HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 08-28-2001Adopted Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
August 28, 2001
A Regular Meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at 7:05
p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on August 28,
2001.
COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney, Councilmembers Hewitt, Harstad, Johnson, Slavik, and
Stein.
ABSENT: Councilmember Black.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Acting Police Chief Twaddle, Fire Chief Kline,
Finance Director Hahn, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Senior Planner Drill,
Housing Manager Barnes, Park and Recreation Director Blank, Public Works Director Faulkner,
City Attorney Knutson, and City Clerk Paulson.
Plymouth Forum
No one was present to address the Council.
Presentations and Public Information Announcements
4.1) Presentation of Neighborhood Awards of Excellence — "National Night Out'
Public Safety Education Specialist Cwayna and Mayor Tierney presented National Night Out
Awards of Excellence to Regency Point Apartments (multi -housing community), and Jim
Nystrom and Patty Ginter from the 11000 block of 50"' Lane North (single-family
neighborhood).
Approval of Agenda
Motion was made by Councilmember
approve the agenda. With all member
Consent Agenda
seconded by Councilmember Johnson, to
avor. the motion carried.
Mayor Tierney asked if there were any additions, corrections, or deletions to be made to the
Consent Agenda.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 2 of 16
City Manager Johnson reported that staff has provided the bid tabulations for item No. 6.06 as
well as the recommended lowest qualified bidder.
Motion was made by Councilmember Slavik, and seconded by Councilmember Hewittto
approve the Consent Agenda which included the following items:
6.01) Regular Council Meeting minutes of August 14.
6.02) Resolution Approving Disbursements for the Period ending August 17, 2001 (Res2001-
349).
6.03) Adopt Proclamation Designating September 22 as "Kids Day AmericaAntemational."
6.04) Resolution Approving a Conditional use Permit and a Fire Lane Variance to allow
Installation of a 75 -Foot Monopole Antenna Tower and Related Equipment Shelter for Wireless
Communication Services at La Compte Park, 10795 Old County Road 15 (2001067 — Res2001-
350).
6.05) Resolution Approving Agreement with AT&T Wireless Services of Minnesota, Inc. for
LaCompte Park Monopole Antenna Tower (Res2001-351).
6.06) Resolution Approving Environmental Playground Play Equipment (Res2001-352).
6.07) Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow a 51.4 foot Rear -Yard Setback from Schmidt
Lake for a Home, Garage, and Deck Addition at 12230 45`h Avenue North (2001066 — Res2001-
353).
6.08) Resolution Approving Lot Division and Variances for Independent School District 284
for Property located at 16440 County Road 47 (2001068 — Res2001-354).
6.09) Resolution Approving a Side Yard Setback Variance for Kevin and Kathy Sullivan for
Property located at 2730 Black Oaks Lane North (2001071 — Res2001-355).
6.10) Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plan for "Wellswood" for Janco, Inc. for Property
located at 15225 Gleason Lake Drive (2001076 — Res2001-356).
6.11) Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Montessori Preschool at 2000
Merrimac Lane North (2001081 — Res2001-357).
6.12) Resolution Approving a Side Yard Setback Variance for Luis and Ana Rayas for Property
located at 18125 27`h Avenue North (2001090 — Res2001-358).
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 3 of 16
6.13) Resolution Finding No Objection to Lawful Gambling Exemption for Wayzata Athletic
Boosters (Res2001-359).
6.14) Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for
Lift Station No. 20 (Autumn Hills) and Lift Station No. 22 (Conor Meadows) Upgrades (1023 —
Res2001-360).
6.15) Resolution Awarding Bid for Plymouth Boulevard Parking Bay and Bituminous Overlay
Improvements (1002 — Res2001-361).
6.16) Resolution Granting Authorizations and Approvals for Transit Facilities Development in
the Reserve (1032 — Res2001-3 62).
6.17) Resolution Approving Fee Increases for the Plymouth Creek Center and Fieldhouse
Res2001-363).
Councilmember Harstad registered a no vote for item No. 6.15.
Motion carried to approve the Consent Agenda.
Public Hearings
7.1) Public Hearing on Housing Revenue Bonds for the Lancaster Village Development
Jim Barnes, Housing Manager, reported on the request for the Council to authorize the sale and
issuance of Variable Rate Demand Multi -Family Housing Revenue Bonds in an amount not to
exceed $2,865,000 on behalf of Lancaster Village Apartments L.L.P. for Lancaster Village
Apartments.
He explained that Lancaster Village Apartments consists of 160 units located at 3610-3680
North Lancaster Lane. The complex was originally constructed in 1968 with additional
construction in 1984. Housing Revenue Bonds were originally issued by the City in 1983 in the
principal amount of $3,750,000 to finance the acquisition and expansion of the project.
Refunding Housing Revenue Bonds in the principal amount of $3,750,000 were issued in 1992
to finance the original bonds. The 1992 Refunding Bonds are optional redeemable and are
outstanding in the principal amount of $2,865,000. The owner has requested that the City issue
an additional series of Refunding Bonds in the principal amount of $2,865,000 to refinance the
outstanding 1992 Refunding Bonds. In addition to the proposed 2001 Refunding Bonds, the
owner intends to raise additional funds by directly issuing a taxable note to the Federal National
Mortgage Association, secured by a second mortgage on the project, in the approximate amount
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 4 of 16
of $3,350,000. Funds from the subordinate financing would be used, in part, to pay financing
costs related to the issuance of the 2001 Refunding bonds, to establish required Federal National
Mortgage Association's reserves with respect to the project, with the remainder of the funds
being distributed to the owner for its partnership purposes. He stressed that there is no financial
impact or liability to the City with this bond issue, and the applicant pays all costs of the bond
issue.
Mayor Tierney opened the public hearing for testimony.
There being no one wishing to appear before the Council to give testimony, Mayor Tierney
declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was made by Councilmember Johnson, and seconded by Councilmember Slavik, to
adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Variable Rate Demand Multifamilv Housing
Revenue Refunding Bonds
Therefor and
Series 2001; Establishing the
Housing Manager Barnes discussed the housing affordability issue for these units. He stated as a
condition to the issuance of the bonds, the City would require that 10% of the units be required
to be occupied or held for occupancy by persons and families at 50% of area median income (in
this case, adjusted for family size, and with rents affordable to persons and families at that
income level), and an additional 10% of the units would be required to be occupied or held for
occupancy by persons and families at 80% of area median income (also adjusted for family size).
He noted that Section 8 units could also be included in this development.
With all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
General Business
8.1) Accept Items for Stone Creek Village Apartments (Dominium Development &
Acquisition, LLC — 2001088)
Sketch Plan for Alternative Wetland Buffers:
Senior Planner Drill reported on the request of Dominium Development and Acquisition, LLC
for the Council to review the sketch plan for Stone Creek Village Apartments and the use of
alternative wetland buffer strips for this development. He stated this 116 -unit apartment
development would be located on a 14.7 -acre site located in the northeast quadrant of Highway
55 and West Medicine Lake Drive. He explained that this site had been guided LA -3 and zoned
for apartment uses up until the latter half of the 1980s, when it was reguided and rezoned for
commercial use. A big box retail/strip center development was proposed for the site but was
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 5 of 16
never constructed, as the developer couldn't meet all the conditions placed on the development
approval. He stated in 1994, the City reviewed the "Burgundy Village" proposal which
requested reguiding and rezoning of the site back to residential to allow two, 12 -story high-rise
apartment buildings comprising over 400 dwelling units. The Planning Commission and staff
recommended denial of the request on the basis that the 12 -story height would be incompatible
with surrounding properties. The applicant ultimately withdrew the application. He stated in
August 2000 when the Council adopted the updated Comprehensive Plan, this site was reguided
from commercial to LA -4. This guiding establishes a minimum density of 12 dwelling units per
acre and a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The upland acreage of this site is
eight acres after the existing wetland area is deducted. Therefore, the guiding of this site allows
96 to 160 dwelling units with the developer proposing 116 units. The site was subsequently
rezoned from C-2 and O -R to RMF -4 in order to be consistent with the guiding as required under
State law.
He illustrated the sketch plan and explained that the proposed building would contain three levels
of living space over one level of structured parking. The two-story clubhouse would be located
in the middle portion of the building and would include a business center, lounge, fireplace,
exercise room, and locker rooms. The development would contain 28 one -bedroom apartments,
54 two-bedroom apartments, and 34 three-bedroom apartments. Each unit would have a balcony
and would be equipped with central air and a washer and dryer. The exterior amenities would
include a swimming pool with related lounging deck and a play area for children.
He discussed the proposed alternative wetland buffer strips. He stated that the width of the
buffer would average 25 feet with a minimum of 20 feet and a maximum width of 30 feet along
the four areas where alternative wetland buffer strips are proposed. Approximately 2,000 lineal
feet of wetland abuts the buildable area of the site. Under the proposal, the four alternative
wetland buffer areas would total approximately 375 lineal feet, or 19 percent, of the area abutting
the wetland. A standard wetland buffer strip (averaging 50 feet in width) would be provided
along the remaining approximately 1,625 lineal feet, or 81 percent, of the area abutting the
wetland.
He explained that in instances where the City approves the use of alternative buffer standards,
the applicant must apply extraordinary management practices to control erosion, sedimentation,
and nutrient loading during and for two years after construction. Extraordinary management
practices include measures that add redundant protections to best management practices, such as
double rows of silt fence. The proposed Resolution contains a condition that the applicant needs
to provide financial guarantee for maintenance of the alternative buffer strips.
Councilmember Slavik asked why the applicant has chosen to not meet the parking requirement.
Senior Planner Drill replied that developers usually prepare a traffic study and are able to justify
that 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit is higher than what they would require. The applicant has
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 6 of 16
demonstrated that there would be additional land available on site if additional parking needs to
be increased to the 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Community Development Director Hurlburt
added that the City has encouraged developers to not construct more parking than what they need
for environmental and water quality reasons.
Councilmember Slavik requested the applicant review the tree preservation, highway noise, and
the height of the building. These are items that she could have concerns with and would be
discussed at the time a formal application is presented.
Community Development Director Hurlburt commented that when the application was approved
for the Gas `N' Splash, the intent was for the frontage road to be extended into this property.
Councilmember Stein asked about fire lanes around the building. Senior Planner Drill stated
because of the wetlands, the applicant would be sprinkling the buildings and providing a safe
area for tenants to leave the building near the swimming pool. He stated a Fire Code Variance
application would be submitted in the future. Community Development Director Hurlburt added
approval of the Variance would be consistent with other approvals, if the building is sprinkled.
Councilmember Harstad asked if there was any discussion with the applicant to integrate transit
with this development since the nearest park and ride lot is one-quarter mile from this
development. Senior Planner Drill replied that could be reviewed.
Councilmember Harstad asked how close this development would be to the adjacent commercial
development to the south. Senior Planner Drill replied there would be approximately 25 feet
between the two uses, and the City's minimum setback is 15 feet. Councilmember Harstad
commented this could be an issue for screening for the attractiveness of those units closest to the
commercial development.
Senior Planner Drill commented that in order to preserve the wetland, it did require the developer
to move the building further to the south.
Paul Sween, from Dominium Development & Acquisition, LLC, stated the height issue is driven
in order to meet the density range and the soil issue. He noted that they would be able to expand
the parking if necessary, and they would like to preserve green space.
Councilmember Johnson asked what the distance is from West Medicine Lake Drive to the west
loop of parking on the site. Brian, an architect for Dominium Development & Acquisition,
replied approximately 300 feet. Mr. Sween added that this site is very isolated which would
provide the residents an opportunity to enjoy the outside secluded feel of the area.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 7 of 16
Councilmember Harstad stated that the applicant's original application was for 144 units, and
that it has been decreased to 116 units. He asked if the decrease in units was related to the
affordability of the units. Mr. Sween replied yes, and they would need to utilize incentives
provided by the State and balance that with the City's requirements. He noted that they are very
comfortable in allowing affordable housing.
Councilmember Johnson asked if handicap accessible units would be provided. Mr. Sween
replied yes. Bryan added that either two to five percent of the units would be handicap
accessible. In addition, there would also be other units that could be adapted to handicap
accessible units. The affordable and handicap accessible units would be integrated throughout
the development.
Councilmember Slavik asked if they have determined what the non -affordable rent would be.
Mr. Sween replied no, but it would be based on market rate.
Minnesota Livable Communities Act Grant Agreement:
Housing Manager Barnes reported on the request for Council approval to execute a Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act, Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) Grant Agreement, which
would provide $200,000 in funds for affordable housing for the proposed Stone Creek Village
development. He also stated that the applicant has submitted a tax increment financing
application for this development that staff is currently reviewing.
He stated with this 116 -unit development, the developer is proposing that a minimum of 27 units
be affordable to families with incomes at or below 50% of the median and the remaining 89 units
would be offered at market rate. Included in the 27 affordable units would be 12 Metropolitan
Housing Opportunities Program (MHDP) units. Staff continues to work with the applicant to
increase the number of affordable units to meet the City's goals, which that 35% of the units in a
new rental development be made affordable to individuals who earn at or below 50% of the
medianincome. This proposed project has been in the pre -development stage for over one year,
and Dominion Development is in the final stages of securing all of the required funding sources
and obtaining preliminary planning approvals.
He stated that the applicant was awarded the $200,000 LHIA grant, but the grant agreement must
be executed by August 30 or be returned so the Metropolitan Council could re -commit the funds
to another project in their upcoming funding cycle. He stated this agreement would be an
agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the City, and the funds would then be
forwarded onto the applicant.
Councilmember Johnson asked if the soil conditions are driving the fax increment financing.
Housing Manager Barnes replied the developer might have to install dry pilings at an
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 8 of 16
approximate cost of $1.2 million. However, the requested amount of tax increment financing is
less than the $1.2 million.
Councihnember Harstad stated in the correspondence received from Ken Wendinger, Mr.
Wendinger has questioned why other methods, such as the West Hennepin Community Land
Trust, aren't being used for affordable housing efforts. Community Development Director
Hurlburt explained that the land trust is an affordable program for single-family ownership.
Staff would continue to review affordable housing projects that would be applicable to this type
of development.
Housing Manager Barnes discussed the committed and pending funding from a variety of
sources (i.e., Metropolitan Housing Opportunity Program, Hennepin County HOME funds,
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) funds, Plymouth HRA funds).
Carol Rydberg, 3225 Wellington Lane, requested Council support for this development as the
City is in need of affordable housing. She stated that there could be compromising with the
wetlands.
Roger Rydberg, 3225 Wellington Lane, stated affordable housing is a very critical issue.
However, he is very concerned that this project is so complex that if some of the financing falls
through, what happens with the affordable housing element? What leverage would the City
have?
Erika Urban, 1541 West Medicine Lake Drive, stated that she is involved with AMLAC who is
very interesed in trying to improve the water quality of Medicine Lake. She stated that this
development could impact Medicine Lake due to its close proximity to the lake. She is
concerned that the buffer zones won't be met, whether the wetlands would be filled or not, and
the increase of traffic. She commented that this of property is not really suitable for anything;
therefore, it seems the rules need to be bent in order to accommodate this project. However, she
realizes that an affordable housing project may be needed in the City.
Duane Stobbe, 11215 12`h Avenue North, stated that he owns two apartment buildings located to
the north of this project on 12`h Avenue. In July 1998, the level of Medicine Lake was two feet
from the first level of their apartment building. In 1999, the garages were filled with water. He
noted that there were other homes in the area which had water in their basements. He stated that
this development would be a nice addition to the neighborhood, but he is concerned about the
water
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 9 of 16
table. He suggested that there be larger ponding areas to address the water. He asked what
would remain with the trees in the buffer zones to the north of this property?
Ken Wendinger, 5465 Orleans Lane, supports this development as affordable housing is needed
in the City, but he is concerned that what occurred with The Reserve development doesn't occur
with this development. He stated the affordable rental units with The Reserve development have
been deleted, and what would prevent that from occurring with this development? He spoke of
the West Hennepin Community Land Trust, and he stated one advantage of a land trust is that
you maintain the affordable units for 99 years.
Ann Dorweiler, 17035 91h Avenue North, stated she is a member of Plymouth Housing Task
Force, and their goal is affordable housing. They support the concept plan being presented
tonight. This is a good location for affordable housing, and it fits with the Metropolitan
Council's plan. She understands the concerns on the effect of this development on the
enviromnent, but those needs to be balanced with affordable housing that is need for working
families.
Mark Holtan, 1304 West Medicine Lake Drive, stated his concerns are the traffic patterns on
West Medicine Lake Drive with this project. He stated in the morning, the traffic could be
backed up to the railroad tracks. He is real concerned about what the plan would be for the
frontage road, and what the plan is for that intersection. In addition, with a project such as this,
what would the driveway access be and the traffic access. He presumes that that intersection
area was redesigned for redevelopment of this property. He stated currently, the traffic pattern is
basically at capacity, and he would be concerned about peoples' safety entering and exiting that
development. He stated the marsh area adjacent to the new townhouses built on 10th Avenue
across from Trenton, used to be full of water for geese. He noted the decrease in the amount of
water due to that development. Lastly, he is concerned that this proposed project would
eventually drain the wetland area.
Terric Christian, 9910 South Shore Drive, Vice President for AMLAC, stated that she served on
the subcommittee for the study on Medicine Lake. She stated this lake is very largely impaired.
One major factor that contributes to this condition is the whittling away of wetlands over a long
period of time for developments. The City would be proposing to spend tax dollars to rebuild
wetlands around Medicine Lake; however, with this development, the wetland buffers for this
development would be decreased. She believes that the Council needs to consider whether
affordable housing should be constructed in an area that would further reduce the wetlands
around Medicine Lake. She does not support this development. If this project were to be
approved, the number of units should be decreased in order to provide adequate buffers.
Housing Manager Barnes reiterated that the Hennepin County Land Trust is a program for
single-family owner occupied homes. He stated generally, land trusts are for 99 years, and the
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 10 of 16
City would have no prediction on what the economy would be in 99 years, which could cause
problems. He stated regarding the City's participation with this development, there would be
covenants and restrictions to ensure affordability of the units. Community Development
Director Hurlburt added that each of the funding sources for this development would have their
own contractual obligations and funding requirements. If the funding sources fell through, she is
unsure how the City would be able to guarantee the project.
Councilmember Hewitt asked if one component of the funding sources for affordable housing
falls through, would that affect the entire project. Housing Manager Barnes replied it all depends
on a number of financial factors for the developer.
Community Development Director Hulburt stated that the City is not making exceptions to the
wetland buffer requirements. She explained alternative buffers could be approved as an option if
certain conditions are met. She stated approximately 20% of the wetland would be affected by it.
She noted that the wetlands wouldn't be filled for the housing project, and the only wetlands to
be filled are where the frontage road enters into the development due to the City's desire to
relocate the frontage road. This area would be treated, and staff is very confident that the water
quality goals would be met. Lastly, when the majority of the area was developed around
Medicine Lake, there were no wetland buffers. This site is tailor made for alternative buffers.
Mayor Tierney noted that the developer would be striving to keep as many trees as possible, and
this would be reviewed when a landscape plan is submitted. Community Development Director
Hurlburt stated that the trees in the wetland would not be removed.
Public Works Director Faulkner stated that this development would have very little effect on
Medicine Lake, as none of the wetland would be filled. He stated the outlet structure on
Medicine Lake is controlled by the Department of Natural Resources, and they regulate the rate
of flow that is emptied from the lake. He noted that the water level of Medicine Lake really
doesn't fluctuate that much. He stated regarding the traffic concerns during rush hour, the
intersection that would be constructed with this development would improve the safety and
capacity of the intersection. There would utilization of the frontage road to South Shore Drive.
He stated the traffic signals are controlled by MN/DOT, and this would relate to the traffic being
backed up to the railroad. If there would be longer green signal for West Medicine Drive, it
could encourage more traffic through this area from Northwest Boulevard to Highway 55.
Motion was made by Councilmember Hewitt, and seconded by Councilmember Harstad, to
adopt a Resolution Approving the Use of Alternative Wetland Buffer Strips and Providing
Informal Comments on a Sketch Plan for Dominium Development and Acquisition, LLC for a
Proposed 116 -Unit Apartment Development to be known as Stone Creek Villaee for Pronertv
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 11 of 16
located North of Highway 55 and East of West Medicine Lake Drive (2001088 — Res2001-365).
Councilmember Johnson asked if it's possible to do any water quality ponding on this site from
the Gas `N' Splash. Public Works Director Faulkner replied staff would review that and
determine where the drainage flows from that site.
Councilmember Johnson commented the new frontage road would increase safety on West
Medicine Lake Drive.
Councilmember Stein commented that the building is situated very well on this site.
There being no further discussion and with all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
Motion was made by Councilmember Stein, and seconded by
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Metrop
Local Housing Incentives Account Grant Agreement. Drovidi
Affordable Housing in the Proposed Stone Creek
voting in favor, the motion carried.
Councilmember
for $200.000 in
8.2) Variance to allow a Third Stall Garage Addition at 1625 Shadyview Lane North
Jean Mersch-2001054) (Tabled from August 14, 2001)
Community Development Director Hurlburt explained that this item was tabled from the August
14 Council meeting. Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving the Variance with
findings of fact for this meeting. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of this
request.
Motion was made by Councilmember Johnson, and seconded by Councilmember Stein to adopt
a Resolution Approving Variance for Jean Mersch for a Third Stall Garage Addition that would
Encroach into the required 15 -foot
view Lane North (2001054 —
Located at 1625
Jean Mersch, 1625 Shadyview Lane North, feels she has a hardship, as the lot size isn't even a
minimum size. They had considered constructing the third stall to the back of the house, but it
would make more sense to line it up with the current garage. In addition, if the garage were
constructed further back from the current garage, that would impede more on the neighbor and
their view from their bay window.
Jay and Erin Jonell, 1635 Shadyview Lane, stated they are concerned about the proposed
location of the garage. The garage would impact their view to the street and the neighborhood
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 12 of 16
park. They noted that all of the lots in this area are smaller than the rest of the neighborhood,
and already the homes seem almost on top of each other. They indicated that there are no three
stall garages in their neighborhood. They noted that another neighbor is adding on a third stall
garage; however, they are moving it further back from the front of the house by four feet.
Mr. Jonell stated if the third stall would be constructed in the proposed location, they would look
out their bay window and see a wall.
Councilmember Johnson asked if a Variance is required for the height of the garage.
Community Development Director Hurlburt replied no.
Councilmember Slavik asked the Jonells if their bay window is located in the kitchen. Mrs.
Jonell replied yes.
Ms. Mersch noted that there are bushes in the front of their properties which they share, and she
would be willing to trim those bushes to improve the view from the Jonell's kitchen window.
She informed the Council that if this Variance would be denied, they intend to place a 10x12
storage shed on their property within six feet of the property line. An accessory building is
allowed without a Variance.
Mrs. Jonell stated the Mersch's desire to construct the third stall for storage purposes only, and
she believes there are other alternatives that could be explored.
Councilmember Johnson made it clear that the use of the third stall it is irrelevant to the Council.
Mayor Tierney stated that if this isn't approved, there would be a storage shed on the property,
and she asked the Jonells which structure they would prefer. Ms. Jonell noted that a storage shed
would have a lower roof line; however, they do not want support any type of structure.
Councilmember Stein asked if the garage could be constructed with less width, such as 10 or 11
feet. Ms. Mersch replied that would be very narrow.
Councilmember Johnson stated three -stall garages are very common on newer homes, and it
could be difficult for individuals to afford those types of homes. Therefore, it is very common
for property owners of homes that are 20 to 40 years old to desire to construct family rooms and
third stall garages. She stated that a storage shed's appearance could be worse than a third stall
garage. She believes that the applicant has explored all alternatives, but she understands the
neighbors' concerns.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 13 of 16
Councilmember Harstad reminded everyone that the Planning Commission reviewed this
application, and they unanimously recommended denying the Variance. He considers the
neighbors' views with Variance requests. He feels that storage sheds don't detract from the
value of a neighborhood nor are they unsightly. The addition of the third stall would harm the
value of the adjacent property. He stated that these lots were designed for homes with two
garages or less. Therefore, he wouldn't support the motion.
Mayor Tierney stated the storage shed could also block the neighbor's view. She feels the
neighbor's view wouldn't be harmed as much if the third stall were moved further back on the
property
Motion was made by Councilmember
the question. With all members votin
Councilmember Johnson, to call
the motion carried.
The Council voted on the main motion, and with all members voting in favor but Tierney and
Harstad, the motion carried.
The Council conducted a break from 9:25 p.m. to 9:35 p.m.
8.3) Conditional Use Permit and Variance for 125 -Foot High Monopole Antenna Tower
and Related Equipment Shelter at the Hamel VFW, 19020 Hamel Road (Ultieg Engineers —
2001046) (Tt bledfrom Judy 10, 2001)
Community Development Director Hulburt reported that this item was tabled at the July 10
meeting. Representatives from the City of Medina had appeared at that meeting voicing their
opposition to the proposed tower and shelter, as it would have an impact on the downtown
Hamel. They also didn't feel that AT&T had demonstrated the need for the 125 -foot tower as
well as analyzing all possible alternative locations in order to reduce the impact. The City of
Medina's RF (radio frequency) engineer concurred with AT&T's RF engineer that neither the
Medina water tower site, nor the Plymouth water tower site located at Highway 55 and County
Road 101 would provide adequate coverage. Additionally, Medina's RF engineer ruled out the
Hamel Building Center site and the St. Anne Church site due to inadequate coverage. Medina's
RF engineer determined those acceptable locations for the monopole would be the VFW site, the
Hamel ballfield site, or the Wayzata High School site. With respect to the Wayzata High School
site, City staff contacted the school district, and they responded that they do not allow antennas
on any of their properties. Regarding the Hamel ballfield site, the City of Medina doesn't
appear to desire to grant approval, which remains the VFW site where there is a lease. She stated
the other issue was the height of the tower. The analysis compared a 75 -foot versus a 125 -foot
tower. This was determined by the City of Medina's RF engineer which differs with AT&T's
RF engineer. A 75 -foot tower is not adequate for building coverage, which is the goal of
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 14 of 16
AT&T. AT&T stated that if this site would be limited to a 75 -foot tower, they would need two
additional 75 -foot towers to fill in the coverage area.
She stated that the City of Medina has stated in a letter that if it were a 75 -foot tower, they would
not allow co -location. She noted that the City of Plymouth requires co -location on towers, and a
125 -foot tower would allow for two proposed co -locations.
She illustrated the computer-generated images contained in the packet which were AT&T's RF
engineer's as well as the City of Medina's RF engineer's analysis. She also illustrated the
proposed impact to downtown Hamel which staff feels is very minimal. Therefore, City staff
continues to recommend approval of the proposed tower and shelter at the VFW site.
Councilmember Stein asked why Wayzata High School would refuse antennas on their property.
Community Development Director Hurlburt replied that any property owner has a right to refuse
to lease their property, and the City wouldn't have any leverage to change their decision.
Councilmember Slavik noted that it appears there would still be a gap in coverage with a 125 -
foot tower.
Peter Beck, from AT&T, stated their original request was for a 150 -foot tower, but they could
make a 125 -foot tower work. AT&T has reviewed all options that they are aware of, and the
VFW site continues to the best site they could work with.
James Lane, Councilmember from City of Medina, introduced Garrett Lysiak, who is a RF
engineer with Owl Engineering.
Mr. Lysiak discussed his analysis and how it differed from AT&T's. He stated when he views
the 75 -foot and 125 -foot coverages, they are pretty similar. He indicated that what constitutes
adequate coverage is not clear-cut. If adequate coverage is defined as in -vehicle coverage, then a
75 -foot tower could be adequate. However, if adequate coverage were defined as in -building
coverage, a 75 -foot tower would probably not be adequate for some areas.
Councihnember Harstad asked if the height of the tower were to increase to 150 feet, would the
entire coverage area be filled in. Mr. Lysiak replied yes.
James Lane, City of Medina Councilmember, stated regarding the Hamel ballfield site, staff
indicated that the City of Medina wouldn't approve a 125 -foot tower at this location. He
explained that this area is zoned so that it wouldn't be permitted. However, if AT&T would
make application with the City of Medina, they could permit the use with a Conditional Use
Permit. He stated as he read the report from AT&T on how these facilities are proliferated, it
scares him to think of six providers constructing these towers throughout the landscape. He
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 15 of 16
stated the height of the tower is an important issue. He requested the Council to review Mr.
Lysiak's analysis on a 75 -foot tower at the Hamel VFW site.
Councilmember Johnson asked if the City of Medina has discussed with AT&T the Hamel
ballfreld site, as according to the coverage maps, the coverage area between this site and the
VFW site are almost identical.
Paul Robinson, Clerk/Treasurer for the City of Medina, stated they haven't discussed this site
with AT&T since it wasn't an allowable use. The City basically focused on the Variance issue
that they could address. The City also tried to indicate, that based on the extra time allowed to
them to study the issue, that a 75 -foot tower would provide adequate coverage.
Arnold Pearson, 2750 Upland Lane North, representing the VFW, stated that this lease
agreement with AT&T would be great for their club. They would allocate the revenue to youth
baseball and bantam hockey programs as well as other activities. He stated the 125 -foot tower
and shelter would not pose a hindrance to the surrounding area due to the vast quantity of trees
which would block the view of the tower. This would be a better location than the Hamel
ballfield.
Ron Winterhalter, 19020 Hamel Road, stated the VFW is a non-profit organization, and their
funds are used to promote the community. The additional revenue would be good for their
organization.
City Attorney Knutson informed the Council that under the Federal Telecommunications Act,
the City would need to have a substantial basis to deny the request.
Councilmember Slavik stated that she doesn't feel this is the best location. However, she
understands the need for towers as well as the feelings expressed by the members of the VFW.
Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Beck if AT&T would be interested in making an application
to the City of Medina for the Hamel ballfreld site. Mr. Beck replied that ballfrelds would work;
however, they may need additional height, as the land is much lower. He stated that AT&T
makes applications for those areas where the zoning allows locations of their towers. His
understanding was that there wasn't much enthusiasm from the City of Medina to allow a tower
at the ballfreld. Therefore, it doesn't appear to be a viable alternative at this point.
Motion was made
the question. With
and seconded by Councilmember
voting in favor but Slavik and Johnson,
in, to call
carried.
Adopted City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 28, 2001
Page 16 of 16
The Council voted on the main motion and with all members voting in favor but Johnson, the
motion carried.
8.4) Report on Amusement Rides for Plymouth on Parade
Park and Recreation Director Blank stated he has provided a report as requested by the Council
on the possibility of offering amusement rides at Plymouth on Parade. He stated staff contacted
two carnival companies, and they have indicated that October is the time of the year in which
very few carnivals are held. Therefore, the carnivals are moving south for the fall and winter
season. He also stated that a carnival would need access to the LifeTime/Ice Center site on
Wednesday to set up the rides. They would pass a State inspection on Friday, and the carnival
would be in operation through Sunday. Therefore, this site would "tied up" for five days. He
explained that this time of year, there are also cooler temperatures, which is why carnivals are
usually conducted in the summer. He stated if it is the Council's desire to have amusement rides,
the day of the parade and the event itself may need to be moved earlier in the fall but not too
early so that the school units in the parade have a chance to organize their units for the parade.
Councilmember Johnson thanked staff for the report. She feels that other activities could be
added to this event.
Mayor Tierney agreed and stated that perhaps a fall festival with different types of activities such
as a scarecrow contest, decorating of light posts, could be added to the event. She stated she
would also like to see a broader downtown involvement with the event.
Park and Recreation Director Blank stated that after the first of the year, he would provide a
follow-up report on different community events which the City conducts throughout the year,
and perhaps some of those events could be combined.
Reports and Recommendations
There were no Reports and Recommendations.
Adjournment
made by Councilmember Johnson, and seconded by Councilmember
at 10:32 p.m. With all members voting in, fervor, the motion carried.
8andra R. Paulson, -City Clerk