Loading...
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