HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 09-04-1996Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 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 in the City Center, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., on
September 4, 1996.
Council Present: Mayor Tierney; Councilmembers Anderson, Lymangood, Granath,
Black, Preus and Wold.
Absent: None.
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-A Forum
No one appeared for the Forum.
Item 5 Approve Agenda
Councilmember Anderson requested the addition of Item 9-A, update on
County Road 9 project including the section completed last year and tree
damage.
Councilmember Granath requested the addition of Item 9-B, report regarding
Council expenditures for training.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Granath, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried,
seven ayes.
Item 6 Consent Agenda
Councilmember Lymangood requested that a nay vote be reflected for him on
Item 6-D.
Manager announced that an additional resolution has been distributed for
consideration with Item 6-C relating to how funds for tree preservation would
be designated.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Motion
carried, seven ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 2
Item 6-A Approve Disbursements
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-455 APPROVING
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING AUGUST 23, 1996.
Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-11 Special City Council Meeting
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to schedule a special City Council meeting on Tuesday,
October 1, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed new Zoning Ordinance.
Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-C The Home Depot (96075)
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-456 APPROVING
LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MARFIELD,
BELGRADE AND YAFFE COMPANIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND I-494
96075). Motion carried, seven ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-457 APPROVING
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SITE PLANS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
AND VARIANCES FOR MARFIELD, BELGRADE AND YAFFE
COMPANIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
QUADRANT OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND I-494 (96075). Motion carried,
seven ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-458 DESIGNATING
THE PROCEEDS FROM HOME DEPOT PROJECT TO THE
COMMUNITY PLANTING FUND FOR USE ON COUNTY ROAD 9
TREE PLANTING PROJECT EAST OF I-494. Motion carried, seven
ayes.
Item 6-D Hassan Township Incorporation Request
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to take no official position on Hassan Township's
Incorporation Request to the Minnesota Municipal Board. Motion carried, six
ayes; Lymangood nay.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 3
Item 6-E Legal Description for Custom Building Concepts, Inc.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-459 APPROVING
LOT DIVISION/CONSOLIDATION FOR CUSTOM BUILDING
CONCEPTS, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF 44TH AVENUE NORTH AND
NORTHWEST BOULEVARD (94023). Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-F Daniel and Cheryl Schrader. (96100)
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-460 APPROVING
VARIANCE FOR DANIEL AND CHERYL SCHRADER FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1429 WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIVE
96100). Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-G Welsh Companies (96101)
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-461 APPROVING A
SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE FOR WELSH
COMPANIES, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14700 28TH AVE. N.
96101). Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-H David Johnson/Oakwood Square (96102)
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-462 APPROVING
VARIANCE FOR DAVID JOHNSON FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
17425 COUNTY ROAD NO. 6 (HERB'S SERVICE CENTER, INC.)
96102). Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-I Buhler, Inc. (96104)
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-463 APPROVING
SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
BUHLER, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 XENIUM LANE
NORTH (96104). Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-J Raising Ceiling on Receiving Written Quotations
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-464 RAISE CEILING
ON RECEIVING QUOTATIONS FROM UNDER $15,000 TO UNDER
25,000. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 4
Item 6-K Award of Bid - Ice Rink Curb, Gutter and Asphalt
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-465 AWARDING
ASPHALT CONTRACT FOR THE ICE ARENA. Motion carried, seven
ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-466 DECLARING
BIDS TO REMAIN OPEN. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-L Award Ice Rink Resurfacers
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-467 AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR ELECTRIC RESURFACING MACHINES. Motion
carried, seven ayes,
Item 6-M West Lutheran High School Sports Facilities
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-468 APPROVING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND WEST LUTHERAN HIGH
SCHOOL. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-N Final Payments on Improvement Projects
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-469 REQUEST FOR
PAYMENT NO. 4 AND FINAL, PLYMOUTH CREEK CHANNEL
CLEANING CITY PROJECT NO. 509. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-470 REQUEST FOR
PAYMENT NO. 11 AND FINAL, COUNTY ROAD 24/MEDINA ROAD -
PHASE H, CITY PROJECT NO. 031. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-0 Street Lighting Projects
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-471 DECLARING
ADEQUACY OF PETITION, ORDERING PREPARATION OF
REPORT, STREET LIGHTING, PLUM TREE ADDITION. Motion
carried, seven ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 5
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-472 RECEIVING
REPORT AND ORDERING PROJECT, STREET LIGHTING, PLUM
TREE ADDITION. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-473 DECLARING
ADEQUACY OF PETITION, ORDERING PREPARATION OF
REPORT, STREET LIGHTING, SUGAR HILLS 4TH ADDITION.
Motion carried, seven ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-474 RECEIVING
REPORT AND ORDERING PROJECT, STREET LIGHTING, SUGAR
HILLS 4m ADDITION. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-P Site Performance Guarantee Reductions and Releases
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-475 RELEASING
SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, OPUS
CORPORATION / FINGERHUT CORPORATION (94062). Motion
carried, seven ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-476 REDUCING SITE
IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE SUPERIOR FORD,
INC. / 9700 56TH AVENUE NORTH (94033). Motion carried, seven ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-477 REDUCING SITE
IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, WELLINGTON
PARK (94106). Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-Q Restrictive Covenant for Lifetime Fitness and Ice Arena
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to approve the Declaration of Restrictive Covenant for
Lifetime Fitness and Ice Arena and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager
to sign. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 6
Item 6-R 1996 Weed Eradication and Destruction, Roll 1
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-478 DECLARING
COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATING OF
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 1996 WEED ERADICATION AND
DESTRUCTION, ROLL 1. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-479 FOR PUBLIC
HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT, 1996 WEED
ERADICATION AND DESTRUCTION, ROLL 1. Motion carried, seven
ayes.
Item 6-S Hennepin County Calculation of Captured Tag Capacity Rolls
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-480 EXPRESSING
CITY'S CONCERN WITH FORMAT AND TIMELINESS OF
HENNEPIN COUNTY' S CALCULATION OF CAPTURED TAX
CAPACITY VALUE FOR PLYMOUTH'S TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICTS. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-T Sports Complex - Grading, Change Order No. 1
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-481 APPROVING
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 SPORTS COMPLEX - GRADING, CITY
PROJECT NO. 541. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 6-U Pedestrian Traffic Signal, Northwest Boulevard at Bass Lake Playfield
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Black, to authorize an expenditure of up to $500 for purchase
of trees to provide screening of the traffic signal for the property at 5440
Teakwood Lane. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 7-A Davanni's, Inc. for On -Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor License
Clerk Ahrens presented the staff report on the request of Davanni's Inc., for an
on -sale 3.2 malt liquor license at 3015 Harbor Lane.
Mayor Tierney opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. No one appeared, and
the hearing was closed.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 7
Motion was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by
Councilmember Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-482 APPROVING ON -
SALE 3.2 MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR DAVANNI' S INC.
Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 7-B 1996 Delinquent Water, Sewer, Recycling and Street Lighting Charges
Finance Director Hahn presented the staff report on the 1996 delinquent water,
sewer, recycling and street lighting service charges, unpaid annual street
lighting for unimproved parcels and unpaid annual recycling fees.
Councilmember Lymangood asked if all of the individuals on the lists have
received notice of the hearing. Finance Director Hahn responded yes.
Mayor Tierney opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. No one appeared, and
the hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Councilmember Wold, seconded by Councilmember
Anderson, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-483 ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS,
1996 DELINQUENT WATER, SEWER, RECYCLING, AND STREET
LIGHTING SERVICE CHARGES, and RESOLUTION 96-484
ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS, 1996B UNPAID ANNUAL STREET
LIGHTING FOR UNIMPROVED PARCELS AND UNPAID ANNUAL
RECYCLING FEES. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 7-C Vacation of 31st Avenue in Playhouse Industrial Park
Public Works Director Moore presented the staff report on the proposed
vacation of 31 st Avenue in Playhouse Industrial Park. He explained that the
right-of-way is only one-half that necessary for the construction of a standard
street. The right-of-way was originally platted with Playhouse Industrial Park;
however, Medina Road was constructed to the south and a street is not
planned for construction in this area. He recommended approval of the
vacation with retention of utility and drainage easements.
Mayor Tierney opened the hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Fred Hannus, Hannus Bus Company, asked to whom the right-of-way will
revert.
Attorney Knutson stated that when the City vacates an easement, it gives up its
right to the property but doesn't decide who gets it. Generally, rights-of-way
go half toward each of the abutting properties, but there are exceptions. If a
dispute arises between the landowners with respect to the issue, a court would
have to decide it.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 8
Public Works Director Moore stated that this street right-of-way originally all
came from the Playhouse Industrial Park, which is the plat to the north.
John Duffy represented the property owners of 15600 Medina Road, the
property to the south. Mr. Duffy said that Mr. Hannus's statements are
correct and that all vacated right-of-way will return to his property to the
north.
Mayor Tierney closed the hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Motion was made by Councilmember Black, seconded by Councilmember
Preus, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-485 AUTHORIZING THE
VACATION OF PART OF 30TH AVENUE NORTH (NOW KNOWN AS
31ST AVENUE NORTH) RIGHT-OF-WAY IN BLOCK 2, PLAYHOUSE
INDUSTRIAL PARK and RESOLUTION 96-486 SETTING
CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FILING OF RESOLUTION
NO. 96-485 VACATING PART OF 30TH AVENUE NORTH RIGHT-OF-
WAY IN BLOCK 2, PLAYHOUSE INDUSTRIAL PARK.
Motion carried, seven ayes.
Item 8-A 1997 Proposed Budgets and Tag Levy
City Manager Johnson explained that by September 15, every city must adopt a
preliminary budget and preliminary tax levy. The final budget and tax levy are
adopted in December. The preliminary tax levy may not be exceeded, but it
could be lowered. He recommended that the City Council also establish a
budget hearing date on December 4 at 7 p.m. The proposed tax levy rate is
14.56, which is a reduction from the 1996 rate of 14.94. This is the fourth
consecutive year that the city tax rate has been reduced. He stated that City
taxes account for about 1/8 of each tax dollar. The amount of City taxes on an
average value home ($175,700) is proposed at $406.62 in 1997, which is the
same amount as in 1993. He stated that even though the average home has
appreciated in value 18 percent, the actual tax dollars paid for city services will
be the same as in 1993. He showed a comparison with city taxes paid in other
communities. Plymouth has the lowest tax rate, and Plymouth city taxes are
less than half the amount of city taxes for several comparable cities. He noted
that Plymouth has the lowest tax rate of all communities over 10,000
population in Minnesota.
Manager Johnson presented several highlights of the proposed 1997 budget.
He said that an emphasis continues on planning efforts, and the police
department will have improved ability to integrate crime reporting information
with other communities. Other priorities in the budget include water quality,
street maintenance, and a continued upgrade of information technology
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 9
capabilities. The operating budget for the new ice arena indicates that
revenues will meet expenditures for 1997, and a new levy for capital
improvements is proposed. The budget is designed so that if there is a major
loss of state or federal aid in 1997, the City can readily adapt.
Councilmember Granath asked staff to explain the purpose of the capital
improvements levy.
Manager Johnson said that the traditional sources of funding for capital
improvements are declining and there are not sufficient funds available for
future new projects. The park dedication funds for the next five years are
already assigned to projects. The Community Improvement Fund and Project
Administration Fund have less funds than in the past. A levy for capital
improvements could allow the Council options for funding future capital
improvements.
Mayor Tierney thanked the staff for their work on the proposed budget. She
said it reflects good planning, as well as the desire of the staff and City Council
to control costs and make good use of local tax dollars.
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember
Black, to adopt RESOLUTION 96-487 ADOPTING PROPOSED 1997
BUDGETS; RESOLUTION 96-488 PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX
LEVIES FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 1997; RESOLUTION 96-489 SET
TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR 1997 TAX
LEVY; and RESOLUTION 96-490 SET COUNCIL MEETING
STARTING TIME FOR DECEMBER 4,1996, REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Councilmember Granath stated that his yes vote is made with reservations. He
hopes that the levy can be further reduced with final adoption in December.
He is concerned with the aspect of levying for possible future lost revenue.
Item 8-B 3M Media, Request for Exemption from Sign Moratorium
Community Development Director Hurlburt presented the staff report on the
request of 3M Media for an exemption from the moratorium on off -premise
advertising signs for a location at 3005 Niagara Lane (Toll Gas and Welding
Supply). She said that on March 22, 1996, 3M Media applied for a sign permit
to install an advertising sign at 3005 Niagara Lane. During the permit review
process, staff discovered that Resolution 82-471 adopted by the City Council
on September 13, 1982, which approved a Site Plan for this site, contained a
condition which required the removal of an existing advertising sign.
Subsequently, that billboard sign was removed; however, the ordinance did not
prohibit the installation of a new advertising sign on the same property.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 10
She explained that on May 15, 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance 96-
10 establishing a moratorium on new advertising signs. The moratorium is
intended to allow the City to evaluate and complete amendments to the zoning
ordinance with respect to signs. An update of the sign regulations is not
included in the scope of the project underway to revise the zoning ordinance
and will begin in late 1996 or early 1997. The moratorium will last until April
30, 1997, or until adoption of a new ordinance, whichever occurs first. The
ordinance stated that no permit for a new advertising sign shall be processed or
approved, and no applications for such approval will be accepted during the
moratorium. She said that an interim ordinance may or may not choose to
exempt applications filed prior to adoption of a moratorium. In this case, no
exemptions were provided. The City Council has discretion to decide if
exemptions are appropriate.
Director Hurlburt stated that if the City Council decides that fairness demands
that 3M Media be allowed to proceed to construct an advertising sign at 3005
Niagara Lane, an ordinance should be adopted to exempt sign applications
submitted before May 1, 1996. Staff feels that their argument - that they had
been working in good faith with the City staff on their permit application for
two months prior to the moratorium - does not apply to the second sign. If the
Council does not believe that the exemption should be granted, then no action
is needed and the sign permit applications will continue to be denied. 3M
Media may reapply once the moratorium is lifted. She stated that 3M Media
submitted their second application two days before the adoption of the
moratorium. 3M representatives have indicated that they believe it would be
fair for the Council to consider their first permit application and that they will
withdraw their secax,d application.
Councilmember Preus noted that the City Council will soon be receiving a
preliminary draft of the new zoning ordinance. He asked if that draft will
include the revised sign ordinance.
Director Hurlburt stated no. Staff will start work on the revised sign ordinance
as soon as work is completed on the main body of the zoning ordinance.
Councilmember Black questioned why the applicant cannot wait until the City
adopts the new ordinance.
Councilmember Preus asked if the petitioner was aware that the issue of a
moratorium was going to be discussed by the Council.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 11
Director Hurlburt responded that staff informed the petitioner several days
before the Council meeting. The petitioners were aware of the proposed
moratorium when they submitted the second application.
John Provost, 6850 S. Marlon Avenue, Bedford Park, IL, represented 3M
Media. He stated that 3M representatives met with the City on March 4 to
discuss the first sign permit application. 3M received a letter on April 29 that
the permit was ready to be issued. They were subsequently notified that the
Council would consider a moratorium. He said that 3M was working on
installation of signs in other locations. When they learned that the moratorium
was going to be considered, they rushed to submit the second application. Mr.
Provost said that 3M would willingly withdraw their application for the second
location if the City would issue the first sign permit. He said that 3M Media
had no knowledge of what occurred in 1982 or about a sign being removed.
He requested that the Council exempt the first sign application from the
moratorium and approve the sign permit for the first location for reasons of
fairness.
Councilmember Black asked why the applicant cannot wait until the ordinance
is reviewed by the City.
Mr. Provost said that the applicant has expended money on this project, and it
could be as much as a year before the sign ordinance is revised. He stated that
3M worked with staff on the permit application from the beginning of March
through the end of April, and there is an issue of fairness involved. He said
that the applicant has 28,000 signs across the country.
Councilmember Black asked if the applicant was represented at the meeting
where the Council considered establishing the moratorium.
Mr. Provost responded yes, and the representative spoke on the issue.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that the City Council received a lengthy
letter dated March 14 from a 3M attorney. This letter contained a number of
case citations, and the conclusion was that to do other than exempt the 3M
application from the moratorium would violate 3M Media's rights and would
constitute a taking of those rights. Councilmember Lymangood said this was
in contrast to a second letter dated August 23 which respectfully requested
approval and expressed willingness to withdraw the second application.
Mr. Provost stated that he doesn't know if this issue is significant enough to
pursue legal action. He stated that 3M Media could make the same arguments
that the second sign application should be exempt from the moratorium as for
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 12
the first application. However, 3M is willing to wait until the new ordinance is
adopted for consideration of the second sign application.
Councilmember Lymangood asked if the applicant is willing to make any
concessions regarding the size or illumination of the first sign.
Mr. Provost said 3M Media would be willing to discuss it. The sign would
currently meet the ordinance standards.
Councilmember Preus asked what difficulty it would cause if the application is
delayed until the sign ordinance is revised. He understands that money and
time have been put into the application process, but this would not be lost if
the application is ultimately considered.
Mr. Provost stated that there is a chance that the new ordinance would
preclude this sign and there is a risk to wait.
Councilmember Granath questioned whether any economic prejudice would be
suffered if the new ordinance should preclude this application because other
property owners are similarly impacted.
Mr. Provost stated that this was the only application submitted at the time the
moratorium was considered, and he had received a letter from the Building
Official that the application was complete and ready for issuance. He stated
that a sign moratorium usually is established in a community when a new
company arrives. He has never seen a moratorium established because of one
sign application.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that Mr. Provost has presented some
legitimate issues related to fairness. However, fairness also extends to
knowing that a community is working with its ordinances and knowing when
action has been taken with respect to prior actions. He is inclined to take no
action on the request.
Councilmember Granath concurred. He stated that Mr. Provost has some
good points, but on balance he has concluded that no action should be taken.
Councilmember Black agreed. She doesn't feel that the moratorium was
adopted because of this particular sign request, but rather because of a problem
with the sign ordinance.
Councilmember Wold stated that some of the City's ordinances were in grave
condition and major revisions are being done. His main concern is fairness for
the City of Plymoutb and the general health of the City's ordinances. He was
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 13
unaware of this particular application when the moratorium was adopted. He
noted that this is the third moratorium adopted by this City Council.
Mayor Tierney stated that she was unaware of the previous action to remove a
sign from the site in 1982. She doesn't believe there is a hardship, because the
sign can be considered when the new sign ordinance is adopted.
Item 8-C Discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for
Plymouth Ponds Building Four
Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that on August 27, the
Planning Commission considered the request by Plymouth Ponds Development
for a MPUD Preliminary Plan for Plymouth Ponds Business Park Building
Four. The applicant is requesting approval to allow construction of a 110,180
square foot industrial building. The first three buildings on the site have been
constructed, and there is residential construction to the south. Building Four is
the last building in this project. Several residents of the Seven Ponds
neighborhood raised issues of public safety, noise, and other issues. At the
completion of discussion on the item, the Planning Commission did not act on
the request, but voted 3 to 2 to petition the City Council to order a
Discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Director
Hurlburt said this site has been planned industrial for some time and the roads
and utilities are in place. The applicant has met the requirements for water
quality.
Director Hurlburt explained that the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board's
rules for the Environmental Review Program implement the environmental
procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. The act provides for
two levels of environmental review. The first level is the EAW. The EAW
serves primarily to aid in determination of whether an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is needed for a proposed project. The purpose of the EIS is
to provide information to evaluate proposed projects which have the potential
for significant environmental effects, to consider alternatives to the proposed
projects, and to explore methods for reducing adverse environmental effects.
She said that the rules specify certain types of projects that require either a
mandatory EAW or EIS and also provide for discretionary EAWs. For
industrial developments, an EAW is mandatory for a project with 300,000 or
more square feet. In the resolution approving the initial PUD Concept Plan for
the Plymouth Ponds Business Park, staff included a condition that stated: A
total of 292, 000 square feet in four buildings is approved. Any increase may
require preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Earlier this
year the applicant spoke to staff regarding increasing the size of building four
from 70,400 square feet to the current proposal for 110,180 square feet. Staff
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 14
asked the EQB to determine if the increased building size would require the
preparation of an EAW. The EQB staff indicated that a mandatory EAW
would not be required since the change would be to an existing industrial park.
Director Hurlburt said that staff does not support the request for an EAW.
The project site as well as the areas to the east and west have been planned for
industrial and commercial uses. The City constructed Medina Road to
standards that would support traffic projections based on these types and
intensities of uses. Staff does not believe that further traffic studies would
show an adverse impact for the proposed 30,000 square foot increment of
development. The increase in project size represents a 14 percent increase
from the original 292,000 square feet. The building coverage for the PUD is
still substantially less than the City's regulations would allow. The proposed
project is fully consistent with City plans, regulations and policies for wetlands,
water quality, parking, loading docks, building aesthetics and design and
landscaping. The project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
She stated that if an EAW is ordered, it would only apply to Building Four and
not the entire development Staff review of the project would be stopped
during the EAW process, which would take about 60 days. The Planning
Commission is still reviewing the site plans for Building Four, as well as the
PUD amendment. There are still opportunities for addressing some of the
neighborhood comxrns. Staff recommends denial of the Planning Commission
request for preparation of a discretionary EAW for Building Four of Plymouth
Ponds Business Park.
Mayor Tierney asked if staff is certain that there is no possibility that an EAW
would indicate that an EIS is warranted.
Director Hurlburt responded that the EAW would only be done on Building
Four. Even if all four buildings in the development were considered, the
project would probably not be significant enough for an EIS.
Councilmember Preus asked why the EAW would be limited to Building Four.
Director Hurlburt explained that once a building is constructed, it is exempt
from the review process under state rules.
Councilmember Preus stated that it could be perceived that the project was
initially proposed at 292,000 square feet, and later expanded to over 300,000
in order to avoid the EAW process. He asked if the Council has the discretion
to order an EAW LO -1 the entire project at this time, and what environmental
impacts are studied.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 15
Director Hurlburt said that this is one of the deficiencies that has been
identified with the State's Environmental Review Process. The Council does
not have discretion to order the EAW on the entire project - only on Building
Four. She explained that an EAW would study the environmental effects of
traffic, water, air, ground, and noise pollution.
Councilmember Black stated that the property to the west is also zoned for
industrial use. She said that the cumulative environmental effects of this
project and the property to the west should be considered.
Community Development Director Hurlburt said that staff has been working
with the petitioner on a development plan for the property to the west. One
plan under consideration was residential development of the entire property.
The petitioner is now considering industrial development. It appears that the
property to the west may not meet the mandatory EAW threshold, but there
may be good reasons to order a discretionary EAW. The property has a
complicated system of wetlands, combined with land use changes. She said
that the City Council has ordered two discretionary EAWs in the last three
years.
In response to a question by Mayor Tierney, Director Hurlburt said that the
City is allowed to initiate an area -wide environment assessment of a large area
before development. This is often done at the City's expense and can be done
in conjunction with comprehensive planning studies. She suggested that the
Council may want to consider doing an area -wide environmental assessment if
any major expansions of the urban service area are considered, rather than
considering environmental assessments on a project -by -project basis.
In response to a question by Councilmember Black, Public Works Director
Moore said that none of this project is in the Elm Creek Watershed District.
Councilmember Black asked if it may be possible to do an activity such as the
area -wide EAW under the Surface Water Management Plan.
Director Moore said that all four buildings in this development have been
required to meet City standards, and the NURP ponds have been constructed.
Councilmember Black said that the Surface Water Management Plan includes
concerns about NURP ponds having a positive effect on water quality, but a
negative effect on rate of water flow. One of her concerns is how to abate the
negative impacts, as well as how to address the piece -meal fashion in which
developments occur. She stated that developers have circumvented the
purpose and intent of the environmental review law by designing projects that
are within the minimum requirements and then expanding the project. She
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 16
wishes that an EAW could be done on this entire development and was not
restricted to Buildii,g Four.
Councilmember Preus said it is his understanding that in order for the Council
to decide to require an EAW, there needs to be a potential for significant
environmental effects. He asked if the Planning Commission presented any
evidence of these impacts.
Director Hurlburt said that general concerns were raised that an additional
40,000 square feet of building may have an impact on traffic. However, the
project currently meets all City standards for water quality, and the NURP
ponds have already been built. She said that the Planning Commission heard
the concerns of area residents. The Commission believes that if the project had
initially been proposed as over 300,000 square feet, an EAW would have been
done.
Mayor Tierney asked if staff is saying that traffic is not an issue with this
development because Medina Road was designed to handle this amount of
traffic.
Director Hurlburt said that planning and engineering staff are in agreement on
that.
Laurie Jones, 3430 Jewel Lane North, stated she lives in the neighborhood
across from Building One. When the project was initiated, there was
discussion about the site being only 8,000 square feet short of the 300,000
square foot area which would have required a mandatory EAW. She said that
the City's Senior Planner suggested to the developer that he keep the project
under 300,000 square feet. Now the developer proposes to increase the
project by 40,000 square feet. She said that the EPA is looking at changing
their guidelines to address these types of situations. City staff believes that
because the property was guided for industrial and commercial use, it doesn't
need an EAW. She disagrees because of the proximity to other land uses.
Although staff indicated that the project is consistent with City requirements,
there are some issues that have not yet been upheld.
Ms. Jones said the NURP ponds are in place and are working; however, the
side slopes are not graded according to the city standards. She learned that
there was no shelf on the NURP ponds, and two of the ponds were constructed
after the discovery flat the first two ponds did not comply with the
requirements. She said that if the required shelf is now installed, the required
amount of volume won't be met. Ms. Jones said the site doesn't comply with
water quality and safety issues, or with the number of allowable docks. The
approving resolution indicated that the City would allow (between Buildings 1
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 17
and 2) a total of 20 truck docks with 16 in use at any one time. She said there
are actually 22 docks, with 19 operational. The two docks for Planet Spirit in
Building One are not operational. She said that the exterior waste containers
are supposed to be inside the building. They are all outside and very full with
contents leaking and going into the NURP ponds. She stated that the lights on
Building Two glare into the adjacent homes. The developer has made an
attempt to address the lighting, but it is not sufficient. She said that the Zoning
Ordinance states that any light used for exterior illumination shall not go
beyond the property line. She encouraged the Council to require an EAW,
based on the history with Buildings 1 and 2. She stated that the EAW should
address traffic, lighting, and NURP pond issues.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that the issues of shelves on the NURP
ponds, waste containers, and truck docks were conditions of approval on the
original project, but are not of issue for this EAW request.
Community Development Director Hurlburt stated that the petitioner is in
compliance with the truck dock requirements. It is difficult to cite anything
with respect to the first two buildings on which to base a recommendation for
an EAW on the fourth building. She said that staff would like more
information on the waste container and NURP pond concerns.
Attorney Knutson concurred that the EAW would only address these issues on
the building proposed for construction.
Councilmember Black asked if it was not a requirement of the original
development that the dumpsters be located in a containment area.
Director Hurlburt said that screening is required. She was not aware that this
was a concern with the neighborhood. Staff will check on the complaint.
Steve Frangier, 3445 Holly Lane North, stated that the core problem with this
problem is the City's weak, outdated Zoning Ordinance. He spoke in favor of
ordering an EAW because he feels strongly that it should have been done on
the initial 292,000 square foot project. He stated that the EQB is in the
process of changing their regulations so that a project of this type completed
over several years would have to be considered in its entirety, and an EAW
would be required. He said that the petitioner has violated the intent of the
law, and this is an opportunity for the City to stop the project and determine
the impacts on the neighborhood. He asked why the Council is reluctant to
order an EAW. If the Council does not order an EAW, then some action
should be taken to stop development of this project until the new Zoning
Ordinance is adopted. Mr. Frangier said he was informed that the proposed
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 18
building will be constructed to lesser standards than the first three buildings
because it will not abut residential property.
Director Hurlburt explained that staff does not routinely recommend EAWs
unless there is something new that the planning process does not address. This
project has to comply with the wetland ordinance and NURP pond
requirements, and the infrastructure is well-defined. She said that the staff is
not convinced that there is more to learn through an EAW that has not already
been addressed. However, the Council has the option of ordering an EAW if
they feel it is warranted. She said that the deadline for City action on the
development request is November 14. An EAW would take an additional 60
days. Even if a new Zoning Ordinance is adopted by that time, she is uncertain
how it would impact this proposed project. She stated it is unlikely that it
would change the Building Four structure, but it could change the uses that are
allowed in Building Four. She explained that there is currently one industrial
zoning classification. Under the new Zoning Ordinance, six industrial
classifications are proposed that range from heavy industrial to
warehouse/trucking, to light industrial. There will be greater distinction
between the districts and the allowable uses in the districts. Staff will be
recommending that similar industrial property in the City that abuts residential
property be zoned as a light industrial classification.
Councilmember Black asked staff to address the resident's comment that
Building Four would not be held to the same standards as the previous three
buildings.
Director Hurlburt said that screening from the residential area would not be an
issue.
Daniel McCarthy, 3455 Holly Lane, supported the Planning Commission's
request for an EAW. He said the Planning Commission acted prudently in
response to the neighborhood concerns brought before them. He has had
several councilmembers question why citizens are pushing for an EAW on this
project. He believes that the EAW is necessary because of the commitments
that were made to area residents when the project was originally introduced.
He said that a staff memo dated May 8, 1995, that was presented to the City
Council stated that although an EAW is not required, the size is close enough
to the threshold, and the Council was encouraged to use discretionary
authority in considering an EAW. Staff indicated there were no site
characteristics that would justify a recommendation for an EAW. He said that
a recommended condition of approval was that should the plans be revised to
indicate a building area of over 300,000 square feet, an EAW would be
required. He said that this commitment was made to residents.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 19
Mr. McCarthy believes that the size of this project warrants an EAW, and he
believes it meets the definition of a Phased Act whereby the City has the
discretionary authority to consider the phased action when two or more
projects are undertaken in the same area by the same proposer. He suggested
that the EAW should not be limited to Building Four because the law allows
the City to look at the project as a whole. The purpose of an EAW is to
comprehensively consider the potential impacts of a project. He indicated that
it appears people have drawn conclusions about this project without doing an
assessment. The purpose of an assessment is to determine potential risks. He
believes there are potential risks with respect to the project including
compatibility with nearby land uses, abandoned storage tanks, wildlife,
wetlands, nature of soils, erosion, and whether there are solid or hazardous
wastes on or near the site. This site is adjacent to a large agricultural property.
He said that the EAW would also focus on air quality, visual impact, and noise
issues. State officials have indicated to him in a letter that the City would have
discretion to issue an EAW on the entire project.
Councilmember Preus questioned Mr. McCarthy's interpretation that the City
could order an EAW on the entire project. He noted that the letter from the
State, referenced by Mr. McCarthy, indicates that the City could issue a
discretionary EAW on the "final phase" of the project.
Mr. McCarthy stated he believes that the letter indicates that if the City has
concerns about the cumulative size of the project exceeding the EAW
threshold, the City could order an EAW on the entire project.
Attorney Knutson stated that once final approval has been given and a building
has been constructed, the EAW process cannot be invoked. There is no right
to require an EAW on the first three buildings in this project.
Mr. McCarthy asked if the City Attorney is familiar with the "phased action"
provisions and whether that would apply to this project.
Attorney Knutson said he is familiar with "phased action" provisions, but that
would only apply at the beginning of a project, not after buildings are
constructed. The rules are clear that once final government approval for a
project has been granted and the building is constructed, an EAW cannot be
required.
Councilmember Preus asked for clarification on Mr. McCarthy's comments
that there may be storage tanks and hazardous waste on the Building Four site.
Mr. McCarthy said that an EAW should be done because he does not have
accurate information regarding issues of storage tanks and hazardous waste.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 20
The purpose of an EAW is to gather facts and discuss them in an open forum.
He has heard from another resident that one of the developers indicated there
are capped wells on the site.
Mayor Tierney called a five minute break.
Harry Lindberg, 3435 Holly Lane, stated that 1'/z years ago during the initial
consideration of the project, staff indicated there were no site characteristics to
recommend that a EAW be conducted. However, the residents received a
commitment that should a revised plan be submitted, an EAW would be done.
Mr. Lindberg said the developer has the option of building their original
proposal within the 300,000 square feet. If the project is proposed beyond
that, an EAW should be required.
Councilmember Preus asked how the commitment was made that an EAW
would be required if the project were expanded beyond 300,000 square feet.
Mr. Lindberg said that this was a recommended condition in the staff's agenda
report dated May 16, 1995.
Greg Katchmark, 3475 Holly Lane, supported the Planning Commission
request for an EAW due to the change in the previously approved plan. He
said there are old wells on the property and several EPA wells have been
checked for a number of years. He would like the City to check the potential
hazards, and believes that an EAW should address issues of dust, noise, and
odors during the construction. Mr. Katchmark said that lighting and noise
from the industrial use needs to be addressed, as well as 24-hour per day
operations. He cited an example of a liquor warehouse truck with refrigerator
units running overnight. He believes that the visual impact of the project
should be considered. His home faces Building Two, and it previously faced
40 mature pines. The project has had an environmental effect on the
neighborhood. He said that the developer is negotiating to purchase additional
property and plans to extend the road. That would affect the Heather Run and
Seven Ponds developments.
Susan Rugh, 3440 Jewel Lane, believes that the current situation is intolerable
due to noise, light, and diesel fuel. She believes there are deficiencies in the
Zoning Ordinance and in the ability of the City to enforce its regulations. She
said that staff has stated they were unaware of the problems and have failed to
regulate ponds, refuse, and truck docks. Ms. Rugh said that residents have
alerted the City to these problems, and have not been satisfied with the
response. She believes that the actions taken by the Council have adversely
affected the quality of life for the adjacent residential area, and that remedies
can and should be made. She expects the City to protect her investment in her
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 21
home, as well as protect her health and children. She considers this a legal and
moral issue.
Mayor Tierney asked what can be seen from the Rugh property.
Ms. Rugh said she can see the refuse and the glare from lights at night.
In response to a question from Mayor Tierney, Attorney Knutson stated that
virtually the sole function of an EAW is to determine whether an EIS should be
prepared.
Brad Moen, 625 Navaho Road, represented Plymouth Ponds Business Park.
He said that photographs presented by residents show construction dumpsters
used by tenants, not garbage dumpsters. Building Two is now completely
occupied and the dumpsters are no longer there. He noted that the pictures
were taken from the top of the berm across the road. He said that the road
alignment into Holly Lane was a fixed condition in the project approval, which
made it difficult for residents to the south. The project included wetland
mitigation on the site at a 2:1 ratio. Prior to the project, there were degraded
wetlands. The NURP ponds were designed and constructed, and slopes are as
approved. The project complies with wetland and ponding requirements. He
said the wetland is already doing well after only one year. The project is under
the maximum 35 percent lot coverage on the site, and there is about 25 percent
less building on the site because of the wetlands, roadways, and setbacks. Mr.
Moen said that there are paper containers outside of the buildings, and they are
working with the tenants to correct that.
Mr. Moen said that either shields were installed on all lights or they point
downward. The street lights on Medina Road emit more light than the site
lights. Mr. Moen explained that originally a corporate client was interested in
this site; therefore, they created an outlot that wasn't included in the project
phasing. He didn't expect the project phasing to move so fast, and there was
no intent to plan the project at less than 300,000 square feet and later expand
it. He said that Building Four will be constructed on the former outlot site,
and they were unsure whether it would be sold or combined with the original
property. Mr. Moen explained that there was a previous foreclosure action on
the site and the wells were thoroughly inspected. Norwest Bank found a small
gas tank that had leaked. The MPCA tested for the leak. Test wells were
installed and checked for two years. The property was indemnified by Norwest
Bank for this, and the site has been cleaned up. He stated it is now a clean,
safe site. He has tried to work with the residents and has installed berms,
added trees, and installed right -turn lanes. He believes that the majority of
traffic is truck traffic due to construction and not tenant traffic. The dock
requirements are being complied with, and the Planet Spirit dock will be
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 22
closed. Mr. Moen believes that the State rules on EAWs classify the threshold
for a mandatory EAW in a Class 2 City as 450,000 square feet, rather than
300,000 square feet.
Director Hurlburt stated that the interpretation of the 300,000 square feet
requirement for an EAW is also in the EQB rules.
Mr. Moen said a number of things have been done for the neighborhood: paid
for park trail, installed roof units toward the rear of the building for natural
screening, provided right -in and right -out turn lanes, spoke to tenants about
keeping truck and operation noise to a minimum at night, met with residents to
communicate needs and problems, moved a crane when a resident said it would
bother them for a weekend party. Mr. Moen said he has had various
complaints from tenants about neighborhood residents putting yard waste in
tenant dumpsters, and he has remunerated tenants for expenses. He said this is
a clean industrial site. The ponds are clean, wetlands are operational, slopes
have been staked, engineered and approved. He stands willing to hold ongoing
meetings with the City and residents to address their issues.
Mike Leuer, 1522 Medina Road, represented Plymouth Ponds Business Park.
He questioned the requirements of the EAW, as he believes that the threshold
for a mandatory EAW is 450,000.
Director Hurlburt explained that at the time the project was initially proposed,
no tenants were known and any type of industry could have been proposed.
Staff considered the State criteria and the Zoning Ordinance requirements, and
used the more stringent standards, given that the City could not ensure that the
buildings would be used for light industrial.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that the City has used the 300,000 square
foot figure since the proposal was initially considered. He asked if the
petitioner would agree, as a condition of the site plan approval, that the use of
the building would be for light industrial only.
Mr. Leuer said he would need a definition of light industrial, but would
consider it.
Councilmember Black explained that a light industrial facility would have a
primary function other than manufacturing and employ less than 500 persons.
Mr. Leuer said they would currently qualify as light industrial, but would not
want to commit to a restriction without further study.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 23
Councilmember Preus stated that several residents read sections of a 1995 staff
memo indicating that an EAW would be required if the project were to exceed
300,000 square feet in the future. He said this is different wording than the
current staff memo.
Community Development Director Hurlburt said that the quote was from a
section of the report on the Planning Commission recommendation. The
resolution adopted by the City Council for initial approval of the project said
may require an EAW'. She said that at the time of preliminary site approval,
final plan approval had not been given. If the developer had made a proposal
for a plan larger than 300,000 square feet prior to the City Council's final
approval, the Council could have ordered an EAW on the entire project.
Motion was made by Councilmember Black, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to approve the Planning Commission's request for a discretionary
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Plymouth Ponds Business Park
Building Four.
Councilmember Anderson stated he is the Ward Councilmember for this area.
He has spoken with the developer and neighbors, and has received a letter from
the President of the Seven Ponds Homeowner Association. In light of the
complexity of the issues raised, he suggested that action be tabled in order that
a meeting with the developer, neighbors, staff, and Council representatives can
be held to try to develop a solution. He explained that many of the issues
raised relate to neighbors getting along, and specifically, the boundary
separating the industrial and residential areas. He is concerned that if the
Council takes action, not all problems will be resolved.
Motion was made by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Councilmember
Wold, to table the issue until Tuesday, September 10, at 8:00 p.m. This
Council meeting would be preceded by an informal neighborhood/developer
information meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmember Black stated that she would appreciate the opportunity to meet
with the neighborhood, but cannot attend that meeting.
Councilmember Wold spoke in favor of the motion. He supports a meeting to
attempt to resolve concerns of the neighborhood. He reminded residents that
an EAW would only determine whether an EIS is warranted, and would
probably not resolve issues of concern. Councilmember Wold said he had
voted against the original project approval, but now admits that Moen-Leuer
has made efforts to work with the neighborhood. He believes that an
agreement can be r,lched.
Regular Council Meeting
September 4, 1996
Page 24
Councilmember Black said some of the issues with this project are similar to
the problems of lights and noise in her ward where commercial property abuts
residential property. She looks forward to hearing how the new Zoning
Ordinance may address those concerns, and she hopes that the issues of
lighting and noise can be resolved in this project.
Councilmember Granath supported the motion for tabling of the issue. He
encouraged residents and the developer to participate in the meeting.
Motion was made by Mayor Tierney, seconded by Councilmember Preus, to suspend the
rules and extend the adjournment time to 10:10 p.m. Motion carried, seven ayes.
Mr. McCarthy asked that the issue be tabled to a meeting at which the full
Council would be present. He said that Councilmember Black is sensitive to
their concerns and has expertise on environmental issues. He would like her to
be present.
Motion to table carried, seven ayes.
Councilmember Lymangood directed staff to investigate the issues raised by
residents and report back to the City Council on September 10.
Item 9-A Update on County Road 9
Councilmember Anderson requested an update on County Road 9
construction, including the new section west of Vicksburg Lane to Highway
55. He has noticed that the majority of trees bordering the road are dead or
broken.
Public Works Director Moore reported that the construction is on schedule,
with the road opening to traffic in mid-November. He said that the City
Forester is aware that a number of trees were broken during a recent
windstorm.
Councilmember Anderson requested a report from the City Forester on funding
and replacement.
Motion was made by Councilmember Preus, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to
adjourn the meeting at 10:07 p.m. Motion carried: five ayes; Wold and Anderson nays.
City Clerk