HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 06-19-1996Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
The regular meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney
at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., on June 19, 1996.
COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney; Councilmembers Wold, Lymangood, Preus, and
Black. Councilmember Granath arrived at 7:55 p.m.
ABSENT: Councilmember Anderson.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Lueckert, Public
Works Director Moore, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Finance Director
Hahn, Park Director Blank, Public Safety Director Gerdes, City Attorney Knutson, and
City Clerk Ahrens.
Item 3 Plymouth Forum
Dave Buzzelle, 10222 South Shore Drive, suggested that the City consider
installation of fishing docks on Medicine Lake.
Park Director Blank stated that a fishing dock is included in the final plans for
West Medicine Lake Park.
Item 4-A Up With People
A representative of Up With People announced that they will be performing at
Music in Plymouth on July 2. They are looking for host families from July 1-3.
Item 4-11 Fire Survivor Handbook
Mayor Tierney announced that the City of Plymouth received the first place
award for its Fire Survivor Handbook in the League of Minnesota Cities
contest.
Item 5 Approve Agenda
Mayor Tierney noted that revised information has been distributed on Items
6-0, 7-A, and 8-F.
Councilmember Lymangood added Item 9-B, publicity on tobacco ordinance in
USA Today.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to approve the agenda with the addition of Item 9-B.
Motion carried, five ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 2
Item 6 Consent Agenda
Item 6-F was removed from the Consent Agenda.
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Motion carried, five
ayes.
Item 6-A Approve City Council Minutes
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to approve the minutes of the June 5 Regular Council Meeting.
Motion carried, five ayes.
Item 6-B Approve Disbursements
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-323 APPROVING
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 7, 1996. Motion
carried, five ayes.
Item 6-C Site Performance Guarantee Reductions and Releases
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-324 RELEASING SITE
IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, CALIBER
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/ANNAPOLIS BUSINESS CENTER
95029). Motion carried, five ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-325 REDUCING SITE
IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, CARLSON REAL
ESTATE COMPANY/THE TILE SHOP (95023). Motion carried, five
ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-326 REDUCING SITE
IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, PRIME
BUILDERS, INCORPORATED/HICKORY HILLS VILLAS (94091).
Motion carried, five ayes.
Item 6-D Hate and Bias Crime Response Plan, Human Rights Commission
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-327 APPROVING THE BIAS
HATE CRIMES RESPONSE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH.
Motion carried, five ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 3
Item 6-E Ordinance Amending City Code Regarding Liquor Licenses
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt ORDINANCE 96-13 AMENDING CHAPTER 12
OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE CONCERNING SALE,
CONSUMPTION, AND DISPLAY OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
Motion carried, five ayes.
Item 6-G Vacation of Easements in Parkers Lake North 11th Addition
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-328 ORDERING PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE PROPOSED VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENTS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR
PONDING IN PARKERS LAKE NORTH 11TH ADDITION. Motion
carried, five ayes.
Item 6-H 41st Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, Project 537
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-329 ORDERING
IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, HUGHSTON ADDITION - 41ST AVENUE
STREET AND UTILITIES, CITY PROJECT NO. 537. Motion carried,
five ayes.
Item 6-I Approve Amendment to Agreement for County Road 10 Project
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-330 APPROVING .
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT, COUNTY ROAD 10, COUNTY PROJECT NO. 7408,
CITY PROJECT NO. 812. Motion carried, five ayes.
Item 6-J Authorize Condemnation for Peony Lane Improvements, Project 502
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-331 AUTHORIZING
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, PEONY LANE, CITY PROJECT
NO. 502. Motion carried, five ayes.
Item 6-K Award Contract for 1996 Seal Coat Program
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-332 AWARDING BID FOR 1996
SEAL COAT PROGRAM. Motion carried, five ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 4
Item 6-L Approve Plans and Advertise for Bids for Westbranch 3rd Addition,
Project 415
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-333 APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS,
WESTBRANCH 3RD ADDITION, PHASE H, CITY PROJECT NO.
415. Motion carried, five ayes.
Item 6-M Authorization to Call Outstanding Bonds
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-334 CALLING FOR
REDEMPTION OF THE OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION
TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1990. Motion carried,
five ayes.
Item 6-N Approve Bid for Maple Creek Park Playground Equipment
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-335 APPROVAL OF MAPLE
CREEK PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT. Motion carried, five ayes.
Item 6-0 Award Bids for Foundation and Subgrade Construction on Ice Rink
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-336 AWARDING BID
PACKAGE 4.1 FOR FOUNDATION AND SUBGRADE CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION. Motion carried, five ayes.
Item 7-A Consider One-way Street or Closure, East Medicine Lake Boulevard
Public Works Director Moore explained that the City Council has set a public
hearing on alternatives to establish a separate pedestrian trail on East Medicine
Lake Blvd. from 18th Avenue to Medicine Ridge Road. Notice of the hearing
was mailed to about 300 properties in the area. He stated that the
recommendation in the staff report is that 18th Avenue between the Highway
169 frontage road and East Medicine Lake Blvd. would remain two-way. East
Medicine Lake Blvd. from 18th Avenue to the southerly intersection with
Lancaster Lane would become a northbound one-way street. East Medicine
Lake Blvd. between the southerly Lancaster Lane intersection and the
northerly Lancaster intersection at 23rd Avenue would remain a two-way
roadway. Improvements would be made in this area to widen the roadway for
a separate trail. East Medicine Lake Blvd. from the north Lancaster Lane
intersection to Medicine Ridge Road would be a one-way northbound street.
Director Moore stated that based on citizen input, a second alternative would
provide for a southbound one-way from Medicine Ridge Road to the
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 5
intersection with Lancaster Lane, rather than a northbound one-way. He said
that, continuing southerly, the street would remain a two-way, but the shoulder
could be paved and striped to provide a pedestrian trail. This alternative would
solve the problem of access to one driveway on East Medicine Lake Blvd.
between 26th Avena l- and Medicine Ridge Road, which was a concern under
the original recommendation. He stated that the improvements could be
accomplished within two months at a cost of $25,000 to $30,000.
Councilmember Wold asked for clarification on the staff recommendation.
Director Moore stated the staff recommends the southbound one-way
alternative. The cost will not be significantly different, and the southbound
flows should discourage some of the morning peak traffic in the
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Black asked if the trail segment from Lancaster Lane south to
19th Avenue would eventually be built anyway, or whether it would be built
now and reconstructed later to serve as the regional trail.
Director Moore responded that this 300' trail segment would be constructed
just beyond the shoulder of the roadway. It could be incorporated into the
regional trail in the future, if it fit into the overall trail plan. The feasibility
report is not yet complete for the regional trail.
Councilmember Black asked about the difference in traffic counts on East
Medicine Lake Blvd., north and south from 18th Avenue.
Director Moore did not believe that sufficient traffic counts were done to
differentiate the traffic in the area north and south of 18th Avenue. He stated
that 21st Avenue has visibility problems due to steep hills and additional
vehicles should not be encouraged on this street. He said that 23rd Avenue is a
main connection.
Mayor Tierney opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Dave Buzzelle, 10222 South Shore Drive, supported a one-way on East
Medicine Lake Blvd. He uses the area for running, rollerblading, and
bicycling, and believes that people are afraid to use the lake area for recreation
because of the traffic safety concerns.
Lori Baker, 11515 37th Avenue North, stated she previously lived on Medicine
Ridge Road at East Medicine Lake Blvd. She and her family left that location
because it was so &,igerous for pedestrians. She supports starting the one-
way at 36th Avenue and continuing all the way to East Medicine Lake Road.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 6
Councilmember Lymangood stated that the notices for this public hearing
specified the area south of the intersection of East Medicine Lake Blvd. and
Medicine Ridge Road; however, comments are also welcome relating to the
northerly portion.
Steve Loe, 2815 Medicine Ridge Road, supports the southbound one-way
alternative. He believes a one-way will enhance property values and improve
safety, especially during peak traffic.
L. Gunderson, 2050 East Medicine Lake Blvd., favors a one-way street. He
suggested another alternative of ending East Medicine Lake Blvd. at Harty's
South. He said this would alleviate the parking problems in this immediate
area, no homes would need access to this segment of roadway, and the street is
in very poor condition. Mr. Gunderson believes that a stop sign will be needed
at 21 st Avenue and Lancaster Lane irrespective of whether a northbound or
southbound one-way is installed.
Mayor Tierney noted that a dead-end street would prevent individuals from
driving around the lake.
John Fischer, 2825 Medicine Ridge Road, supported either a northbound or
southbound one-way roadway. However, the southbound one-way would
resolve the issue with the difficult driveway access. He believes that a one-way
roadway would particularly improve safety during the summer months, and
suggested that the trail be placed along the lake side of the roadway. Mr.
Fischer stated that 60 days is too long a time in which to complete the project.
Joe Harty, Harty's Boats and Bait, East Medicine Lake Drive, spoke in favor
of a southbound one-way. However, he has concerns about the trail crossing
the Harry's north property. He is also concerned about vehicles pulling out of
Harty's Boats and encountering rollerbladers and bikers going over 30 mph,
and suggested signage or speed humps to slow the pedestrian traffic.
Annette Malinsky, 3010 East Medicine Lake Blvd., favored a one-way
roadway for safety reasons. She believes that East Medicine Lake Blvd.
should be a one-way from 36th Avenue to the beach because the area from
Medicine Ridge Road northerly to 31 st Avenue is a very narrow and dangerous
section.
Mayor Tierney closed the hearing.
Public Works Director Moore responded to resident comments from the
hearing. He stated that only residents living south of Medicine Ridge Road
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 7
received notice of this hearing. He explained that to have effective one-way
streets, there gener'.ly needs to be opposite one-way streets or two-way
streets within two blocks of the one-way for good traffic circulation. He
believes that a good immediate solution to the traffic concerns is to designate
or install a pedestrian trail in along East Medicine Lake Drive. It will take 30-
45 days to complete this project, including ordering and installing signs, and
having the work completed by the City maintenance crews. It would take
much longer to complete if the project were bid.
Director Moore stated that the trail near the Harty's North location would be
along the roadway (not next to the lake), as requested by Mr. Harty. At the
Harty's South location, the boat ramp is at the road right-of-way and signage
could be effective in alerting vehicles to pedestrian traffic. He stated that from
18th Avenue to Harty's there are six homes that need access to East Medicine
Lake Drive, therefore, ending the roadway is not an easy option. Staff believes
that either leaving the roadway as a two-way, or making it a one-way, is a
better solution while the regional trail study is underway.
Councilmember Lymangood asked when the street would be reconstructed.
Director Moore responded that the street reconstruction would be done along
with the regional trail construction. The City would be prepared to do the
work next year, as the project has been on the City's reconstruction list since
1986.
Councilmember Black stated that during this hearing and at the previous
meeting held at Armstrong High School, concerns were expressed about safety
on East Medicine Lake Drive northerly to 36th Avenue. She asked what
assurances the City has that Hennepin Parks will construct the trail in 1997 so
that safety can be improved.
Park Director Blank responded that a preferred plan will be brought to the
Park District and City Council following another public meeting this summer.
The Park District has been purchasing property needed for the trail, and two
more homes have to be removed in order for the road project to move
forward. He believes that Hennepin Parks is showing good faith on moving
forward with the project so that it could be accomplished in 1997.
Councilmember Lymangood described the previous meeting held at Armstrong
High School on the issue of the East Medicine Lake Drive trail. He stated that
the recommendation for a one-way street is the result of the interest expressed
by residents to get something started to improve safety. The City Council will
receive the regional trail feasibility report in July, and it may show a slightly
different alternative for the area south of 23rd Avenue. He stated that the
Council can establish the one-way street now to get something immediately
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 8
started, recognizing that there is additional work to do with the cooperative
effort of Hennepin Parks.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Wold, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-337 DESIGNATING A
PORTION OF EAST MEDICINE LAKE BOULEVARD FROM
LANCASTER LANE (NORTH INTERSECTION) TO MEDICINE
RIDGE ROAD AS A SOUTHBOUND ONE-WAY STREET AND
ESTABLISHING A TRAIL, deleting Condition 3, and directing staff to
communicate with Hennepin Parks the City's commitment to work
cooperatively with Hennepin Parks to address safety issues north of this
one-way segment.
Motion to amend was made by Councilmember Black, seconded by
Councilmember Preus, to add Condition 5 that the Council will, after receiving
the trail feasibility report, reconsider any possible actions that could be taken to
improve safety from 36th Avenue south to the intersection of East Medicine
Lake Blvd. and Medicine Ridge Road.
Councilmember Granath arrived at 7:55 p.m.
Councilmember Lymangood suggested that the public hearing could be kept
open until July 24 in order to address the additional segments of roadway after
the regional trail feasibility report is received. Director Moore stated another
public hearing will be needed, since the northerly segment was not included in
this public hearing notice.
Park Director Blank suggested that the alternatives could be considered at the
neighborhood level, or the City Council could conduct a public hearing on the
alternatives when the regional trail feasibility report is received. He stated that
a public information meeting held with the affected neighborhoods would allow
Hennepin Parks to assist in conducting the meeting.
Councilmember Black stated that her motion does not specify how the
consideration would take place, and perhaps the neighborhood information
meeting alternative could be used.
Councilmember Wold spoke in favor of the amendment. He would like the
subcommittee considering the East Medicine Lake Drive trail to determine
how the public input should be received.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that the City and Hennepin Parks have had
positive momentum toward resolving the safety issues the past several months.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 9
He supports continuing with the project in the spirit of joint cooperative efforts
with Hennepin Parks.
Councilmember Preus believed that the subcommittee would be the best
fashion in which to address the issues included in the amendment.
Motion to amend carried, six ayes.
Councilmember Preus asked if a potential problem of the trail switching sides
of the road could be created. Director Moore envisioned that the feasibility
report will recommend a separate trail delineated from the roadway.
Councilmember Wold noted that one resident had expressed concern about
access to their dock. He asked if this issue would be negotiated with the
Council or with Hennepin Parks.
Public Works Director Moore stated that tonight's action would cause no
problem with driveway or dock access. Park Director Blank stated it is the
City's intention that owners on the lake would retain their dock rights with the
permanent trail as well.
Councilmember Lymangood said that this is an interim solution to a long-
standing problem. He invited residents to contact the Council with concerns.
Motion as amended carried, six ayes.
Item 8-A Subcommittee to work with School District 281
Assistant City Manager Lueckert stated that Councilmember Lymangood
believes there are issues of mutual interest for the City and School District 281.
He recently suggested that the Council establish a council/staff subcommittee
to work with District 281 to identify and work on issues of mutual interest.
Councilmember Lymangood stated he has given the issue further thought. He
suggested that the Council reacknowledge that he is the Council Coordinating
Representative for School District 281. He will work with staff on identifying
potential cooperative issues between the City and the School District.
Item 8-B Metropolitan Environmental Services Infow/Infiltration Project Loan
Councilmember Lymangood referenced the dry and wet weather peak ratios
for the cities of Medina and Medicine Lake, shown in Exhibit B in the staff
report on the Metropolitan Environmental Services Inflow/Infiltration Project.
He said the sewage from Medina and Medicine Lake flows from those cities
through the Plymouth system, and then out of the City for treatment. He
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 10
suggested that Plymouth could share its experience with the sump pump
ordinance or other technical expertise on this issue with those communities.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Wold, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-338 AUTHORIZING
THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT A LOAN APPLICATION TO
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,
and direct staff to communicate with the cities of Medina and Medicine
Lake the City's willingness to work with them on addressing sewage flow
from their communities. Motion carried, six ayes.
Item 8-C Plymouth Charter Commission Minutes
Councilmember Lymangood referenced the Plymouth Charter Commission
minutes of May 23, 1996. He noted that a motion was adopted `that the
Charter Commission meet on Tuesday, July 9, 1996 at 7 p.m. to consider the
supermajority vote issue, and that the City Council be invited to attend this
meeting." He expressed concerns with this action. He believes that there
could be a blurring of responsibilities in a joint meeting of the Charter
Commission and City Council, and he is hesitant to engage in such a meeting.
He viewed the Charter Commission as similar to a constitutional congress,
with powers not to implement change, but to make recommendations on
amendments to the City Charter. He is concerned that the City Council, an
elected body required to abide by the City Charter, would meet with the
Charter Commission to debate the issues. From a practical perspective, the
City Council has already adopted wording for a proposed Charter amendment
and he believes the issue is very clear. He expressed concern that the Charter
Commission has an opportunity to delay the process of getting the amendment
to the voters this November. Councilmember Lymangood stated he will not
participate in the meeting unless it is a televised public hearing, and he would
still have concerns about blurring of responsibilities.
Councilmember Preus had similar observations. He would be happy to attend
the Charter Commission meeting to give an explanation of his views on the
issue, but doesn't believe that the City Council should be jointly meeting with
the Charter Commission. He believes this issue is very clear and is concerned
that the Charter Commission members indicated they may need more time to
address it. He hoped that the Charter Commission does not delay the issue
further. The Charter Commission should either agree with the language
proposed by the Council, or recommend some other option.
Mayor Tierney asked the City Attorney if there is difficulty under a Council -
Manager form of government of having a joint City Council and Charter
Commission meeting.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 11
Attorney Knutson said there is no legal problem with such a meeting, but
councilmembers may have philosophical issues.
Mayor Tierney explained that the Charter Commission discussed the issue of
supermajority votes several years ago and decided that they did not want this
included in the Charter. The Charter Commission felt that, rather than take the
issue immediately to a public meeting, it would be good to hear from
Councilmembers on why they favor this amendment. The Charter Commission
noted that there was not much discussion among the Council on the issue,
other than to indicate support for the amendment. They would like to have a
clear understanding of why the City Council wants the amendment; therefore,
they would like to hold a meeting with the Council before a public hearing is
scheduled.
Councilmember Wold stated it is his understanding that the job of the
Commission is to o,,ersee the Charter. The Charter Commission should be
paying close attention to the Council meetings in order to do so. He assumed
that the Charter Commission received the minutes of the City Council meeting
where the amendment language was adopted, and that they had access to the
Councilmember debates last fall when the issue was first raised. He feels that
the issue is perfectly clear, and he feels it is disconcerting that the will of the
Council wasn't clear when a member of the Council was present at the Charter
Commission meeting. Councilmember Wold stated that before voting on the
proposed amendment language, Councilmembers made it clear that raising
taxes is something that deserves more than a simple majority vote. He feels
that a meeting with the Charter Commission would serve no purpose because
the City Council's position is on public record and they would only restate the
position that has been adopted.
Councilmember Lymangood suggested that perhaps the Charter Commission
should just conduct a public hearing. He stated that three members of the City
Council made the supermajority vote for increasing the tax rate a campaign
issue. He believes that the City Council has exercised leadership, and he
requested that the Charter Commission allow the voters to act on it in 1996.
Councilmember Preus noted that the minutes of the Charter Commission
meeting reflect different views on this issue. The Charter Commission can vote
to agree or not agree with the City Council's proposed amendment language,
but there is no reason to delay action.
Mayor Tierney stated that most of the Charter Commission members don't
believe the supermajority vote issue is as simple as it looks. The
Commissioners recognize that this was a campaign issue, but now they want to
know if the amendment is in the best interest of the City. She stated that the
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 12
Charter Commission attorney was denied payment for three months by the
previous City Council. The Charter Commission wants the City Council to
meet with them. Mayor Tierney stated she was not present at the City Council
meeting on May 15 when the proposed amendment language was adopted.
She suggested that the joint Charter Commission and City Council meeting
could be videocast. Mayor Tierney noted there is a current vacancy on the
Charter Commission and questioned whether any councilmembers had
submitted their application of interest.
Assistant Manager Lueckert stated that it would not be possible to televise a
joint meeting on July 9 because a Planning Commission meeting is scheduled.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that he has consciously not submitted an
application to serve on the Charter Commission. He has no desire to serve as a
Charter Commission member as long as he is in elected office. He believes that
the Charter Commission is intended to be an independent body and that
philosophical issues could be mixed by serving in both roles.
Councilmember Wold stated that he does not believe it is appropriate to serve
as a Councilmember and also on the Charter Commission that establishes the
Pules" through the City Charter.
Mayor Tierney stated that the Charter Commission doesn't know whether the
desire to require a supermajority vote for a tax increase is just a political idea
supported by council candidates or whether it has good reason. She said there
is no legal restriction that a councilmember cannot also serve on the Charter
Commission. She was a member of the Charter Commission before becoming
a Councilmember.
Councilmember Wold stated that the City Council believes the supermajority
vote requirement would be good public policy.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Granath, that the Plymouth City Council agrees that a 5n
supermajority vote requirement in order to raise the tax rate is good public
policy for the citizens of Plymouth, that the City Council encourages the
Charter Commission to act forthwith in addressing the issue so that the citizens
have an opportunity to vote on the issue in 1996, and to suggest that the
Charter Commission can conduct a public hearing if they wish additional input
on the issue.
Councilmember Preus supported the motion. He stated that the issue was
raised during the ca„ paign because it is good government policy. Six
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 13
Councilmembers voted in favor of the Charter amendment language, and the
issue should go to the voters for a decision this November.
Councilmember Black said that she supported the supermajority requirement as
part of her campaign and believes voters should be allowed to decide if a tax
rate increase is more important than other city business.
Mayor Tierney stated that one issue is the concern of whether there should
ever be a supermajority vote requirement because it can turn decisions over to
a minority. She will not support the motion because she has not been shown
evidence that requiring a supermajority vote for a tax rate increase is good
government.
Motion carried, five ayes; Tierney nay.
Councilmember Wold called for division.
Motion carried on a roll call vote: Wold, Lymangood, Preus, Granath, Black
ayes; Tierney nay.
Item 8-D Weston Corporation, The Courts at Nanterre (96023)
Community Development Director Hurlburt presented the staff report on the
request of Weston Corporation for residential planned unit development
preliminary plan/plat, conditional use permit and variances for The Courts at
Nanterre located west of Vicksburg Lane and north of the Hollydale Golf
Course. The Planning Commission recommended approval, then denial, on a
vote of 3 to 3. The item is sent to the Council without a recommendation from
the Planning Commission.
She stated that The Courts at Nanterre is a proposed 37 -unit townhome
project located in the Nanterre planned unit development, for which concept
plan approval was given by the City in 1995. The single family part of the
project has been given final approval. Director Hurlburt stated that the issue of
the type of fencing along the Hollydale Golf Course has been resolved since the
Planning Commission meeting to the satisfaction of all parties. Another
concern was the setback from the Soo Line Railroad. Staff believes that there
is sufficient buffer for the units.
Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that an issue of staff
disagreement related to the road system in the development. The developer
has proposed a combination of public streets and private drives. Schmidt Lake
Road, Comstock Lane, and 49th Place would be public streets. There would
be two private driveways to serve clusters of two to three townhomes each,
with an additional private driveway on the east side of Comstock Lane. She
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 14
explained that subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the developer
proposed changes t3 the private driveways and staff supports the changes
which provide for narrower private driveways and concrete rather than asphalt.
The constraints on this property for development are difficult because it is a
very narrow parcel impacted by Schmidt Lake Road, the golf course, Soo Line
Railroad, a large embankment, holding pond, and large existing wetland. The
pond serves this subdivision as well as drainage from the golf course. Staff
believes this is an improved design that addresses the concerns about private
streets.
In response to a question by Councilmember Lymangood, Director Hurlburt
stated that Golfview Estates would be directly south of this site.
Councilmember Wold asked what assurance the City has that the private street
will be properly maintained. He noted there are other situations in the City
with townhome developments where the streets are in poor condition with no
plans for reconstruction.
Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that there are better
practices in place to ensure that a homeowner association has adequate
resources for private street maintenance. The residents need to be well
informed about expectations of which portions of the project are public and
private. The concrete material proposed for the private streets will last much
longer than asphalt streets, and the units will be fairly expensive. She said
there is a need for any homeowner association to keep up with maintenance.
The state legislature has also provided a mechanism for residents to petition
the city to get private street improvements done through a special assessment
process.
Councilmember Wold said he would like more information on the financing
options available for homeowner associations. Director Hurlburt said that she
believes a homeowner association will soon be coming to the Council with a
request.
Mayor Tierney expressed concern about whether the 30' setback from the
railroad is sufficient given past problems with train whistle complaints.
Director Hurlburt stated that vegetation will buffer these homes, and the tracks
are not at the edge of the right-of-way so the distance is greater than 30' from
the railway to the homes. She said there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance
that specifies a setback from the railroad.
Richard Bloom, 3657 Woody Lane, Minnetonka, petitioner for the project, said
that they have attempted to respond to comments made at the Planning
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 15
Commission meeting. He said that this area could have been platted as
condominiums, but the City would have lost review through the homeowner
association documents. He understands the disclosures and maintenance issues
that need to be addressed in the homeowner association documents. Mr.
Bloom said that the concrete driveways there provide a distinction between
what is public and what is private. The units will be four-sided with stucco and
brick. Each unit will have a three vehicle garage. The units are designed to be
connected at building corners and will almost look like detached units.
Motion was made by Councilmember Black, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt ORDINANCE 96-14 AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED AT 16440
OLD ROCKFORD ROAD (96056), and RESOLUTION 96-339
APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRELIMINARY PLAN/PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
SUBDIVISION CODE VARIANCE FOR WESTON CORP. FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF VICKSBURG LANE NORTH OF
HOLLYDALE GOLF COURSE (96023), with the 14 recommended
conditions.
Councilmember Lymangood noted that some of the units in the development
will front public streets and some will front private driveways. He asked if
there will be a differential in the homeowner association dues.
Mr. Bloom said that the dues issued had not yet been addressed, but all units
will probably pay the same rate.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that this may cause some problems when
public street reconstruction is done because only the units facing those streets
would be assessed.
Mayor Tierney asked about the proposed fencing abutting the golf course and
whether landscaping is proposed.
Mr. Bloom stated that the Deziels' thought the previously proposed four foot
split rail fence would be too low. They have agreed with the proposal for a
five foot chain link fence, and they are considering ivy landscaping on the golf
course side of the fence. Mr. Bloom said that trees are proposed between the
building groupings.
Motion carried, five ayes; Lymangood nay.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 16
Item 8-E Deny Variance for Sign at Cottonwood Plaza Center (96033)
Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that in 1987, the Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals denied a variance to increase the surface area
of a free standing business sign from 96 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. at Cottonwood
Plaza Center. The decision was appealed to the City Council. The Council did
not approve the request, but did approve doubling the wall signage in the
shopping center. The applicant has again submitted the variance request, and
the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4 to 3 vote. The
Planning Commission cited the setback of the shopping center and difficulty of
motorists to identify the tenants.
Director Hurlburt showed pictures of the Target Greatland sign which is
directly across the street, the proposed 200 sq. ft. sign, and the existing sign.
She stated that staff does not recommend approval of the variance request.
Few of the tenants have taken advantage of the previous variance to allow
increased wall signage, and that may address their concern. Staff does not
believe that the bank building blocks visibility of the center, and believes that
granting the variance would set a precedence for signage in other shopping
centers. She stated that the Target Greatland sign was larger than allowed by
ordinance, but that was negotiated with the initial approval of the development.
Staff has not done the necessary research to determine the impact of granting
this variance and would prefer to review the entire sign ordinance.
Barb DeMars, Cottonwood Plaza Manager, stated that this is the third time
they have made this request because signage was not considered during
development of the center. She said the shopping center started construction
in 1986 with the first tenants in 1987. The adjacent bank was constructed in
1988. In 1992, the increased signage was requested because businesses felt
their wall sign was not sufficient. She said that the bank building blocks the
view of the signs on the center, there is more traffic on County Road 9, and
Premier Lincoln and Target Greatland are adjacent businesses. Ms. DeMars
said the Cottonwood center is dwarfed by everything around it. She said that
they would like to install a sign that lists all of the tenants in the building. She
believes this is a hardship because people cannot find businesses located in the
center, and that this is a unique situation. She said the request is made not
solely to increase income, but to give each tenant equal signage at the road to
be competitive with other businesses. There are services such as vet,
chiropractor, and urgent care facility that are not currently listed on the pylon
sign. She said that Cottonwood Plaza pays $150,000 in taxes and they
maintain a nice shopping center. At the time the shopping center was built,
they were required to provide twice the number of parking spaces as the
national average and that set the building back from the roadway a significant
distance. Shortly thereafter, the parking space standard was changed and the
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 17
building could have been closer to road. She believes that the Target Greatland
sign has also set a precedent.
Virginia Berney, Business Coordinator for Plymouth Convenience Care, said
that people have difficulty finding their urgent care facility. They have
increased their wall signage and added a neon sign, but they need a better way
for people to locate the business.
Dr. Thomas Evans, Medical Director for Plymouth Convenience Care, said that
location, interior design, access, and signage are the four most important things
in locating a health care facility. They have a good location, interior design,
and access, but signage is a problem. In 1994, he had difficulty finding
Plymouth Convenience Care the first time, and patients say they don't know
this urgent care facility is in the community. He said that health care savings
can be achieved by serving people within the community.
Mayor Tierney expressed concern that the sign would be difficult to read if all
tenants are listed on it. She asked when the sign ordinance is scheduled for
review.
Director Hurlburt said the sign ordinance revisions will probably be enacted
early in 1997.
Motion was made by Councilmember Granath, seconded by Councilmember
Black, to approve the variance request.
Councilmember Preus said he is very sympathetic with the concerns expressed
by tenants, but believes that the petitioner has not complied with the variance
standards. He encouraged tenants to keep in contact with the Planning
Department to incorporate their concerns into the new sign ordinance.
Mayor Tierney suggested that the request could be tabled until the new sign
ordinance is adopted. Director Hurlburt responded that the City must act on
the application by August 16 or it will be approved by default.
Motion failed: Granath aye; five nays.
Motion was made by Councilmember Wold, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-340 DENYING VARIANCE
FOR JEROME AND BETTY BEGIN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3900 VINEWOOD LANE NORTH (COTTONWOOD PLAZA
SHOPPING CENTER) (96033)°
Motion carried, five ayes; Granath nay.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 18
Item 8-F Golfview Woods. Richard Bloom (96056)
Community Development Director Hurlburt said that on May 28, 1996, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
rezoning, preliminary plat and variances for Golfview Woods. Fifteen residents
spoke at the public hearing. Eleven were opposed to the project, including one
resident who presented form letters signed by 40 residents also opposing the
project. Four individuals spoke in favor of the proposal. The major concerns
raised by residents included opposition to a through street (even though that
was not a part of the application City staff reviewed), opposition to the
extension of the 45th Avenue North cul-de-sac based on increased traffic,
increased noise, loss of privacy and lifestyle, loss of safety for children, loss of
trees, and potential for construction of homes that do not follow covenants
adopted by the adjoining Golfview Estates homes which could reduce their
property values.
She said that those in. favor of the project cited that it minimized environmental
impact, including tree removal, made the best possible use of the land, and
avoided another street connection to Old Rockford Road. The applicant
indicated that they had looked at several alternatives for the site and rejected
the ones with a through street and a cul-de-sac from Old Rockford Road. In
both these alternatives, the existing home valued at $204,000 would need to be
demolished. In addition, they were concerned about sight distances, given the
fact that the street would intersect Old Rockford Road on a curve. The other
alternatives would have also resulted in additional tree removal. She stated
that since the Planning Commission meeting, Golfview Estates residents have
submitted additional correspondence supporting the Planning Commission
recommendation of approval.
Councilmember Lymangood asked about the site zoning. Director Hurlburt
said that rezoning from FRD to R -IA is proposed. It is the City's practice to
hold property in the FRD District until it is ready to develop.
Councilmember Wold asked what assurances residents have that the fire
emergency access will not be turned into a through street.
Community Development Director Hurlburt said it will not be platted as a
through street and there will be no right-of-way established for a roadway.
The fire lane would have the route of the existing driveway with a paved width
of about 15 feet. The fire lane is recommended due to the length of the cul-de-
sac. It would be chained and only used for emergency situations. The existing
home would no longer have access to Rockford Road.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 19
Mayor Tierney asked if the driveway is paved. Director Hurlburt said it is
currently gravel, but would be asphalt for the emergency access. She
recommended that the emergency access be paved if it is intended to be used
for fire trucks.
Richard Bloom, 3657 Woody Lane, Minnetonka, stated that this development
plan will least impact the natural surroundings of the site. He stated that only
nine significant trees will be removed. The owner of Lot 3 will have
maintenance responsibility for the emergency access. The emergency access
will be chained as well as signed for emergency use only. He stated that they
will meet on the site with the adjacent property owners to make slight
adjustments to the roadway alignments to ensure they are happy with the
project.
Terry Kaine, 4490 Comstock Lane, favored a cul-de-sac from Rockford Road
with no extension. He questioned the need for an emergency access when
there is not one now. He wants the cul-de-sac retained, even if it will be
longer, and wants the covenants identical to those in Golfview Estates.
Marybeth Voves, 16475 45th Avenue North, stated that the existing curve
coming out of the development is a significant traffic hazard due to lack of
visibility. She is opposed to a through street and wants to minimize traffic for
the safety of children in the area. While an extension to the cul-de-sac would
increase traffic, that is preferable to extending the road to Rockford Road. She
said there are other new developments with only one access, and she
questioned the need for the emergency access.
Susan Gaither, 16500 45th Avenue North, agreed with the previous comments.
Her primary concern is to have no through street on 45th Avenue North. She
recognizes the rights of the developer and property owner, and believes that
the least impact to the neighborhood would result by extending the cul-de-sac.
M.F. Schroeder, 13405 32nd Avenue North, expressed concern that the
emergency access may look like a through street. If the emergency access is
perceived as necessary, he asked that it not be hard surfaced. He asked if an
emergency access has ever been used by the public safety department. Mr.
Schroeder said that a homeowner should not be given the responsibility to
maintain a road through his property and not be able to use it or park on it.
Mayor Tierney asked if the emergency access could be viewed as access to the
trail on Old Rockford Road.
Community Development Director Hurlburt said that there would be no trail
easement on the emergency access and the public would have no right to use it.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 20
She stated that the developer has agreed to use the same covenants in this
subdivision as in Golfview Estates. She stated that other developments with
one access are usually a temporary situation until an adjacent plat provides a
second access.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Wold, to suspend the rules and set the adjournment at 10:20
p.m. Motion carried, six ayes.
Councilmember Lymangood stated there was an issue relating to a fire lane on
Comstock Lane, just west of this site, where the developer failed to put the
easement on the plat. The emergency access was supposed to be built, but was
not due to an error.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-341 APPROVING
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCES FOR RICHARD BLOOM
FOR GOLFVIEW WOODS LOCATED AT 16440 OLD ROCKFORD
ROAD (96056).
Motion carried, six ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Wold, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to
suspend the rules and consider Item 9-A at this time. Motion carried, six ayes.
Item 9-A Approve 1995 Audit and Financial Report
Finance Manager Jacobson presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the year ended December 31, 1995. He introduced Cliff Hoffman
and Amy Allen from Deloitte and Touche LLP.
Mr. Hoffman presented the audit report and stated that the City is in excellent
financial condition. Ms. Allen referenced the other reports to the Council.
Councilmember Lymangood asked if all items in the audit have been addressed
with staff. He commended Deloitte & Touche for providing a fine report with
useful information.
Ms. Allen explained that they provide a recommendation on how to resolve
certain issues and management responds. The auditors believe that
management's response to all items is adequate, and the items will be
monitored for next year.
Regular Council Meeting
June 19, 1996
Page 21
Motion was made by Mayor Tierney, seconded by Councilmember Black, to
adopt RESOLUTION 96-342 ACCEPTING THE 1995 FINANCIAL
REPORT AND AUDIT. Motion carried, six ayes.
Item 8-G (6-F) Housing Elements of Comprehensive Plan (96077)
Councilmember Lymangood stated that he would prefer a detailed review and
discussion of the proposed new Housing Elements and Housing
Implementation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Preus stated
that he also has concerns with aspects of the plan.
Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that the item could be
tabled to June 26 for consideration. She invited Councilmembers to contact
her for further discussions prior to that meeting.
Motion was made by Councilmember Wold, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to postpone action on the proposed new Housing Elements and
Housing Implementation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan to June 26. Motion
carried, six ayes.
Mayor Tierney adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Laurie Ahrens
City Clerk