Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 08-09 CCM Regular 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 REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 9, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, Director of Park & Recreation Gene Hagel, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Scott. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted he had received two requests for the Open Forum session this evening, one from Mr. Al Beisner, 7549 Mariner Pt., Maple Grove, and Mr. Lou Howard, 2218 -55th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center. Mr. Howard stated that he would wait with his comments until the resolution on Lions Park was discussed. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Al Beisner who stated he works for Lombard Properties, located at 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center. He stated his subject for discussion this evening was the development process and approval process in the City,, and specifically with regard to the Hi Crest Square Estates Development. He'stated that he believes the development process and the approval "process was misused in this project. Mr. Beisner stated that the Hi Crest Estates plan was brought before the Planning Commission on June 17, 1982 and that the site and building plan was approved at this meeting. He proceeded to review elevations of the Hi Crest Square Estates Project. He noted that Mr`. John DeVries, developer of the Earle Brown Farm - Estates townhouse development, learned of the Hi Crest Square Estates plan at the June 17, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. On June 21, he pointed out that he reviewed the Hi Crest Square plans. He stated that after his review of the plans he met with a City Official and an Elected Official and expressed his concern that something was running afoul in the approval process. He stated he contacted a representative of the Hi Crest Square Estates Project and the representative stated that the submission - of the plans for Hi Crest Square Estates was a mistake and that he was not intending to use the plans for the project. He explained that a day or two before.the Planning Commission meeting, held in the first part of July, the applicant pulled the Hi Crest Square Estates Project off the Planning Commission agenda. He explained that on July 15 of this year, the Planning Commission approved Phase I of.the Hi Crest Square Estates Project on a five to two vote. He added that on July 26, 1982, the project came before the City Council. He explained he tried to settle the problems with the 8 -9 -82 -1- Hi Crest Square Estates representative but that they could arrive at no solution. Mr. Beisner indicated he thought there would be a public forum, at the July 26, 1992 City Council meeting, regarding the project but that he did not get a chance to speak. He stated that the process leaves something wanting in the way business is done in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Beisner stated that the reason given for the use of the plan by the applicant was that a deadline had to be met for approval and the applicant did not intend, to use the plan. He added the property'for the project was rezoned and he was told this plan was used to show to the neighborhood groups during the discussions centering on rezoning. He added that, for.the Earle Brown Farm Estates townhouse project, we used the plans to show to the neighborhood and told the neighborhood_ residents that the townhouses would be built according to the plan. Mr. 'Beisner proceeded to review the April 1982 grading plans for Hi Crest Square Estates.and pointed out that they are very similar to those in the Earle Brown Farm Estates. He added the Earle Brown Farm Estates development has surveys with the same dimensions as the Hi Crest Square Estates on the plat, with regard to the width of the units. Mr_ Beisner stated he believes there is an obligation between the City Council and staff and developer to do what is best for the City, and that he did not think what happened with the Hi Crest Square Estates application is a good development procedure. He added that he does not believe the process is what the City wants or what anybody else wants to follow. He stated he thought the process was wrong and tried to let the system work itself out but it never got the proper hearing that it should have. He stated this is the most controversial and poorest example of how things are done in the City. He added if the names were erased on the plans and Deil Gustafson's name was placed on the plans, he believes they would not have received the same type of treatment. Mr. Beisner stated that, in conclusion, he believes he was treated unfairly and the process was a sham. Councilmember Lhotka commented that at the last City Council meeting the Council approved a portion of the plans and that this portion approved was not disputed. Mr. Beisner stated that Councilmember Lhotka was correct but to get as far as the process got, in his opinion, was not.right. Councilmember Lhotka stated he could - -recall, as long as he has been on the Council, that 'a developer brought in plans that the developer did not develop himself. The City Manager commented that the staff proceeded according to the ordinance and the staff did not check the plans to see if they were a duplicate of another plan. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what procedures were taken once it was suspected that the plans were duplicates. = The City Manager pointed out that if the plans are certified by an architect and meet the City ordinance requirements, the dispute over who owns the plans is solely between the developers. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the City's responsibility and inquired whether or not the City should stop the process until the dispute is resolved. The City Manager stated the City did not accept the plans, except for the duplexes, and also added that when ordinance requirements are met the City is obliged to accept the plans. He added there are also time periods stated in the ordinance that must be met with regard to action on the plans by the City. He noted if the City stops the project improperly the City is technically responsible for the cost of the delays. 8 -9 -82 -2- i The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that after the June 17 Planning Commission meeting he became aware of the dispute over the plans. He pointed out before the plans went to the City Council from the Planning Commission, the applicant requested tabling the plans. He stated he believes the process was working by the fact the plans were resubmitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Beisner then inquired whether the plans were certified. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the plans were resubmitted for the July Planning Commission meeting, and they were - not signed, but he added, that this is not uncommon. The City Attorney explained that the procedure set out in the ordinance were followed in this case. He discussed the matter at a staff meeting-and advised the staff the dispute between the developer and the applicant is not sufficient to stop the process. He pointed out the City Council cannot stop the process to allow an applicant and an adversary to sort out their differences. He added the City could have a law suit against the City if the project was halted without sufficient authority. He pointed out the process was carried on precisely according to the ordinance and the City Council cannot be involved in a speculative decision making process. .'Discussion continued between the City Attorney and Mr. Beisner regarding the develop ment process and the site plan and zoning approvals for Hi Crest Square Estates. The City Attorney pointed out the distinction between a zoning change and a site and building plan approval as regards the ordinance requirements. Mr. Beisner stated he generally thought the City persuaded applicants to conform to a traditional development process and in this case the process was not followed. He pointed out, for the Earle Brown Farm Estates Townhouse development a public hearing was held on the subdivision approval on June 22, 1981 and that the plat approval on June 28, 1982, -also got a public hearing. He stated he does not think a full disclosure was given, and emphasized that he is not trying to alienate anyone, but he feels strongly about this matter and thinks the ordinance is vague on when a hearing is required. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that with a site and building plan approval no public hearing is required and that the ordinance is specific in this instance. Mr. Beisner stated, that traditionally he has had an opportunity to sit down and work out problems; but in this case he was not given the same opportunity. Council - member Lhotka inquired whether Mr. Beisner contacted the City staff with regard to this matter. Mr. Beisner stated he did contact the staff but the application was back on the Planning Commission agenda. He stated the applicant felt no necessity to sit down and work out the problem and at that time the attorneys for the applicant and himself were involved. He stated he doesn't feel a full opportunity was accorded to sit down and work out the problem at the meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated the Hi Crest Square Estates preliminary plat hearing was held by the Planning Commission and that traditionally, the City Council has held a public hearing where the Planning Commission holds a public hearing, although, it is not required by ordinance. Councilmember Hawes comziented that he understands Mr. Beisner's concern but he believes the City, has no concern and is an innocent bystander in this instance. Councilmember Lhotka stated he agreed with Councilmember Hawes but added that he believed if something was going on that was not correct,he believes an attempt should be made to correct it. He added that he appreciates the ordinance requirements but he believes the City staff and the City 8 -9 -82 -3- a Council have an obligation to try to work out the problem. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any 'Council members had any items they would request remo from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Theis requested that item 8 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mayor Nyquist commented that the resolution declaring August 19 as Don Poss Day in 'Brooklyn Center is on the Consent Agenda, but he would like to note that in addition to Don Poss Day, Mr. Poss is also receiving the good neighbor award from WCCO radio. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 26, 1982 There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of July 26, 1982 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Councilmember Theis abstained from the approval of the minutes as he was not present at the July 26, 1982 meeting. PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the release of the performance guarantee on the Ponds Plat VI, Ponds Drive and Unity Avenue North in the amount of $10,000. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion' passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the release of the remaining performance guarantee on Harron United Methodic` Church, 5452 Dupont Avenue.North in the amount of $1,000. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. 'e motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF.ELECTION JUDGES FOR PRIMARY ELECTION SEPTEMBER 14, 1982 There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded, by Councilmember Hawes to approve the list of election judges submitted by the City Clerk for the September 14, 1982 primary election. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. -82 -140 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1981 -B (SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -02 AND FREEWAY BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO., 1981 -04) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 8 -9 -82 -4- RESOLUTION NO. 82 -141 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -08 (STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION ON EARLE BROWN DRIVE) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich. Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -142 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PARK SHELTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -17 (CONTRACT 1982 -I) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in p g g favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -143 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING AUGUST 19, 1982 AS DON FOSS DAY IN BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NJ. 82 -144 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING AUGUST 11, 1982 AS TIM LAUDNER DAY IN BROOKLYN CENTER _ The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich - Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by'Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: 8 -9 -82 -5- } CIGARETTE LICENSE Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. S. T- Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT.LICENSE T- Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION LICENSE Mengelkoch Company 119 N.E. 14th St. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE B. C. Jaycee.Women Evergreen Park MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Sunburst Heating & Air Conditioning 1556 Oakways NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Life (Full service vending) 4603 Folwell Dr. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist., Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. `n SUBDIVISION BOND RELEASE - THE PONDS PLATS I, II, III V, AND V The Director of Public Works reviewed a memorandum regarding the performance bond release for the Ponds Plats I, II, III,.V, and VI and recommended the release of the remaining subdivision bonds for the Ponds and pointed out that the site performan bond which is being retained by the Planning Department, will be extended to cover the work remaining in the Ponds. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to release the remaining subdivision bonds for the Ponds Plats I, II, III, V, and VI ' in the amount of $101,500. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, -' Scutt, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO. 82 -145 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM-TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE URBAN HENNEPIN- COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION, IN ACCORD WITH THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in - favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 9-9 -82 -6- t The City Manager introduced a Resolution Rejecting Bids and Authorizing Advertisement for New Bids for Water Tower Painting Project No. 1982 -15 (Contract 1982 -G). The Director of Public Works reviewed the bids for the water tower painting project and explained the low bidder did not submit a statement of qualifications as required in the specifications. He added that there are irregularities in the second low bidders proposal form also. He pointed out representatives of the low bidder are present this evening. Mayor Nyquist recognized the attorney representing Allied Painting, the low bidder on the project.:- The attorney for Allied Painting stated he is concerned about the staff comments from the City of St. Cloud and Robbinsdale regarding Allied Painting's work in their cities and stated that he believes they had an impact on the rejection of the bids. He stated he believes the dispute in the St. Cloud case was made in good faith over a disagreement on the contract and that he believes the project in St. Cloud was done properly and he pointed out that payment was finally made. He added that he also represented Allied Painting in the Robbinsdale case and he also believes a good faith dispute over an interpretation of the contract. He added that the work done by Allied Painting in Robbinsdale was not defective and he expressed a concern over the letter from the Robbinsdale Public Works Director. He proceeded to review a list of successful projects by Allied Painting, including the projects mentioned in the Director of Public Works memorandum. He suggested to the Council that the bidder is a reputable contractor. The Director of Public Works pointed out the specifications on the project requested the bidder to submit a statement of qualifications and that a form was provided but that Allied Painting .left the form blank. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Ralph Reese, who stated he was the President of Allied Painting. Mr. Reese stated the reason he did not submit a statement of qualification is that it was so close to the bid opening date that he did not feel it was necessary and that he has never had a problem on this small a mistake before. The Director of Public Works stated he did not believe that it is the City's obligation to go after the contractor for information required in the bid. Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether the bid opening was set for a specific time. The Director of Public Works stated that the bid was set for a specific time and date. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what would be the consequences allowing the bidder to bring in additional information. The City Attorney advised that it is a very precarious situation if the bidder comes in with information after the bid opening deadline and that he recommended that the City not consider this information since it is part of the specifications. The attorney for Allied Painting stated that the contractor made a good faith,bid. and it was a low bid and that all of the bids are now known for the project and it is up for grabs if the bids are resubmitted. He stated he does not think the competitive bidding process would be served by rejecting the bids. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -146 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:. RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR NEW BIDS FOR WATER TOWER PAINTING PROJECT NO. 1982 -15 (CONTRACT 1982 -G) 8 -9 -82 -7- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly.passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Foreclose on Bid Security of Bauer- Reamer Excavating for Failure to Perform Under Provisions of Contract 1982 -F and a Resolution Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Neighborhood Parks Improvement Project 1982 -13 (Drinking Fountain Installation - Contract 1982 -F). The Director of 'Public Works explained the contractor refused to enter into a contract with the City for the work and therefore the staff -is submitting the foreclosure resolution and the readvertisement for bids resolution for the project. The City Attorney explained he talked to the attorney representing the contractor and was told that the contractor does not intend to enter into a contract with the City. He stated he is recommending the bid bond be forfeited. He added that he is also recommending a change in the specifications regarding liquidated damages. The City Attorney pointed out that the contractor's attorney claimed that the contractor has never worked in Hennepin County with water tables requiring de- watering. The Director of Public Works stated the staff discussed the de- watering requirement With the contractor and also pointed out that Shingle Creek is located only a few feet away from the installation. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -147 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ` RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO FORECLOSE ON BID SECURITY OF BAUER- REAMER EXCAVATING FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM UNDER PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT 1982 -F The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded, member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in , favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -148 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -13 (DRINKING FOUNTAIN INSTALLATION - CONTRACT 1982 -F) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: _none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Lions Park West Trailway Improvement Project No. 1982 -18, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing .Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J). 0 8 -9 -82 -8- Councilmember Theis inquired what Alternate No. 3 would provide on the trail project. The Director of Public Works explained Alternate No. 3 would be a minimal wood chip trail and would not be suitable for an improved trail to be built on it. Council- member Lhotka inquired whether LAWCON funds were designated-for this project. The City Manager in that the project was funded 90% b federal and state dollars e pointed out e Y Y g Po P J and 10% local funding. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired where the dollars would go if they were not used on this project. The City Manager explained that if the federal and state dollars were not used on trails in this project, they would be returned to the state and federal governments. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the Resolution Establishing Lions Park West Trailway Improvement Project No. 1982 -18, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J), and to insert the cost of Alternate No. 1 as described in the August 6, 1982 memorandum titled Extension of.Trailway System Through Park West Improvement Project No. 1982 -18. Councilmember Hawes stated that he believes the high cost of this project is one of the reasons why the federal and state governments are in as bad a shape as they are financially. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he believes in theory that Councilmember Hawes is correct but if the City does not use the funds the state and federal governments will allocate them to another project. Mayor Nyquist.called for a roll call vote on the motion on the floor. Councilmember Hawes voted no, Councilmember Scott voted no, Councilmember Lhotka voted yes, Council- member Theis voted yes, and Mayor Nyquist voted no. The motion did not pass. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -149 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption with the condition that Alternate construction procedure Number 3, as described in the Director of Public Work's memorandum dated August 6, 1982, be inserted and made part of the resolution: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LIONS PARK WEST TRAILWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -18, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICIATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -J) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: Gene Lhotka, whereupon said resolution was I declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -150 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its .adoption RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CENTRAL PARK /GARDEN CITY TRAILWAY EXTENSION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -19, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -J) pV The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes. 8 -9 -82 -9- Discussion ensued among Council members regarding the merits of approving the Central Park /Garden City Trailway Extension Improvement Project as opposed to the Lions Park West Trailway Improvement.Project. Councilmember Scott commented that the Central Park /Garden City Trailway would serve a greater number-of people than the Lions Park Trailway Project. Councilmember Hawes commented he believes Central Park will have the opportunity to be a first class park and he would support it. Discussion ensued regarding the cost of the trails in Central Park and Councilmember Lhotka commented that,.approving one trailway and rejecting the other does not seem to make sense to him. Councilmember Hawes commented that the original project budget for the Central Park /Garden City Trailway was $47,234 and that if the $16,000 deleted from the previous project could be used for the other project, the $16,000 added to the $47,000 budgeted would nearly bring the funding up to the cost of the project: , -- The-City Manager explained that the City can only apply for a certain dollar amount from LAWCON each year and that is why the project had to be built over a number of years. He pointed out that Councilmember Hawes is correct but there are other additional funds that can be used for the project. .The Director of Public Works pointed out that the staff has obtained a budget amendment from the state and federal government_ based -on the approval, of the projects as originally proposed, and that to use the $16,000 on another project, another amendment would have to be made, Mayor Nyquist called for a vote on the motion on the floor. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Theis, and Hawes. Voting against: Councilmember Lhotka. The motion-_passed. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Lions Park Tennis Court Improv nt: Project No. 1982 -20, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J). The City Manager noted that the project would be for , the base work only and would not include construction of the tennis court. The Director of Public Works reviewed the possible location of tennis courts and recommended a two stage process be conducted, the first stage being the soil correction work and the second being the actual court construction. Councilmember Scott expressed a concern over the potential for additional costs if the soil beneath the tennis court continued to sink after construction. The Director of Public Works stated that he believes adequate soil borings have-been taken for the project. Discussion ensued regarding utilization of tennis courts within the City and the Director of Parks & Recreation commented that his department staff have noticed a decline in the number of persons registering for tennis lessons, and he believes tennis activity is leveling off. The City Manager stated that, as part of the bond issue, the tennis court was brought up at neighborhood meetings during the bond issue discussions. The court, he pointed _out, was requested by the residents in the neighborhood and that there are no tennis courts close by. He stated that the staff responded to the residents by stating that the matter of the courts in Lions Park would be reviewed as separate from the -bond issue. ,,Finally, he pointed out, the Park & Recreation Commission recommended the tennis courts be constructed at Lions Park predicated on .a need for - tennis- courts 8 -9 -82 -10- in that area. Councilmember Scott stated that she believes there is a need but she is concerned with the cost of the courts. Park &Recreation Commissioner Jackie Albright stated that the staff originally proposed single courts at Bellvue and Lions, but that the double courts were recommended for Lions Park due to the potential for that Park becoming a larger recreational site. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Lou Howard, 2218 55th Avenue North, who stated, that in the summer of 1980 neighborhood meetings were held and he was under the impression that a golf course was being considered in the area of Lions Park -and that at the meetings the Lions Park neighborhood expressed an interest in tennis courts. He pointed out there are no adult facilities in Lions Park and that four to five persons in the neighborhood gathered a petition of names to request a tennis court in Lions Park, and that the Park & Recreation Commission considered the construction of the tennis courts, and he assumed that the City Council would give consideration to this recommendation. He added that tennis has declined in the past few years but so have other things, due to the economy. He explained that the southeast neighborhood is in a state of change, that younger people are moving into the neighborhood and that sometimes it is worth the money to appease and show the residents that their requests are considered. Mr. Howard also pointed out that the Grandview courts are usually occupied. The Director of Parks & Recreation stated that the City has not held tennis lessons at Grandview Park for two years but that it is used once a week by the tennis club. Councilmember Lhotka stated he supports the project and that the people in the area want a tennis facility. He added that he believes this part of the City deserves the project, especially if the golf course is built in the future. Mayor Nyquist recognized Jackie Albright, member of the Park & Recreation Commission, who stated that the main purpose of the bond issue was to improve the parks and that she was tired of seeing all the development go to Central Park. Councilmember Scott inquired what the original budget was for the tennis court at Lions Park. The City Manager explained that $25,000 was budgeted and that the additional soil work required would come from the Capital Project Fund. Councilmember Hawes asked what assurance can be given that the court won't sink further after the soil correction work is completed. The City Manager stated that it is a very costly item to accomplish the soil correction work, and that the staff would not want to re -do it, so extra precautions were taken in the soil borings to determine what work was required for this area. The Assistant City Engineer reviewed the depth of the soil borings taken in the area and discussion continued regarding the construction procedures for the court. _ Councilmember Theis stated that he would like to see the City accomplish what it originally set out to do with the tennis courts. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -151 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 8 -9 -82 -11- RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LIONS PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -20, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -J) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED RESOLUTION NO. 82 -152 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CIVIC CENTER ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -21 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -J) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being, taken thereon,, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, 'Bill Hawes, 'and Rich' Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -153 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -22, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -J) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -154 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution .and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM COUNCIL CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ACCOUNT FOR RADIO ACTIVATED CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN SYSTEM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. S 8 -9 -82 -12- PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82023 SUBMITTED BY BERGSTROM REALTY COMPANY FOR AMENDED BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL F OR PHASE I OF THE HI CREST SQUARE ESTATES IN THE 1300 BLOCK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH The Director. of Planning ,& Inspection pointed out that this application was approved by the Planning Commission at the July 15, 1982 meeting and that approval of the item was deferred at the July 26, 1982 City Council meeting until the plans were- signed by a registered architect. He pointed out that at the July 26 City Council meeting, the Council approved the master site plan, grading, and utility and land- scape plan. He explained tht total project was a 60 unit townhouse project. He explained approval of the two six -unit buildings in the project was deferred on July 26, 1982 until the plans could be certified by a registered architect. He proceeded to review the elevations and exterior construction of the project. He stated he believes the plans as submitted are in order and that he recommends approval for the two six -unit buildings. He stated approval is recommended subject to the 12 conditions set by the Planning Commission at its July 15, 1982 meeting which he reviewed for Council members. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether the certification on the plans submitted this evening is accurate, since the certification states that the plans were prepared by or supervised directly by the architect signing the plans. Mr. Hal Pierce, who is the architect, whose name appears on the plans, stated that he reviewed the plans but that he did not prepare them or supervise their preparation. Mr. William Clelland, attorney for the applicant, stated that the past practice of the City was not to require certification until the building permits are issued. He stated that requiring approval at this time is a departure from past practices. The Director of Planning & Inspection commented that the plans have been submitted both ways in the past, and that designers have submitted preliminary plans not signed by a registered architect and that later the final plans were certified by an architect. Mr. Clelland requested that the literal interpretation of the ordinance not be used in this case since the actual preparation of the plans will be done by Mr. Pierce, ,a registered architect. Mayor Nyquist noted that this is not what the certification on the plans states. Mr. Clelland suggested that Mr. Pierce be allowed to review the plans and give assurances that he will be involved in the development of the final plans. Counci] member Lhotka inquired as to the time frame for approval. - The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the time period is 30 days from the day it is referred from the Planning Commission to the City Council, in this case; July 2t-. 1982. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired whether the applicant could meet with the other party in the dispute. Mr. Clelland stated it is a misconception that the two parties have not met, and he pointed out that he has met with representatives of the applicant and pointed out that the applicant is not present this evening. Mr. James Merila, representing the applicant, requested the City Council take action on the first reading of the zoning ordinance amendment this evening but that he has no objection to tabling Application No. 82023 for two weeks 8 -9 -82 -13- There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka to table consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 82023 for two weeks. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Merila commented that after discussion with legal counsel, he would request that Application No. 82023 be approved this evening. Mr. Clelland stated that he believes no purpose would be served to meet with Mr. DeVries and Mr. Beisner, and that the plans the4Council has before them this evening were drawn by a firm with . no previous affiiiation with the Earle'owri Farm Estates project. Mr. Mark Hagerty, attorney for DeVries Builders, addressed the Council and stated that the only difference between the plans Mr. DeVries has seen and the ones before the Council this evening is that Mr. Pierce has signed them. Mr. Pierce stated that Mr. Hagerty was correct and that the plans were not changed. Councilmember Theis stated that the two parties appear to be at an impasse and that he is disappointed in the applicant's attorney's response to Councilmember Lhotka's request. He stated that the integrity of people have been challenged in this situation and he hopes that the clouds over the issue will be cleared up. The City Attorney stated that on site and building plan approvals the City Council does not have much discretion and that the ordinance is very specific. He added that the question is whether the City will be involved in a law suit by not taking action this evening on something they would take action on at the next Council meeting, if the item were tabled. He added.that the risk is that if the project fails between now and two weeks the City may be brought into a lawsuit for damages. The City Attorney stated he would advise, if there was no just reason to table the application, the City Council should act on the application this evening. He stated he believes the controversy is totally unrelated to what the City Council has done or not done, or what the staff has done or not done. He stated that the dispute among the two parties belongs in a court room. Mr. Mark Hagerty, attorney for DeVries Builders, stated that the City staff had assured he and Mr. DeVries that a public hearing would be held on the site and building plan application at the last Council meeting. The City Manager questioned Mr. Hagerty's assertion and stated he would take exception to that assertion. Mr. Hagerty stated that he was informed by an individual in the administrative offices that there would be a public hearing on the site and building plan application at the July 26 City Council meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that neither Mr. Hagerty nor Mr. Beisner have contacted him regarding this matter, and that he would think that if sor:eone were interested in the application process they would contact him, considering his .position with the City. Discussion continued briefly regarding the application before the Council. Mayor Nyquist then inquired as to the Council's wishes regarding Application No. 82023. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 82023 subject to the following conditions: 8 -9 -82 -14- 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits; and specifically, should conform to the revisions and requirements set forth in the Assistant City Engineer's memo dated 6- 14 -82. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improve- ments for the entire development. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. All areas regraded, but not developed according to plan shall be seeded to maintain adequate ground cover for dust control. 8. The Assistant City Engineer shall report to the City Council on how the proposed plan compares with other ponds on private developments in the City and on whether the proposed pond will fulfill its function as both a drainage control device and an aesthetic asset to the townhouse develop- ment, with an acceptable safety risk. 9. Plan approval acknowledges the proposed landscape treatment along the east side of the development as acceptable a screening in lieu of the ordinance required 4' high opaque fence. 10. The building plans shall be certified by a registered Minnesota Architect prior to the issuance of building permits if so required by the State Building Codes Division. 11. The site plans shall be amended to incorporate a system to supplement natural ground water inflow into,the proposed pond thus, maintaining a - constant water level elevation of 840 feet (U.S.G.S. Datum). ' 12. The building plan for the six -unit buildings shall be as set forth in in the plans approved by the City Council on this date. Any departure from these plans shall be resubmitted to the City Council for approval. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances and An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances 8 -9 -82 -15- Regarding Animals.- He explained the ordinance regarding public nuisances is being proposed in conjunction with amendments to Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances regardin animals, and that the ordinance amending Chapter 1 reflects a comprehensive amendmen of the Chapter of the City Ordinances regarding animals. He added that the ordinanc are offered for a first reading this evening and it is recommended a public hearing on the ordinances be scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on September 13, 1982. The City Attorney explained the City's :current nuisance ordinance is very brief, and the ordinance amendment proposed would substantially expand the current ordinance. He proceeded to review the ordinance and pointed out that Section 19 -101 of the proposed ordinance essentially adopts the state code and common law regarding public nuisances. He pointed out that Section 19- 103_outlines a list of common nuisances. He pointed out that paragraph 9 in Section 19 -103 re- adopts the existing ordinance language. The City Attorney pointed out that Section 19 -104 adds a section to the public nuisance ordinance regarding the limitation on keeping of animals and added that the City'Council must decide on how they want to regulate cats, such as requiring rabies vaccination for cats. In review of the ordinance amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances regarding animals, the City Attorney noted that the ordinance amendment is a comprehensive amendment of the existing ordinance. He reviewed several key points of the ordinance amend - ment including changing the current time for license renewal of dogs to run concurrently with the length of the effective rabies vaccination for the animal. With regard to the private kennel and commercial kennel licenses, he reviewed the licensing procedure, and recommended that in conjunction with the commercial kennel requirements the ordinance amendment adopts the USDA standards by reference. He also reviewed the section of the.ordinance dealing with prohibition against keeping live wild animals and wild animals native to Minnesota. With regard to the vaccination of cats for rabies, he pointed out, it is somewhat futile to require a vaccination without requiring licensing of the animal. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would like to suggest a change for the time period, a private kennel license would be effective to limit the time period for a specific time, such as four to six months. In other words, he pointed out, the private kennel license would be effective for a specific period, such as four to six months and would expire after that period. Councilmember Theis stated that he likes the idea of limiting the private kennel license to a definite time period. Councilmember Lhotka added that he would like to see the private kennel license nonrenewable and used only for emergency type purposes. Councilmember Scott questioned the policy of limiting the time period for the private kennel licenses. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs. Jesse Sandvol who stated that she has a definite attachment to her dogs and that it would be difficult to part with them, and added that she agrees with Councilmember Scott regarding the time limit on the license. Councilmember Lhotka left the table at 11:05 p.m. Councilmember Hawes pointed out that the Section 19 -104 of the ordinance refers to 8 -9 -82 -16- 4 four or more cats. The ordinance amending Chapter 1 also refers to four or more cats with reference to the limiting of animals but that on page 11 of the ordinance amendment, the language describes more than four cats. He noted there appears to be a discrepancy between the two statements. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances and An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances Regarding Animals. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka was not at the Council table for the vote. Councilmember Lhotka returned to the table at 11:07 p.m. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Hours of Sale for Intoxicating Liquor and pointed out that this ordinance amendment provides for the expansion of hours for Sunday sale intoxicating liquors. He added the ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening and it is recommended a public hearing on the ordinance be scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on September 13, 1982. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Hours of Sale for Intoxicating Liquor, and to set the public hearing date on the ordinance for 8:00 p.m. on September 13, 1982. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Property Description, and pointed out that the ordinance describes property rezoned in the Bergstrom Planning Commission Application and is offered for a first reading this evening. He noted it is recommended a public hearing on the ordinance be scheduled 'for 8:00 p.m. on September 13, 1982. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Theis to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Property Description and to set the public hearing on the ordinance for 8 :00 p.m. on September 13, 1982. DISCUSSION ITEMS REPORT ON FRANCE AND HIGHWAY 100 STUDY The City Manager explained to Council members that a consultant doing°a study on the France and Highway 100 area may offer planning recommendations to the City Council that may not be agreeable to the City Council. He added that there may be certain preconceived notions about the area that would create a conflict with the consultant's recommendation. He added that he does not recommend approaching the Joslyn Company if the study is to be accomplished, in that, if this is done, the Company would have a right to direct the study and that this would tend to de -value the objectivity of the study. Councilmember Scott stated she would like to'see an economic'study "of the area done and would not like to see a study similar to that which was done in the.area before. The City Manager stated he would return to the City Council with a specific proposal regarding a study for the France and Highway 100 area. 8 -9 -82 -17- The City Council continued to discuss the possibility of a study for the France and Highway 100 area and Councilmember Theis inquired what specific areas a study would address. The City Manager explained that there would be a planning analysis study of the area, a traffic study, a study of the adjoining land uses, a study of the underlying pollution in the area, and an economic market study. Discussion continued among Council members regarding the France and Highway 100 study. The City Manager stated the staff can return to the City Council with more information, including input from the surrounding neighborhood and pointed out that the staff would also investigate the staging of any proposed project. REVIEW OF 1983 BUDGET SUMMARY FOR NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION The City Manager explained that the 1983 budget is a tentative document and is submitted to the City Council for review. He explained that any Council members wishing to comment on the document can relay their comments to either himself or Councilmember Scott. The City Manager brought up another item of business and explained to the Council that the application forms sent out to businesses with amusement devices include fees for "kiddie rides ". He stated that the staff is recommending that the Council consider a` separate fee 'for these types of rides, different from the 'amusement device for which they are currently under. He stated the staff will return to the City Council with an amendment. Councilmember Lhotka requested information on standards for carnival rides. The City Manager stated he believed the City of Shakopee has such an ordinance and that he would assemble this information.' ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor.Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brookl Center City Council adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Cle Mayor l 8 -9 -82 -18-