map adoption is based on the assumption
that the Council approves the site development plan proposed in item 8.2. He explained Mr.
Larson has been trying to sell the properties for some years and has been working with a
prospective buyer since August 2000. He explained if the site plan is not approved, it would
drastically affect the value of the two parcels, and there could be an argument for the award of
damages because of the damage to potential sale of the property. He believes if the service road
were located on the north side of the property from West Medicine Lake Drive to Lake Shore
Drive, both streets would have safer intersections.
There being no one else wishing to appear before the Council, Mayor Tierney declared the public
hearing closed.
Motion was made by Councilmember Slavik, and seconded by Councilmember Johnson to
adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 of the Plymouth City Code to Adopt an Official Map of
the Highway 55/West Medicine Lake Road Frontage Road (Ord2001-14) and a Resolution
Approving Findings of Fact Related to the Adoption of an Official Map for a Frontage Road
located North of Highway 55 and East of West Medicine Lake Road (2001033 Res2001-214).
Planning Supervisor Senness responded to Mr. Bond's suggestion of relocating the road to the
north side of the property. She stated the area to the north is primarily wetland; therefore, it
would be difficult to construct the roadway there. She added that other options would be difficult
to utilize because the parcels are so small.
Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that during the Comprehensive Plan revision,
this area was studied closely. She stated it is difficult to redo the frontage road because the
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 11 of 19
adjacent properties are all oriented to Highway 55. She stated this proposal has the least impact
on the other properties along the frontage.
There being no further discussion, and with all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
General Business
8.2) Approve a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits and Variances for Gas N' Splash, a
motor vehicle fuel sales facility and attendant building on property located at 11320
Highway 55. Classic Touch, Inc. (20173)
Planning Supervisor Senness introduced the request for redevelopment of the site at 11320
Highway 55. She stated the circumstances are similar to a proposal to redevelop a set of
properties to the east along South Shore Drive and Highway 55. The frontage road access has
been identified as a safety hazard, and there is some future residential development to the north.
Staff believes the Variances are justified to increase safety and benefit the community as a
whole. She noted that lighting compliance requires limited lighting and positioning to avoid off—
site glare, resulting in the requirement that the freestanding fixtures would not rise above the
attendant structure. She explained that the property is actually two distinct parcels, even though
they would function together. Because of this, there would be a Variance for placement of the
gas station canopy on the west side of the proposed roadway's right of way.
She noted that staff's comments and recommendations were based on the frontage road layout
and timing as proposed by the applicant.
She stated in order to improve the safety conditions, staff recommends the applicant construct
the west access portion of the frontage road which would be located west of the Gas N' Splash
facility prior to opening. She stated the frontage road could be constructed in phases. Timing of
the development would not be affected, but the City would be requesting the applicant to follow
state aid street standards and guidelines. She stated the State's primary consideration would be
the spacing between intersections. Therefore, staff recommends relocating the frontage road
entrance 40 feet further to the north than the applicant is requesting. Staff acknowledges that this
northerly placement of the frontage access could result in difficult turns for semi—trucks, but the
overall safety improvements gained would outweigh the temporary inconvenience until the
frontage road is complete. Staff is also recommending a 40 foot setback along the frontage road
to leave space for the future trail along West Medicine Lake Drive and the curbing. She stated
further engineering plans would clarify if that would be possible, but the Resolution before the
Council would allow for either option. She said staff also requests that the northern access from
the Gas N' Splash be marked "one way" as an exit to the frontage road to avoid confusion and
possible safety hazards for exiting.
Councilmember Johnson asked if the property would be in compliance with the City's water
resource plan policies. Planning Supervisor Senness replied that when all phases of the
frontage road realignment are complete, there could be an area near the northern entrance to
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 12 of 19
the parcel where ponding could assist in minimizing runoff. She added that any cleanup from
the previous tank placement would be addressed during the process of the development.
Councilmember Johnson asked how the applicant could minimize the runoff from the carwash
until the pond could be constructed. Planning Supervisor Senness replied there would not be
adequate green space to the handle runoff until the frontage road is constructed and the pond
could be developed.
Councilmember Black asked how the frontage road placement would affect immediate access to
the site. Planning Supervisor Senness responded that the applicant proposes no change in the
immediate entrance but would place an island immediately inside the entrance to direct traffic
into the property. Staff recommends moving the island further north to guide frontage road
traffic around the area.
Mayor Tierney asked if would be difficult for larger trucks to make the turn from West Medicine
Lake Drive onto the eastbound frontage road. Planning Supervisor Senness replied that it could
be a difficult turn for larger tank trucks, but that the safety improvements would outweigh any
short-term inconvenience.
Mayor Tierney asked why a curb would be needed at that entrance. Public Works Director
Moore replied that the curb separates the road from the pedestrian trail. He noted that semi
trucks are a very low percentage of the overall traffic in this area.
Councilmember Slavik stated there was a previous application for a sexually oriented business at
this location, and she asked if this use would be part of this application. Planning Supervisor
Senness replied that the application for a sexually oriented business was made by the current
applicant, but was withdrawn. Community Development Director Hurlburt added that for some
time, staff had two active applications for two completely different uses from the same applicant
for this site. She stated the other application would have created a sexually oriented business in
the existing building. She stated that the City never received complete information on what
would be sold, in what quantities, and what the nature of the business would be in order to
determine how the zoning and licensing requirements would have applied. The applicant
withdrew that application, and there is only the current application before the Council for the
proposed Gas N' Splash.
Councilmember Slavik asked if it would possible to include a sexually oriented business if the
Council were to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Variances. Planning Supervisor
Senness replied it would be difficult due to the size of the proposed attendant building.
Community Development Director Hurlburt stressed that if the Council approves the Conditional
Use Permit, it doesn't imply that the applicant would demolish the existing structure. The
applicant is under no obligation to construct the proposed structure if the Council approves it. If
the Council approves the Conditional Use Permit and Variances this evening, it would only give
the applicant permission to construct the gas station. If the applicant would propose a different
use, they would need to submit an application.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 13 of 19
Councilmember Harstad asked if there is any State highway aid that could be applied to the
proposed development at this site. Public Works Director Moore replied that the State highway
aid doesn't relate to this project itself. However, other properties that aren't developed along the
frontage road could qualify to receive State highway aid.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of
combining the two parcels into one as the two businesses would be operating under one
ownership. Planning Supervisor Senness replied this issue would've had to been addressed
earlier in the application process.
Councilmember Stein asked if it could be possible to construct the frontage road in one stage.
He stated there is no guarantee that adjacent parcels would be developed. He is concerned about
constructing the frontage road in a "piece meal" fashion. Planning Supervisor Senness replied
the City would be responsible for the costs of the right-of-way if constructed at one time. She
stated that informal discussions have occurred for development of the northern parcel, and staff
is confident that there could be a proposal for an affordable housing development for that
property in the near future.
Councilmember Stein asked if there have been any traffic studies completed in this area.
Planning Supervisor Senness replied that no traffic studies have been completed; however, staff
has examined accident reports for the area. She stated there have been 30 accidents in this area
over the past 3.5 years, and three of those accidents were directly related to the frontage road
entrance. Police Chief Gerdes noted that the number of accidents at this intersection is fairly
typical. The current entrance configuration would be the least safe of all possible options, while
the completed frontage road situation would be the best option.
Councilmember Stein commented that a frontage road constructed in phases wouldn't appear to
be any safer than the current situation. Therefore, he requested that the City require the
developer to construct the frontage road next spring.
Councilmember Slavik asked about the proposed height of the light poles at the site and how
they relate to the height of the attendant structure and its canopies. Planning Supervisor Senness
replied that the building code requires light standards to be 25 feet in height or the height of the
principal building, whichever is less. She explained that the attendant building would be the
principal building, and it would be 16 feet in height. There is a four -foot connected canopy, but
that is not considered part of the structure. She noted that this building is smaller than typical
gas station structures.
Councilmember Johnson asked about plans for MN/DOT to upgrade the intersection. She has
received calls relating to the length of the green light timings and reports of serious near—miss
accidents. Public Works Director Moore reported that MN/DOT has no immediate plans to
upgrade this intersection. He stated the traffic stacking problem with the frontage road and West
Medicine Lake Drive is a City problem. He explained there is a stacking problem due to the
frontage road being constructed too close to the intersection for the volume of traffic. He
acknowledged that the traffic signal timing issue needs to be addressed. Police Chief Gerdes
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 14 of 19
reported that a MN/DOT inspector feels the signal timing is correct, and that it may be a
perception by a resident of what the appropriate timing should be.
Carolyn Wolski, 150 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, an attorney representing the applicant,
explained that the sexually oriented business application was originally intended as an alternative
use for the property. Her client withdrew the application as they intended to submit an
application for the proposed use of the property, not a sexually oriented business. She stated the
use the property would either be the gas station or nothing.
Ms. Wolski noted that the Planning Commission, with their approval, added 21 different
conditions to her client's proposal. Her client supports all the conditions, but four. Her client is
concerned with condition No's. 2 & 3, which are somewhat related. These conditions required
constructing the frontage road up to the northern part of the lot line. Her client is concerned with
condition No. 4 which would require the existing driveway to be closed as well as condition No.
5 which is staff s request for separation between the frontage road and the pedestrian trail, even
though they would only actually touch for a few yards. It was her client's understanding that that
meant the frontage road would have to come over further and take up more of the property.
Finally, she stated a "deal breaking" condition is condition No. 7 which would require a one way
alley along the northern portion of the property. She noted that Classic Touch has provided at
least 20 different designs for a new frontage road design.
Ms. Wolski stated she and her client believe there are some legal problems that exist under the
four conditions. She stated the City's ordinance addresses conditions that may be imposed upon
a motor fuel facility. She stated her client's proposal meets all of those conditions. She stated
City staff is relying on a more general condition to incorporate the four conditions in the staff
report in order to meet the general safety requirements. She stated there is no basis to indicate
that safety issues are of concern. She understands why the City recommends to have the access
road moved up to the north as that would reduce the stacking of traffic on the frontage road who
are trying to access West Medicine Lake Drive. However, there doesn't seem to be any
particular safety issue with the current situation. The current owner of the property, Mr. Larson,
stated he is not aware of any accidents that have occurred at the junction of the frontage road and
West Medicine Lake during the past 30 years. She stated even with other businesses which
operated previously and with another access to the frontage road to the east, safety has not been a
big issue at the intersection. She stated the property owner currently has reasonable access to the
frontage road and to West Medicine Lake Drive. Under staffs proposal, there would not be
reasonable access. She stressed that tanker trucks would not be able to navigate the proposed
turn which could pose a serious problem for a business that sells gasoline. She believes that the
majority of the semi trucks now serving other business along the frontage road are utilizing the
western access because of the difficulty utilizing the eastern access to the frontage road.
She stated dedication of the property under the staff s recommendation would be 30 percent, and
that would be an unreasonable amount of the property to dedicate to the public street. She stated
if staff s report is only an option, it would not be a workable plan. She noted the staff report
refers to anticipated completion of the entire area; therefore, it would not be logical to construct
the frontage road in a "piece meal" fashion. She stated that if the Council were to remove some
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 15 of 19
of the conditions, it would actually reduce the number of Variances required for the
development.
Councilmember Johnson asked why the applicant didn't pursue a lot consolidation. There is
possibility that this could eliminate some of the zoning hardships and ease restrictions on the
placement of the pump canopy by locating it to the east, while creating one general project
including the car wash. Ms. Wolski believes that her client would be receptive to lot
consolidation. The intent was to operate both businesses as one lot, but it was never discussed.
She stated a previous plan to have a road located between both businesses was not acceptable
because that would divide the businesses. She stated her client supports moving the frontage
road entrance further to the north along West Medicine Lake Drive, but by constructing the
frontage road in a "piece meal" fashion, it would create a difficult turn for semi tankers accessing
the business.
Councilmember Johnson stated the applicant needs to determine whether they would like to
make application for lot consolidation. She explained that questions the placement of the canopy
if they would be operating as one business. She said placement of the canopy would contribute
to difficult access/turns to the site. Ms. Wolski explained that her client does not currently own
the property, but holds a contract to purchase the property. She stated the option to purchase
depends on approval of the project. She stated the carwash cannot be relocated, and the plans
have always indicated the pumps in an east/west configuration.
Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that no explicit discussions of lot
consolidation have occurred. If the lots were combined, a new set of applications would be
required as a Conditional Use Permit would be required to allow more than one principal use
building on the lot. She added that combining the lots also would create different standards for
free standing signs. She believes there could be good advantages to not consolidating the lots.
Councilmember Black asked whether the proposed use is a significant change in the usage of the
property, and how long ago the site served as a gas station. Ms. Wolski responded that it is
currently an auto detailing operation, and that nine years ago it was an active gas station.
Councilmember Black stated that she was at the site at 6:30 a.m. today, and she had to wait for
access onto West Medicine Lake Drive in order to travel onto Highway 55. She commented
there are some significant public safety issues with the current configuration of the intersection.
She believes even if the northerly placement of the frontage road access is made, a semi tanker
truck would still have difficulty in making that turn because it is a tight curve.
Ms. Wolski believes that under the final frontage road plan, there would be only one entrance,
which is a southerly entrance to the site from the frontage road. She stated her client would
encourage suggestions on how the final placement of the frontage road entrance could be
accomplished more quickly. She noted that other businesses located along the frontage road
would benefit from the northerly placement of the entrance onto West Medicine Lake Drive.
She stated her client is in unfortunate position, because no one has determined when the property
to the north would be developed.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 16 of 19
Councilmember Slavik asked the City Attorney Knutson about the issue relating to reasonable
use of property. City Attorney Knutson explained as a general statement, if the City undertakes a
public improvement project and denies someone access to their property, it could be a defensible
taking. He stated in this situation, this road is needed to provide safe access to this site, and that
the applicant is being requested to dedicate the roadway and to construct it adjacent to the site as
part of the requirements to obtain the Conditional Use Permit. He stated this situation differs
than if the City is doing a public improvement project that would deny reasonable use, which,
under the staff recommendation, it does not.
Del Erickson, 2317 Kirkwood Lane, project architect, presented the proposed final development
plans of the northerly entrance and frontage road as well as various turning radius options
possible by large semi trailer trucks. He suggested an increase of the road width to 36 feet to
improve clearances for trucks as well as case congestion and increase safety. He stated under the
staff's recommendations, a semi truck would have to utilize the south bound lanes of West
Medicine Lake Drive to enter the frontage road as well as "nicking" the curb of proposed buffer
island at the west end of the pumps. It appears that the placement of the buffer island seems to
be a considerable expense if the road would be ultimately be developed differently.
He responded to questions about an easement between the two parcels. He explained that has
existed as a cross drive to allow exits from the car wash to go eastbound from the property on to
the frontage road. He explained the space is needed so that gas pump traffic does not conflict
with the movement of cars from the car wash and to provide stack space for cars leaving the car
wash onto the frontage road at the southern opening. He stated to allow for the western entrance
to the gas pumps, the Variance is being requested to place the pumps and canopy at five feet
from the easement rather than 16 feet. He understands that traffic backs up, and that it seems the
traffic light seems too short to allow everyone through the intersection. What usually occurs is
that motorists will attempt to utilize the frontage road to cut across and approach Highway 55
from South Shore Drive. He stated an extra left turn lane, or even a temporary one, would ease
some of the congestion and improve safety conditions.
Councilmember Johnson stated she uses the car wash and upon exiting, she needs to travel west
on Highway 55. She stated it is difficult to get into the westerly southbound lane of West
Medicine Lake Drive. She asked if the frontage road entrance onto West Medicine Lake Drive
would increase the ability of traffic to get into the right turn lane on southbound West Medicine
Lake Drive. Mr. Erickson replied one of his concerns about moving the frontage road farther
north is that it tightens all turning movements regardless of the type of vehicle. Public Works
Director Moore added that south bound traffic on West Medicine Lake Drive does have a short
right turn lane, so that right turns onto west bound Highway 55 forces traffic to move across
West Medicine Lake Drive at a diagonal angle.
Community Development Director Hurlburt suggested making the northern drive along the
property line to be an east bound rather than a one way west bound in order to allow more
turning movements as a way of addressing the issue. Staff prefers more turning movement
within the property than outside and on the street.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 17 of 19
Councilmember Slavik asked how many tanker trunks utilize the frontage road in a week. Mr.
Larson replied approximately five. He noted that Famous Dave's Barbecue Restaurant is also
served by the frontage road.
Community Development Director Hurlburt stated staff's concerns are to separate traffic
traveling onto the frontage road from those entering the pumps area to improve safety conditions.
She said previous plans indicated almost no separation of traffic entering from West Medicine
Lake Drive onto the frontage and the gas pumps, which would create extremely unsafe
conditions. She stated it has been the applicant's desire to maintain that access from the
beginning.
Councilmember Stein suggested allowing traffic to utilize the east bound one way entrance as an
acceptable compromise and that would address other issues on the site plan to work out the
details. Mr. Erickson stated the applicant does support a one way drive in either direction.
Further, his client could not accept development of the islands when they would have to be
modified in a year or two. He stated the current traffic routing on the frontage road has been
acceptable for almost 30 years and could continue. The majority of the problems are related to
access of traffic onto Highway 55.
Motion was made by Councilmember Black, seconded by Mayor Tierney,to approve a
Resolution Approving a Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances, and Denying a
Freestanding Sign Variance for Gas N' Snlash located at 11320 Hiehwav 55 (20173 — Res2001-
A friendly amendment was made and accepted to amend condition No. 7 of the Resolution to
state that the north drive from Gas N' Splash shall be one way east bound from the frontage road.
Councilmember Johnson believes there is a safety issue related to the placement of the island
south of the gas pumps. She reiterated that consolidating the lots would allow movement of the
canopy and the island. Mr. Erickson indicated there would still be the issue of turning
movements coming from both the car wash and gas pumps that would not be resolved by
consolidating the lots. He questioned if moving the northern entrance further north would even
resolve the issue.
Mike Barth, 11320 Highway 55, a trucker for Solar Transport, stated he hauls gas into other
stores along the frontage road. He does not believe creating one way routes along the north drive
would not solve the problem. It would be better to send traffic east to South Shore Drive and
allow trucks to travel west to West Medicine Lake Drive. He stated to move the entrance of the
frontage road further north would work for semi trucks.
Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that staff does not recommend approval if the
island is removed from the south side of the pump area. She acknowledged that some semi
trucks may hit the curbs; however, that would be a temporary condition.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 18 of 19
Motion was made by Councilmember Black, and
ueqstion. With all members voting in
Councilmember Stein, to call the
motion carried.
The Council voted on the amended main motion and with all members voting in favor but
Johnson and Harstad, the motion carried.
9.1) Report on Snowplowing
Public Works Director Moore reviewed the City's snow plowing policy and introduced Public
Works Superintendent Vetsch and Street Supervisor Smith to answer any questions related to
street work during the past winter. Public Works Director Moore asked the Council to consider
in the future whether the existing policy should be reviewed regarding plowing status, snow
depth guidelines, more routes to be salted, and commencement of work earlier in an event.
Councilmember Harstad requested staff to review whether the City is making the best use of
staff and equipment through the season.
Councihnember Black suggested staff review the use of salt resistant plantings if the City
continues to use salt on streets.
9.2) Legislative Update
City Manager Johnson said there are no new developments to report from the Legislature.
9.3) St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran Church
Mayor Tierney reported on the correspondence from St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran Church
Council President Steven Bob], requesting a meeting with Council and City staff. Mayor
Tierney suggested a June 5 meeting at St. Philip the Deacon at 5:00 p.m. Mayor Tierney
requested attendance by Police Chief Gerdes to discuss traffic issues.
Councilmember Black said that the City needs to be specific on who will be at the meeting with
church board, clergy and staff.
Councilmember Johnson said she does not want to exclude anyone from the meeting.
Motion was made and seconded by Councilmember Johnson, to
Special Council Meeting at 5:00 p.m., on Tuesday, June 5, at St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran
Church.
Councilmember Black stated she would be unable to attend the meeting.
With all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 22, 2001
Page 19 of 19
Adjournment
Motion was made by Councilmember Stein, and seconded by Councilmember Slavik to ad' ourn
the meeting at 12:35 a.m. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
Deputy City