Loading...
1983 05 02 I I I CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2, 1983 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Jim Thompson, Planning Commission, Don Ashworth, Bill Monk, and Bob Waibel were present. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the F 1 a g. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda as presented by adding discussion on the DNR meeting regarding Water Surface Usage Ordinance. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: The following items were removed from the consent agenda: a. Approve Resolution on Financing the 201 Program. b. Sign Ordinance Amendment providing for off-premises temporary real estate signs and administrative issuance of sign permit. d. Approve resolution Establishing no parking zones on West 78th Street and 187th Street. Councilman Horn moved to approve item (c) Fireworks Display Permit, Lake Minnewashta Residents pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING 201 PROGRAM Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with the following interested persons present: Spencer Boynton, 777 Creekwood Peter Hadley, 701 West 96th Street Ronald Landin, 720 West 96th Street Wes Dunsmore, 730 West 96th Street Georgia Jeurissen, 750 West 96th Street Richard Derhaag, 711 West 96th Street Bill Heinlein, 721 West 96th Street Bob Haak, 771 Pioneer Trail Ralph Freudenberg, 631 West 96th Street Karen Hasse, 630 West 96th Street Eileen Niesche, 600 West 96th Street Jeff Rice, Maier Stewart Martin Jones, 7321 Dogwood Bill Monk - This is a public improvement hearing for the 201 Program. All of the participants were mailed a copy of the cover memo that detailed the total cost and the local cost and there are reduced copies of the construction plans in the back for review. At this point the Council has to decide basically whether to move forward with this project or not. The biggest change that has occured since we have met on this item a number of times, is the change in the West 96th Street design which pumps the effluent up to Kiowa in place of a two acre mound system being construction on the east side of State Highway 101. The costs for that system have gone down considerably because of this design but because of ineligible trunk charges due, because of this hook up to the City and to Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -2- the Metro Waste Control Commission. the overall cost to the participants has gone up. There will be some decisions that have to be made tonight. The first one is whether the West 96th Street system should go and that I basically has to be decided as a whole and number two, on all the other individual systems on a one by one type of basis. The decision tonight basically dictates whether the project moves forward or not. Eileen Niesche - I am wondering if the engineer can get a feel for this cost if this is the right way to go. Bill Monk - Everyone should keep in mind for West 96th Street there are several options open. One is to do nothing. Let the situation go as it has gone and let the people upgrade their systems as they need to on their own. The second one is to take this, what I consider as a interim measure. because it will have to be replaced if conventional sewer is ever extended down into this area because it1s a four inch system. It will not meet the permanent criteria as set by the PCA and health depart- ment so you have to review these costs and this program as an interim measure. The third is for the people on West 96th Street to opt to put in a conventional system but I feel, just looking at it the short time that I have, that we would be talking about assessments of approximately $10,000 per lot just for sewer. The costs are high. You have got a number of agencies involved in this project. There are a lot of costs in here that are not incurred in other types of projects. Eileen Niesche - It1s a four inch line that we are putting in, not a two i n c h . Bill Monk - It1s a four inch forcemain. The lines from the houses to I the street are two inch. The lines in the street are four inch. Bill Heinlein - The pumps have been deleted at the separate homes? Bill Monk - Yes they have. Bill Heinlein - Then how are you working, gravity feeding from the house to the main in the street? Bill Monk - Yes. Councilman Horn - How much more would it cost to put in a system at this time that would be up to final standards? Bill Monk - The PCA will not fund any portion of a permanent system under this program. You are talking about putting in an eight inch main. The PCA will not go along and fund, basically the residents would be responsible for 100% of the construction costs. I can't see that system being put in for less than about $10,000 per resident. I broached that question with PCA and the answer is no they will not fund any portion of a conventional system. I think that's ridiculous but that's their answer. Councilman Horn - They would just as soon pay for a system now that they I know is temporary. I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -3- Richard Derhaag - Are you going to have a line for each house going out to the street? Bill Monk - Yes, I believe each house has a separate line going out to the street. We have done away with the double set up. Karen Hasse - My feeling is, what we would be doing here is spending $3,000 now and then $10,000 in some unspecified period of time and in some ways it seems like we would be $3,000 further behind. I would opt in favor of going for city sewer and I don't know if there is some way of taking a poll of how many people would be willing to do that or not. Would the cost to each homeowner differ according to how the number of feet of pipe that would be required, in other words the homes further back such as ours would there be more expense or is it the same cost to every home? Bill Monk - The way I would see it being done at this point, it does go down to an assessment situation, but I am almost sure it would be done on a per unit type basis with everyone getting the same assessment. Karen Hasse - I just wish there were some way of getting a more accurate estimate of how far away we would be looking at city sewer being required by the city so that we can make a more knowledgeable decision about this. Bill Monk - You should be aware that the figure right now stands at $2845 per unit on West 96th Street. Approximately $1,000 of that is connection charges that would be due and payable no matter what method was used to hook up into the line that already exists in Kiowa so we are looking at a system cost of $1845. That's basically what you are comparing is $1845 to about $10,000. The 201 was always proposed as an interim project whether it was a mound or whether it was gravity and where it went. That's always been the intent. What we have tried to do since since the earlier stages of this when it was given a go is to try and turn that system into the best system that we could get through the funding and I guess that's what you have got before you is a gravity system that1s then pumped up to Kiowa. It is a temporary system. The Council is aware that Metro Council has designated that area as outside the MUSA until after 1990, from there on it is anybodys guess as to when it will develop and sewer will come down that way. I don't see it before the year 2000 but I could be off either way by quite a bit. The Council would like whatever imput anyone would like to give to it to try and decide which way to go on this thing because it has changed quite a bit over the four years since its inception. Karen Hasse - I would be in favor of the city sewer and I would be willing to pay for that as opposed to this interim measure which I feel is quite expensive. Wes Dunsmore - Is there any part of this project that could be salvaged if the city sewer was to come through? Bill Monk - The services from the house to the street could be retained as I understand there is no size requirement by the health department or the PCA that it has to be four inches or larger but it would take special approvals by the agencies to allow this type of a system to Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -4- continue in operation. Right now I would say the chances are not very good but it would be worth a try and something we might look into. At this point I would say it would be very difficult if not impossible to salvage a lot of this system. Wes Dunsmore - You are talking about a four inch main line going down the street? Is there any way you could put in like an eight inch line that you could use for city sewer in the future? I Bill Monk - I have tried that and they won't accept it. Jeff Rice - I think in addition to the service lines from the houses to the gravity line that would be running down West 96th Street, the lift station and the forcemain up to Kiowa Trail possibly could still be salvageable at some time in the future depending on how many additional houses would be added on to the system and that kind of thing. Councilman Horn - I think the real problem is digging up all those streets and yards. Bill Monk - The services in the yards, chances are could stay. You are right the street could be a problem. Councilman Horn - Is there anything saying that we could lay another pipe in once we have it dug up? Bill Monk - Not with their permission. I Councilman Horn - They wouldn't be funding it. Bill Monk - That's the approach that I tried that we put in an eight inch and they only reimburse us for a four inch and the answer is no. Councilwoman Swenson - That's what Clark is saying. As long as the street is already torn up you put in the four inch that1s going to be used and along side of it lay an eight inch so that we wouldn't have to tear up the street allover again. Bill Monk - That's an idea. It would have to be air tested and it would be in the ground unused for a long time. Councilwoman Swenson - That was considered with the water pipes when the sewer went in on Lake Riley Blvd and Kiowa Trail but we had two members of the community who objected to it so it wasn't done. How much is the cost going to be to the city if the project is dropped all together? Bill Monk - We have already paid out of the sewer expansion fund a lot of the ineligible costs that have been incurred. I haven't had a chance to go back and add all of them up but by the time it gets done I figure another $2,000 or $3,000 might be incurred above what's been incurred to date but the total could run $10,000-$12,000 total. Councilwoman Swenson - That would be borne by whom? I I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -5- Bill Monk - As it would stand right now, the city out of the sewer expansion fund where I believe 2i years ago the Council approved that that's where the money would come from in the short term and then be reimbursed if the project went forward. Councilwoman Swenson - Working on the assumption that the systems we are talking about have got to be replaced or repaired, if we do not enter into this, we know that metro is not going to allow the extension, we know it won't get funded unless it's done on the basis that you have told us, how much is it going to cost these people to fix their systems independently? It has to be done because they can't live without it. Bill Monk - I would have to start out with the comment that I guess I don't believe that all of the systems would be determined as failing. Those people that do have systems that are failing, basically the city's inspector is empowered to require that upgradings take place and that they meet certain codes and if Ordinance lOA goes through in the next 30 to 45 days they will have to meet those codes. The repairs could cost anywhere from $1,000 to, the systems as they are designed brand new in here go upwards of $17,000. Any where in between there. I can't give an exact answer. Councilwoman Swenson - I tried to bring this out so that you have a relative idea of the problem. There really isn't any way that we can get metro to extend that sewer because we have tried. I wish we could. If we turn this down these failing systems will have to be repaired. Martin Jones - If a certain number of people decide that they don't want the sewer, does that mean that the Council is going to reject the entire thing or do the people that want the sewer are they still going to be able to get their sewer? Mayor Hamilton - The Council this evening has to decide whether or not we are going to go ahead with the program. There is three separate systems. Martin Jones - You can vote on this one can go in and this can go in and this one if they don't want it they don't have to have it. Mayor Hamilton - That's as I understand it. Councilman Geving - Except for West 96th Street which has to be a system. Councilwoman Watson - This interim system is still better than that community mound system? If the sewer didn't go say 30 years, this system would actually function for that 30 year period? Bill Monk - Yes. One change that has occurred in the past year, as we started to get down to actually doing this project a lot of people got real nervous about mound systems because they are an unknown. The Met Council, as I understand it, has reversed themselves from wanting the mounds and pushing the systems to now connecting up wherever possible. If we wanted to go with a conventional system I think the chances are now much much better that that would be approved but I am speaking for a lot of people when I say that. There are a lot of agencies and a lot of Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -6- people who have to review that but it is a lot closer than it has ever been but there is no program funding for that option. Bill Heinlein - I would like to see the Council approve our portion of that program. That's my only comment. Bob Haak - I have a failing system on Pioneer Trail and I really think if I were to put in a whole new system it would cost me a lot more money than it would cost me with the 201 program and I would just as soon have some help in doing it. I would also recommend that the Council approve the 201 program. Richard Derhaag - I also wish the Council would approve the 201 program. Wes Dunsmore - I guess through. am in favor of it. I would like to see it go Georgia Jeurissen - I was wondering if I was included. Bill Monk - Yes you are. Georgia Jeurissen - I would be in favor of it. Peter Hadley - I, also, would be in favor of it. Councilman Horn - What is the requirement that we can't use a four inch pipe for permanent connections? Who's requirement is that? Jeff Rice - The eight inch line is the standard size sewer that's prescribed and the PCA uses that in evaluating sewers in the State. The kind of system we are putting in here is a septic tank and because it uses a septic tank before you get to the main collector you can use a four inch line rather than an eight inch line. It works, depending on how many people you want to hook up to it. I should clarify one point, the service lines from the septic tank to the main gravity line running down West 96th Street are also four inch lines. That's a standard service line size. Bill Monk - I believe when the city system goes in you need PCA and health department approval and I don't think they will give it to you unless you have got an eight inch line but that is something we would have to check into at that point to see whether they would allow it. Karen Hasse - If we go through with this, how do we finance this $2,800? Councilman Geving - Special assessment. Karen Hasse - Over how many years? Bill Monk - I think five to eight maximum. It will probably be assessed over five years as a municipal improvement. Councilman Geving - When the project is finished we would hold a special assessment hearing and we decide upon the rate and the number of years. I I I I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -7- Mayor Hamilton - Any other comments? Bob Haak - If the 201 program were to pass would the septic tank that we have now be replaced? Bill Monk - It would go on a case by case basis. A lot of them would be replaced. It depends mainly on the system that's in place. If you don't have an adequate tank one would be installed but each house would have a standard manhole section septic tank that would work on a gravity type system. Councilwoman Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. 201 PROGRAM: RESOLUTION #83-l6: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution to proceed with the 201 Program on West 96th Street. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilto~, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #83-17: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution to proceed with individual upgrades for all properties listed in the Engineer's report dated May 2, 1983. Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #83-18: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution acknowledging the 201 Program financing charges. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING PARTIAL STREET VACATION, CHES-MAR DRIVE Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order with the following interested persons present: Mike Liddicoat, Carver County Brad Kellogg, 7100 Ches-Mar Drive Joan Weg1er, 7010 Ches-Mar Drive Mr. and Mrs. Wm. D. Johnson, 7060 Ches-Mar Drive Randy Herman, 6560 Ches-Mar Drive B. H. Gowen, 6440 Hazeltine Blvd Bob Waibel - Carver County is in the final stages of acqulrlng Parcels G and H and they do intend to vacate at this time the northerly 3900 feet of Ches-Mar Drive. Upon the closing of acquisitions for Parcels G and H which are the Plehal, Crowley and Volk properties they will own all the land abutting the right-of-way to be vacated along the western side its entire length and all along the eastern side except the southerly 500'. The proposal does have merits in the fact that it removes the two present available accesses for park purposes. It replaces its function with a Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -8- shorter access. It also enables the county more flexibility to put the vacated portion of Ches-Mar Drive and the lands under their ownership lying to the east to park use. It also reduces the future maintenance I costs to the city and/or county by removing its public transportation function. The county does plan, if the vacation is approved, to install security fencing along the east side of the vacated portion of the right- of-way. The three residences would not be affected by the fact that they do have an access coming out at the existing southerly extension of Ches- Mar Drive. The county intends to use the residences on the Plehal, Crowley and Volk properties for park managers. The Carver County staff has met with residents of the area. They apparently have no problems with it. NSP has indicated that they do wish to maintain their utility easement along Ches-Mar Drive. Minnegasco has no problem with same. MNDot has given us a late response. They had indicated that they would not require modifications at this intersection (Ches-Mar Drive and Hazeltine Blvd) which staff is recommending that they be required to be modified so you have a better turning lane. MNDot also supplied us two alternatives to the access to the park. We find that alternate #1 isn't feasible. Staff is recommending that the request be approved with the condition that vacation not be officially recorded until such time as the Plehal, Crowley and Volk properties have been acquired by the county. That the public use of Ches-Mar Drive not be terminated until such time as proper access improvements have been completed for the southern intersection of Ches-Mar Drive and Hazeltine Blvd and until such time as Carver County has completed a turn around at the northerly terminus. That the proposed vacation is additionally subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer in an April 8th memorandum including that the applicant construct adequate I barricades to fully close off the the vacated sections of Ches-Mar Drive and that they secure MNDot approval for the proposed new park access. The Planning Commission did act to adopt basically the same recommendations that were made by staff with the exception that they added an additional condition that the vacation not be recorded until such time as the new access has been constructed and also that the road be barricaded in a manner approved by the City Engineer. Merle Volk - We will be closing on one piece of property on Thursday but I have the part between Highway 41 and Ches-Mar and that1s up in the air yet. I think itls a good energetic plan as far as a lot of expense to maintain and repair that road now. The only concern that I have on it is in the event that we don't get together on the other piece, that the county has to provide me with some kind of an access off Highway 41. Mayor Hamilton - I wouldn't want to vacate that road unless there was an agreement between you and the other property owner. If there is no agreement there isn't much sense in vacating that road. One of the things that we like to avoid is having direct access onto a major highway. Ben Gowen - I would like to see a mandatory deceleration lane at the highway if this going to be an access onto the main line because now it's a convenient entrance and not a traffic problem getting boats and I trailers in and out of the park but if you start turning off Highway 4l without a deceleration lane, which I have experienced for the last 15 years with the school, you have got to have a deceleration lane to get off the highway with a boat and trailer and I don It see it on that map. I think it would be a required item before this thing ever gets off the ground. I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -9- Bob Waibel - MNDot was not specific as to what permits they would require or what requirements they would have on a new access permit for that new road. Bill Monk - We do have a letter from the Department of Transportation and at the end of the first paragraph it does say that "we feel that any new access such as this to Highway 41 would require construction of a right turn and by-pass lanes". I believe it will be a requirement of the state but I don't believe City Council can make that a requirement. Can the City require specific construction with a state highway? Don Ashworth - I am confident that if the Council put that in as a requirement the state would not oppose it. Bill Johnson - A number of things I would just like to clarify. We talked I about the turning radius and that's been reviewed by staff, right? Bob Waibel - Right. Bill Johnson - The barricades have been reviewed by staff. Bob Waibel - We still are not certain exactly where they would be placed. It is just a requirement we would have in there. Nothing has been done on the design aspect of what that intersection might have. Bill Johnson - Services been addressed, right? done but we are looking be used. to Ches-Mar Drive, as far as turn-arounds, that's We were told that a fancy turn-around would be for some type of access so our driveways won't Bob Waibel - The actual design would be determined by the City Engineer. Bill Monk - Basically, at this point it would be a cul-de-sac. The only thing I am wondering is if the county is going to come in with a glorified II T" and tha t rema ins to be seen. Bill Johnson - When will the final decision be made? Is that based on Mr. Vo1k's decision. Bob Waibel - There may be a number of items that have to be taken care of. The action tonight would be for Council approval and conditions on it would have to be satisfied before it could be filed and recorded. Councilman Horn moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PARTIAL STREET VACATION - CHES-MAR DRIVE: Councilman Horn - On the cul-de-sac, is that going to be built to city standards with concrete curb and gutter? Bill Monk - Not in that area I wouldn't contemplate doing that where there are no utilities in and there is only bituminous curb out there. I would not, unless the council dictates otherwise, require any construction different than what is in there right now with adequate base and blacktop with a bituminous curb just to allow a turn-around but I would not require they put in concrete. Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -10- Councilman Horn - It's not a question of whether they are improved it's a question of whether they will stand up. Bill Monk - I guess I am taking a look at the improvements as a whole and I I am thinking of what we are requiring the county to do and it is quite a bit of construction is required as a part of this and I was trying to keep those costs down by requiring a cul-de-sac but by not requiring concrete curb and gutter. Councilwoman Swenson - I concur with Clark. I see what happens with these asphalt curbs. Bill Monk - I was thinking that this area was rural in nature and it would stay with the rural standard. Councilwoman Swenson - We need to be consistent starting now, rural or otherwise. Bill Monk - We very rarely put a road into the rural section of town. It1s not like a subdivision where you have got sewer and water and urban type of criteria. Councilman Geving - Who is maintaining that road now? Bill Monk - It is a city street. RESOLUTION #83-19: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution approving the street vacation request for the northerly 3900+ feet of I Ches-Mar Drive with the following conditions: - 1. That the vacation as proposed not be officially recorded until such time as the Plehal-Crowley, and Volk properties have been acquired by the county and access has been extended to Highway 41. 2. That the public use of Ches-Mar Drive not be terminated until such time as proper access improvements are completed for the southern intersection of Ches-Mar Drive and Highway 41 and until such time as Carver County has completed construction of a turn-around at the northerly terminus of the unvacated portion of Ches-Mar Drive. 3. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter be installed on the turn-around. 4. That the proposed vacation is additionally subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer in his April 8, 1983, memorandum. 5. That the road be barricaded in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 6. By-pass and turn lanes be installed on Highway 41. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. 1983 BOND SALE: Andy Merry discussed the two bids received on the $315,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds and $1,330,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds. ~~~ RESOLUTION #83-20: . Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution awarding the sale of $315,000 general obligation tax increment bonds I to Dain Bosworth, First National Bank of St. Paul at a net interest rate of 7.3250% and awarding the sale of $1,330,000 general obligation improvement bonds to Dain Bosworth, First National Bank of St. Paul at a net interest rate of 8.3304%. Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 - 11 - AWARD OF BIDS - RICE MARSH LAKE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: Thirteen bids were received ranging from $167,994.85 to $226,236.00. The Engineer recommended that a contract be awarded to the low bidder, W. & G. Rehbein Bros, Inc. in the amount of $167,994.85. RESOLUTION #83-21: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resolution awarding the bid to W. & G. Rehbein Bros. Inc. in the amount of $167s994.85 for Rice Marsh Lake Drainage Improvement. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the April 26, 1983, Public Safety Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the March 8, 1983, March 29, 1983, April 5, 1983, and April 12, 1983, Environmental Protection Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, CARVER BEACH ESTATES: This item was deleted from the agenda. AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 45, REGULATING DEVELOPMENT IN UNSEWERED AREAS: Several residents were present. Mayor Hamilton - What you have now is as the council had asked it to be presented to us. Councilwoman Swenson - I think, in reading the Manager's report, I have to agree that I think there is definitely a problem between the acceptance of what we have here and some form of regulation or orderly control and I would go back to the suggestion that we incorporate Ordinance 33 which refers to a great extent to the unsewered and unwatered areas just as well as to the sewered areas. There are perhaps a few things that would have to be amended but I think it would be perhaps a wise thing to consider incorporating Ordinance 33 and anything applicable to the unsewered areas with the same restrictions that we have for subdivisions so that the city does in fact maintain the opportunity for orderly development in the unsewered areas. Councilman Horn - When you are talking about subdivisions are you talking about what was referred to in here and more than three units within a specified area? Councilwoman Swenson - I would assume so. I think that you would find that all of this is included in 33 and the only thing that we would be adding the 64C. We would be incorporating the subdivision regulations for the unsewered areas as well as the sewered areas which, in fact, is already here. Councilman Horn - That, again, is defined in section 2.02 of 45A as a subdivision being two or more new lots. Councilman Geving - Are you proposing something tonight that the Planning Commission hasn1t addressed at all? Council Meeting May 2, 1983 - 1 2- Councilwoman Swenson - This is the first reading and I am recommending before we do this that maybe it will have to go back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Geving - I think it should. Councilwoman Swenson - I think I have to concur with the Manager that the ordinance that we have before us, even though we did consider it the other night, is rather loosely held together and I don't believe that it does give the city protections that it should have. At the same time I don't want to restrict development in these areas. The Planning Commission has indicated that they will have a new ordinance for us by the end of the year and at best this is a stop gap but rather than having to go and put in a lot of foreign language into this I felt that if we could coordinate the two that we could accomplish the same thing. Mayor Hamilton - I think the concerns are valid and I think the comments are good about Ordinance 33. It isn1t going to hurt any if we reference Ordinance 33 along with what else we put in so that anybody who is looking will know that we are following Ordinance 33 also. I Councilman Geving - As I recall we wanted to move along with this rather rapidly so that we had something in place before we got too many permit applications. I would like to have the Planning Commission see something like this. Do you feel comfortable passing this tonight? Mayor Hamilton - I don It think there is anything that's of major consequence to the Planning Commission. It's already an ordinance that we have got in I place. All we are saying is that we are going recognize it along with 45. Councilwoman Swenson - The amendment, as I see it, would be to incorporate the pertinent regulations in 33 and accept them as a part of 45. Don Ashworth - I did have a chance to talk with Councilwoman Swenson this afternoon, I agree that referencing 33 is reasonable but I would like to see an opinion to assure that in doing this, that in fact we still do have the subdivision ability in passing of 45. There is a real concern. I don't know how to interpret the Dypwick court award when they made a determination that the subdivision ordinance did not apply in that instance. I only want to be assured that by referencing and going through this that 33, in fact, does apply. Councilwoman Swenson - This makes it fair. We require this of people living in the sewered areas and we should certainly expect everybody in the city to comply. Bob Waibel - You are talking about ghost platting, etc. Councilwoman Swenson - Everything. Just as long as we make sure that we don't have the 30,000 square feet. Councilman Horn - Are you saying then that anybody that comes in with a single unit request has to submit a ghost plat? Bob Waibel - By the interpretation of the ordinance, if there is a balance of land that can be subdivided in the future they are to demonstrate how that can be urbanized or divided and with the urban installation of utilities, etc. I I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 - 1 3- Councilwoman Swenson - It says the plat may show a feasible plan for future resubdivision by which plat may be resubdivided to meet the minimum size. Bob Waibel - We have been requiring them as a matter of practice. Councilwoman Swenson - The paragraph continues and says, lIany final accepted plat not showing such future resubdivision plans shall not be resubdividedll so if they don1t do it they can't get a resubdivision. I don't see any reason why the pertinent parts of this can't be incorported. Mayor Hamilton - I guess what we can do is to act on Ordinance 45A that we discussed and agreed to previously. Don could then take some time to research 33 and to get a legal opinion on that, how that would apply and how that should tie in with 45A and if it looks a significant change or something that the Planning Commission should look at you should redirect it back to the Planning Commission for them to review and if now, it can just come back to this body for our approval. I think you are hearing what we are saying that, ghost platting, we are not in favor of it. Don Ashworth - There may be other sections in 33 when it comes back that may be determined are not valid. Under the authority you are giving us staff would go through 33 and pick out those things that would or wouldn't be pertinent. Mayor Hamilton moved to place on first reading Ordinance 45A repealing Section 2.01 and amending Sections 2.02 and 2.04 of Ordinance 45, which establishes regulations for the development of areas not served by public sanitary sewer. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. LOTUS LAKE PARK BOAT ACCESS: Councilwoman Swenson moved to hold a public hearing on June 13, 1983, to gather public comment. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to establish a task force committee of John Garnaas, Mel Kurvers, Candy Takkunen, Mayor Hamilton, and Councilman Horn to review all information regarding the boat access and make recommendations to the Council. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PARK ONE FEASIBILITY STUDY: RESOLUTION #83-22: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution approving the feasibility study and ordering a public hearing for May 16, 1983, for Park One Improvements. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. FEASIBILITY STUDY LAKE DRIVE EAST: RESOLUTION #83-23: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution ordering a feasibility study for Lake Drive East. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson abstained. Motion carried. Council Meeting May 2, 1983 - 14- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AUTO PARTS MACHINE SHOP, 404 WEST 79TH STREET: Mark Belden is requesting a conditional use permit to establish an auto I parts machine shop in a portion of the floor space presently occupied by Chanhassen Bumper to Bumper. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. That machine shop activity be confined to the area so designated on the schematic floor plan dated received Chanhassen Community Development Department, February 28, 1983. 2. That the machining services rendered not be intensified or enlarged beyond that which is able to be provided by the equipment shown in attachment 4 without first having obtained a conditional use permit amendment. 3. That there be no outside storage on the premises of equipment or parts associated with machine shop activity. Councilman Horn moved to approve a conditional use permit for 404 West 79th Street for Chanhassen Bumper to Bumper with the above three conditions. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwoman Swenson voted no. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson - The only reason for the negative vote was that I am concerned about establishing a precident of light industrial in a commercial area. PROPOSED GAMBLING ORDINANCE: Several residents were present. Councilman Horn - What would remain in this ordinance if we followed Don's I recommendation? Dick Wing - The City of Edina did just that. They have one paragraph that just adopts State Law, Chapter 349 and that was one of our earlier possible recommendations to the Council to do just that because you can't change that but you can be more restrictive. Rather than have an ordinance that just adopted umteen pages, we kind of went through and outlined the State Law, highlighting the different subsections and put in ordinance form. The State Law could be overlayed on our ordinance. Don Ashworth - I think it's a reasonable idea but again, what Dick did was to obtain copies of what other cities were doing and the majority of those did just exactly what you have got in front of you and that is to re-quote those sections of State Law. Mayor Hamilton - Let's review the ordinance that we have in front of us beginning with the items regulating the conduct of Bingo. Councilman Horn - This is a direct copy from the State? Dick Wing - The only changes you will come across will be license fees and also required reports to the City Clerk. These are strictly quoted from State Law. Councilman Geving - Our only intent at establishing a permit fee would be I to reimburse the City for administrative costs. That's the basic premise on which we are talking about. Dick Wing - The local organization of government has to grant the license. Bingo or gambling devices are not legal unless the local government grants the license. It has to have permission from the local unit of government. I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -15- Councilman Horn - So in effect, everything that has been going on in pre- vious years has violated the State Law and what we are doing is making it legal. Mayor Hamilton - Subsection 1.08 (a-f) it seems like we are getting into running the game. I can't see why we would want that. As long as you lay down the rules of conduct I just can't see any sense in telling anybody you have got to have two people here and this one has to do this and that one has to do that. Councilman Geving - I strongly disagree with items d and f. I don't believe we can set compensation levels for people working at Bingo run by the American Legion or St. Huberts or any other group. Do we have an option on that? Dick Wing - State Law limits it to $20.00. Councilman Geving - Why didn't you put that in here then? Dick Wing - We left all the numbers out because you may choose to make that $2.00. Councilman Geving - I disagree with all of Section 1.08. I don't believe it's necessary to have an item in here like, no person shall receive more than $20 as compensation for any duties, I think we are running this operation, and f for example; A bingo occasion shall not continue for more than four consecutive hours, they might run it from 6:00 to midnight and I don't really care. I do agree with the first one' each licensed organization shall appoint a bingo manager, there should be some supervisor or manager but the rest of it I think is a bunch of garbage. Councilwoman Swenson - If you look at 349.17, this is practically a verbatum of the State Law so all they have done is to just take the State Law and put it in a form of an ordinance so it would be more readily acceptable and understandable. Councilman Geving - I think there are parts that you can pullout of this that don't make sense. Councilman Horn - If you do authorize this you have to follow it accordingly, is that what they are telling us? Don Ashworth - You always have to follow State Law. You can be more restrictive than State Law but not less. Let1s say on Conduct of Bingo that you simply want to say; Conduct of Bingo shall be in accordance with State Law. State Law says that compensation shall not exceed $20 per bingo occasion, you can't change that to $22. Councilman Horn - So if you are going to authorize the permit then you have got to have all these sections in or at least reference them. That was the point I made earlier. Councilwoman Swenson - We don't have that many organizations in the City, why can't we just make a copy of the State Law and give one to each of the organizations that would be involved and adopt it, like Clark suggests, by reference. All we would have to concern ourselves with tonight is whatever you are going to charge for the license and we don't have to try to interpret each one of these sections. It seems to me like that would be the simplest thing to do. Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -16- Councilman Geving - Do you think any of it is really necessary? We don't have anything now and it seems to work. Councilwoman Swenson - We have had a request for a license. It is my I understanding that if we don't have an ordinance at all we have nothing to enforce. If we have an ordinance and there is a problem we do have something to enforce. It's a protective situation. Councilman Horn - All issue a city permit. indemnifies us in any confines of the law. we have to do to legitimatize their operation is to What I don't have an appreciation for is if that way to make sure that it is staying within the Don Ashworth - No more than any other sections. All you are doing in this ordinance is authorizing certain gambling activities. You can do that by adopting the State Law by reference and issuing then a permit for those valid activities. Mayor Hamilton - It has been suggested by two Council Members that we just adopt State Law. Councilman Horn moved to place on first reading a Bingo and Gambling Ordinance authorizing the city to issue permits and adopt State Law by reference. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving voted no. Motion carried. Dick Wing - The League of Women Voters have packets that were mailed to the city. There must have been at least a dozen cities. I AMUSEMENT DEVICE AND ARCADE AMUSTMENT CENTERS ORDINANCE: Mayor Hamilton - What was your resourse for this proposed ordinance? Mayor Hamilton - In 1.01 (a) you have got six. The operation by any person, firm, partnership or corporation of more than six mechanical amusement devices, is there some reason that you came with six rather than two or four. Dick Wing - The ordinances that were written had five as a rule. We just chose to go conservative and give as much leaway as possible and so we allowed six machines and anything over that became an arcade by definition. Don Ashworth - Is there anyone who has more than six machines? Dick Wing - I think the largest number we found was at Quick Stop Groceries and they had four. There was one bar in question. Mayor Hamilton - Does anybody want to lower six to another number, say four? Councilwoman Swenson - It should be four, six is too many. Councilwoman Watson - Should we know how many there are in the Pony Express? I Don Ashworth - The Pony Express may exceed that. I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 - 17- Councilwoman Swenson - I have a little trouble with 1.05 (e) and (h). I think there is a contradiction there. Councilman Geving - I think what1s wrong with (h) is that it should end at 7:00 a.m. Just drop a period in there and drop the rest of the sentence because you have covered the remainder of that sentence up in (e). I am only saying that the arcade can't be open between 12:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Councilman Horn - I think we ought to clarify (a) also because it doesn't specifically say that if you have more than four devices it's called an arcade amusement center. We don't define what an arcade amusement center is. Bill Monk - The bars may be excluded from that because the last sentence does say, lIare devoted exclusively to the operation of mechanical amusement devicesll and no bar would be so labeled so perhaps that's how they can get around labeling the bar as an amusement center. Dick Wing - This arcade amusement center is really, we are worried about a specific center set aside for these games for the youth and that's what we are trying to protect here. Any time you go over four machines you are now by definition are an arcade or an arcade center which requires a different license and it has to meet the arcade restrictions. Four machines of less is just a matter of regulating machines, where they are. Now you are setting more than four machines in that arcade definition which is now a business in itself. If it's in a bar it will be separate where there would not be liquor sold in that portion of it. Councilwoman Swenson - I think I see your point. You are thinking about the arcade with the children and this obviously they wouldn't be allowed in a bar anyway. I am concerned with this idea of having youngsters having these things available and I know we have several citizens that are concerned about it. I don't really know how to handle it. Some cities have put out ordinances with age brackets. These things can get out of hand. I don't want to put them out all together because I know that young people around have little enough to do. Mayor Hamilton - Did you consider an age. Dick Wing - What we really did here was review all those other ordinances and only take the most simplistic of all of them. I think it gets into your own moral val ues and judgments. Mayor Hamilton - It would seem like where anybody can play the machines up until 10:00 curfew time and then after 10:00 you have to be 18 or 19 or accompanied by a parent. Dick Wing - There were age restrictions and 18 comes to mind right now as being able to play. How do you enforce it at the grocery store. Do you check ID's on every kid that comes in after 9:00 and I guess that's probably why we left it out. Mayor Hamilton - That's the reason for having it so that if the patrolman happens to stop in and there is some nine year old kid playing at 11:00 at night he can issue a citation. I would like to discuss subsection 1.05 (c). It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to see that the licensed premises does not become overcrowded so as to constitute a Council Meeting May 2, 1983 - 1 8- hazard to the health or safety of persons therein. The Inspection Department may designate the maximum number of persons to be permitted on the licensed premises and a sign displaying that number be posted on the wall. Councilman Geving - One thing there should be in here is that there should be no license transference of the license from one person to another. Somewhere in subsection 1.04. Don Ashworth - There should be a section regarding general restrictions and under general restrictions would be age limitation, posting of the maximum number of people, and hours of operation. Councilman Horn - You would want to be consistent. A guy could go out of the arcade center and go into Kenny's and play so I think Don's suggestion is good that we have a general section. My question is do you want to include that in the number of people you can have in an establishment or should that be limited only to the arcade center? Bernard Schneider - I am a disinterested party but I am surprised there are not more businessmen that might be affected by this ordinance present here tonight to talk either for it or against it and I think that even though the Bingo Ordinance or the Gambling Ordinance that you have proposed here, if the representatives from the church, the Lions Club, the Jaycees that put on these games would have been invited in for a conference and be told that we are thinking about an ordinance, here is the State Law, what do you think about this if the city would adopt it. It would save an awful lot of criticism and comments and again with the Gambling Ordinance or the Amusement Ordinance that we have here, I don't know what Pauly's position is or the Pony Express or the Legion's if an ordinance like this were adopted. Why aren't they notified before anything is published in any particular form? Mayor Hamilton - Partially because as you can see we had a lot of work to do on these ordinances tonight to get some agreement just amongst ourselves as to what we wanted to have. I would rather wait until we have at least the second reading so you can say, now we have got something a little more solid that you can look at that we kind of agree with and now make your comments because we can still change it at that point. Bernard Schneider - I wasn't referring to the Council. I was thinking about the committee meeting that they have even before they come up with a rough draft. Mayor Hamilton - When the Public Safety Commission was reviewing the Legion's request the Legion members were there a couple of times. One we did omit was St. Hubert's. We should have invited them specifically probably to sit down with us and go through it. After this evening should be the time when everybody should review it simply because it's in a little better form. Don Ashworth - Each of the owners who has an amusement device will get a copy of this proposed ordinance. I hear what you are saying, Bernie, but on the other side, this Council has not looked in any way at an amusement device ordinance, should we even be considering it or shouldn1t we, and I find it difficult to write a letter to Harry Pauly, Kenny's, what not, saying you are invited to come in to this type of a meeting when this Council hasn't even decided if we should, this is the first time that they I I .. I I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 - 19- have talked about it. I consider it in rough form tonight and I think if we would not have gotten some pre-publicity on this particular one, we would have gone through tonights meeting and then gotten ahold of you and said we are considering adopting the State Law regarding gambling, that will occur on June 1st or whatever, here is a copy of the State Gambling Law, what do you think about it. The way it stands is there was a lot of pre-information that went out that actually the City Council here had never seen and as it turned out here tonight they didn't even adopt the form that it was presented in. They in fact adopted just the State Law. Al Klingelhutz - Don was saying that this publicity got out prematurely and you discussed the ordinance and you are going to adopt the Minnesota Statutes and I think a big concern of a lot of the people here, maybe you should talk a little bit about fees tonight. Are you going to take a percentage of the net? How much are you going to charge for a permit? This is something that I think is bothering quite a few of these people tonight. Councilman Geving - I thought I kind of addressed that earlier. I think we can discuss it but I don't think we can agree on ·fees. The only thing I was trying to establish is that the only purpose for any kind of a fee would be to recoop our administrative costs to the City. We may have to go down the road a ways to determine just how much activity this is going to cause the City if we have to get monthly reports from the various organi zations. Councilman Horn moved to place on first reading an ordinance regulating and licensing mechanical amusement devices and arcade amusement centers and providing a penalty for violation thereof as amended. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 12: Council members reviewed proposed Ordinance 12A. Section 4, subsection 4.03 was amended to read: The election of Chief shall be for a period of two years. The Chief shall not serve more than three consecutive terms. Councilwoman Watson moved to adopt Ordinance 12A as modified. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENT BY-LAWS: Mayor Hamilton - Article V, Names and Number of Elected Officers, I saw that as names and numbers, if you will, of the Board of Fire Officers. I think that those people that you have named there should probably comprise the Board of Fire Officers. You have got a group of officers and they should comprise the Board and they should be the people that run the department. Dick Wing - That's what the intent is. Mayor Hamilton - But you have got two different Boards. I felt that would eliminate some confusion if they were the same group. For instance, let me go one step further and you go down to the Chief's duties, Article VIII, I would say the duties of the Chief, his primary duties are as Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -20- Chairman of the Board of Fire Officers and the Chief shall be the governing head of the fire department and then you can leave everything else off of there except items (n) and (0). Councilman Gev2..r!j¡ - I like item (c). I Mayor Hamilton - Well, (c) would say, the Chairman shall be liaison between the Department and the City Council. Councilman Horn - Wouldn't that be Don (Ashworth)? Mayor Hamilton - No. We are talking about duties of the Chief. What you are saying is you think Don should represent the fire department. Councilman Horn - He is the one that can remove the Chief. Councilman Geving - He has a need also to be able to come to the Council if he is in conflict with the Manager. I think we should, from time to time, have the ability to see the Chief. Councilman Horn - I agree with that in a grievance or point of contention but what they are saying here is that the formal liaison go between on a normal day by day basis. Mayor Hamilton - Right now the way it is set up is if the Chief has a gripe he should go to the Public Safety Commission. If he doesn't get satisfaction there he should have the right to come to the Council. Dick Wing - I thought the Ordinance put him as head of that Board and I I though~the By-Laws pretty well spelled out the Board of Fire Directors and takes him out of the head position and he becomes just one of five. Mayor Hamilton - No, because when you say in there the duties of the Chief, the Chief will take into consideration all proposals of his staff. The Chief shall be liaison. The Chief shall see that all members of the department attend drills. The Chief does everything. It is an authoritarian position. He directs everything that goes on in that department. That's not the way it should be. The duties of the Chief should be Chairman of the Board of Fire Officers. He is the governing head of the fire department sure, but the Board shall see that all members of the department attend drills. The Board shall deal with any violations of rules and regulations of the department. The Board shall see that a regular schedule of training is established by the Training Officer and carried out each year. Why should one guy have all that authority? You have got officers, use them. That's the way I see it. Dick Wing - I knew you were concerned about that. I felt we had tackled that. I see where you are coming from now and I think they have to address what you are saying. Mayor Hamilton - It just seems like a better way to run it rather than having one guy. I Dick Wing - I think it's kind of a Board action now and has been. The Chief doesn't just arbitrarily throw these things out, although I think he maybe could. I think right now they have a Board, they meet, they go back and forth and they kind of give and take. Of course, I am not privy to those meetings. I am not a member of that Board. They felt, why do we I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 - 21 - need this, that's how we work now. That was their comment. I said, well, it's not in writing and the Mayor won't buy it unless it's in writing so don't argue with me. It either gets in writing and we get something coordinated or the Mayor is going to stop this cold. I thought we had tackled the problem but you are obviously not satisfied. What I would prefer to see done here is you or you and Don tackle this personally with the Chief on an interdepartmental basis and I am glad to see Public Safety out of this issue. Mayor Hamilton - Well, it's up to the Council. I think the Chief is at this point an authoritarian head of the department. He directs it and runs it and if you read what1s written here, he can do anything he wants. Dick Wing - Are you suggesting that (a) the Chief shall be the governing head of the fire department and then all the other items should ~e put with the Board. Mayor Hamilton - Except (c), (n), and (0). Councilman Horn - I guess I would say that the Chief could go to the City Council if he has a disagreement with the City Manager but it seems like we are putting Don in a position of authoritarian to hire or fire in that position but not as a communicator in that position, to us. Councilwoman Watson - I don't see it that way. He should be the liaison between the department and the City Council and he reports on a quarterly basis to the City Manager and at that point they would discuss anything that, if wouldn't necessarily be a difficulty but would be just something that needed to be coordinated. Councilman Geving - I just felt that from time to time it1s necessary for the Chief and the fire department to have access to the Council and I am speaking as liaison duties would be to report on status of needs for a new fire truck or I am having problems staffing up the department or I am having a real problem with the City Manager and I just can't resolve it. Don Ashworth - Tom had talked with me this afternoon about potential changes and I honestly didn1t get a chance to think through. In terms of your operating departments as you have them now, there1s Bill Monk or finance or whatever else, relates back to me. You have a professional person who is actually operating that department. You have got a different situation with a voluntary organization. From a day to day activity standpoint I have to be in a position to continue the communication level and basically making a number of day to day decisions. Dale Gregory wants to know what to do over wherever and Fritz is in and Jack. I don't think there is any intent to cut those lines out. I am hearing what the Council is saying in terms of policy type of decisions should basically come back to the City Council to be acted upon in the form of a recommendation from that Board. Cursory review of this would say that if you want to look at something like that you would do as Tom has suggested and have names and numbers of the Board of Fire Officers and designate that and then turn into duties of would become the Board and you list those types of activities that you want to see the Board take care of during anyone point in time. The line of communication should still come back through the City Manager's office and should be submitted to my office in submittal to the City Council. If they want to request a piece of fire equipment they have to come through my office to put that on the agenda. If I don1t Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -22- put that on the agenda then you can jump on me for why it failed to appear on the agenda. Councilman Gevi.Q..9. - The example that I quoted would be, let's say, you I are not too interested in the fire department, you want to put all of your money in street maintenance and so all of our efforts over a period of time have been moved into street maintenance and so the Fire Chief comes to us and says, I am just not getting any new equipment. I am not getting any time with Don. The Manager is ignoring everything that I seem to pass up to him as good ideas, I need to have something understood with the Council and that's the only thing that I am talking about. Mayor Hamilton - There is another way to do that is through the Public Safety Commission. Councilman Geving - As long as he has got that avenue, I don't care where that is. Dick Wing - By ordinance that's our job to listen to him and support him and then sell it to the City Council. I think that's our direction. When we got involved in this way back when we found two things wrong. Number one, the lack of communication between the City and the fire department was non-existent if not outright hostile. We found it unacceptable and we warned them that we will not tolerate it. We also looked into it and found that under our City Government Plan B that the City Manager had certain responsibilities, duties and authority and one of those was hiring and firing of the Fire Chief. If we take the Chanhassen Fire Department at its weakest point, at its weakest link, it's the best bUI the City has ever had and I can say honestly from a professional background they are doing a great job but that doesn't excuse lack of growth or not communicating or not performing these duties that you are talking about. I don't want to beat them down without saying gees, they are doing a fantastic job because I would like to see the City operate without those guys, it1s incredible what they are doing. Mayor Hamilton - If you look at Article XXIII that should be Article V or VI or somewhere in there. If you just change the wording on it a little bit and say; The Board of Fire Officers is established to carry out the department mission, that should be your statement of what your Fire Department Board of Officers, what their charge is and underneath that list who they are. Whether or not the Rescue Squad Captain ought to be on there because that person was appointed, the others were elected, that's something that needs to be discussed. Councilman Geving - You are saying that Article XXIII should really be Article 1. Mayor Hamilton - Number V where it starts out Names and Numbers of Elected Officers and what their duties are, I think you want to start that by saying the Board of Officers are this and this and this is what their charge is. Councilman Geving - Just like the Mayor is the leader of the Council. I Dick Wing - Article VIII, Duties of the Board, your Chief would then become nothing more than head of the governing board. I I I Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -23- Councilwoman Watson - Who is the Medical Director? Dick Wing - I don It believe that one has been appointed yet. It would be my-opinTOn that it would be David McCollum. Mayor Hamilton - I have one other comment on Article XXIII, Section D, about a third of the way down where it says; Allor portions of meetings may be closed to participation or observance by the Board to individuals not on the Board to consider certain matters which it feels should be done in Executive Session. It sounds like they are intending to have a closed meeting any time they feel like it. Don Ashworth - The Planning Commission cannot do that type of thing. They are a commission of the City Council. Mayor Hamilton - They could hold a kangaroo court and kick some guys off the Fire Department just because they felt like it. Dick Wing - There is a grievance procedure. They didn1t want to put this in here in the first place. They just copies it out of what we gave them. I don't know if they even read it. This was done at your insistence and Golden Valley happened to have a very established Board of Fire Directors and we just took that portion of theirs and put it in here and I don't think the departments heart was in this because they felt that's how we operate, we are not going to spend time on this, as I remember it, it was some months ago. You can send the By-Laws back to the Commission. Don Ashworth - These are Fire Department By-Laws so they have to adopt them. Councilman Horn - I would like to get Don's comments on review of the By-Law changes as far as how you feel the lines of communication work through your office. Don Ashworth - 1111 make the changes from Tom1s draft and have them back on for a future agenda and let the Council see if that's in accordance with what you want done and then it will go back to the Fire Department. ESTABLISH NO PARKING ZONES ON WEST 78TH STREET AND 187TH STREET: RESOLUTION #83-24: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resolution establishing no parkding zones on West 78th Street and 187th Street. Resolution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR OFF-PREMISES TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE SIGNS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCE OF SIGN PERMITS: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Sign Ordinance amendment and recommended approval with the additional requirement that off-premise real estate sign permits be limited in duration to twelve months. Councilwoman Swenson stated she would like sign permit applications to come before the Council for action. Mayor Hamilton moved to to place on first reading an ordinance amending Sections 3.13 and 5.01 of Ordinance 36. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwoman Swenson voted no. Motion carried. Council Meeting May 2, 1983 -24- CITY ATTORNEY: Councilman Geving moved to endorse the position presented this evening in the City Manager's memorandum dated May 2, 1983, regarding I the City Attorney's system on the combination of legal services and advisors proposal. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Geving. Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn voted no. Motion carried. Amended May l6, 1983. Councilwoman Watson voted no because she would prefer to see more than one bid if the Council is doing this on a cost basis. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REDISTRICTING BILL: Mayor Hamilton noted that Bill Sando has applied for the position. WATER SURFACE USAGE ORDINANCE: Councilman Horn gave a report on a recent meeting with DNR representatives. A motion was made by Councilwoman Watson and seconded by Councilwoman Swenson to adjourn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Don Ashworth City Manager I I