Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 02-10-1975 /~~ t.. < . l..:..._4I MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Village of Arden Hills Monday, February 10, 1975 - 7 :30 p.m. V i I I age Ha I I Ca I I to Order The meetingiWas called to order by Mayor Crepeau at 7:30 p.m. Rol I Call Present - Mayor Henry J. Crepeau, Jr., Counci Imen James Wingert, William Feyerelsen, Robert WOOdburn, Charles Crichton. Absent - Nbne. Also Present - Attorney James Lynden, Parks Director John Buckley, Clerk Administrator Charlotte McNlesh, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Zehm. . Approval of Minutes Wingert moved, seconded by Feyereisen, that the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 27, 1975, be approved as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Feyerelsen moved, seconded by Crichton, that the amended motion, page 4, paragraph 2, of the Councl I Minutes of January 13, 1975, be amended to read as follows: D. AI I payments for assessments and taxes due at time City takes possession are to be paid by C. G. Rein; assessments due thereafter on the park property are to be the obliga- tion of the City, provided... Motion carried unanimously. Business from the Floor None. REPORT OF PO LI CE CH I EF pAr SEXTON (Absent - no report) REPORT OF VILLAGE ATTORNEY.JAMES LYNDEN Case No. 74-17, McDonald's Corporat.i.o.n - Application for Building Permit Lynden referred Counci I to his letter of February 6, 1975, re Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation vs. City of Arden Hills, and copy of latter (2/5/75) from Thomas J. Sexton. Lynden explained that Mr. Sexton has requested to appear before the CUy G.Dunci I to speak to issues such as the openitional aspects of the proposed ~lcDonald's establishment in terms of traffic, litter, hours of operation, potential needs for police protection, seating, method of business operation, parking etc.; the presentation, as pointed out by MT. Sexton, is intended to be in the nature of a settlement negotia- tion. . Lyndan I ntl"oduced ~r. Thomas Sexton, attorney for McDona I d 's Corpora- tion, who, In turn, introduced Mr. Gerald Bambery, District Operations Manager for McDonaIJs'Corporation, and Mr. Randy Berg, Regional Sales Representative for McDonald~ Corporation. Mr. Sexton said the presentation tonight Is proposed to speak to Issues raised at the July 8, 1974 meeting by Council and residents: I. Generation of large amounts of traffic. 2. Control of litter. 3. Possible needs placed on the City for extra police. 4, Employment practices. 5. Devolopment of McDonald.'s mode of operation. Mr. Sexton said that it is McDonald's position that It Is.a restaurant, not a drive-in business, even though the servi~e is faster than In most restaurants, and the manu is probably more standardized. He said some people do eat in their cars -- why, he doesn't know, but some do. -1- . . " . . .. , Minutes of Regular Counci I Meeting Page two F~bruary 10, 1975 Councilman Crichton said that Councl I, In its previous meeting, did not c.ons i der whether McDona I d's was "good" or "bad" for Arden Hills. It was his understanding that the issue then wes whether the applica- tion of McDonald's for a Building Permit was appropriate -_ i.e., whether McDonald~ should apply for a Special Use Permit. Councilman Woodburn said the questions ,for Counci I to determine, ai he sees It, is whether a Building Permit can be issued wIthout first granting a Special Use P~rmit, and this determInation depends on the nature of McDonald's business. Lynden said that Mr. Sexton had outlined five points to be discussed, and suggested that perhaps it would be helpful for point No.5 -_ the mode of operation -- to be discussed first. Councilman feyereisen asked Mr. Sexton If he theorized this presenta- tion tonight would Jeopard'ize either Arden Hi lis or McDonald's In the pending litigation. Mr. Sexton said that neither he nor Mr, Lynden would have agreed to it, If they thought it would Jeopardize either side. Sexton said It was the intent of HcDonald~ to follow the lead of comments from the previous Council meeting. He stated he didn't see the need to follaw procedures that McDonald~ did not feet apply, that McDonald~ did oat want to build on a site in Arden Hi lis aver violent objections by th& CJty Cauncil, and that It was making this presentation as a short- . cut to. "i t i gat i on. Fayerel sen asked I f the core of the p rob I em was whether or not McDona I d~ Was,a "restaurant"? S,exton saId that, yes, he thought this was the "crux" af the problem __ McDonalds wauldn't want to proceed with requirements, under the existing ordinance, which did no.t apply. In this case, he added, McDonalds did nat feel the question was a close one, and It would be bad precedence for McDonalds to follow. procedure required for a drive-In, If That pro- cedure dId not apply. Wingert aSked l~h y McDonal ds was re I uctant to. 0.0 through the .....nt'Ad....... "A_ quas-tad.. I ' Sexton replied that a Special Use Permit had a "conditional nature" to 1t which may hinder future changes in the McDonalds establishment whiCh may be desired in the future, such as enlargement of the facility, o.r change in mode of aperation. Sexton said McDonalds plans met all setback requirements, and the City Planner spoke favorably of. the site plan .hen he met wl~h him at Lynden's of~icei ..,._..,,-w::.C'),-",~'~.'-_.'. ',', .... . Lynden said he did not have that recoilec M.r. Sexto.n indicated he had no. abjection to. stoar'ni19 tile j:>.reS'iJilt31tion \"Jth point t/5, theol1lode o.f operation, and dispiayed an artist's ren- deringof the type of establishment propo.sed for Arden Hills, propasing 'seati ng cap8C i ty for 135custome rs. Sexton described the operation as fol lows: Customer enters and goes to the counter area and gives his order to. a clerk; the clerk asks the custo.mer whether order is to be consumed there or "to go". Order is then provided in one of two. ways -- en a tray,'if to be eaten within the bui Iding, or in a paper bag, and on a cardboard tray, in same cases, if "to'ga". The fo.od is there -- ready to. be served -- as the customer places his order" ~r. Sexton said, in some of their establishments, where breakfast Items are served, they are coaked to ord&r and served on a plate. In response to the question frem Lynden, Sextan said, "All items of food are ~rapped In packages -- sandwiches in waxed paper ~rappers, and some, In ad- ditIon, in cardboard baxes, and drinks in paper cups'with lids". This, he said, is for two reasons -- keeps food clean and prevents spi Ilage. Sexton said the dining rooms are maintained by an employee who. clears tables and assists with carrying of chi Idren's trays, and those of incapacited persons. -2- ,.). Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Page three , . February 10. 197' ~rich'iQ~ ds~~d ii;"he McDunald's 3 business which offers prepar3d the custoffiGrS in the vehicle. ;J I~()p';)s..:;d food for "01' ,',J'd~'n Hi i Is 1'Ji11 be possible consumption by Mr. S6Y-1'on rep II ad that \>to have no contro lover, whenl the CUStomer ~ill consuma it, but I am sure you have a point there that some' cus~6m.rs will consume it in the vehicle. Crichton then aSked hi.if he considered the "take home" as lneideotsl. .....- Mr. Sexton answered, "Personally, no. do not." J . S.xton la,l d that trllY' lire not P"ov' d.. to.. c..... Th.... wou I II IHI 110 ear service or curb service. Mr. Sexton said that the percentage of persons taking food out Is detreasing rapidly, and cited spot surveys which were taken by McDonalds: Eagan (October, 1974) - 128 seats 733 respondents contacted 715 responding: 57.6% ate in the building . 1% " outdoors 4.9% " on the lot 19.6% II at home 4.1% II at .,ork 12.3% II on the road I .4% other Apple Valley - 136 seats 790 respondents contacted 759 responding: 69.0% ate in the building 3.8% " on the lot 8.7% " on the road , 3.3% II at home .9% " at work 2.3% other Feyerelsen said that the survey, taken by Mounds View students at the Roseville McDonald~, Indicated the following: bet\~een 11:30 and 1:00 p.m. (Jan. 7, 1975) 205 take-out orders 201 ate Indoors between 5:00 and 6:30 p.m. (Jan. 6, 1975) 86 take-out orders 189 ate indoors He said that at the Steak Inn, across County Road E from the proposed McDonalds site In Arden Hills, their survey indicated the following: . between 11:00 and 1:30 p.m. 130 eat-in customers o take-out orders. In answer to Mr. ~Iingert's question as to whether'trash barrels would be placed in the parking lot of the Arden Hills' McDonalds, the answer was, only as needed. Mr. Bambery said McDonald~ was now buying about 8 trash barrels for new McDonald~ stores, placing 6 out-doors and 2 in reserve, compared to previousiy placing 24 trash barrels in the parking lots of McDonald~ stores. Mr. Howard Nelsen, former Mayor of Moundsview, said he worked favorably with McDonald's in Moundsview, and has had good reports since i-he estab- lishment opened about 6 months ago. -3- ....oIl , Minutes of Regular Counci I Meeting Page four February 10, 1975 . Crichton moved, seconded by Feyereisen, that the Council request McDon- ald's to proceed as though it were applying for a Special Use Permit, which would Include a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would subsequently report its recommenda- tions to the Councl I and the Council would then consider the merits of the McDonald~ proposed establishment. This procedure would not constitute a waiver of McDonald's rights nor the rights of the City. Neither position would be compromised. In discussion of the motion, it was noted that the following procedure would be taken: i. McDonald~ would appear before the PI~nning Commission at a Public Hearing at its next meeting (March 4, 1975) for review of Its plans and to answer questions. 2. Planning Commission would make its determinations and recom- mendations to the Council at the next Council meeting follow- Ing the Planning Commission Meeting (March 10, 1975>. 3. Counci I would consider the appl ication at that time on Its merits -- first determining whether or not the establishment was a "restaur~nt". Wingert expressed concern as to why McDonald~ would be given special treatment, not granted to anyone else. Sexton said that McDonalds cannot stop customers from eating in their cars -- customers do have that option, and there is no way McDonalds can control It. He did indicate, In response to a questIon from Lynden, however, that the prepackaging of the food, which makes it portable, doas facilitate customers taking food to their cars, and away from the premises. Woodburn said his survey figures, taken at the Roseville store last summer, indicated 48% of customers, between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., ate i n the b u I I din g . Feyerelsen said his problem was not what McDonald~ was, but what It was now, and what it would be coming to. He indicated a desire to look at the plan at this proposed location In Arden Hills -- not what McDonald's was before, or elsewhere. Mr. Berg'stated that McDonald's was a restaurant, and, therefore, the corre.ct way to proceed would be to fol low procedure for a restaurant. He said that McDonald\swas not ashamed of its mode of operation, but, in fact, proud of its operation,. that it ha4 gone to court many times to defend Its operation as a restau,-ant, and had won many times. He said that McDona I d's was not ave rse. to show i ng peop I e exact I y wh<jt McDonald's was, and indicated that, regardless of the ordinance, they have .a Iways procElil:led as a 'res'caurantr.. . Woodburn stated that the Planning Commission had seen the site plan, the 'interior of the store proposed in Arden Hi lis, three signs proposed (two of which were in violation of our ordinance); asked what additional information ~Io.u'd be presented to the Planning Commission. Berg contended that these plans had not been discussed with the Planning Commission; the application was denied because of incorrect application procedure. Feyereisen asked if McDonald~ was agreeable now to going through the Public Hearing. Mr. Sexton said that was correct, and that the land- scape plan had been re-drafted, and would be presented at that time. Wingert said if the Council followed the procedure proposed, it would require notifying residents of the hearing; therefore, an ownership re- port would be needed and a notice of hearing published in the paper. He asked if, after Council received the recommendation from the Planning Commission re restaurant vs. drive-in, would McDonalds have to re-apply for a Special Use Permit if the determination is that establishment is a drive-in, which would require another public hearing. -4- . .. . , Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Page five February 10, 1975 Lynden said he did not think that would slon's recommendations to Council could conditions if It were recommending that and Building Permit Issued. Crichton asked the McDonald~ representatives If, on the basis of facts, the Council found that the proposed establishment met the "drive-In" definition, would McDonalds accept this with an Open mind and proceed as a "drive-In"? be necessary; Planning Commls- include Special Use Permit a Special Use Permit be granted . Mr. Sexton said his thinking, In regard to this, was that, In all candor, no-one is enamored wIth the ordinance definition of drive-In business. ' ' McDonalds wants this Issue decIded prior to the pending litigation. If. the Counci I were Inclined to decide that McDonald's was a "drive-In", there was no point in wasting time with this presentation. Mayor Crepeau stated that no pre-determinations have been made; matter has only been dIscussed by this chamber at this table __ we are all reasonable men. Motion carried (Crichton, WOOdburn, Feyerelsen, Crepeau voting In favor of the motion; Wingert voting In opposition). , , Minutes of Regular Counci I Me3ting Page five February 10, 1975 Case No. 74-36, C. G. Rein - Amended Special Use Permit Lynden referred Council to the revised Amended Special Use Permit, not- ing that perhaps it should be revised further to include Planner's fees, to be paid by C. G. Rein. Crichton moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Councl I approve the revised Amended Special Use Permit, Case No. 74-36, as amended tonight; granting Attorney Lynden the lattitude to re-draft special condition #2 to assure City of a perpetual license or easement on bahalf of Dreyfus and I. C. Systems with C. G. Rein re the landscape agreements; condition #3 to be amended to read as fol lows: . 3. Approval by the City of the park dedication plans set forth... and adding time limit "on or before March 10, 1975"; condition #4 to be amended "... so as sufficiently to screen al I of equipment located...'l condition #9 be added re Planner's fees to be paid by C. G. Rein. Motion carried unanimously. (10 minute recess) Representative Howard Neisen, District 49A Representative Howard Neisen expressed his desire for an open line of communication between the legislature and the local communities, and said It Is his desire to keep the communities In his district aware of pending legislation and also to make the legislature aware of com- munity problems. Ordinance Amendment r~ Customer Meter Deposits Wingert moved, seconded by Feyereisen, that AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORD. NO. 103, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM, BY CHANGING THE PROVISIONS THEREIN RELATING TO WATER METERS, SUBSTITUTING "CITY" FOR "VILLAGE" THROUGHOUT, AND INCREASING PENALTIES PROVIDED THEREIN, be introduced by title. Motion carried (Wingert, Woodburn, Feyerelsen, Crepeau voting in favor of the motion; Crichton voting in opposition) . REPORT OF VILLAGE TREASURER RICHARD O'KELLY (absent - no report) REPORT OF CLERK ADMINISTRATOR CHARLOTTE MCNIESH . Bussard Easement for Lift Station - Sewer lmpr. 612-13 McNlesh referred Council to her memo (2/7/75) outlining the sequenc~ of events re the several lift station sites proposed; the present status being a proposal, by Mr. Bussard, that the Village lease the site for as long as the Vi llage needs it; land to revert to him if site is abandoned. He suggested lease payments of 6% of the appraised value (Pomerenke appraisal on 12/9/74 was $19,500 for a 150'xI00' site). Mr. Bussard said that in 1970 he proposed subdivision of this property, and showed the Counci! a drawing of the proposed subdivision; suggesting the City buy the lot on which the lift station Is located. He said that if the 11ft station is abandoned, at some future date, City would have a saleable piece of property (100'xI50'). Feyereisen said that the property has not been platted, and City should be considering It as acreage at this time. Bussard said he feels five years is a long time for the City to have had use of his land, without compensation. Councl I agreed that the matter would be resolved as soon as possible, and referred the matter to McNiesh to obtain a second appraisal (informal estimate) for Council consideration - appraisal should Include the 150'x100' site, proposed by Mr. Bussard, and the 50'x85' site;Vi Ilage Engineer t~ diagram and describe sites. ( I t was noted that the Cr"l3'~ forms the north bounda ry of. the site). -5- . . Minutes of Regular Councl I Meeting Page six February 10. 1975 Flaherty - Undergroung Tanks at 1261 West County Road E Mr. Patrick Flaherty explained that,the station was abandoned by Texaco in the fall of 1973, and has been for sale or lease since that time. He s~ld it has been their desire TO lease to commercial, other than a service station, if possible, but to date only offers to lease are from 01 I companies. Flaherty stated they would like more time to try for a better tenant; as a last resort would lease to an oil companYf asked for an extension until spring of 1975, before abandoning tanks. Flaherty saId they are de!.;lrous of a good -neighbor. - , Wingert said a determination should be made soon; there Is some hazard with empty tanks. and by State law, as wel I as City ordinance. they must be abandoned properly. If not in use. After discussion, Crichton moved. seconded by Wingert. that Councl I grant an extension for abandonment of the underground tanks at 1261 West County Road E. until May 12, 1975, to provide time for Flahertys to obtain a contract for operation of the premises by June 15, 1975. (It was noted that if a signed lease is not In hand by that date, it 1'1 understood that the tanks wi II be abandoned as required by ordinance). Rice Creek Watershed District NcNlesh referred Council to the rental proposal from Rice Creek Water- shed District. for rental of the Vi Ilage Hall for the balance of 1975. Wingert moved, seconded by Crichton, that the Counci I approve the $200/year rental for the balance of 1975, as proposed. Motion carried unanimoUSly. Case No. 73-28. Hunters Par~ Fourth Addition - Request for Time Exten- ~n of Final Plat Ap-proval McNle~h referred Counci I to a letter from Dreyfus Interstate Develop- ment Corporation requesting a 60-day extension for Final Plat approval of Hunters Park. Fourth Addition. Wingert moved, seconded by Woodburn. that Counci I grant the time ex- tension of 60 dayd, as requested. Motion carried unanimously. (It was noted that Dreyfus has agreed to construct Harriet Avenue to nine-ton specifications at their cost.) Claims and Payroll C~i~hton moved. seconded by and Payroll, as submitted. F~yereisen, that Councl I approve the Claims Motion carried unanimously. Highway Fines, Report McNlesh was rllquested by Counci I to ask Attorney Farley for the report re highway fines he was to prepare for Counci I. OTHER aus I NESS Proposal for Purchase of ParK SiTe Feyereisen referred Council to the February 4. 1975 proposal for purchase of a park site. noting'a change In remaining amount (last paragraph) from $27.000 to $30,6~5. In discussion of the site, Feyereisen described the east property as rough terrain; west side being high and flat (not wooded). which would be good tor active park use. He-referred to the Park Plan which pro- poses the need for a 16-acre park in th is area.' He sa i d that if Counc i I is serious about acquiring a park in this area, this proposal should be pursved; otherwise, Council should wait until park Is needed. After discussion, Wingert suggested that a counter-offer be made, and Crichton moved, seconded by Crepeau. that Counci I offer to purchase the Cummings property for $48.720; all other conditions to be as described. Motion carried (Crichton. Crepeau, Feyerelsen voting in favor of the motion; Wingert. Woodburn voting in opposition). -6- . . ~~inute5 of Regular Counci I Meeting Page seven February 10, 1975 Proposed Up-grading of Lexington Avenue Woodburn reported that the Public Works Committee recommends that the storm sewer project and the Lexington Avenue improvement be done simul- taneously; suggesting that the storm sewer proposals be sent to Rice Creek Watershed District for review and their recommendations. After a brief discussion, the Counc! i referred the storm sew'er plans A and B to the Rice Creek Watershed Board of Managers for their comments; requesting they report to Council at Its meeting on March 17, at which time they could also make their report re the Lake Johanna outlet. AdJournment CrIchton moved, seconded by Wingert, that the meeting adjourn at 11:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. ~fJJbl~ Charlotte McNlesh Clerk Administrator Jr. Notice of Meeting The next Spe~I.1 Council Meeting wi II be held of Tuesday, February 18, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. at the Vi Ilage Hall. The next Regular Councl I Meeting wi II be held on Monday, February 24, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. at the Vi Ilage Hall. -7-