Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/02/1984 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1984 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel , Richard Anderson, Georg Bentley, Paul Redpath and George Tangen CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael INVOCATION: Councilman Paul Redpath PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE R01 ? CALL: All members were present : . APPROVAL, OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business as published. Motion carried unanimously. �._ II . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Resolution No. 84-268, .approyjng Election Judges for General Election B. Final Plat approval for Edenvale 18th Addition (Resolution No. 84-259) C. Final _Plat approval for Edenvale 19th_Addition (Resolution No. 84-260) D. Final _Plat approval for Edenvale 9th Addition (Resolution No. 84-261) E. Final Plat approval for Portnoy' s 3rd Addition (Resolution No. 84-262) F. Final Plat approval for Golden Strip East 2nd (Resolution No. 84-264) G. Set Public Hearin_q_for November_6, 1984, to consider_ vacation of excess ri ht .of _ _ -wa,Z � adjacent to Edenvale 9th Addirr on 2�_ K' 1 C`fty Council 'liflute" -2- October 2 . 19E<4 H. Award contract for Norseman 's 6th_ Addition_, Golden Trianqle Drive and 74th ^Street, I_C -06 525 Resolution No. 84-265j I . 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 115-84. amending City Code Sec_. 2._05 relating to salaries of Moor and Council members J . Dellwood Special Assessment release (Resolution No . 84-266) K. 2nd Readingof Ordinance No. 114-84, City Code Amendment to Section 11 . 70 to regulate signs at the FI in Cloud Air ort L. VALLEY LAKE BUSINESS CENTER by GSB Investments . 2nd Reading of Ordinance No.'1Q3-84, rezoning _mom Rural to I-2 , approval of Developer' s Agreement for Valley Lake Business Center; and adoption of Resolution No. 84-256, approving Summary of Ordinance No. 103-84 and ordering publication of said Summary for Valley Lake Business Center. 10.63 acres into one lot and one outlot. Location: west of Prairie Center Drive, south of Valley View Road, along the northwest shore of Smetana Lake, M. VALLEY VIEW PLAZA by Frantz Klodt. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 109-34, rezoning from C-Regional to Office and approval of Resolution No. 54-257, approving Development Plan for Valley View Plaza. 5.22 acres into one lot and cne outlot. Location: north of Valley View Road at Office Ridge ` Circle. N. Clerk's License List MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve items A - N on the Consent Calendar, Motion carried unanimously, PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUIRFIELO by Tandem Corporation, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residentlal for approximately 25 acres ; Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, and zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for approximately 11,0 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 for approximately 25 acres; preliminary plat of 36 acres into 119 single family lots . Location: north side of Valley View Road, east of Park View Lane. (Resolution No. 84-269 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance No. 116-84 - rezoning: and Resolution No. 84-270 - preliminary plat) - continued Public Hearing from August 28, 1984 City Manager Jullie noted this request had been continued from the August 28, 1984, meeting of the City Council , Since that date, the applicant has prepared a new plan which has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, Notice of this Public Hearing was published and property owners in the project vicinity were notified, l - _ - - City C(.unc i l Mi r;utf�s -3- October 2, 1984 Jim Ostenson, Tandem Corporation, addressed the request. Also present were Lyle Nash, representina Twin Ci ty Federal , Rose Pavel ks, owner of the property, and Ken Adolph, engineer with Schoel l Madson. Planning Director Enger stated this proposal had been considered by the Planning Commission at its September 24, 1984, meeting at the direction of the City Council . Upon review of the new plan, the Planning Commission felt that this , in general , was no different than a typical subdivision. They did not feel the plan offerred anything different to warrant a Guide Plan Change and recommended to the Counci 1 on a 4 - 2 vote: it suggests the Council not adopt the recommendation relative to the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment regarding the change from low density residential to medium density residential for approximately 25 acres because the proponent has not provided adequate justification for the Guide Plan change, as a result a precedent could be set, However, notwithstanding the foregoing suggestion: because of the requirement of State Statutes , that a City Council may adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan only after receipt of a positive recommendation of a majority of Planning Commission members, it is hereby recommended that the request by the Tandem Corporation for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from low density residential to medium density residential for approximately 25 acres of the project known as Muirfield be approved based upon the revised plans dated September 15, 1984, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 21 , 1984, The Planning Commission went on to recommend denial of the rezoning and the request for the pre- liminary plat. The reason for denial was that it did not correspond to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Enger noted that the Commission wished to pass on to the Council that it felt that should the Council find that the Comprehensive Guide Plan change was substantiated, that the preliminary plat and rezoning requests - as presented and as reviewed with recommended changes as noted in the September 21 , 1984, Staff Report - were acceptable to the Planning Commission. Bentley asked if the two specific densities which were recommended for the site were discussed in any of the Staff Reports . Enger stated the 3.25 units per acre density was discussed as an average in the first Staff Report. The second Staff Report gave comparisons . Penzel asked if this plan had been shown to the neighborhood. Ostenson " said it had been. Bob Turk, 6691 Boyd Avenue, noted that there were not many neighborhood residents here tonight because everyone is very busy; he stated countless hours had been spent by the residents reviewing plans for Muirfield. He said some of the changes which have been made are only cosmetic. He posed the question: "What is different about this plan to warrant a Guide Plan change?" He also wondered about a precedent being set should the Guide Plan be changed, and the effect it would have on other developers who will then request the same. He said he found it hard to believe the developer could not conform to the Guide Plan. He stated that everyone has said the density is too hight. City Council Minutes -4- October 2 , 1984 Redpath said that about four years ago the Council had made a conscious decision and effort to do something about the high cost of housing by allowing 9.5 zoning. He said in his mind the justification for a Guide Plan change is to bring down the cost of housing. He said the word "guide" does not mean that something is cast in stone. i Bentley noted the Council had made Guide Plan changes in the past. He said he felt the Guide Plan is a guide to be followed generally. He said he was not totally convinced that a Guide Plan change was required here. He asked what would happen if a project like this were zoned 13. 5 -- would it still be above 2. 5 units per acre. Enger said he had not looked at that, but it would be possible. Penzel said he felt there should be a provision made for a transition between neighborhoods. To be consistent with past procedure he felt a process of transition was in order here. Jack McCreery, 7109 Park View Lane, said he had seen four different proposals for this project. He said that to say there is a transition is a joke because there is only one block zoned 13.5 before there is a 9.5 block. Ostenson said there are assessments of $40,000 - $45,000 per acre on this property for the construction of Valley View Road. Because of this cost, more lots in the development are necessary to carry the cost of the road. Bentley asked what the standard lot size in Edenvale and The Preserve are. Enger said 10,000 - 11 ,000 square feet. i- Redpath asked if the proponent would be agreeable to adjusting frontages as recommended in the Planning Staff Report. Ostenson said that was acceptable. Penzel asked about the lot size in the Apple Groves development. Enger said that was zone 9.5 and the lots were between 12,000 and 14,000 square feet in area . Penzel asked about the frontage of the lots in Sterling Field. Enger said they were 120' . Anderson expressed concern about the trail connection to the park . He said that school children could walk to school if the trail to the park was built and providing the trail were maintained on a year-round basis. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 84-269, amending the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Bentley asked what the feeling of other Council members was regarding the second tier of lots. Tangen said he felt if that change were to be made, the Council would then be considering a new plan. He said he had not seen the justification for a Guide Plan change. Tangen stated he did not want to see the Council set a precedent. He noted that when he came on the Council 9, City CQUr2C i l "tnL:' es -5- Gc Loher 2, 1934 four years ago , the standard was 2 units per acre ; now the Council is looking at proposals which have over 3 units per acre. He indicated C he would have difficulty in supporting this change. Tangen said he would vote against the Guide Plan change and he would not support the plan. Redpath said there is a need in the community for this type of development. He said he felt 9500 square feet is a reasonable figure when the City isn' t ready for zero lot line type developments . Anderson said 9. 5 zoning was already in place when he came on the Council . He said be strongly believed in the transition between zoning districts. He said if the Council were to change the one tier of housing to 13.5 j it might work better. Rose Pavelka, property owner, said she had fought the quarter million dollars in assessments. She said she could not understand why there could not be a higher density in the housing along Valley View Road which is one of the most highly travelled in the City. Dave Hackman, 18212 Valley View Road, said the decision on whether it should be 9.5 "or 13.5 zoning comes down to the decision as to what type of neighborhoods and life styles should be in that area. Maureen Brady, 18216 Valley View Road, said she did not want to see this as an area of high density. She said ten years ago she was not in favor of Valley View Road being constructed through that area, Bentley said he felt the argument for justifying the change was whether or not the basic concept of this proposal has some merit and then how much merit does it have. Turk said the Sterling Field lots to the north of this have 110' frontages and those which would abut them would be 80' so each Sterling Field lot would be di sected by two lots. He said multiple density housing will probably go in to the east on the remaining 15 acres of the Pavel ka property, Bentley suggested that something be done so that the lots abutting adjacent neighborhoods be matched with the existing lot lines to the north and west, He noted this had been done in other areas. Qstenson said he did not see what purpose would be served by doing that. He noted the costs are all passed on to the buyer; the City should be concerned about the financing -- that has all been arranged for and is an important feature of any project. He said screening could be put in which would block the view of the lot-size variations. City Council Minutes -6- October 2 , 1984 Tangen said from the discussion he thought perhaps the plan should be modified which in turn would justify modifying the Guide Plan. He sug- gested 13.5 zoning be considered across the northern portion of the westerly half of Block 4. He asked Enger what would be lost by doing that. Enger said one lot would be lost on the north, two in the middle and one on the east; the density would then be at approximately 2.9 units per acre. Tangen said he did not know if that would make the proposal economically feasible or not, but it might make it more attractive and would create a better transition. City Attorney Pauly suggested that Redpath' s motion be amended to combine the substance of the motion relative to the preliminary plat to include those conditions so that it would be subject to those conditions . i AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION : Bentley moved , seconded by Redpth , to amend the motion to include Resolution No. 84-270, approving the preliminary plat of the Muirfield Addition for Tandem Corporation , with the changes as discussed here this evening. Tangen said he felt it was necessary to have the details as to what was going to be included . Enger said this would include a Comprehensive ! Guide Plan change, approval of the preliminary plat subject to a reduction in the northern area of Block 2 by one Tot; in the area south of Boyd Avenue E in Block 3 the lots would be 13. 5 which would mean a reduction of approximately two lots ; and in the area on the east side of Boyd Avenue there would be a reduction of one lot making that a 13.5 area; and in Block 4, there would be a reduction of one lot. Tangen said he would like to have the developer have the option in Block 4 of making all of that 13.5, He said he would rather see transitions in back yards and not in front yards, VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: Motion carried unanimously, VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED; Motion carried unanimously, MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 116-84, rezoning, which will conform with the platting t as discussed this evening. Penzel asked that the Council have a copy of the revised plat before it prior to adoption of the final plat. VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement taking into consideration the recommendations of various Commissions, Staff and the City Council, Anderson said the trail in this area should be constructed so it can be plowed. City Council t'i rues -7- October 2, 1984 VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. Tangen noted the developer had requested a permit to do preliminary grading. He said he would like to have the recommendation of Staff regarding this . Tangen stated that the Council had made a decision last year that this is something which it did not wish to happen; if it is to occur, there must be a strong positive Staff recommendation supporting the need. B. BLUFFS 14EST 5TH ADDITION by The Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5 acres and preliminary plat of 14. 5 acres into 32 single family lots. Location: south of Riverview Road, east of West Riverview Drive. (Ordinance No. 106-84 - zoning and Resolution No. 84-215 - preliminary plat) Continued Public Hearing from September 4, 1984 City Manager Jullie indicated this Public Hearing was continued from September 4, 1984. Mayor Penzel noted at the previous hearing a major issue was the question of storm drainage in the Bluffs West area. Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed the findings relative to storm drainage in the area. He reviewed possible ways of alleviating the drainage F problems in the area. Dietz noted that most of the outlots were constructed for storage of water produced by a ten-year rain; the tot lots were designed for storage of storm water during wet periods -- these were known as "innun- dation areas. " Regis Betsch, 11941 Pendleton Court, stated that any constructior of a j drainage ditch on the hill would cause undue erosion. Betsch said that Federal agencies would be upset with any dumping of water in this area. Dietz said any proposal would require a DNR and Watershed District permit. ' He added that the main concern both agencies would have was with silt being dumped in the area. Betsch said they do not want any leaching in the wild- life refuge area. Dietz noted the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has a pipe going through this area. Penzel had a question as to how the cost of the improvement might be assessed. Dietz said he looked at this in much the same way as the Bluffs East project where the developer was required to bring the pipe on through. He indicated this was now the time to construct this pipe. Dr. James Diehl , 10530 West Riverview Drive, asked if this drainage system was necessary only because of� the zoning change. Dietz said the need was created because of development -- the paving of Riverview and the construc- ti on of homes in the area; it was was not necessarily the result of the zoning change under request. Diehl asked who would pay for this . Dietz said his recommendation would be to have the proponent pay for all but a small portion of it based on the street improvements which would then be assessed to the adjacent property owners . City Council Minutes -8- October 2, 1984 Brendan O' Donnell , 11590 Riverview Road , said the issues are two-fold. He referred to a letter sent to then City Engineer Jul l i e in 1979. He asked the Council to defer any development proposals until the storm drainage problems are resolved. The issues are whether or not to fix the problem now or to add to the problem and fix it at a later date. He stated that all the approvals for the drainage should precede action on the part of the City Council . Ellen Koshenina , 10541 Riverview, said they were pleased when the City Council requested a study of the drainage problem in this area. She said they were not happy to hear that the same firm which had done the work for the Hustads was also working for the City. She said they want to make sure the solution is the right one. She asked if the environmentalists had been involved in this.. She also asked what the potential problems might be. Dietz said the consultants had only supplied the City with the "blue line" drawings and that City Staff had done the remaining work. 's Diehl asked if there was some way to prevent undue erosion or a way to restore the contours of the land. Betsch wondered if there had been any estimates made as to how much more it would cost to run the drainage pipe to the river via Riverview Road. Dietz said he didn't make those estimates; he said it would cost about 3 $70,000 to do what now needs to be done. Anderson noted there would be no land acquisition costs involved in using Riverview Road since the City already owns that property. Redpath said the Council must determine what is the best solution. Bentley said he felt consideration must be given to the environmental problems; he said he was not convinced that all the alternatives had been looked at. Anderson said he would like to see a plan for storm water drainage before he approves another plan. Penzel asked how long it would take to make the necessary review of this area. Dietz asked if the Council was requesting a feasibility report or a preliminary assessment roll -- it would take between six weeks to two months to do a report. Bentley asked if approval of the Bluffs 5th proposal required resolving this issue. Dietz said there has to be a permanent solution to the drainage problem at some time and this seems to be the time. Wally Hustad, Jr. , proponent, said he would like to have this looked at further; he would like to work out something whereby they could have a 1st Reading of the Ordinance this evening, Dietz said he would be able to come back to the City Council with a t feasibility study at the second meeting in January. Charles Koshenina, 10541 Riverview, said he felt that before the integrity of the hillside is breached, we must loot: at what we are doing . Betsch said he would like the Council to construct a solution to the problem before allowing approval of any more homes . I City Council hIinutes -9- October 2, 1984 Tangen said the Council had not addressed the question of the plat. He noted there were other issues that were raised in the proposal . He asked if the developer was interested in proceeding with the drainage if the development was not approved at this time. Hustad said if the proposed plat was denied, he would have to sell the property to someone else. He said that was a hard question to answer. F Anderson asked what affect waiting to January would have on the developer. Hustad said money is available and the home builders are ready, so it would "hurt" some. He said he would like to work out something. Redpath asked if it would be proper to ask Staff to look at ponding on the west side. Bentley said the Council would not know whether or not that is the correct solution. Bentley said he would not agree to anything prior to a feasibility study. Hustad asked if they could improve the cul-de-sacs and work on the drainage problems with the City at the same time, MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to continue the Public Hearing and to defer any action on this proposal until the second meeting - in January (January 22, 1984) at which time a feasibility study will be presented to the City Council . Motion carried with Redpath and Tangen voting "no. " C. EDENVALE 11 by Richard Anderson, Inc, Request for Preliminary Plat of 4.57 acres for one lot and approval of permit to construct within the floodplain. Location: north of Martin Drive and west of Mitchell g Road. (Resolution No. 84-258 - preliminary plat and Resolution No. 84-Vi - floodplain permit) City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners in the project vicinity had been notified. Scott Anderson, proponent, and Warren Israelson, consultant , addressed the proposal . City Planner Enger said this request had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its September 10, 1984, meeting at which time it voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in the September 7, 1984, Staff Report. Tangen asked for clarification on the lighting. Scott Anderson said there would be 20 ' cut-off 1 uminars in the parking lot; they would eliminate glare across the golf course to the north. Anderson said he had concern about how this would look from the golf course; he asked that deciduous trees be used to screen the area. City Council Minutes -10- October 2, 1984 Penzel asked if it would be more reasonable to build in the floodplain and have the parking on the south side of the building rather than on the north. Tangen asked if the 20' lights were "cast in stone. " He said he would like to see evergreens included to buffer the parking. Scott Anderson said he would not be averse to putting in evergreens . He indicated Staff had suggested creek-type plantings such as weeping willows . Enger noted this site was previously zoned. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Nearing and to adopt Resolution No. 84-258, approving the preliminary plat of Edenvale II for Anderson Development, Inc. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath , to adopt Resolution No. 84-271, granting a permit for construction within a designated floodplain area for Richard W. Anderson, Inc. , for Edenvale II . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to prepare a Summary Resolution of Approval as recommended by the Commissions and Staff; and with the recommendation that 15' be the maximum for the cut-off luminars and that plantings include evergreen trees. Motion carried with Anderson voting "no." D. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS IN _TF AMOUNT OF -S 3,000 ,000.00 FOR VALLEY VIEW ASSOCIATES Resolution No. 84-272_) City Manager Jullie indicated notice for this project was published. Al Shackman, Ryan Development, was present to address the proposal , Finance Director Frane said the proponent is asking to "get in line" in the event the City has some unused allocations available at the end of the year. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 84-272, determining to proceed with a project and its financing under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act; referring the proposal to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority for approval and authorizing preparation of necessary documents, Motion carried unanimously. �_ C t C ;inc i i " ; r -1 October tober 2 , 1984 u • PS M01ION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath , to authorize the preparat of a joint powers agreement with parties yet to be named. Motion cart i t-d {f\/ unanimously. FF MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to* allow Valley View Associates/ Ryan Construction to have first option to use MIDBs for projects which may have their funding forfeited if they default. Motion carried unanimously. i IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 16033 - 16310 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley , to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 16033 - 16310. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath, Tangen and Penzei voted "aye. " Motion carried unanimously . V. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 84-267, rantin rel minar a roval of Munici al Industrial De^ ve-'i opment Bon the amount of 4�,000.00�`or IcG ynn 81aker1 es Finance Director Frane noted his memorandum of September 27 , 1984, in which this was addressed. i The proponent was represented by his bond counsel , Faeyre & Benson, who - spoke to the request. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Pesolution No. p i 84-267, allocating bond issuance authority to industrial development project to be undertaken by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. Motion carried s unanimously. B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 117-84, zoningdistrict change from Rural _ _. >-- _-- — _ to P.1- 13. 5, and ado�ti on of Reso1 uti o- n �10,_84-211 , approvi ng Devel,or.,ent Plan for Bluffs West 4th Add'i t i on, fi lots on 2 acres . Location: northeast quadrant of Riverview Road and Homeward Hills Road. Director of Public Works Dietz indicated this area was out of the area affected by the drainage problems which had been discussed with the Bluffs West 5th Addition proposal . MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to give 2nd Reading to Ordinance No. 117-84, rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. B4-211 , setting forth specific conditions of Council approval of Bluffs West 4th Addition for the Bluffs Company for six single family lots on two acres . Motion carried unanimously. } r City Council Minutes -12- October 2, 1984 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to continue the meeting beyond the 11: 30 p,m. deadline. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Review ofdecision of Board of Appeals & Adjustments regarding Variance_ No. 84-45 for Hans Hagen Homes City Manager Jullie noted that Hans Hagen Homes requested a variance in the Northmark 4th Addition. The request would allow a side yard setback to be 15 feet instead of the Code-required 30 feet so that two townhomes would be able to have two-car garages. Staff recommended denial because the plat was approved with a mix of one- and two-car garages which were i not shown by specific housing unit. The conditions of the plat and or- j dinance can be met and thus there has been no demonstration of hardship. The board of Appeals b Adjustments, however, approved the request subject to possible appeal to the City Council . Bentley said he had requested this be brought to the Council because of a question of fairness, He noted that a resident who lives across the street from the proposed variance had started to put up a structure and had to appear before the Board of Appeals about a year ago. The Board denied this variance, Bentley said he did not feel it was fair to grant a variance on one side of the road and not the other. He said he did not think the Hagen project was diminished by having single car garages. Penzel said he had concerns about the setbacks on Center Way, Bentley said there is no room for screening or berming. Tangen asked the basis for denial by Staff, Enger reviewed the Board's action. Hans Hagen was present to answer questions and explain the situation, MOTION: Tangen moved , seconded by Anderson, to grant the variance as requested on Hyland Terrace and to deny the variance on Center Way. Motion carried unanimously, VII . REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members Penzel - called attention to a letter of September 27, 1984, from Vantage Companies (attached to these Minutes. ) Bentle - reported he had been appointed to the Metropolitan Council 's Transportation Advisory Board. City Council Minutes -I3- Oc'Lober 2, 1984 B. Report of City Manager 1. Review of proposed 1985 City Budget (continued from September 25, 1984) City Manager Jul 1 i ed noted .there was a slight change in the projected assessed valuation ; the valuation would be about 1.8% or $94,000 less than projected. Jullie reviewed his memorandum of September 28, 1984, in which he addressed various ways in which the budget might be reduced. The consensus was to defer the Corrniuni ty Center reserve item, roller blades to be eliminated, and to eliminate the position of fire inspector. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the 1985 Budget as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Discussion on Rec cling Program City Manager Jullie called attention to the September 27, 1984, memorandum in which recylcing solid waste was addressed. Bentley said he thought this was an excellent idea. He said he would like to see representatives from the waste hauling community on the Committee. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to appoint an advisory committee to study recycling as outlined in Assistant to the City Manager Dawson' s memorandum of September 27. 1984. This committee will have at least one representative from the waste hauling community, one from the Planning Commission, and one from the Parks . Recreation & Natural Resources Commission with a maximum number of eleven members with 7 - 9 being preferable. The members will be appointed at the second meeting in November. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Set Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting date Action on this item was deferred. 4. November 6 Council meeting date MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to set the time of the November 6, 1984, City Council meeting for 8 p.m, due to the elections. Motion carried unanimously. C. Report of Ciy Attorney There was no report. _ _ City Council Minut-s -14- October 2, 1984 VIII . NEW BUSINESS There was none. IX. ADJOURNMENT s f MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by .Tangen, to adjourn the meeting at 12:07 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. 9 t l 1 t i r i € W 9 N r _. r .� .wu. :n .. ;c._ ,.'�ti" sr.; r,r. vm� �r,. J r� 4� �.,f�'�a•�...