Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 12-02 CCM Special Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION DECEMBER 2, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary Peggy McNabb. Councilmember Jerry Pedlar was absent from the meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES The Council members and staff observed a few moments of silence and self - reflection. OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL REPORTS EARLE BROWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -- MINNESOTA SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE Councilmember Cohen advised the Council the Earle Brown Elementary School had recently been honored with a Minnesota School of Excellence Award and recommended the City Council present a resolution to the school acknowledging the award. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene directing staff to draft a resolution acknowledging Earle Brown Elementary School as recipient of a Minnesota School of Excellence Award. The motion passed unanimously. 12/2/91 - 1 - APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. No requests were made. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the agenda and consent agenda. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1991 - BUDGET WORK SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of November 13, 1991, budget work session as printed. The motion passed unanimously; the Mayor abstained. NOVEMBER 18. 1991 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the minutes of November 18, 1991, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 91 -271 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL COSTS AND CLOSING THE PROJECT FOR DELIVERY OF A TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY HALL AND THE EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -272 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 12/2/91 -2- RESOLUTION NO, 91 -273 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF A LASERJET PRINTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -274 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL TAX CAPACITY LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PROVIDING INFORMATIONAL SERVICE, AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469.001 THROUGH 469.001 OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1992 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - LARRY ADDITION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the final plat of the Larry Addition. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the following list of licenses: RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Dennis and Dorene Dvorak 3008 - 64th Avenue N SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Bizmart 5951 Earle Brown Drive The motion passed unanimously. 12/2/91 -3- ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO REQUIRE MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN A 24 -HOUR COMMERCIAL OPERATION AND R1 R2 OR R3 ZONED PROPERTY The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Require Minimum Separation between a 24 -Hour Commercial Operation and R1, R2 or R3 Zoned Property for a first reading. The ordinance amendment was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at its November 7, 1991, meeting. The amendment was drafted in response to Councilmember Scott's recommendation to establish some restrictions to address the negative impact of things such as noise, light glare, and traffic created when such 24 -hour commercial operations are in close proximity to residential areas. The Director of PIanning and Inspection reviewed the zoning ordinance amendment which would restrict some late -night and early- morning operations within Brooklyn Center by prohibiting service, entertainment, or retail sales operations located in a C2 zoning district from being open to the general public between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. if located closer than 200' from any R1, R2 or R3 zoned district. He advised the Council medical emergency services are proposed to be exempt from the amendment, and recommended the Council also consider exempting abutment with institutional -type uses located in these zones such as schools, churches, parks and other open spaces. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out to the Council this amendment would affect several existing businesses, but would not prohibit them from continuing to operate, as they would be grandfathered in as nonconforming uses. The amendment would affect all new businesses as well as existing businesses desiring to extend hours of operation into the restricted time period if they are within 200 feet of R1, R2 or R3 zoned property. He then reviewed several of the business areas that would be affected. i Councilmember Cohen expressed concern about adopting an ordinance amendment that would significantly increase the number of nonconforming uses and asked if the Planning Commission had held a public hearing. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the City Council, rather than the Planning Commission, would be required to hold a public hearing on an ordinance amendment. Councilmember Cohen suggested that a public informational meeting be held prior to the second reading of the ordinance amendment in order to obtain input /comments from the community businesses and residents. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene tabling the first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Require Minimum Separation between a 24 -hour Commercial Operation and Rl R2 or R3 q P P , Zoned Property, and to hold a public informational meeting to discuss the proposed ordinance amendment being proposed by the Planning Commission. 12/2/91 -4- Councilmember Scott expressed support of the motion, and requested that prior to a public informational meeting, the Director of Planning and Inspection provide the Council with the number of potential nonconforming uses that operate after 12 midnight. The Council and staff discussed at great length the impact this ordinance amendment would have on the business community, as well as possible ramifications the Council may face with considering variance applications of new and restructured business operations. The City Attorney discussed the City's authority to grant variances. The City Council does have the authority to grant certain types of variances to nonconforming uses. An example would be the setback variance applications from nonconforming uses the Council has had to consider in the past. A variance to this proposed ordinance amendment, however, would be a use variance; and State law does prohibit city councils from granting use variances. Therefore, the City Council would not have legal authority to grant such variances. He stated further that when nonconforming uses are created, existing businesses do have a right to continue in operation without submitting a variance application. The City Manager pointed out to the Council the significant number of automobile dealerships within 200' of residential properties that would become nonconforming uses as they continue to perform repair services after 11 p.m., and cautioned the Council on adopting an amendment that would create a large number of nonconforming uses because of the additional problems they create. The Council and staff discussed options and ways to specifically address commercial uses with undesirable characteristics such as traffic, noise, lights and odor. It was agreed the amendment does address those undesirable characteristics by restricting commercial uses open to the general public. Councilmember Scott reported to the Council that police records indicate over and over again that 24 -hour operations such as gas stations, restaurants and all -night convenient stores generate a lot of nuisance calls as well as other types of problems that require additional police patrolling. She felt the City should hold a public hearing to discuss the issue with local residents and business people with a common goal of providing a safe environment for Brooklyn Center residents. She indicated she had spoken with several residents and business j owners /operators regarding a specific Brooklyn Center shopping center and was told that several of the late -night business owners /operators had chosen to have earlier closing hours in the evenings in to order to alleviate the problems associated with late -night clientele. The City Manager suggested, and h a the Council members concurred t}' g gg c concurred, that the City Attorney and staff amend the ordinance to narrow the focus of the ordinance to minimize the numbers and types of nonconformances prior to the proposed public informational meeting. Councilmember Scott suggested the public informational meeting be scheduled for the end of January or first part of February. 12/2/91 -5- Councilmember Cohen requested the City Attorney to provide the Council with any citations or supreme court decisions that would impact the ordinance amendment. The Mayor raised a discussion on the Council's historical pattern of addressing problem situations as they arise through ordinance amendments. He felt this approach was difficult and time consuming, and has created additional problems as well. He felt it would be beneficial for the Council to explore the possibilities of setting policy and amending the P P gP Y g ordinances accordingly. He felt this approach would be a follow- through to the various studies that have already been done. In addition, he felt doing so would be very time effective as it would free up time for the Council to move ahead with other goals rather than spend so much time resolving individual problem situations. It was agreed the Council and City Manager will explore and discuss moving the Council in this direction. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to amend the motion tabling the first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Require Minimum Separation between a 24 -hour Commercial Operation and R1, R2 or R3 Zoned Property, and directing the City Attorney and staff to amend the ordinance to narrow the focus of the ordinance to minimize the numbers and types of nonconforming businesses in the community, and to then hold a public informational meeting to discuss the Council's goal with the business community. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL'S REVIEW OF SITE AND BUILDING PLANS The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the City Council's Review of Site and Building Plans for a first reading. The ordinance amendment was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at its November 21, 1991, meeting. The amendment is in response to the City Council's direction to prepare a policy statement which would indicate that the City Council will not review plans which have not been reviewed and commented on by the Planning Commission. The ordinance notes that any substantially altered plans not reviewed by the Planning Commission which are offered to the City Council for their consideration shall be referred back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Such a referral shall not count against the time limit the City Council has for making its final determination. The City Manager noted the amendment has been written to include some flexibility in the process, but is restricting in that it removes the Council's option to approve a revised plan P PP P by requiring the review and recommendation of the Planning Commission. q g g Councilmember Scott expressed support of the amendment because it does put the burden on the developer to be timely and orderly in submitting site and building plans and proposals. In addition, she felt the ordinance was written well and affirms the responsibilities of the Planning Commission. 12/2/91 -6- There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the City Council's Review of Site and Building Plans. Councilmember Cohen expressed support of the ordinance and felt it would be very time effective. The Council and staff discussed the time frame of the referral process. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the Council has 30 days to consider site and building plans. Each time a revised plan is submitted, the 30-day lock will stop. The revised plan Y P P will then be placed back on the Planning Commission's agenda as time allows. Once the Planning Commission has had adequate time to review the plans and prepare a report for Council's consideration, the Council once again has 30 days to consider the revised site and building plans. The Council and staff next discussed what the definition of "substantially altered" would be as written in the amendment and how the amendment would address alterations recommended and required by the Council. The City Manager advised it would be up to the Council to decide each time whether the revised plans were in fact considered to be substantially altered. The Council discussed and agreed to revise the amendment by excluding alterations recommended and required by the Council from having to be referred back to the Planning Commission. The Mayor felt by adopting this amended ordinance, the Council would be making a policy decision on its most recent experience with PDQ Food Stores, Inc. He felt the Council may want to retain the option and flexibility to approve alterations. He felt the referral process as written in the amendment would not be time effective when developers are eager, enthusiastic, more willing and easier to work with than the PDQ representatives were. He further recommended changing "shall' to "may" in the second sentence of 1 -e in the ordinance. The Council and staff discussed the Mayor's comments. It was agreed the Planning Commission needs to review site and building plans for ordinance compliance. The City Attorney stated "may" would provide the Council more flexibility in addressing site and building plans, and felt the language of the ordinance should be based on the Council's desire in granting such approvals. The majority of the Council preferred "shall'. There w motion b as a otio Councilmember Scott and a seconded b Councilmember R en Y y os e to amend the motion to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the City Council's Review of Site and Building Plans subject to amending the second sentence of 1 -e to read "If during City Council consideration of the plans the applicant submits substantially altered plans from those originally submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Council shall refer the altered plans back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, except for alterations or changes requested by the City Council The motion, as amended, passed; the Mayor was opposed. 12/2/91 -7- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING WALL AND FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THE C2 I -1 AND 1 -2 ZONING DISTRICTS The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Wall and Freestanding Signs in the C2, I -1 and I -2 Zoning Districts for a first reading. The ordinance amendment is in response to a request from the President of Marquette Bank Brookdale for the Council to consider some modifications to the City's sign ordinance to allow some additional freestanding signery in lieu of wall signery that might be permitted under the current sign ordinance. The City Manager pointed out the ordinance amendment, as discussed by the Council at its November 4 meeting: 1) decreases the size of permitted wall signery from 30% of the area of the wall supporting it to 15% of the area of the wall supporting it; and 2) provides flexibility to possibly allow certain kinds of tradeoffs between wall and freestanding signs by allowing an individual or clustered establishment to be entitled to an extra freestanding identification sign of not more than one -half the height and area of the normally permitted freestanding sign if that establishment agreed to forego all other permitted wall signs. The ordinance amendment was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at its November 21, 1991, meeting. Councilmember Scott advised the Council she had obtained some very positive feedback from the business community on this proposed amendment. The businesses she spoke with felt this would be a step forward in providing some flexibility and opportunity for some very attractive small signs rather than the large wall signs. The City Manager felt the Council has implied an interest in the design of business signery from a community aesthetics standpoint. He suggested drafting an additional ordinance which would offer the businesses an option for the signery tradeoff in exchange for allowing the City to participate and be included in the design and development of the signery for the business. The Mayor expressed support for this suggestion. He felt the existing sign ordinance has served the City well for several years. He further felt this ordinance amendment, as written, is extremely liberal in allowing businesses to go ahead with a freestanding sign in place of a wall sign; the ordinance places no restrictions on freestanding signs. He stated he would be opposed to adopting this ordinance amendment. ent. He stated while it g would work well for proposals such as that of the Marquette Bank Brookdale, it may be very detrimental to the community for other businesses to be able to go ahead with freestanding signs. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading n Ordinance ce Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Wall and Freestanding Signs in the C2, I -1 and I -2 Zoning Districts. 12/2/91 _ g _ Councilmember Rosene expressed support of freestanding signery in exchange for wall signery and suggested placing some requirements /restrictions as to the size and aesthetic ` characteristics of the freestanding signs. The Council members and .staff discussed nil R Cou c member osene s suggestion and several possible requirements /restrictions on such aspects as size, location, landscaping, permanency, and identifier signs only, rather than sale pricing. The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council requirements /restrictions could be placed on the sizes and other characteristics of signs, however, not on the wording as there have been some court cases regardinng sign ordinances and protected speech. The Council members and staff continued to discuss how to best address the City's sign ordinance, including the desired requirements /restrictions and the Council's desire to participate in the design and development of business signs. The City Manager suggested the ordinance amendment be revised to maintain the aspect of trading a wall sign for a freestanding sign, but be much more specific as to requirements/ restrictions on the characteristics and attributes. The City Attorney advised the Council a court would have a problem with a city council wanting to approve community business signs from an aesthetics standpoint. He recommended the Council decide on and incorporate specific standards and restrictions in the City's sign Mayor and Council members g n ordinance. The Ma agreed with this recommendation. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to withdraw the motion on the table. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott tabling the first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Wall and Freestanding Signs in the C2, I -1 and I -2 Zoning Districts, and directing staff to revise the language in the proposed ordinance amendment that narrows the focus of the ordinance to accomplish the goals of the Council mentioned this evening. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9 p.m. and reconvened at 9:18 p.m. I I 12/2/91 -9- AN ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER 23 -600 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO PAWN BROKERS AND SECOND -HAND DEALERS The City Manager presented An Ordinance Creating Chapter 23 -600 of the City Ordinances Relating to Pawn Brokers and Second -Hand Dealers for a first reading; and, at the City Attorney's request, recommended tabling the first reading until December 16, 1991, in order to allow the City Attorney time to research the number of days pawned merchandise needs to be legally held prior to being sold. Following a brief discussion on the business operations of pawn brokers and second -hand dealers, there was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene tabling the first reading of An Ordinance Creating Chapter 23 -600 of the City Ordinances Relating to Pawn Brokers and Second -hand Dealers allowing the City Attorney time to research the number of days pawned merchandise needs to be legally held prior to being sold. The motion passed unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER COUNCIL MEETING The City Manager advised the Council there will be an executive session in Conference Room A immediately following adjournment of the Economic Development Authority meeting. DISCUSSION ITEM MOTION TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL PURCHASE FROM FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY ACCOUNT On behalf of the Fire Chief, the City Manager requested authorization to purchase an additional mobile phone for the fire department at a maximum cost of $500. He advised the Council $2,000 had been allocated in the Fire Chief's 1991 budget for the purchase of two mobile phones. The two mobile phones were purchased through GSA pricing for $900; the additional phone would be purchased from a portion of the balance in that budget allocation. The purchase would allow the Fire Department to have one cellular phone based out of each station as well as one for the Fire Chief's use. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the Fire Chief's request to purchase one (1) additional mobile phone for the Fire Department. The motion passed unanimously. 12/2/91 - 10 - ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott, and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Peggy McNabb Northern Counties Secretarial Service 12/2/91