Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 01/22/1985 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George' Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath CITY COUNCIL STAFF• City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Rooer 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE i ROLL CALL: All members were present (Council member Anderson arrived at 7:45 p.m. ) l MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock) to refer to members of the Council as Council members rather than Councilmen, etc. Motion carried with Bentley voting "no. " 1 . APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Continue item IV. A. Bluffs West 5th Addition to February 19, 1985. The following items were added to the Consent Calendar: III. P. Hidden Glen final plat and III. Q. Hidden Glen 2nd final plat, Move item III. L . to VI I I. B. Resolution No. 85-35, granting preliminary approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $1..7O0,00O.0O for HBP Partnership Roberts Litho Add: item XI. A. Discussion of Invocation. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda and _ Other Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried (Anderson dial not vote on this item. ) I J City Council Minutes -3- January 22 1985 M. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER PHASES III & IV, by Ryan Construction. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 124-84-PUD-11-84 , Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District change from Rural to PUD-11.-84-I-2-Park for 12.47 acres: approval of Developer' s Agreement for City West Business Center Phases III and IV, and adoption of Resolution No. 85-33 , approving Summary of Ordinance No. 124-84-PUD-11-84 and ordering publication of said Summary. Location: north of Shady Oak Road, west of City West Parkway. (Ordinance No. 124-84-PUD-11-84 - rezoning to PUD-11-84-I-2-Park and Reso- lution No. 85-33 - authorizing publication of Summary) N. EDEN PRAIRIE APARTMENTS, by David Ames. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 122-84, amen inn Trdinance No. 241 within RM-2.5 District for 6.6 acres , approval of Developer's Agreement for Eden Prairie Apartments , and adop- tion of Resolution No. 85-34, approving Summary of Ordinance No. 122-84 s and ordering publication of said Summary. Location: north of Valley View Road, west of Golf View Drive. (Ordinance No. 122-84 - amendinn ? Ordinance No. 241 within RM-2. 5 District and Resolution No. 85-34 authorizing publication of Summary) 0. BLUFFS EAST 3RD ADDITION, by the Bluffs Company. 2nd Readina of Ordinance (Vo. 128-84, amending Ordinance No. 107-84 for Zoning District change from R1-13. 5 to R1-9. 5, approval of Amendment to Developer's Agreement for Bluffs East 3rd Addition, and adoption of Resolution No. 85-32, approving Summary of Ordinance No. 128-84 and ordering publication of said Summary. Location: west of Franlo Road, east of Meade Lane. (Ordinance No. 128-84 - rezoning from R1-13.5 to R1-9. 5 and Resolution No. 85-32 - authorizing publication of Summary) P. Hidden Glen Final Plat (Resolution No. 85-37) Q. Hidden Glen 2nd Final Plat (Resolution No. 85-38) MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve items A - K and M - Q on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried with Bentley voting "no" on item "D. " IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION by The Bluffs Company. Request for Zoning Dist`— r c 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 October 2, 1984. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to continue this Public Nearing to the February 19, 1985, Meeting of the City Council at which time a. Public Hearing on the storm drainage feasbility report will also be held. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -4- January 22, 1985 B. Public Heari nq for the Removal of Diseased Trees on Private Property Cit Contract Resolution No. 85-31 City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been pub- lished and all property owners listed on the preliminary assessment roll had been sent notices . City Forester Fox referred to his memorandum of January 15, 1985, in which this matter was addressed and noted changes which had occurred. John Liepke, 15208 Scenic Heights Road, indicated the problems he has in attempting to remove his trees which would affect NSP and cable lines. Bentley suggested this problem be worked out between Fox and Liepke. HOT ION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 85-31, ordering a public improvement for the removal of diseased elm trees with the changes as noted this evening. Motion carried with Anderson abstaining. C. Street name change• South Shore Drive between Ticonderoga Trail and Muirfield Addition Ordinance No. 1-85 City Manager Jullie indicated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and residents affected by this change had been notified by ma i 1 . Director of Public Works Dietz stated the proposal is to change the street name of South Shore Drive between Ticonderoga Trai i and the new Muirfield Addition to the name Winchester Lane. This change would help avoid future conflicts with the the same street name applied to two disjointed streets. Pidock said she felt it was too bad to have to change the street name. Bentley asked what contact had been made with the residents who would be affected. Dietz said those affected had been sent a letter reqardinq this Public Hearing; he was aware of only one call regarding this matter. Redpath said it was his understanding that not too many homes would be affected; he thought there might be some affect on the residents of the eastern portion of South Shore Lane also. Dick Hawkins, 18099 South Shore Lane, expressed concern regarding the cost of changing the name of the street. He said it would cost a+minimum of $500 for those self-employed persons on South Shore' Lane to make the necessary changes to letterhead, etc. Sandy Forsman, 18180 South Shore Lane, said the residents of this neighborhood have not experienced any problems in getting emergency help due to the name of the street. Paul Armsmore, South Shore Lane, also voiced concern about the forms which a self-employed person would have to change should there be a street name change. City Council Minutes -5- January 22, 1985 R i Marie Gunderson, 18220 South Shore Lane. said she was offended by the fact that comments had been voiced that new residents would be least affected by the change -- she said she had lived at this address for three years but some of the residents have lived there for ten years . She noted there are many disjointed streets in the metropolitan area. There was discussion by the Council as to the effect of a name change on the residents living on the eastern portion of South Shore Lane as well as those in the area under discussion. It was noted that the residents of the eastern portion of South Shore Lane (that area east of Duck Lake Road) had not been notified by mail of tonigh ' s Public Hear ng. Peterson asked what the rationale was for the name change. Jullie said there was a potential for a problem. particularly in regard to emergencies in the area; and,if a change were to be made, the time would be now. Anderson suggested the name be changed to East and West South Shore Cane- over a period of time. Jullie said changing the drive, trail , etc. portion of a street name causes confusion; he noted that the same problems arise with north, south , east, and west designations. Pi dcock asked if the east and west portions of South Shore Lane would ever be extended. Dietz said they would not. Bentley suggested Staff meet with residents and a solution. He said he could sympathize with the people and their business problems relating to a name change. Dietz said there was no particular advantage to having the street designated West South Shore Lane and East South Shore Lane. Jim Ostenson, Tandem Corp. , developer of Muirfield, said they had a problem in getting a building permit because the final plat has not been filed -- the street name is necessary prior to the filing. MOTION; Pidcock moved , seconded by Bentley, to leave the street name as South Shore Lane. Bentley said he would like to have this item continued so Staff could meet with the residents . He said Staff had presented some valid concerns and so had the residents . Peterson said he felt the east/west designation would help to differentiate the areas of South Shore Lane. Bentley said he would like to see the residents of the eastern portion of South Shore Lane notified of a Hearing so they could have some input. Anderson indicated he could live with the east/west designation. THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN. Ci -ty Council Minutes -6- January 22, 1985 R MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and to give 1st Readinq to Ordinance No. 1-85. changino the name of South Shore Lane between Ticonderoga Trail and Mui rf ie 1 d Addition to South Shore Lane West. Motion carried unanimously. D. EASEMENT VACATION IN MUIRFIELD ADDITION (Resolution No. 85-30) City Manager Jul 1 i e indicated notice of this Public Hearing had been published. Director of Public Works Dietz noted this' was a housekeeping item; the subject easement was no longer necessary. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 85-30, vacating the riqht-of-way and utility easement in the northwest 4 of the northeast a of Section 7. Motion carried unanimously. E. TRANSFER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK FUNDS. Transfer of CDBG funds from contingency account to acquisition o real property account for construction of senior housing. City Manager Jul 1 i e said notice of this Public Hearing had been published and called attention to Steve Durham's memorandum of January 17, 1985, in which the matter was addressed. Jullie noted that final action to reprogram the funds will occur at a later date when specific details of this program are defined, Bentley asked if the appropriated fund would be available at a later date for something else. Enger said the fund could be reprogrammed at a later date. He noted the County has now put timelines on these funds; the County had suggested the City place these funds in an contingency account. There were no comments from the audience, MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and direct the transfer of CDBG funds from a contingency account to an acquisition of real property account for the construction of senior housinrn, Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS, 18056 - 18323 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 18056 - 18323. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley , Pidcock , Redpath and Peterson voted "aye" , Motion carried unanimously. f City Council Minutes -7- January 22, 1985 VI . ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS There were none. V I I . APPOINTMENTS A. Health Officer - Appointment of 1 Health Officer for the year 1985. Appointment by Mayor with consent of Council . (Continued from January 8, 1985 ) MOTION: Redpath moved_ seconded by Bentley , to appoint Dr. Waldemar Cruz as the City's Health Officer, Motion carried unanimously. B . South Hennepin Human Services Council - Appointment of 2 Consumer Rep- resentatives to serve 2 year terms commencing 2/1/85 (continued from January 8, 1985) MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath. to appoint Pat Nash and Nel ma Mavi son as the Consumer Representatives to the South Hennepin Human Services Council . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Anderson moved , seconded by Recipath , to have a letter of appreciation sent to Rosemary Dysinger and Mary Hayden in recognition of their efforts as past members of the South Hennepin Human Services Council . Motion carried unanimously. VIII . PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A . ApeaL . Wel come Home on decision of Board of Appeals and Adjustments to permit 18 unrelated adult residents in a fami l,y care home facility City Manager Jul l ie stated residents in the Willow Creek neighborhood had been advised that this would be on the Council Agenda this evening. Jul l ie noted that this request had been before the Board of Appeals & Adjustments for a variance for a group home with 18 residents . That request was denied by the Board . The proponents had also appeared before the Human Rights & Services CDMMission on October 15, 1984. That Commission endorsed the concept of group homes but did not recommend approval of this specific request. Since the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments , the proponents have amended their request and are now asking for a 16 resident group home rather than the 18 residents group home. Additional materials have also been supplied; these have been reviewed by Staff and City Attorney Pauly. Jullie said that Pauly' s memo of January 18, 1985 , concluded that there is persuasive evidence that the house in question should be considered as a multiple dwelling and , therefore , a State licensed residential facility serving up to 16 persons would be a legitimate use and not subject to the need for a variance as originally presumed. Pauly also noted that substantial remodeling of some of the rooms as proposed would probably not be considered as an unlawful enlargement of the non-conforming use status . a City Council Minutes -8- January 22, 1985 Jullie indicated this matter was again reviewed by the Human Rights & Services Commission on January 15 , 1985. At that time the Commission members were satisfied with the information and testimony provided by the proponent and others and, accordingly, they recommended that the Council consider this item for approval . Jullie stated the focus of toniaht ' s discussion should be on whether or not this is a single family dwelling. City Attorney Pauly noted that pages 272 - 361 of the Council packet contained materials pertinent to Welcome Home. Also distributed were an affidavit dated January 14, 1985, signed by Mrs . Illah M. Sutton; and memordanda (with attachments) dated December 18, 1984, and January 8, 1985, from Steve Durham, Assistant Planner, A1.1 of the foregoing were a part of the record. Barbara Willcox, representing Welcome Home, addressed the program to be offered at the facility and noted it will be a respite care program usually 30 days in length and not more than 60 days serving 16 adults. Also present were: June 7hiesee, Hennepin County Mental Health Services: Jim Oren, Minnesota and Hennepin County Mental Health Association; Nelma Mavison, resident of Eden Prairie and involved in Mental Health organizations ; Jan Check, nurse therapist and resident of Eden Prairie; Richard Powell , Wellspring; Gene Kemp, therapist in private practice; Dell Evans, architect for Welcome Home; Stephen Schele , Welcome Home; and Jack Strothman, attorney for Welcome Home. Willcox reviewed the plans for the structure: she noted that the thiru foor (attic area) and the garage would riot be used; the screened porch would be winterized and used as a reception area. Willcox noted that the Health Department and Department of Public Welfare regulations dic- tate room size. Bentley asked if Welcome Home is a non-profit or for-profit enterprise. Willcox indicated it was for-profit. Bentley asked what the cost of renovating the structure would be, Willcox said she thought between $20,000 and $30,000, Bentley asked what the current. assessed valuation of the building was. Assistant Planner Durham said he did not have that information. Peterson indicated the Council must deal with the question of whether or not this is a single or multi-family residence, Redpath concurred and said the Council cannot be concerned with the licensing and programming as these are governed by the County and State; the Council 's decision boils down to one of use. Peterson asked for the definition of multiple dwelling unit and the si oni fi cance of changing a non-conforming use. City Attorney Pauly read the definitions from the City Code. City Council Minutes -9- January 22, 1985 f Pauly noted his memorandum dated January 18, 1985, in which Welcome Home was discussed. He stated that the present City Code permits a single family residence on ten acres in a Rural District; the previous Ordinance permitted a single family use on five acres in a Rural zone. Pauly said City Staff conducted an investigation in an attempt to determine what the use of the property was prior to October, 1969. Pauly called attention to the affidavits included in the packet which assert that the building has been used as a multi-family dwelling. City records do not reveal the existence of any bui 1 di nn permi is for the installation of these facilities (i .e. separate bathroom, kitchen and laundry facilities .) The building' s use as a multi-family dwelling was asserted by Mrs . Ilah Sutton and Donald Hanson, previous and present owners of the building. Pauly reviewed the history of residents living on the property. Pauly pointed out that whether this property has been used as a single family dwelling unit or as a multiple family dwelling must be examined by each member of the Council ; the Council must examine the documents and affidavits to make that determination. Bentley said that after examining the court cases provided by City Attorney _ Pauly, the question that came to him was ,at what time does a pre-existing non-conforming use break with the zoning laws as to what should be per- mitted on this property? Should a non-conforming use on a pre-existing piece of property be treated in the same manner that a conforming use would be treated? Bentley said he felt the Council was looking at a commercial venture which was not a continuation of a present non-conforming use. He felt there was now a break from the use as a residential duplex to a commercial venture which has a commercial use. Pauly said that was a point which was thought about early in the process. Pauly said he did not think that the Statutes which require a municipality to permit such a use of a rul ti ple dwelling are limited to situations where the underlying district is a multiple dwelling district. He noted that none of the cases which have been decided have that very fact situation. Bentley said it was his belief that the intent of a grandfatheri ng clause was to protect the property owner. Pauly said that was correct -- so there would not ".,e a taking of property without due process. Bentley sat,' he felt the Council was looking at something which was different in character; the proposal is commercial as well as transient in nature. Pauly noted that the Statute which equates a licensed residen- tial facilty (to a multiple family use) makes no differentiation between whether it is non-profit or for-profit. Redpath askled if it would not be better for Welcome Home to lease the bui 1 d i na ar use it for 15 people because there are three living units in the building. Pauly said he did not think there was any evidence to show the bt.i l di ng was a triplex prior to 1980. City Council Minutes -10- January 22 , 1985 Pidcock inquired as to how lonq a facility must be used in a certain way to claim that use. Pauly said a use must be determined prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance . Pidcock asked how the outcome of this would affect other grandfathered properties. Pauly said that is determined on an individual basis. Peterson asked if it would be possible to approve the request subject to the approval of structural changes. Pauly stated that the Building Department and the Fire Marshal have not been heard from yet regarding the changes to the structure which are contemplated and/or necessary. Peterson asked if there would be changes in the parking. Pauly indicated changes in the parking were mentioned in one of the earlier cited cases. Pidcock asked about the date when this was used as a duplex. Pauly said the use of the structure as a duplex began in 1948 and continued until it became a triplex in 1980. Anderson said from all the information he had received it was his conclusion that this is a multiple dwelling. Bentley said he felt there was a question about the difference between zoned multiple dwellings and pre-existing non-conforming use in a Rural area. Anderson asked how the area was designated on the Guide Plan. Jullie said it was shown as ''+ow density residential . Don Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, inquired about the lines on the dotted lines on the proponents renderings. Willcox said they are no longer applicable. Sorensen questioned the $20,000 figure which had been mentioned as the cost of remodeling the structure. Willcox said that was the architect' s estimate. Kent Molde, 7040 Willow Creek Road , President of the Willow Creek Homeowners Association, addressed the question of the spirit of the law on the question of single family versus multiple family use of the property. He noted that homes adjacent to the property also have separate entrances, multiple bedrooms . etc. He stated the home abuts an area which is zoned RI-22. Molde said if this goes into multiple use it will jeopardize development of the remaining low density resi- dential . He said that City Attorney Pauly had taken a different stance at the Board of Appeals & Adjustments meeting and had said this was a single family dwelling based on the utility hookups , etc. Redpath said he cannot see this residence reverting back to that of a single family residence. Sorensen said he does not object to the type of use proposed; there is a need for this type of facility, He said he is opposed to the number of people to be housed; if it were to be a six residence facility he would fin it acceptable. He said the issue of whether or not this is a single family use depends on which portion of the Ordinance you sel ect to read. Sorensen said he did not think this home became a non-conforming use until 1980: the expansion of a non-conforming use is not allowed so that the use can be phased out over a period of time. He said the use of this structure on October 14, 1969, was not that of a triplex; the change in use in 1980 was in violation of the zoninn ordinance. Sorensen pointed out that no building permits for any of the expansion in the home had been taken out except for the garage and , therefore, !-,ere unlawful expansions. s City Council Minutes -11- January 22, 1985 Sorensen reviewed the peopole who have owned and lived in the home. He analyzed three cases which referred to similar situations in other cities. i Additional issues used to support his conclusion that this should not be expanded included: the driveway is not on the property and there are no rights to it; parking needs are requirements of the Code; there is only one not water heater in the structure; the second hot water heater was installed after 1969; the laundry room is used by everyone in the building; the changes which would have to be made to the structure would preclude its being returned to its original use. Sorensen referred to the December 17 , 1984� letter from Steve Durham, Assistant Planner, to Barbara Willcox. His primary issue was concerning the parking. He noted there will be a number of workers at the facility and their arrival and departure times will overlap. } The Board of Appeals, according to Sorensen, had raised the point that i the City cannot change the use of the structure. Sorensen said he felt the change from a duplex or single family with incidental roomers use to that of a multi-family 16 person use would be a change in the use according to the Statute. Sorensen said he read the Statute as having been written so that cities could not write facilities such as this out of the city. He said he did not feel the Statute was written to allow the expansion of a non- conforming use. He stated he would not oppose granting this use for .. a facility housing six people which is allowed in a single family dis- trict. Bentley asked if there was evidence before the City Council which showed , without a doubt , that this was a non-conforming use, Pauly said there was none but that was not the standard to be used -- the preponderance of the evidence was the standard. Bentley said he could not accept the rationale that having a boarder makes a use a multi-family use. He said the fact that there have never been more than five people occupying this house indicated to him that it should be viewed as a single family home. Pauly said that is the decision which must be made by the City Council . Pidcock questioned the property line between this property and that of Donald Johnson, Willcox ind:cated that they would be willing to put in a privacy fence and/or shrubbery should that be necessary for screening. Peterson asked when the term "non-conforming use" was first used in reference to this property. Sorensen said he felt it was at the time of the adoption of the ordinance -- either Ordinance 8 or Ordinance 135. Peterson asked if this property was taxed as a single family home. Pidcock noted the property owner would have gotten a tax break if his portion had been homesteaded. Peterson said the owner of record had argued successfully that this was a single family unit at the time the sewer connection was made. Jullie pointed out that , in some instances , there can be only one service to a multi-family unit. City Council Minutes -12- January 22, 1985 Willcox explained that none of the walls would be removed, except for closet walls, in the remodeling process . She noted there had been separate households living in the structure. Willcox said there would be at most seven staff members present at any one time and that would be for only a short period of ti the.wren times overlapped. Elaine Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that many homes in this area have separate living units within them. - She said that one of the homes has eleven bathrooms but that all of the homes are single family homes. Pauly noted the definition of a "family" as given in the City Code. Redpath asked 'now many mail deliveries were made to this location. Willcox indicated there were two different mail boxes. Sorensen said Bert Sutton had told him there was only one mail box when he lived there on October 14, 1969. Peterson asked about the status of the property using today' s definitions vs. those in use in 1969. Pauly said he felt that October of 1969 was the critical date. Pauly said he felt the Council may look beyond that also -- inferences must be drawn from evidence which is presented on a ` particular point regarding the intent as to usage. June Thiesee expressed concern about the Council 's questioning whether or not this was a for-profit residential facility. Jack Strothman , Lindquist & Vennum, attorney for Welcome Home, indicated City Attorney Pauly's viewpoint was the only objective one voiced this evening. Strothman said this was a multi-family dwelling unit nrior to the reading of the ordinance and remains so today. Redpath said he felt the preponderance of proof is on the proponent. Strothman said he felt the Council should look at the preponderance of evidence in support of the proponent. Anderson expressed concern about the proximity of Johnson's lnt line to this property. He asked what the distance was between the two homes. Jim McNeill , 7251 Willow Creek Road, said it was about 50 yards from his home. Johnson indicated it was about 90 yards from his home . Strothman noted his client was willing to discuss the programs to be offered at this facility. He said he felt it would be appropriate for the Council to ask him questions regarding the proposal . McNeill expressed concern about the lot size and the amount of activity which would be generated by the proposed use and the number of people using the facility. I i City Council Minutes -13- January 22, 1985 z. Bentley restated the issue before the `'cnunci 1 which was an appeal by the proponent for a reversal of a denial of a variance by the Board of Appeals & Adjustments . Pauly said a variance was required when the request was for 18 residents in the facility. Strothman said the variance was now obviated, however the Council 's approval was still necessary. Peterson said he found it almost impossible to made a decision because ' of the cloudiness of what happened in 1969. He asked if the proponent had proved this structure was used as a multi-family dwelling in 1969. City Attorney Pauly said the evidence was persuasive; he did not feel he could make that determination. Anderson said he would have to believe this to be a multiple dwelling based on all that he had heard and read . Bentley said he would like to encourage the efforts of Welcome Home to come into Eden Prairie. He said he had reservations about the concept of metropolitan dispersion -- he did not think it was an appropriate or necessary approach to the handling of all situations in the community. He said he felt the availability of services to the residents is a critical matter. He stated that was not the issue here and he did not intend to make it the issue . Bentley said he was not convinced that this is a legally non-conformina use. He did not think this particular use was a proper use for this site; he would like to see the Council and the proponent work together to find an appropriate site. Redpath stated he would go along with the City Attorney' s position and would agree with Council member Anderson 's statement regarding use. Peterson asked about the number of parking spaces and their location. Willcox said there would be 11 parking spaces and indicated their location on the rendering. Willcox said all 11 would very seldom be in use at the same time. Pidcock read Ihlah Sutton' s letter of October 25, 1984, in which Sutton stated the property was a duplex when they purchased it in 1958 and remained as such until they sold it in 1979. John Koneck, attorney for the Wilkies , Willow Creek Road residents , said that as a triplex this is a non-conforming illegal use. He said the duplex designation was abandoned in 1979 or 1980. Koneck noted that a non-conforming use cannot be reestablished according to City Code. The duplex use cannot be the basis for the establishment of this use if that is the case. Dr. George Tangen, 7034 Willow Creek Road, recalled when he was on the City Council and the Council was reviewing a conditional use permit and the reasons it was granted . He said he felt the issue under discussion should be looked upon as a change in the zoning classification. This would be a continued use of a non-conforming use; he did not see that this would be something which would be phased out. Tangen stated that, were he on the Council , he would not vote in favor of this . City Council Minutes -14- January 22, 1985 Bentley said he was still not convinced that the land use question has been resolved : He stated he feared a precedent would be set which would come back to haunt the Council for many years to come . He said he was not completely convinced that a 16 residents plus office use should be allowed on a . 9 acre site. Redpath said he could think of a number of other non-conforming uses in Eden Prairie. John Golle, 7039 Willow Creek Road, expressed concern about having 16 people plus staff in that house. He said he could not believe the Council would say yes to something like that. Redpath said that State licensing requirements take care of the 16 people; the City must concern itself with whether or not this is a single family or a multi -family use. Golle asked if this site followed State guidelines. Willcox said it did. Thi esse said if licensing were not obtainable then funding would not be ei ther. Peterson said that because of the ambiguities and because of the function of the City Council to uphold the City's Ordinances , he would have to vote "no" on the appeal . Redpath said he would have to vote in favor based on the advice of City Attorney Pauly. -MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, that the use of the structure has been established as a multi-residential non-conforming use and that the Statute relating to the 16 persons applies subject to the questions that are unanswered as to the changes that might have to be made in the structure by virtue of some further review by the Building Department and the Fire Marshal . Motion carried with Bentley and Peterson voting "no." B. Resolution No. 85-35 granting preliminary approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of 1 ,700,000.00 for HBP Partnership Roberts Litho - formerly III . L. Steve Hoyt, 10601 Niblick Lane. partner in Hoyt Development, addressed the request. He noted the reason for requesting MIDBs was that the special assessments against this property were $25,000 per acre and by having lower interest rates the property was developable. Bentley said his questions were mainly with the procedure regarding p preliminary grading permits. Redpath indicated he was not uncomfortable with this request. MOTION: Bentley moved. seconded by Redpath. to adopt Resolution No. 85-35, granting preliminary approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount of $1,700 ,000.00 for HBP Partnership (Roberts Litho. ) Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -15- January 22, 1985 IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS There were no reports . X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1 . Set dates for Board of Review Meeting for Thursday, May 2, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. with reconvene on Tuesdays �1ay 21, 1985, at 6:30 p.m. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to set Thursday, May 2, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time of the Board of Review Meeting with the meeting to be reconvened on Tuesday, May 21, 1985, at 6: 30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Bentley - noted that a recent report by the Metropolitan Council requests that Highway 5 be eliminated from State status . He said this would probably revert to the County. Bentley expressed concern that there would be no improvements to TH5 should this happen and the level of maintenance would be lowered. B. Report of City Manager 1. Participation in Joint Comparable Worth Study (Resolution No. 85-36) City Manager Jullie reviewed the necessity for participating in a comparable worth study; the State has mandated that all public agencies complete a comparable worth study of all employee positions by October of this year. Jullie stated the City Manager' s Association is proposing that cities join together in a common study to be completed by Control Data Business Advisors , Inc. This would provide uniformity between cities. The cost of the study to the City would be $8,'310.00 Pidcock asked how many women were included in the study group. Jullie said the majority are women. Pidcock asked how many of those involved with Control Data Business Advisors were women. Pidcock referred to a publication put out by the State regarding comparable worth. Jullie noted that the reason for not using the Hay study is that Public Safety employees are not included in that and a large number of Eden Prairie's employees are in that department. Anderson noted that while it might be cheaper for the City to conduct its own study, the easiest and simplest way might not be the best way. Jullie said the Stanton Report which compares salaries in metropolitan municipalities is now used by the City. He said the City was in need of a study such as the one proposed by Control Data because the City does not have a true classification system in place. He noted that 18 firms had applied to conduct the area-wide study and that five of those firms had been interviewed. 4 City Council Mi nutes -16- January 22, 1985 Redpath asked if the City were to enter into this study, would size of City have a bearing. He noted that more responsibility is placed on each employee in a city the size of Eden Prairie than in larger cities. Pidcock stated she would like to have the City conduct its own study similar to that done by the State. Bentley said he was in total opposition to the concept of comparable worth; he would vote for the study because Statutes mandate it be done. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 85-36, authorizing participation in the Control Data Business Advisors, Inc. Joint Comparable Worth Study. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath and Peterson voted "aye" - Pidcock voted "no" . Motion carried. C. Report of City Attorney There was no report. D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. July 4th Celebration Director of Community Services Lambert address the memorandum of January 16, 1985, from Charles Pappas , Superintendent of Recreation, which discussed the July 4th Celebration in Eden. Prairie. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to authorize up to $5,000 for a July 4th Celebration in the City of Eden Prairie. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath and Peterson voted "aye. " Motion carried unanimously. XI. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Invocation Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was deferred to the February 5, 1985, Meetinq of the City Council . B. Howard Peterson , Board member, Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District , introduce himself and indicated he would attend Council meetings from time to time and would be available should the Council deem necessary. X I I, ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting at 12:55 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.