Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 04/30/1974 - Special Meeting MIMUTES EDEH PRAIRIE CITY COUM CIL SPECIAL WEETIUG V Tuesday, April 30, 1974 7 : 30 P .f4. City Hall Council Members : i•iayor David 1.1 . Osterhol t , Joan Reyers , John NcCul loch , Wofgang Penzel , Sidney Pauly Council Staff: City Wanager Robert P . Heinrich , Clerk-Finance Director John Frane , Planner Dick Putnam, Engineer Carl Jullie , Director of Community Services Varty Jessen I - Consideration of Gelco ' s Land Dedication . i•ir. Heinrich explained that Gelco ' s goal has been to preserve the natural area along the shore of Anderson. Lake . After determining the boundary lines it was found that approximately 1.3 .7 acres would be dedicated . As an alternate Gelco requested that an acre on the southwest corner of the property be excluded from the dedication . The staff walked the site and are recommending approval of Gelco ' s request. E1r. WcCulloch asked if the City could be assured that future develop ment mould not occur on that acre. Responding , F.ir . Heinrich stated that Gelco intended to keep the area in its natural state plus plant brush to prevent intrusion. To Mrs . Pauly Mr . Heinrich stated that any subsequent owner would have to approach the City with any development plans for the site. Ors . ;ieyers asked if Gelco felt they would have enough land for expansion without the acre and Gelco representatives stated that they had no plans for expansion in that area . A motion was made by furs. Pauly seconded by fir . Penzel to approve Gelco ' s proposal of 12.57 acres for dedication . Motion carried unanimously. 2 . Consideration of a request from Gelco for the Special Address of One Gelco Drive . Because the address mould be a deviation from the metropolitan num- bering system, the possibility of the dedication of a reasonable distance (perhaps 20 feet) of the drive was discussed . fair. Green- berg expressed a willingness to cooperate with the staff to resolve the matter. A motion was made by Hr. idcCulloch seconded by Hr. Penzel referring Gelco' s address request to the Staff. Motion carried unanimously. Action by the Council will be taken at the May 14 meeting . Special Council Neeting =2- April 30 , 1974 q 3 - Discussion of Land Division for Nr. James Perkins. 2 . 96 acres west o ova Creek itlion , south of R. L .S . reviously consider- ed April 23 , 1974 . firs . MacKinnon , 7020 willow Creek Road , reported that the residents of the neighborhood net and it was the general consensus of opinion that not more than two homes should be located on the property. Or. Perkins , in support of his vier that the land was neither part of the Willow Creek addition nor subject to its covenants , cited the history of the ownership of the property. Both fiessrs . Perkins and Freeburg stated that considerable time. effort and money have been expended in preparation of the erection of two homes . Ors. i•iacKinnon suggested either designating Section C as an outlot or resurveying the acreage as two lots . i4r. Perkins conveyed the neighbors ' concern in regard to future development of adjacent properties if a precedent c:ere set with his proposal . He indicated a willingness to designate Section C as an outlot with the possibility of future development after abutting properties were developed. fir. Putnam conceded that the Staff had erred in approving a land division administratively and that abutting property owners should have been notified . However , in reviewing the proposal submitted by fir. Perkins it was his opinion that the homes to be built would compliment the Il i l l ow Creek area . 4L Mr. Penzel expressed an uncomfortableness with the multiple divi - sion. After looking at the site he felt that the homes would be situated abnormally close together and Consequently would not be in favor of granting approval of division as proposed . -iirs . Meyers stated she could agree with the division if restrictions were placed on Section C . However, she would prefer to seek the counsel of the City attorney with questions in this regard . A motion was made by fir. WcCulloch seconded by Mr . Penzel that the : 1 . lot division be approved for two lots : a . Lot 1 - designated as Lot A on the registered land survey b . Lot 2 - designated as Lots B and C on the registered land survey ; and 2. total acreage be limited to two homes--the present cottage and a new home. The motion carried unanimously. 4 . Review and Discussion of Organizational Plan and Departmental Activi- ties and Staffing_. iir. Heinrich reviewed the organizational plan which was approved December 11 , 1973 . iiayor Osterholt asked how the plan was function- ing. In reply , 'Ir. Heinrich stated that it was working well . The staff is growing since they have been given the maximum opportunity to be creative and independent. However , the opportunity does in- crease the risk of embarrassment and there are some shortcomings in . Special Council i.ieeting -3- April 30, 1974 n 4.organizational Plan and Departmental Activities (Continued ) x the plan . If space would allow, i►r . Heinrich felt a better plan would be to have inspection and assessing independent of engineering and coupled with planning and finance respectively. Or . iicCulloch restated his original concern--that of the Clerk position being assumed by iir. Frane and the inclusion of assessing and inspection in engineering . Hrs . Meyers also shared this latter i concern and iir. Jullie commented that inspection has demanded con- siderable time recently. However , in some situations the fusion of the three areas has proved beneficial . In answer to a question from firs . fleyers , fair. Heinrich stated that the plan has been reviewed and appraised through discussions with the staff at staff and mini-staff meetings . ilhen i.ir. Penzel asked how effective the Department of Administration was in establishing policies and directives for the other departments Ar. Heinrich remarked that because of the heave load of detail work with which he is faced , not enough time is available for managerial or systems work. Decisions he felt should be made at the lower staff levels and in all departments there is a good working relationship between the manager and department head . In regard to interaction between the Council and manager , fir. Heinrich saw the mayor as a li - aison between the manager and Counnil and in order for the staff and 4LCouncil to function well priorities should be established jointly. !!hen Mayor Osterholt asked if staff members were receiving compensa- tory time for hours worked in excess of 40 hours , sir. Heinrich noted that only iir. Ray Earls is receiving time and a half after 45 hours since he is in a transition period . Mayor Osterhoi t commented that there have been instances where the staff have made decisions which either the manager or Council should have made. He cited instances in inspection , planning and community services . He felt citizens should be appraised of situations and made aware of other avenues to explore . The mayor expressed the opinion that there is inefficient use of time and perhaps the dele-. gation of responsibility and decision making has gone too far. The opportunity to meet with each department head was requested by the Council . S. Discussion of Additional Staffing Requirements . Inspectors Several indices were cited in support of the need for additional in- spectors . The addition of the two personnel Mould be financed by Permit fees . The budget when prepared inSeptemberdid not include the additions in this area because of the economic situation at that time. ' Special Council fleeting -4- April 30 , 1974 5 - Staffing Requirements ( Continued ) Mr . Bill Donner of Hustad Development and Hr . Don Hess of the Preserve supported the need of good , efficient inspections as their development requests -,-re expected to increase . i-ir. Penzel stated that as a rapidly growing community we must de- cide Che standards by which vie grow . He indicated he discussed this With citizens who said they ranted a well developed community which will result only if we have high standards , good inspections , and sufficient personnel . f-lrs. Meyers added that the City must protect new residents and in- sure quality service . s dayor Osterholt questioned the efficiency of the present employees and was not in favor of the addition of new personnel . i s Assistant Planner K c The possibility of utilizing consultants was discussed as an alter- native approach . firs . Neyers felt that a more efficient job would be performed by a staff member who is familiar with the guide plan and its concepts and the goals of the community. It was felt that dollar for dollar the City would get its money ' s worth from a staff person . Recreational Program Supervisor ;ir . Penzel stated that the major Bleakness of the recreation program has been the lack of providing direct service to the citizens and program supervision . Mrs . Meyers added that someone is needed on .a continuous basis to be responsible for working out the details of the programs vie offer . It was thought that the school/City communi - ty education director mould be a solution to this problem. Mr. Jessen ' s duties and responsibilities were discussed . Deputy Clerk fir. Heinrich reported that a clerk t•tas needed to record Council minutes and to handle voter registration , elections and information desk responsibilities . It was firs . Pauly ' s feeling that for the size of our City compared to other communities , we are adequately staffed . Rayor Osterholt echoed these sentiments and added that perhaps growth can be checked by not adding personnel . He felt the present staff should :fork more efficiently and this could be accomplished through better administration . sirs . Ileyers felt the size of the staff should be based on growth and development of the community not its geographic size or population . • Special Council fleeting -5- April 30 , 1974 5.Staffing Requirements ( Continued) A motion was made by fir. Penzel seconded by Mrs . Pauly to authorize the addition of one inspector and based on the demonstrated need reconsideration of another inspector in three months . Motion car- ried with mimes Pauly and 11•11eyers voting aye , Messrs . Penzel and OcCuiloch voting aye; Mayor Osterholt voting nay. Ors . Neyers and Or. Penzel requested that the consideration of a recreational supervisor be placed on the May 14 Council and flay 6 Park and Recreation Commission agendas . This addition could then be discussed after the school board/Council meeting i,,lay 1 . Suzanne K. Lane, Deputy Clerk