HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 06-20-1995MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 20, 1995
A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Center, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., on June 20,
1995.
COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney; Councilmembers Edson, Wold, Lymangood,
Helliwell, and Granath.
ABSENT: Councilmember Anderson.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant Manager Lueckert, Community
Development Director Hurlburt, Public Works Director Moore, Public Safety Director
Gerdes, Finance Director Hahn, Park and Recreation Director Blank, Assistant Finance
Director Jacobson, Building Official Ryan, IMS Manager Birnbaum, City Attorney
Knutson, and City Clerk Ahrens.
ITEM 3 PLYMOUTH FORUM
No one appeared for the Plymouth Forum.
ITEM 4-A MUSIC IN PLYMOUTH
Park and Recreation Director Blank announced that Music in Plymouth will begin
at 5:30 p.m. on July 6. He described the planned entertainment and events.
ITEM 4-B RECOGNITION OF CITY VOLUNTEERS
Mayor Tierney announced that this item has been postponed until July.
ITEM 5 APPROVE AGENDA
MOTION was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember
Edson, to approve the agenda.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6 CONSENT AGENDA
The minutes of the May 24 Special Council Meeting were removed from Consent
Agenda Item 6-A. Items 6-G, 6-I, and 6-K were also removed from the Consent
Agenda.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 2
Councilmember Wold requested that an abstention be recorded for his vote on
Item 6 -AA due to a possible conflict of interest.
Councilmember Lymangood requested that a "nay" vote be recorded for him on
Item 6 -DD.
Manager Johnson stated that a revised sump pump ordinance has been distributed
at this meeting for Item 6-0; however, the item remained on the Consent Agenda.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-A APPROVE MINUTES
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to approve the minutes of the May 16 and June 6 regular council
meetings.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-11 APPROVE DISBURSEMENTS
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-339 APPROVING DISBURSEMENTS
FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 9,1995.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-C RENEW 3.2 LIQUOR LICENSES
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-340 APPROVAL OF ON -SALE AND
OFF -SALE 3.2 LIQUOR LICENSES.
Motion carried, six ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 3
ITEM 6-D LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPTION
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-341 FINDING NO OBJECTION TO
LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPTION FOR WEST SUBURBAN
CHAPTER/1VIINNESOTA DEER HUNTERS ASSOCIATION.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-E FEDERAL DUCK STAMP WINNER
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-342 HONORING HIM HAUTMAN.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-F SET SALE DATE FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR
OPEN SPACE
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-343 PROVIDING FOR THE
COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $2,235,000 GENERAL
OBLIGATION OPEN SPACE BONDS, SERIES 1995A.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-H AUTHORIZE TRAIL FEASIBILITY REPORTS
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-344 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION
OF FEASIBILITY REPORTS ON TRAIL SEGMENTS.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-J APPROVE SAFETY FENCING AT BALLFIELDS
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-345 APPROVING SAFETY FENCING
AT BASEBALL FIELDS.
Motion carried, six ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 4
ITEM 6-L ESTABLISH SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETINGS
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-346 ESTABLISHING SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR JULY 11 AND JULY 18.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-M INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
RECOMMENDATIONS
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-347 PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT
UNISYS A -SERIES COMPUTER SYSTEM.
Motion carried, six ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-348 JOIN LOGIS AS AN
ASSOCIATE.
Motion carried, six ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-349 PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL
DATA NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY.
Motion carried, six ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-350 ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS - ENHANCE CITY'S PHYSICAL DATA NETWORK.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-N CONTRACT FOR SUMP PUMP INSPECTION PROGRAM
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-351 AWARDING THE CONTRACT
TO MSA CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR SUMP PUMP EDUCATION
AND INSPECTION PROGRAM.
Motion carried, six ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 5
ITEM 6-0 SUMP PUMP ORDINANCE
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt ORDINANCE 95-36 AMENDING CHAPTER VII OF
THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE CONCERNING DISCHARGE INTO THE
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-P HOYT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-352 GIVING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL TO A PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN AND PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC
HEARING NOTICES THEREFOR
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-0 REQUEST HENNEPIN COUNTY TO CONDUCT STUDY OF
COUNTY ROAD 101/MEDINA ROAD INTERSECTION
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-353 REQUESTING HENNEPIN
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO CONDUCT A
TRAFFIC STUDY OF COUNTY ROAD 101/MEDINA ROAD
INTERSECTION FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL OR FOUR-WAY WARRANTS.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-R RECEIVE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT AND ORDER
HEARING FOR PEONY LANE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 502
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-354 RECEIVING REPORT AND
CALLING FOR HEARING ON IMPROVEMENTS, PEONY LANE FROM
HIGHWAY 55 TO WAYZATA HIGH SCHOOL NORTH PROPERTY
LINE, CITY PROJECT NO. 502.
Motion carried, six ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 6
ITEM 6-S ORDER PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR 12TH
AVENUE/NORTH FERNDALE IMPROVEMENTS. PROJECT 523
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-355 RECEIVING PETITION AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PRELIMINARY REPORT, 12TH
AVENUE AND ADJACENT AREA, STREET AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 523.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-T INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-356 INSTALLATION OF VARIOUS
STOP SIGNS.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-U AWARD CONTRACT FOR 1995 SEAL COAT PROGRAM
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-357 AWARDING BID, 1995 SEAL
COAT PROGRAM.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-V PURCHASE OF MULTI-PURPOSE TRUCK
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-358 APPROVAL OF ONE MULTI-
PURPOSE TRACTOR
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-W DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BOND REDUCTIONS
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-359 REDUCING DEVELOPMENT
BOND, GREENWOOD PONDS ADDITION (91057).
Motion carried, six ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 7
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-360 REDUCING DEVELOPMENT
BOND, SAVANNAH ADDITION (93112).
Motion carried, six ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-361 REDUCING REQUIRED
FINANCIAL GUARANTEE, FERNBROOK WOODS 2ND ADDITION
94018).
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-X MOEN/LEUER CONSTRUCTION. PUD FINAL PLAN/PLAT (95005)
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-362 APPROVING MPUD FINAL
PLAN/PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR MOEN LEUER
CONSTRUCTION INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF CO. RD. 24 AND MEDINA ROAD (MPUD
91-1) (95005).
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-Y AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT CONDITIONS,
SUGAR HILLS 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS (95068)
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-363 AMENDING CONDITION AND
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT ITEMS TO BE MET FOR MPUD 92-1
SUGAR HILLS 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS PROPERTY LOCATED
SOUTH OF NEW COUNTY ROAD 9 AND WEST OF VICKSBURG LANE
95068).
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-Z JANCO INC. REZONING FOR ROCKFORD GLEN (94155)
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt ORDINANCE 95-37 AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OLD ROCKFORD ROAD (CO. RD. 9) AND
PEONY LANE NORTH (94155).
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 8
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6 -AA CARLSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY INC. SITE PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE TILE SHOP (95069)
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-364 APPROVING SITE PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR CARLSON REAL ESTATE COMPANY INC. FOR
THE TILE SHOP, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
CARLSON PARKWAY AND I-494 (95069).
Motion carried, five ayes; Wold abstained.
ITEM 6 -BB LEONARD ZEMKE. LOT DIVISION AT 4395 JUNEAU LANE
95038
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-365 APPROVING LOT DIVISION
FOR LEONARD ZEMKE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4395 JUNEAU
LANE NORTH (95038).
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6 -CC CREEKSIDE OF PLYMOUTH. CONSTRUCTION OF DECKS IN
COMMON OPEN AREA (95060)
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-366 AMENDING RESOLUTION 85-
289 RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF DECKS AT CREEKSIDE
OF PLYMOUTH, LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 9 AND EAST
OF PLYMOUTH CREEK (95060).
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6 -DD REISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE BONDS FOR PARKSIDE APARTMENTS
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-367 ESTABLISHING THE DATE
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AND GIVING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL TO A HOUSING BOND PROGRAM FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF REFUNDING BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING
9,500,000; AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 9
Motion carried, five ayes; Lymangood nay.
ITEM 6 -EE SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
RELEASES
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-368 RELEASING SITE
IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, RYAN
COMPANIES/WALGREENS.
Motion carried, six ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-369 RELEASING SITE
IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE, PRIME BUILDERS,
INC./PLYMOUTH GREEN VILLAS (93091).
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 7-A VACATION OF EASEMENTS IN HEMLOCK LANE ADDITION
Public Works Director Moore presented the staff report on the request for
vacation of drainage and utility easements in Lot 2, Block 1, Hemlock Lane
Addition.
Mayor Tierney opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. No one appeared, and the
hearing was closed.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-370 AUTHORIZING THE
VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN LOT 2,
BLOCK 1, HEMLOCK LANE ADDITION.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 8-A SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, 1994 STREET RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECT, 25TH AVENUE AND VICKSBURG LANE, PROJECT 401
Public Works Director Moore stated that on April 4, 1995, the City Council held
the public hearing on the proposed final assessments for the 1994 Street
Reconstruction Program. At that hearing, six property owners spoke concerning
the special assessments on the Vicksburg Lane portion of the project and three
property owners spoke concerning the 25th Avenue portion of the project. The
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 10
City Council adopted the special assessments with the exception of those for
Vicksburg Lane and 25th Avenue.
Director Moore stated that Vicksburg Lane was constructed as a rural type
roadway in 1980. The portion of the roadway which was improved as part of the
project from Schmidt Lake Road to County Road 47 is still not within the City's
urban service area; and therefore, urban development is not permitted. The
Preliminary Engineering Report on the Vicksburg Lane improvements indicate that
At this time, repair of Vicksburg Lane is necessary, but with future improvements
unknown, it is proposed to provide short term improvement as a cost effective
approach."
He stated that the City's Street Reconstruction Program is based on the
recommendation that when streets are reconstructed it will extend their life for
another 20 years. This was not done with Vicksburg Lane. The projected
extension of the life of the roadway without additional reconstruction is ten years.
Since reconstruction was not done to extend the roadway life for an additional 20
years, it is recommended that there be no special assessments on Vicksburg Lane
for street reconstruction as part of the 1994 Project.
Director Moore stated that the major objection to the 25th Avenue project relates
to the assessment for the concrete curb and gutter. Previous to the reconstruction
of the street there was no concrete curb and gutter. The addition of the concrete
curb and gutter had extensive discussion at the public improvement hearing in
1993 and although the property owners objected to its installation, the Council
ordered it as part of the project. Concrete curbing improves drainage on the street
and provides a clearly defined edge of the roadway for vehicles which enhances
safety.
He stated that because of concerns expressed by the property owners on 25th
Avenue at the public improvement hearing, the City had an appraiser review the
street and the adjacent properties before the reconstruction. The appraiser was
also requested to review the project after construction and give an opinion on
benefit to the properties. The appraiser cannot give an opinion on each individual
parcel since he was not doing an appraisal for the specific properties, but can give
his general opinion on the overall benefit likely to the single family property. His
opinion is that there is likely an increase in value because ofthe improvement in
the amount of approximately $4,000. The proposed assessments are less than half
this amount.
Councilmember Helliwell asked if residents on 25th Avenue and on Vicksburg
Lane have been notified of the staff recommendation.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 11
Public Works Director Moore responded that all people who spoke at the April 4
public hearing were notified of the staff recommendation and Council
consideration at this meeting. All affected property owners will receive notice of
the Council's final action on the assessments.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-371 DELETING PENDING
ASSESSMENTS, 1994 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM,
VICKSBURG LANE, CITY PROJECT NO. 401.
Motion carried, five ayes; Wold nay.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Edson, seconded by Mayor Tierney, to
adopt RESOLUTION 95-372 ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS, CITY
PROJECT NO. 401, 1994 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM,
SINGLE FAMILY/25TH AVENUE.
Motion carried, five ayes; Wold nay.
Mayor Tierney stated that the City is continuing to work on traffic control issues in
the 25th Avenue area.
ITEM 8-B RYAN CONSTRUCTION CO. TCF BANK (95045)
Community Development Director Hurlburt presented the staff report on the
request of Ryan Construction Company for amended Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plan, PUD Final Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Lot Division
for TCF Bank located northwest of the intersection of Vinewood Lane North and
County Road 9 (95045). She said a similar application made in 1994 was denied
by the City Council. This application has been recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission following a public hearing on May 24, 1995.
She explained that the proposal is for a 4,400 square foot bank addition on the east
side of the existing Target store, and for construction of six drive-through lanes for
the bank. An additional 22 parking spaces are proposed to be constructed on the
north side of the parcel. An ATM machine will be located between the driveway
and Vinewood Lane. Traffic would enter from the northerly portion of the site
and exit to the front of the Target Store, with the teller on the passenger side of
vehicles.
The main differences between this application and the 1994 application are a
currently proposed 6' high, 180' long screen wall located on the north side of the
drive aisle to screen the residential area to the north from the headlights of turning
traffic. The ATM and the drive-through lanes have been moved further to the
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 12
south. The plan has also been slightly amended to meet the setback requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance. She said there have been some ordinance changes that
affect this application since the Council considered the application in 1994.
Director Hurlburt stated that a letter was received from Peter Coyle representing
Ryan Companies requesting approval of the request. She commented on several
items contained in that letter. She said that Mr. Coyle believes the application
meets the PUD and conditional use permit standards in the Ordinance and takes
issue with staff review and interpretation. She said that Mr. Coyle indicates the
City may have erred in interpreting its Comprehensive Plan when the residential
development to the north - Plymouth Pointe - was approved. She stated that the
City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that single family homes are consistent with
the Plan in an LA -3 area in a PUD.
She said that another major issue outlined in Mr. Coyle's letter is the City's
ordinance requiring a setback for drive-through lanes. She said that the City
Council briefly had a moratorium on drive-through lanes and loading docks while
studying the ordinance requirements. There were a number of issues that arose
giving the City concern about the proximity of these types of vehicle intensive,
noisy commercial operations when they were adjacent to residential areas. Mr.
Coyle's letter indicates that they believe this ordinance was developed without
much consideration and was directed at this project. She said that at the time this
ordinance was adopted, the City had two other applications toward which it
applied. This TCF application had not yet been submitted.
Director Hurlburt said that Mr. Coyle also indicates that this proposal is consistent
with the new ordinance which requires a 300' setback between all portions of a
drive-through business and residential zoning district. She showed a map of the
site and indicated that all of the driveway access to the bank and all of the parking
required for the bank is within the 300' setback. Staff also found that the queuing
spaces would overlap into the 300' setback area. The applicant disagrees with that
interpretation, finding that the staff used too large a space for queuing. She said
that staff relied on the Institute of Transportation Engineers for determining
vehicle length for stacking distances. She said that Mr. Coyle's letter further states
that the Ordinance is ambiguous and that the term "all portions of the drive-
through business" does not include parking or the drive-through lanes. Staff does
not find the Ordinance ambiguous, and believes that all portions of this business
would include the required parking, all areas to get to the drive-through lanes, and
the drive-through lanes. Staff believes that the drive-through area is an integral
part of this business and not an accessory use for this business.
She stated that while the concerns about aesthetics, traffic lights, traffic confusion
at the site entrance, buffering, and landscaping are valid, the main issues for the
recommendation of denial are that the application does not meet the 300' setback
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 13
requirement, and that a property line would be created between the Target store
and the drive-through bank facility. A lot division application is part of this
proposal. She said that the creation of a lot line along the Target wall would result
in the Target building no longer conforming to the Uniform Building Code. While
there is some flexibility permitted to cities in interpreting these types of cases,
clearly the application shows the property line. She stated this would make the
Target Store incompatible with the Uniform Building Code. She said a letter is
included in the staff report from the City's Code enforcement officer with regard to
this issue.
Director Hurlburt recommended that the Council direct the City Attorney to
prepare findings of fact to deny this request for consideration at the next regular
meeting.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that the traffic consultant found no particular
problem with the traffic flow. He asked when that study was conducted.
City Manager Johnson said recent traffic counts were done on a weekday night at
about 5:30 p.m. There was a previous traffic study done on Vinewood Lane.
Mayor Tierney asked that if a drive-through were approved by the Council, could
it be converted to a different commercial use without further approval of the City.
Director Hurlburt said the City's Ordinance does not distinguish between the type
of business. She said it would depend on the type of business. Certain types of
restaurants would require a conditional use permit, but many other business uses
would be permitted and could be converted with no further City action.
Attorney Knutson stated that a permitted use under the Zoning Ordinance could
just move in and utilize the drive-through with no further approvals. Some uses
would require a conditional use permit and would need further approvals.
Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman Daly and Lindgren, represented Ryan Companies and
TCF Financial Corporation.
Councilmember Lymangood stated he is interested in hearing any new information
since the Planning Commission presentation.
Mr. Coyle introduced representatives of TCF, as well as Architect Greg Madsen,
900 2nd Avenue S., Minneapolis, representing Ryan Companies/TCF and an
engineer from Westwood Engineering. Mr. Coyle stated that drive-through
ordinance and Uniform Building Code issues were raised by staff, although they
were not raised in the 1994 application. He said that there was concern about
aesthetics and lighting with the 1994 application. Those issues have not been
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 14
raised as the basis for the objection to the proposal. He said that now the reasons
for objection have changed to a setback problem and Uniform Building Code
problem - none of which were discussed in the 1994 application.
He stated that the property is guided for neighborhood commercial. There is a
PUD on the property with underlying CR -2B-2 zoning (retail). He said that if this
was a straight bank use, it would be a permitted use under the PUD. The site is
approved for 15,123 square foot of retail use, with an allocation of daily traffic of
1,075 trips.
Councilmember Lymangood asked how the traffic allocation is determined. And,
if traffic is under the allocated amount, could another facility be added.
Mr. Coyle responded that the traffic consultant has made a finding that there is
available traffic under the approved PUD, based on the existing uses and
incrementally reducing the available traffic by the traffic flow allocated to those
uses. The traffic consultant also found that the TCF proposal would have no
impact, due to the fact that the existing uses in the PUD are generating
substantially less traffic capacity than is allocated. Traffic is not an issue based on
the findings of the City's traffic consultant and the consultant retained by Ryan.
Mr. Coyle said that the process used to approve Plymouth Pointe, the residential
area to the north, is similar to the process requested by Ryan Companies/TCF in
this application. That is, to apply the flexibility provisions of the PUD Ordinance
just as was done with the approval of Plymouth Pointe in 1992, by allowing a
single family detached housing project on this property. He said that the staff
report for that action indicated that only duplex, townhouse, and apartment
dwelling unit types are permitted in this R-3 zone. The staff report further noted
that the applicant was seeking a dimensional standard variance for the length of the
cul-de-sac, which was additional flexibility sought by the applicant. He said there
were recommendations that the Plymouth Pointe proposal as submitted was
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, including the PUD area to the
south. In addition, the Council approved and acknowledged the flexibility requests
relating to the site design. The City Council found there was a positive
relationship between land uses in the area. Specifically, the Council approved a 6'
side yard setback and a 30' front yard setback even though those setbacks had not
been previously approved for single family planned unit developments. At the
Planning Commission hearing, the need for flexibility with smaller setbacks was
questioned. The response was that the developer wanted more space to build
larger three -car garages on single family homes. The developer of Plymouth
Pointe knew there was a large PUD development to the south, and the property
owners knew there was a large PUD property to the south and they acknowledged
there would be a commercial proposal on the property.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 15
He stated that the Planning Commission, staff, and technical consultants supported
the 1994 TCF proposal. The neighborhood opposed the request. He said the staff
recommendation was changed to denial as of June 20, 1995.
Greg Madsen, Ryan Companies, described the site plan changes that have been
made based on the comments from the Planning Commission, Council, and
neighbors over the last few months. Mr. Madsen said that since the previous
application, they have added a 180' long, 6' high screen wall at the northerly edge
of the property to alleviate some of the noise and light issues. The canopy has
been shifted south to move traffic further south on the site and to remove it from
the 300' setback area. A monument sign has been moved further north on the site
to help bring traffic into the site. Additional landscaping has been added at the
screen wall and to the north side of the screen wall. He said they will work with
the neighbors to get the exact landscaping placement. No additional site lighting is
proposed.
He showed a computer aided visual showing vehicles going through the site,
focusing on the actual lighting levels that would occur. He said that vehicle
lighting will not affect the neighborhood whatsoever, and the screen wall will aid in
reducing the existing noise levels. He noted that with a 6' high screen wall, no
light will be transferred into the neighborhood.
Mr. Madsen stated that he has had numerous meetings with the City staff. In his
professional judgment, confirmed with the City Building Official, the proposed
TCF Bank with the zero lot line satisfies the intent of Chapter 5 of the Uniform
Building Code. He said that a 65' side yard will be maintained around the entire
site and the fire access will not be obstructed. There will be a four-hour separation
wall between the existing Target and the proposed TCF. With the separation wall,
the Uniform Building Code allows area increases, which this proposal is within.
He said that the proposed lot line between Target and TCF is similar to a lease line
and he feels the building should be considered as one building. Therefore, the 65'
distance completely surrounding the building would be adequate under the
Uniform Building Code. He said that they had specific direction from City staff to
design the project this way, and that the four-hour separation wall would meet the
Code. Mr. Madsen noted that the proposed separation wall is similar to the
common wall previously approved by the City between T J Maxx and Drug
Emporium. There is a property line that separates those two properties; however,
that issue was waived by the City's Building Inspector when the permit for the
original Rockford Road facility was obtained. He stated that staff indicated that
this was allowable because there are separation walls placed between the tenants of
the structure. He said that these separation walls are not fire separation walls. Mr.
Madsen said that the zero lot line proposed for TCF/Target is the same situation
that was previously waived by the City for T J Maxx and Drug Emporium.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 16
Mr. Madsen stated that the Uniform Building Code provides that the local building
official can waive the required 60' separation and has the legal right to waive many
provisions of the Uniform Building Code, as long as the Building Official feels the
intent of the Code has been met. Mr. Madsen stated that the City's Code
consultant, Duane Grace, confirmed this. He said that this information on the
Uniform Building Code was not raised in prior Council meetings, Planning
Commission meetings, or meetings with staff.
Mr. Madsen said that throughout discussions with City staff, the TCF proposal has
shown an automobile stacking length of 18'. The 18' stacking lanes were allowed
for Texaco and Walgreen project in Rockford Road Plaza and there have been no
problems. He said that he was informed in late June that 22' stacking lanes would
be the new design standard. However, this is not in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Madsen said that there have also been questions about pedestrian access into
and around the TCF Bank. The TCF bank has been designed similar to other retail
including curbcuts for handicapped access and striping where desired by staff.
He said that the TCF plat proposes a lot width of 110'. The Zoning Ordinance has
a 200' minimum lot width. He said that there have been three other projects in
Rockford Road Plaza with less than 200' lot width - Baker Square, Texaco, and
Blockbuster Video.
Mr. Madsen said that the TCF Bank will fit well in the overall Rockford Road
PUD. He said it is a minute part of the over 500,000 square feet that exists, traffic
is not a problem, and they are willing to work with staff and neighbors to do
additional screening.
In response to questions, Mr. Madsen said the proposed TCF Bank has a 110' lot
width compared to the 200' required lot width. He stated that Texaco was 158' lot
width; Blockbuster was 168' lot width; and Baker Square was 185' lot width.
Mayor Tierney asked if a variance was required for the smaller lot width.
Mr. Madsen stated that no variance is needed under the PUD for the smaller lot
width.
Mr. Coyle presented a formal statement from John Gauckle, a Uniform Building
Code expert who Ryan/TCF has consulted on their site plan design. He said that
the letter confirms the statement from Mr. Madsen that the design as proposed is
absolutely permitted under the Uniform Building Code and acknowledges that
flexibility exists that can be applied to the PUD application.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 17
Mr. Coyle also submitted an affidavit from Judy McDonald, who prepared the
traffic data previously submitted.
Mr. Coyle noted that the PUD ordinance specifically provides design and
development flexibility, similar to what was approved for Plymouth Pointe. The
approved PUD articulates the policies and standards that the City decided to
approve as part of the 1989 approval of the Rockford Road Plaza, and as amended
by the subsequent uses approved by the City. He said that the TCF project will
not impede surrounding development because the residential area to the north has
been completed, and this will be the last commercial use to be developed in the
PUD. There will be no additional traffic generators from this PUD.
Mr. Coyle stated that Ryan Companies previously requested of the City additional
assistance with regulating traffic in the Rockford Road Plaza. He said there has
not been a City response to that request.
Manager Johnson stated that item was approved on the Consent Agenda prior on
this agenda.
Mr. Coyle stated that this project is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, and in 1992 the Council made a specific finding of compatibility as
it relates to Plymouth Pointe. He said the City's traffic consultant found that the
traffic circulation as proposed is compatible with the City standards and that it
would place no undue impact on City systems.
Mr. Coyle stated that Ryan/TCF had a meeting with staff on January 27, 1995, and
staff proposed an interim development moratorium to address drive-through and
loading docks on January 31, 1995. The interim moratorium was adopted on
February 7, and a new drive-through ordinance was adopted on March 7, 1995.
He said that no study was completed to determine the most appropriate setback
requirements. The staff surveyed other cities and the most restrictive standard was
adopted. He said that no factual data supported the conclusions. He stated that he
had asked staff to identify a project that was being considered, in addition to TCF
Bank. He said they could not do so.
Mr. Coyle cited several legal standards. He said the Medical Services case lays out
a specific process that must be followed to adopt an interim development
moratorium. He said an interim development moratorium cannot be adopted to
stop a single development project. He said the Earthburners case confirms that
courts are not bound by a City's interpretation of its own Zoning Ordinance. The
case also notes that the burden of proof to show arbitrariness by a City in the
context of a conditional use permit is lighter. If the conditional use permit
standards are met by the applicant, denial of the permit is arbitrary. He said the
Northpoint case says that any ordinance a city seeks to apply, has to be construed
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 18
with plain and ordinary meaning, that any ambiguities must be construed against
the City in favor of the applicant, and they must be construed in light of the
underlying policy. He said this is very important given that the Council has already
approved a commercial PUD for this property and a bank is a permitted use on this
property. He said that neighborhood opposition is not a basis for denial.
Mr. Coyle read the Zoning Ordinance language relating to the 300' setback
requirement. He said that if staff had wanted to block all drive-through businesses,
the language would have said "all drive-through businesses must be set back 300'."
He said that the TCF site plan shows that portions of their bank which are drive-
through facilities are set back by 300' and, therefore, comply with the City's
Ordinance. He said that if there is ambiguity about the meaning of "all portions",
the City must resolve the ambiguity in favor of the landowner. Mr. Coyle stated
that approval of the bank in the PUD would fulfill the underlying policy adopted by
the City.
Mr. Coyle stated that the adopted PUD grandfathered the boundaries of this
project site. There is a service road which delineates the northern use boundary of
this property. That use was approved by the City and TCF proposes to use it for
its site plan. If the City is taking the position that the Uniform Building Code
applies, then the City will be damaging the property rights of Target as the
underlying property owner, but also taking by regulation the property interest.
The City is sending the message to Target that no use can be built on that property
even though it was approved for development in 1989. Mr. Coyle stated that the
applicant has supplied economic impact data. He requested support of the project.
He submitted a letter from a TCF Bank Senior Vice President stating why TCF
would like to be a corporate citizen of Plymouth.
Councilmember Granath asked what portions of the proposal meet the 300'
setback.
Mr. Coyle stated that the queuing stacking space, the drive-through canopy, and
the bank building would be outside of the 300' setback. The drive-through
component of the use has been moved to the south specifically to comply with the
new ordinance on drive-through aisles.
Mr. Madsen said the parking areas are within the 300' setback, but all areas that
relate to the drive-through facility have been kept outside of the 300' setback.
Councilmember Edson stated that if there was no drive-through facility, the access
to the parking area could be from the south. He said that the limited amount of
space between the Target building and Vinewood Lane prevents vehicles entering
from the south. Therefore, the drive-through facility is dictating the pattern - not
the bank itself. If there was not a drive-through facility, this would not be an issue.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 19
Mr. Coyle stated that Target is the property owner, and that option would not be
available to TCF.
Councilmember Helliwell asked about the parking area.
Mr. Madsen said that vehicles parked in the northerly lot could exit either to the
north or the south. Vehicles using the drive-through lane would exit only to the
south.
Councilmember Lymangood asked if a TCF Bank was not already located in the
CUB Plymouth.
A TCF representative stated that the TCF located in CUB is not a full-service
facility.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that concerns about this proposal do not relate
to having TCF as a corporate citizen. In fact, he hopes that TCF can expand in
Plymouth. He believes the issue is whether a drive-through facility is appropriate
at this particular site.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that Mr. Coyle spoke to the Council on March
7 with respect to the adoption of the 300' setback requirement for drive-through
facilities. At that time, Mr. Coyle had indicated that the 300' standard was
excessive, but noted that the City Council has authority to set the standard as it
deems appropriate. However, Mr. Coyle now says the Council's action was
arbitrary.
Mr. Coyle stated that their interpretation is that the 300' setback applies only to the
drive-through parts of the use. The TCF proposal at the time would not have
complied with the 300' setback. TCF and Ryan were prepared to resubmit their
application until the interim ordinance was adopted.
Manager Johnson asked if Mr. Coyle is contending that the City's Ordinance
relating to the 300' setback is invalid.
Mr. Coyle stated that he believes the ordinance was adopted in an arbitrary and
capricious manner, and that it was adopted to block the TCF Bank.
Manager Johnson stated that Mr. Coyle had indicated the City has flexibility in
applying the Uniform Building Code. He asked if Mr. Coyle believes that entails
some obligation to grant flexibility.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 20
Mr. Coyle stated that the applicant is requesting consistency and fairness. The
City has approved on the same PUD another site plan design that is identical to the
TCF proposal. They are requesting the same treatment given to the PUD to the
north, Plymouth Pointe.
Manager Johnson stated that Mr. Coyle has suggested that there may be a taking
issue if the Council denies this request. He asked Mr. Coyle if the applicant had
spoken with the City about other possible uses on the site, other than a drive-
through facility.
Mr. Coyle stated that he represents Ryan Companies in connection with the TCF
Bank drive-through proposal.
Manager Johnson asked if Mr. Coyle has been given any indication that a use other
than a drive-through would be prohibited on this site.
Mr. Coyle stated that he has not focused on whether other uses would be
appropriate. He said they will deal with the consequences of a denial, if that
occurs, subsequent to this action.
Mayor Tierney stated that there have been other instances in the City where the
Council has been concerned about drive-through facilities. She noted there is
currently a moratorium on all commercial and industrial plats in the City. This
moratorium, as well as the drive-through/loading dock moratorium, were to
address an issue only and were not case specific. She stated that the Council
would very much like to have TCF as a full-service bank in Plymouth. She spent
much time this week trying to accomplish that. She said that at this point it
appears that Target is the inflexible party relating to siting. Mayor Tierney stated
that TCF Bank is most welcome in the City and some City officials have tried to
find a good home for them.
Mr. Coyle thanked Mayor Tierney for her efforts and stated that he regrets a
solution could not be worked out.
Attorney Knutson stated that he disagrees with much of what Mr. Coyle contends.
He offered to answer any specific questions the Council may have.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Granath, seconded by Councilmember
Helliwell, to direct the City Attorney to prepare findings supporting the denial of
the application of Ryan Construction Company for amended Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Plan, PUD Final Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Lot
Division for TCF Bank located northwest of the intersection of Vinewood Lane
North and County Road 9 (95045) for consideration at the July 11 Council
meeting.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 21
Councilmember Granath stated he concurs with the five reasons for denial outlined
in the Planning Commission recommendation for denial. He concurred that TCF's
expansion in the community is desirable, but he stated this issue relates to this use
on this site. He does not believe there is ambiguity in the City's ordinance relating
to the 300' setback.
Councilmember Edson stated he will support the motion based primarily on the
Planning Commission recommendation and findings 1, 2, 3, and 5. He said that
attempts were made to discuss alternatives to this site with TCF. He stated that
Mayor Tierney and he recently met with Ryan Construction and TCF to discuss
alternatives. He regrets that an alternative could not be worked out.
Councilmember Lymangood asked if the issue relating to the 110' lot width should
be included in the findings.
Director Hurlburt stated it is not necessary. That type of request is routinely
approved under a PUD.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 8-C MICHAEL HERRICK/DON MYRON. APPEAL OF BOZA RULING,
305 QUANTICO LANE (04-04-95)
Building Official Ryan presented the staff report on the appeal of the Board of
Zoning Adjustments and Appeals ruling by Michael Herrick/Don Myron at Lot 16,
Block 3, Parker's Lakeside 2nd Addition (305 Quantico Lane) On April 19, 1995,
the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals on a vote of 4 to 1, with 2
abstentions, denied the request by Michael Herrick/Don Myron for a variance to
allow a 16.2 foot front yard setback versus the 25 foot ordinance standard in order
to allow the construction of a new detached single family dwelling. He said that
many of the area residents attended the meeting and spoke in opposition of the
requested variance.
Building Official Ryan stated that many of the resident comments were similar in
nature to the findings of Resolution 78-185 which denied a request for variances
by the former owner of this property. This resolution was the result of a law suit
filed against the former property owner and the City by area residents. Although
the variance standards have not changed since 1968, some of the zoning ordinance
provisions have changed, making the findings by the City Council in Resolution
78-185 obsolete by current ordinance standards.
He stated that staff recommends that the Council overturn the Board of Zoning
Adjustments and Appeals action, thereby granting a variance to allow a 16.2 foot
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 22
front yard setback versus the 25 foot ordinance standard in order to allow the
construction of a new detached single family dwelling. If the Council desires to
deny the appeal request, the City Attorney's office should be directed to prepare
findings of fact for consideration at the next Council meeting.
Attorney Lawrence P. Marofsky, 7022 Brooklyn Blvd., represented the petitioner.
He stated that he previously served as a member of the Board of Zoning
Adjustments and Appeals and believes that a hardship exists because of the
physical shape and topography of this parcel. Also, he is unaware of any use,
other than a single family dwelling, to which this lot could be legally put. Mr.
Marofsky stated that because of the relationship between the Zoning Ordinance
and the Building Code, a home cannot be built on this parcel without a variance.
He reviewed the Zoning Ordinance variance standards.
Mr. Marofsky stated that this area is substantially built up, with four lots in a three
to four block area where a home has been built in a similar nature to this request.
He is unaware of any other vacant lots with these types of dimensions. He stated
that since this is a lot of record, the Council needs to be adaptable. He does not
believe that granting of this variance sets an improper legal precedent. The
purpose of this variance request is to use the lot for the purpose it was intended.
Mr. Marofsky stated that Mr. Myron has a purchase agreement on the lot, and
whether or not a variance is granted, the price is the same. He said the hardship is
caused by the ordinance. There is nothing the current owner or Mr. Myron has
done to create the hardship. It resulted from the changing the ordinances. Mr.
Marofsky said that some neighbors oppose this request. He said that the neighbors
have visually enjoyed an open lot that was paid for by Mr. Myron. Mr. Myron has
the obligations, but not the benefit of development. Sewer and water are installed
and paid for on this parcel, which is an indication that it was proposed for
development.
Mr. Marofsky stated that development of a single family home will not affect the
light or air, increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public
safety, or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. He said that the
previous variance request for this parcel in 1978 was for 2/3 of the setback
amount. This request is only requesting a variance of about 1/3 of the required
setback (8.8' variance to allow a 16.2' setback). He stated that a vehicle could be
parked in the driveway and a sight problem would not exist for traffic at the
intersection.
Mayor Tierney asked how close the windows of the proposed home would be to
the adjacent home.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 23
Mr. Marofsky responded that the windows of the proposed home would be 10 feet
from the side lot line. Windows of this home would be facing windows of the
adjacent home. The garage is proposed in the front portion of the structure.
Mr. Herrick stated he has some flexibility with respect to the exact placement of
the home on the lot.
Cheri L. Geitz, 315 Quantico Lane North, opposed the variance request. She
stated that there were two similar properties in this area that were consolidated
with abutting properties in 1978 following the court action. She said there has
been high grass and weeds on this vacant lot. She addressed Variance standard #3
which states that "The purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a
desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land." She stated
that Mr. Herrick has indicated that his sole purpose in obtaining the variance is to
increase the income potential or value of the land.
Ms. Geitz said that approval of the variance would be detrimental to the public
welfare. When she purchased her home in 1992, she was informed there was a
court case that made this parcel unbuildable. She believes it would be detrimental
to have a home located so near to her home. She also said there are five very large
pine trees on the lot line that may have to be removed. Ms. Geitz noted that the
houses across the street also face 3rd Avenue and are set back from the road 88
feet. This proposed home would sit back only 16.6 feet and would create a visual
difference in the neighborhood. She said that she and her husband are interested in
purchasing the land; however, Mr. Myron has asked an exorbitant amount of
money for the, lot. Also, she was informed that the previous owners tried to
purchase the lot but were outbid. She concluded that approval of the variance
request would be harmful to this established neighborhood.
Mayor Tierney asked what price Mr. Myron asked for the property.
Ms. Geitz said that Mr. Myron purchased the parcel in 1982 for $2,000 from a tax
forfeit sale. He is now asking $40,000 for the parcel.
Councilmember Edson asked if there are four lots along 3rd Avenue that appear to
be of similar size.
Ms. Geitz said those lots have all been consolidated with the exception of the
subject parcel. The City sent a letter to the property owners in 1986 saying that
the small lots were unbuildable and asking the property owners to combine their
existing lot with the smaller abutting lot.
Ed Geitz, 315 Quantico Lane North, said that the proposed home would appear
much larger than the surrounding homes. This lot is 9,000 sq. ft., while most of
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 24
the other lots in the area are 15,000 sq. ft. or larger. He is concerned that
construction on the lot will affect the large pine trees on the property line. He said
that a 16 foot front yard and 10 foot rear yard is not large, and this will affect the
health, safety, and welfare of adjacent residents. He said that a family would need
a larger yard area than is proposed.
Dick Larson, 15315 3rd Avenue North, stated he is concerned about safety of the
children in the neighborhood and the aesthetic value of the homes. He said the
proposed home would "stick out" toward the street unlike the surrounding homes.
Helen Jackson, 315 Orchid Lane, said she has lived here for 30 years. She
provided a copy of the letter from the City where residents were asked to
consolidate their lots. She said that the person who owned the subject parcel at
that time was party to the court action along with other neighbors, but could not
afford to complete the lot consolidation. Ms. Jackson said the streets in this area
are over 20 years old and in need of reconstruction. If street reconstruction
widened the roadway, the proposed home would be even closer to the road. She
said that this small lot was never intended as a buildable lot. These were left over
parcels. She said that the City had four reasons for determining that this parcel
was unbuildable. One reason was that it would cause a significant loss of
intersection sight distance that would be detrimental to the public welfare.
Another concern was the flat terrain and drainage problems. She believes that
development of this parcel would substantially increasing ponding which would be
detrimental to the area. Ms. Jackson said that profit is the motive for the variance
request.
John Jackson, 315 Orchid Lane, said that he and his wife were involved in the
1978 litigation. He stated that following the court action, two of the three affected
parcels were consolidated with the abutting properties. He said that there were a
total of six substandard lots in this area, and all were consolidated except the
subject parcel. Mr. Jackson believes the home would be too near the adjacent
house, and noted that the grass has not been adequately maintained on the parcel.
He also asked when curb and gutter is proposed for this area.
Councilmember Granath asked what uses the property may have if the variance is
not approved.
Mr. Jackson said the lot would make a nice yard if combined with the abutting
property.
Public Works Director Moore said that the streets are nearing reconstruction. A
nearby street, Ranchview Lane, is being done this year. During the last street
evaluation, 3rd Avenue did not fall into the top ranking, but it will continue to be
checked.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 25
Charles H. Carey, 15225 3rd Avenue North, requesting denial of the request based
on the third variance standard. He lives across the street and believes that
construction of the proposed house would substantially reduce his property value
because it would be only 16.8 feet from the roadway and would be a large house
on a small lot.
Mary Nordstrom, 15325 3rd Avenue North, opposed the request and stated this
lot is substandard for building. She believes the request does not meet Variance
Standards 3, 5, and 6, and that the lot was never intended for construction. She
stated that the sewer and water connections to the lot from the street have not
been installed. She believes that construction of a home on this lot would result in
a substantial risk to public safety because of the sight issue at Quantico Lane and
3rd Avenue. There are small children in the immediate area, and winter conditions
could make the sight problem particularly hazardous. Ms. Nordstrom also
expressed concern about fire spreading because of the close distance between
homes, and the pine trees between the properties. She stated that the parcel would
have been consolidated with the abutting property if not for the financial hardship
of a previous owner. She believes that approval of the variance would be
detrimental to property values in the area and stated there is a grass height and
weed control problem on the lot. Ms. Nordstrom does not believe that a hardship
exists because the lot was never intended to be built on. She suggested that the lot
could be used for a park, garden, consolidation with the abutting parcel, or could
be donated to the City.
Public Works Director Moore stated he has not researched the special assessment
information on this parcel.
Dan Nordstrom, 15325 3rd Avenue North, stated that approval of the variance
request would be a safety issue because of the sight distance problem at 3rd
Avenue and Quantico Lane. He said there is a large amount of pedestrian traffic in
the area with an elementary school and junior high school. The power pole on the
proposed lot creates a further sight hazard for vehicles leaving the property.
Deborah Lange, 320 Quantico Lane North, stated that the variance request does
not meet the Zoning Ordinance variance standards. She stated that the owner of
the property is not intending to build a home on it. The owner is trying to sell the
lot to make a profit. She stated that the only way the owner can sell the lot for
profit is if the Council overturns the decision of the Board of Zoning.
Mr. Marofsky said that the primary use in this area is single family residential. The
property cannot be used for anything else if there is no primary use. He said that
having the property as a yard is not a beneficial use to the owner.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 26
Councilmember Granath stated the property could be sold to the adjoining
property owner. He asked if the petitioner would consider that to be a reasonable
use.
Mr. Marofsky stated that the lot could be sold to the adjacent owners. However,
if those owners do not consolidate the parcel with their property, they could build
a home on it just as the petitioner is requesting to do. He verified that Mr. Myron
purchased the property in 1986 through a tax forfeiture action.
Councilmember Granath stated that when Mr. Myron purchased the property, he
was aware of the court decision that the lot was unbuildable.
Mr. Marofsky stated that it was Mr. Myrods feeling that the court decision may be
overturned. He added that the way the driveway is configured, there is room for
vehicle stacking so no sight problem would be created. He noted that the front of
the garage would be set back 95 feet from Quantico Lane.
Councilmember Lymangood asked what front yard setback standard was in effect
at the time the home was purchased by Mr. Myron in 1986.
Building Official Ryan recalled that the front yard setback requirement was 50 feet
since 1968. It became 35 feet in 1986.
Councilmember Helliwell stated that Mr. Myron doesn't live in this area. He is
trying to sell the land for profit.
Manager Johnson stated that staff has concluded this variance decision could be
either approved or denied. He encouraged the Council to decide whether approval
of the variance would cause a detriment to the neighborhood or affect the property
values and to particularly consider Variance Standards 5 and 6.
Attorney Knutson advised that the City Council has a fair amount of discretion in
this case. He stated that the traditional way of viewing this request is to consider,
What is a reasonable use without a variance?" He has heard no uses suggested
that would be reasonable in the marketplace if a variance is not granted. However,
when the current owner purchased the property in 1986, he was aware of all facts
relating to building on the property.
Councilmember Helliwell stated she will support denial of the request because the
current owner was aware when purchasing the property in 1986 that the lot did not
meet the setback requirements for a home. She further believes that a 10 foot rear
yard and 16 foot front yard is inadequate for this size of single family home.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 27
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Wold, to deny the variance request.
Attorney Knutson suggested that the Council direct the Attorney to prepare
findings of fact for consideration at the next meeting.
MOTION was withdrawn by Councilmember Helliwell.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell, seconded by Councilmember
Wold, to direct the City Attorney to prepare findings consistent with denial of the
request of Michael Herrick/Don Myron for appeal of the Board of Zoning
Adjustments and Appeals Ruling (04-04-95) for consideration at the next Council
meeting.
Councilmember Wold stated that he believes the neighbors are willing to make a
good faith effort to acquire the property if the current property owner asked a
reasonable price.
Councilmember Granath stated he has some sympathy with the application, but
that Mr. Myron purchased the property in 1986 with the purpose of achieving a
future profit, rather than building his own home on the site. Councilmember
Granath believes there is a higher standard for knowledge in this situation.
Motion carried, five ayes; Lymangood nay.
ITEM 9-A TRAFFIC CONCERNS ON SOUTH SHORE DRIVE
Public Works Director Moore stated that Councilmember Granath has met with
residents along South Shore Drive on their concerns regarding traffic volume and
speed. This street is a minor collector. About five years ago, the City constructed
10th Avenue which provides the major route through the area and only local traffic
has the necessity to use South Shore Drive. The construction of 10th Avenue
substantially decreased the traffic in the area. Some residents have requested that
South Shore Drive be closed and dead -ended at Bassett Creek with a turn -around
on each side. This would have a great effect on the transportation network,
especially into and out of the City of Medicine Lake.
Director Moore stated the City's traffic studies indicate that there is very little
through traffic. Traffic counts do indicate that there is speeding. The 85th
percentile is 37 mph and the average speed is 29 mph. The street is posted at 30
mph. He presented the staff recommendation: 1) Install two "speed humps" on
South Shore Drive; 2) Direct a letter to the Medicine Lake City Council
requesting that they establish the intersection of South Shore Drive and Peninsula
Road an "all -way" stop; and 3) Continue traffic enforcement efforts.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 28
Councilmember Wold asked about the speed humps.
Director Moore showed a graphic of the proposed speed humps. He said these are
proposed as 4" high and 12' long. One speed hump is proposed on each side of the
bridge. This roadway has no curbing so ponding from inadequate drainage will not
be a problem.
Councilmember Wold asked if curb is proposed.
Director Moore stated that it is not included in the next two years' street
reconstruction programs.
Mayor Tierney asked if reducing the speed limit at the bridge has been considered.
Director Moore stated that the City would have authority to establish a 25 mph
speed limit if there was a marked trail on the roadway. Otherwise, the speed limit
would remain at 30 mph. The City would need to prove through traffic studies
that there is a hazard at the bridge in order to post the bridge at a lesser speed.
Don Levens, 10332 South Shore Drive, stated the neighborhood residents have
been working with the City on safety issues for some time. He stated that traffic
counts are high in the area and encouraged the Council to adopt the three staff
recommendations as a minimum to address the problem. He requested that the
City continue working to find solutions to traffic problems in the area, particularly
with respect to the traffic conflict with residential and commercial uses.
Mark Anderson, 10320 South Shore Drive, stated he very much favors closing the
street at the bridge. He supports the staff recommendation, but believes it is only a
temporary solution. He believes there should be a stop sign at the bridge. He said
that according to traffic counts done by the neighborhood there are 200 cars per
hour average in the evening 4 to 6 p.m. and 160 vehicles per hour at noon.
Dan Miles, 10210 South Shore Drive, stated he is an 11 year resident of the area.
He supports the recommended action, but would like the street closed due to
concerns about safety of children.
Dave Buzzelle, 10222 South Shore Drive, stated he has worked on this safety
issue for over 20 years. He stated the traffic leaving the nearly liquor
establishments is dangerous for the neighborhood. He believes a trail is needed
and that vehicles should be discouraged from using South Shore Drive.
Scott Nielsen, 10314 South Shore Drive, does not believe the proposed efforts are
sufficient. He is concerned about safety and supports closing the road.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 29
Don Hennes, 10520 South Shore Drive, stated that closing the road should be the
last option. He supports a trail and regrets that the speed limit cannot be lowered
to 20 mph.
Councilmember Wold asked about the design of the speed humps and whether
they could be designed to further slow traffic.
Director Moore stated the speed humps are constructed by design standards
relating to the posted speed limit. There could be safety and liability concerns for
the City if the speed hump was not in accordance with the posted speed limit. An
improperly designed speed hump could cause a fast moving vehicle to leave the
roadway.
Attorney Knutson agreed that the speed humps should be installed to the design
standard of the posted speed limit to limit liability exposure.
Councilmember Granath asked if speed bumps were considered.
Director Moore stated that speed bumps would not comply with traffic engineering
standards. They would also cause difficulties for snowplowing.
Councilmember Granath asked if residents in the area could petition for a stop sign
at the bridge under the City's stop sign policy.
Public Works Director Moore stated that the purpose of stop signs is to control
the right-of-way at intersections. The City's petition process relates to
intersections and there would be no traffic engineering reason for a stop sign at the
bridge. He noted that reasons could be found to support stop sign installation at
railroad tracks.
Don Levens stated that the bridge is often used by children and others for fishing.
This creates a hazard. He said there is a lack of maintenance on the bridge, and
vehicles have been airborne when going at fast speeds.
Councilmember Helliwell asked about the status of the trail.
Park Director Blank said the City Council authorized a study with Hennepin Parks
to study the alignment of a trail from French Park through this area. He said that
with the passage of the referendum, a trail extending from the railroad tracks to
Highway 55 will be completed in 18 months. He anticipates that a large portion of
the trail will be planned and paid for by Hennepin County.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 30
Councilmember Lymangood noted that the entire trail is indicated in the
Comprehensive Plan as a regional trail.
Councilmember Granath stated that additional actions may be necessary including
closing the roadway, but this is an excellent initial step to resolve the traffic
problems in the area. He thanked the residents for their work on this issue.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember
Granath, to direct staff to: 1) Install two "speed humps" on South Shore Drive.
The humps shall be on either side of the bridge crossing Bassett Creek; 2) Direct a
letter to the Medicine Lake City Council requesting that they establish the
intersection of South Shore Drive and Peninsula Road as an "all -way" stop; and 3)
Continue traffic enforcement as part of the Public Safety Department Enforcement
Program.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-A APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES
Councilmember Edson requested that Pages 12 and 13 of the May 24 Special
Council Meeting minutes be corrected to reflect that he left the meeting following
discussion of the Real Estate Development Survey and was not present for the
Council Chamber Renovation item.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Edson, seconded by Councilmember
Helliwell, to approve the May 24 Special Council Meeting minutes with the
correction as noted.
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-G ACCEPT THE 1994 FINANCIAL REPORT AND AUDIT
Councilmember Edson commended staff with respect to the 1994 Financial Report
and Audit. He requested that a brief summary of the positive report be included in
the Plymouth News.
Councilmember Edson stated that the auditors submitted a list of management
recommendations. He requested that the City Manager and Finance Director
provide a written response to the City Council on those items by the first budget
study session.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Edson, seconded by Councilmember
Lymangood, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-373 ACCEPTING THE 1994
FINANCIAL REPORT AND AUDIT.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 31
Motion carried, six ayes.
ITEM 6-I AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY REPORT ON USE OF ESS PROPERTY
FOR PARK PURPOSES
Park Director Blank provided a brief staff report on the recommendation to
authorize a feasibility report on the use of the Ess property for park purposes. He
stated that the City owns a portion of the southerly property. The Comprehensive
Plan also contemplates City acquisition of the wetland in the northerly portion of
the site. This would protect all major woods on the site. He said that there are
also flat, open areas on the site that may have potential for development of two or
three small ballfields. He said the parcel has potential for passive and active areas.
Councilmember Helliwell stated she has no objections with the passive areas, but
has concerns about developing facilities for organized youth sports adjacent to a
freeway due to gas fumes and noise.
Park Director Blank stated this type of development is not unusual and cited
several examples of athletic complexes in the metro area. He does not believe it
would be a problem on this site. Most visitors to the park would be there only for
about 90 minutes.
Councilmember Wold suggested that the feasibility report may include measures to
mitigate the negative effects of the abutting freeway.
Councilmember Lymangood strongly favored conducting the feasibility report. He
agreed that there may be concerns about placing ballfields near interstates, but
there is also a major concern in the community about providing a sufficient number
of ballfields for youth. He noted that this was a recommendation from the Park
and Recreation Advisory Commission.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember
Wold, to direct that a feasibility study be completed on the use of the Ess property
for park purposes.
Motion carried, six ayes.
Regular Council Meeting
June 20, 1995
Page 32
ITEM 6-K SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
MOTION was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember
Edson, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-374 AUTHORIZING 32ND AVENUE
BETWEEN MEDICINE LAKE AND UNION TERRACE LANE FOR USE
AS SNOWMOBILE TRAIL, as recommended by the Snowmobile Task
Force.
Motion carried, six ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Lymangood, seconded by Councilmember
Edson, to adopt RESOLUTION 95-375 CHANGING PUBLIC ROAD
SNOWMOBILE USE PETITION DEADLINE FROM APRIL 1 TO
AUGUST 1, and review by the City Council no later than the first meeting in
October.
Councilmember Lymangood stated that the Task Force had recommended a
petition deadline by August 31. He said that if the petitions are submitted by
August 1, the City Council could review petitions no later than the first October
council meeting. This would provide ample time to notify snowmobilers and other
interested persons before the snowmobile season begins.
City Manager Johnson stated that staff supports this motion.
Motion carried, six ayes.
MOTION was made by Councilmember Wold, seconded by Councilmember Edson, to
adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Motion carried, six ayes.
La rie F. Ahrens
City Clerk