HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 06-25 CCM Regular Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF -iENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
JUNE 25, 1979
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order
by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dear-. Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Cene Lhotka.
Also present was City Manager Gerald Splinter, City Attorney Richard Schieffer,
Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Acting Director of Public Works
James Noska, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Building Official Will Dahn,
Building Inspector Andy Alberti, and Administrative Assistants Mary Harty and
Brad Hoffman.
Councilmember Scott was not present and was excused.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Pastor Rabine of Brookdale Covenant Church.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES —JUNE 11, 1979
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to approve the minutes of the June 11, 1979 City Council meeting as submitted.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of the Open Forum session.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Richard Porter, of the attorney's office repre-
senting Brookdale Ten Investment Corporation. Also present with Mr. Porter
was Mrs. Confair, resident manager of Brookdale Ten. Mr. Porter stated he
wished to petition the Council to entertain a motion to allow the City
Manager and -the Director of Planning and Inspection to work out a schedule for
completion of the remaining violations at Brookdale.Ten, possibly placing a
performance bond in order to insure completion of the work. He stated there
were only approximately six general maintenance items left to be completed
and all fire and safety related violations had been taken care of. Mr. Rozman
had placed Mrs. Confair in charge of taking care of the violations and she
cleared up all of the life and safety violations. Mr. Porter stated only
several large items such as the need to resurface the parking lot were left
to be completed and many of those items had to be contracted out. Mrs.
Confair was proceeding to take care of these remaining items.
Mr. Porter stated he was concerned with people who would be left essentially
homeless because they had placed deposits to rent apartments at Brookdale
Ten as of July 1 and would not have a place to live if the apartments were
posted for no occupancy.
6-25 -79 -1-
Mr. Porter asked the Council to consider granting a temporary license for
Brookdale Ten contingent on an agreement arranged between Brookdale Ten
Investment Corporation and the City, details of which would be worked out
by Brookdale Ten Investment Corporation, the City Manager, the Director of
Planning and Inspection and the City Attorney.
Mr. Porter stated it was difficult for him to ask the Council to again go
out on a limb, noting that the Council had attempted to gain cooperation in
the past. Mr. Porter asked the Council to look favorably upon action that
had been taken in the last couple of weeks, resulting in all of the life and
safety violations being cleared up.
The City Manager commented substantial progress had been-made in taking care
of the violations at Brookdale Ten. He stated at an earlier meeting with
Mr. Saliterman, attorney for Mr. Rozman, Mr. Saliterman had flatly rejected
placing a performance bond as a guarantee for completion of the remaining
work.
Mr. Porter said he understood that if the Council decided to grant a temporary,
license, it would be.granted contingent on Brookdale Ten Investment Corporation
meeting whatever requirements were set by the Council. If a performance bond
was set as a requirement, Brookdale Ten Investment Corporation would either
have to place the bond or they would not receive their temporary license.
Mayor Nyquist stated the Council had gone out on a limb on promises made by
Mr. Rozman several times in the past. Mayor Nyquist stated if Brookdale Ten
Investment Corporation was willing to post the bond in order to guarantee, the
completion of the work, the Mayor had no objection to giving staff the authority
to work out the details.
The City Manager stated staff would find the route of using a performance bond
an acceptable arrangement.
Mayor Nyquist stated the objectives of the Council was not to shut down Brookdale
Ten but the objectives has always been to get the complex up to code.
The Director of Planning and Inspection suggested the Council should consider
posting the units which will become vacant on July 1 as units not available
for occupancy in case no agreement can be reached between the City and the
Brookdale Ten Investment Corporation. In that way, the apartments could not.
be rented and this would be effective July 1.
Councilmember Fignar stated he would like to see Mrs. Confair put in complete
charge in order that she could make decisions because Mr. Rozman had not
followed through on promises made in the past and the Council was leery of
his promises. The City Attorney stated Mr. Rozman has the ownership interest
and could fire at any time those people presently in management for Brookdale
Ten Investment Corporation.
Councilmember Kuefler stated he concurred with other Council members' observa-
tions. He commented the Council has tried to get the complex turned around in
the past but Mr. Rozman had defaulted on all of his promises to clean up the
complex. Councilmember Kuefler stated he was willing to authorize the City
Manager, the Director of Planning and Inspection and the City Attorney to work
. out the details to is and the language which _would protect the City. He recommended
6 -25 -79 -2-
the language should stipulate an end date of August or September because Council-
member Kuefler commented he wanted to see the problem taken care of because it
had gone on much too long. Councilmember.Kuef ler recommended the language be
written in favor of the City, the neighbors and the tenants.
The Director of Planning and Inspection again stated his chief concern was
authorization to enforce the license revocation on posted units. He stated
he was concerned because if an agreement was not reached by June 30 and no
bond has been posted, if the units have not been posted for no occupancy, the
units can be rented as of July 1. Councilmember Kuefler stated he concurred
with the Director of Planning and Inspection's comments and stated he wished
to see the units posted. He commented this gave the City additional time
leverage in order to get the tasks accomplished. He again stated he wished
to see a strict time schedule placed on bond default in order that the City
could go in and do the work if the work had not been completed by the deadline.
It was the consensus of the Council that they wished the City Attorney and the
Director of Planning and Inspection to draw up language which would require
Brookdale Ten Investment Corporation to set up a performance bond for completion
of projects to take care of violations within a specified limited amount of time.
An agreement must be reached before July 1, 1979 or posted units could not be
rented.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address
the Council as part of the Open Forum; there being none, the Mayor proceeded
with the rest of the meeting.
RESOLUTIONS
The City Manager introduced a resolution commending the Association of Metro -
politan Municipalities for their accomplishments in the 1979 session of the
Minnesota Legislature. Concurrently he- introduced a similar resolution com-
mending the League of Minnesota Municipalities for their accomplishments in
the 1979 session of the Minnesota Legislature. Councilmember Kuefler stated
he had attended both annual conferences and commented it had been an exceptional
year for getting municipal legislation passed. As an example, Councilmember
Kuefler mentioned that the municipal state aid formula which had been passed
increased the aid to the City of Brooklyn Center by 20% over the 1978 figure.
The new formula no longer makes it advantageous to spend more. He also
mentioned tax increment financing legislation and levy limits legislation
were examples of good legislation. He stated the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities, the League of Minnesota Municipalities and our own staff should
be complimented for the work they have done to facilitate passage of this
legislation.
RESOLUTION NO 79 -150
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES FOR THEIR
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE 1979 SESSION OF THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being.taken thereon, the following voted in
favor, thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
6-25 -79 -3-
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -151
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES FOR THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
IN THE 1979 SESSION OF THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka;
and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
The City Manager introduced a resolution awarding worker's compensation insurance
contract. The Director of Finance stated he recommended a renewal of worker's
compensation coverage with Home Insurance Company. He explained the City had
gone out last year for insurance bids and no interest had been expressed among
other carriers on the worker's compensation coverage. Home Insurance Company
presently carries the worker's compensation coverage for Brooklyn Center and for
other municipalities. Under the terms of the proposed arrangement,_Home
Insurance Company will renew the policy at the same rates and will allow the
City to cancel the policy on December 31, 1979 with no penalty if the City
receives a better offer from another company.
The Director of Finance stated all of the City's other insurance coverage,
except the worker's compensation coverage, is written on a calendar year
basis. It would be the intent of the City to include the worker's compensa-
tion insurance with the general policy on a calendar year basis after December
31 1979.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -152
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FOR RENETWAL OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE
COVERAGE
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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -153
Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE B RIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -10
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCES
The. City Manager introduced an ordinance vacating an easement on Lot 1, Block 1,
.7. R. Murphey Addition. He stated the ordinance �s presented this evening for
a first reading. Mayor Nyquist stated he wished to abstain from voting on the
ordinance reading because he was legal counsel for the Church. In response to
5 -25 -79 -4-
questions from the Council, the City Manager explained the Church located there
was Northbrook Alliance Church.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to offer for first reading an ordinance vacating an easement on Lot 1, Block 1,
J. R. Murphey Addition. Voting in favor: Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and
Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mayor Nyquist abstained
from voting.
The City Manager introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordi-
nances regarding residency requirements for police officers. He stated a
possible change in residency requirements had been discussed approximately one
year ago. The ordinance change would attempt to put residency on a time basis
rather than on a distance basis. The time requirement would be one -half hour
driving time to City Hall. The City Manager commented some communities require
residency within the City. He commented there could be problems with this.if
a disaster would occur in the City such as a tornado. The City officers may
have trouble reporting to work if their families or themselves are in danger.
Presently there is a balance of officers who live in the City and outside the
City. The City Manager stated the ordinance as amended would be defensible.
Councilmember Lhotka stated he was confused as to the meaning of the last
three lines as typed in the ordinance. He stated they appeared to be redundant.
The lines in question read, "and, in addition, said officers must arrive at
either of the aforementioned bridges at least fifteen minutes before starting
time ". Councilmember Lhotka stated this meaning was stated earlier in the
ordinance and should be enforced administratively.
Councilmember Kuefler stated if was his understanding this ordinance was
directed primarily to emergency calls. The City Manager stated that was correct.
The City Manager stated residency was.governed by ordinance and was not a
bargainable issue. The City Manager indicated the City had discussed residency
with officers representing the rank and file membership and with the Teamsters
business agent but there was no negotiation on the issue because it was not a
bargainable issue. All parties involved in the discussion indicated the proposed
changes would be an improvement over the existing ordinance.
It was the consensus of the Council that the last three lines in the amended
ordinance were redundant because the time stipulations were stated in an earlier
part of the ordinance and could be enforced administratively.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
to offer for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordi-
nances regarding residency requirements for police officers with a deletion of .
the last three lines, said deletion reading, "and, in addition, said officers
must arrive at the aforementioned bridges at least fifteen minutes before
starting time '.. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler,
Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
As a clarification, Councilmember Kuefler stated the ordinance requires police
officers to live at a distance which would allow the police officer to arrive
at the station within thirty minutes. Because of the river causing an impediment
to easy access between the east and west metropolitan area, a restriction of
fifteen minutes driving time between a person's residence on the east side of
the river, and the river has been established. A violation of the thirty minute
time limit can be handled administratively.
6 -25 -79 -5-
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The first discussion item was an update on the problem of dying lawns and gardens
in the vicinity of Howe, Inc. The City Manager explained the Council had authorized
$500 to do independent testing of soil samples in the area of Howe, Inc. The City
Manager noted he had called Council members because he found independent testing
would cost approximately $900. The independent tests will check for Lasso,
Atrazene and other chemicals. The City Manager explained the Agriculture Depart -
ment had been out and done additional sampling. The Agriculture Department has
given a preliminary supposition that contaminated dust has blown from the site
from the fire and when rain washes that contaminated dust into the soil, the
result is the dying lawns and.gardens. The City Manager stated the samples taken
independently are being sent to an out -of -state laboratory. The samples have
been taken under the auspices of the Hennepin County Environmental Division and
it is expected information should be received within two to three weeks.
In the interim since the problem of dying lawns and gardens has arisen, the City
has received complaints on two separate occasions for heavy ammonia smell. The
City staff checked on those complaints and nuisance citations were issued to
Howe, Inc.
The City Manager stated the University is still involved in doing checks and the
report from the University is not expected for a period,of time.
From the initial study done by the Agriculture Department, Mr. Grotbeck confirmed
they have found .2 to 4.2 parts of Atrazene.in the five samples taken. The Agri-
culture Department is attempting to find out why there has been additional spreading
of the Atrazene and possibly other chemicals. At the same time, the chemical
companies and the University of Minnesota are checking for possible combatants
for the damage. Information can be provided to the Council at the July 23, 1979
meeting as to progress.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
to authorize the expenditure of $900 for independent testing of soil samples in
the area of Howe, Inc. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler,
Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The next discussion item was an update on the Central Park project. The City
Manager briefly explained the progress to date on the Central Park project.
He explained as part of the project much of the creek in Central Park has
been dredged. of a 100 year storm it would
e He explained, given the possibility y
g d P � g P Y
be advisable to dredge and widen the creek north and south of the park. The
area of the creek mentioned includes the creek south to County Road 10 and north
to Palmer Lake. The City Manager noted he may have to come back to the Council
for additional money for this dredging if the decision is made to go forth with it.
He explained presently .the City is mining good material and stockpiling that
material and then taking good material to lay under playing fields. The softer
peat will then be used to create mounds for a sliding hill.
The City Manager also noted the trail system to the south of Central Park has
been completed. It is important that the trail be completed because the trail
will serve as a bed to rest the crane on while dredging is accomplished.
The City Manager stated this was a preliminary report and he would be prepared to
give more specific information and specific deadlines at the next Council meeting.
I
6 -25 -79 -6-
j
Councilmember Lhotka questioned what Brooklyn Park intended to do with the
small area of creek near the high school. Other Council members suggested
Brooklyn Park had dredged the creek north'of the high school area.
There had been some talk of Brooklyn Park using Community Development Funds
I for dredging that small area near the high school but it appears Brooklyn
Park is having some problems due to changing regulations for expenditure for
Community Development Funds.
The City Manager stated it is not known the exact plans of Brooklyn Park
concerning the dredging of Shingle Creek but staff could check with Brooklyn
Park as to the status of the dredging in Brooklyn Park.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
The City Manager introduced Application No. 78062 submitted by Oasis Petroleum
for a special use permit, site and building plan approval to remodel and operate
the existing Daytons Service Station at 2605 County Road 10. This item was
previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 5, 1978. Application
No. 78062 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission
meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the plan
envisioned is a self- service operation containing two pump islands with one
person on duty primarily to oversee the site and accept payment for gasoline.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the application had
been brought back to the Planning Commission for review because at the time of
the October 5, 1978 recommendation, the site plan had not been approved by the
applicant's home office in Los Angeles.
The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the new site plans do comprehend
changes such as.a reduction in a number of gasoline dispensing islands from
three to two, the modification of an area designed for customers to obtain air,
water and check oil, and additional landscaping. He stated the applicant is
also proposing to retain an existing storage building that is presently being
utilized on the site, and that concrete, rather than blacktop, would be installed
in the service area. He also noted the site is designed in such a manner as to
provide a one -way traffic flow.
In'response to questions from the Council, the Director of Planning and Inspec-
tion stated this will not be a convenience store; and will not be open 24 hours
a day.
The Mayor opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 78062. There was no one to speak on the application. There was a motion
by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public
hearing on Application No. 78062. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka.
to approve Application No. 78062 submitted by Oasis Petroleum for a special use
permit and site and building plan approval to remodel and operate the present
Daytons gas station at 2605 County Road 10 subject to the following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior
to the issuance of permits.
6-25 -79 -7-
2. Drainage, grading and utility and landscape plans are
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guaran-
tee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager)
shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site
improvements prior to the issuance of permits.
4. All outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened
from view.
5. The plans shall be certified by an architect and
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota prior
to the issuance of permits.
6. The special use permit is issued to the operator of
the facility and is nontransferable.
7. The .special use permit is subject to all applicable
codes, ordinances, and regulations, including special
licensing requirements, and violation thereof shall
be.grounds for revocation.
8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is
subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
9. Underground irrigation system shall be provided for
all landscaped and sodded areas to facilitate the
maintenance of approved site improvements.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Application No. 79024 submitted by Brooklyn Center
Industrial Park for a preliminary plat approval to create eleven single family
residential lots on an approximate three acre site located easterly of Xerxes
Avenue North, south of I -94. This item was tabled by the Commission on May 10,
1979. Application No. 79024 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979
Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection noted that the plat was tabled by the
Planning Commission on May 10, 1979 in order that a question regarding the
applicability of a 50 foot setback off major thoroughfares for rear yards could
be addressed by the City Attorney's office. The Commission had also requested a
statement from the Department of Transportation regarding when the Xerxes Avenue
freeway ramp would be vacated. Regarding the 50 foot setback from major thorough-
fares, the Director of Planning and Inspection informed the Commission that he
had received a letter from the City Attorney's office which interpreted the
ordinance provision as applying only to front and side corner yard setbacks.
The Director of Planning and Inspection also reported that the City Engineer has
received correspondence from the Department of Transportation regarding the status
of the Xerxes Avenue freeway ramp, but that no date has been set for the vacation
of the freeway ramp.
6 -25 -79 -8-
The Director of Planning and Inspection. recommended that the Council consider
reviewing the City's Zoning Ordinance with respect to setback requirements for
major thoroughfares because it does not seem reasdnable that if an extraordinary
setback is required off a major thoroughfare, that the rear yard setback be
excluded from this requirement.
The Director of Planning and Inspection mentioned one other possible problem.
The Osseo and Brooklyn Center School District lines divide the residential lots.
He stated the County will accept filing of the plats and then create a separate
taxing district to it.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated this information had been conveyed
to both school districts and the school districts had been asked to negotiate
a compromise to avoid possible problems. Councilmember Fignar questioned whether
there was anyway to encourage that homes be located within one school district.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated it might be possible for the
school districts to swap property.
Councilmember Fignar questioned why no noise abatement walls are comprehended.
The Director of Planning.and Inspection responded berms would be constructed.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether the residents in the area had been
informed of this action if approval was granted. The Director of Planning and
Inspection noted the ordinance did not require notification of the residents
and, therefore, they had not been contacted. Councilmember Kuefler asked that
the residents be contacted concerning this action.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 79024. There was no one to speak on the application. There was a motion by
Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public
hearing on Application No. 79024. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve Application No. 79024 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park for a
preliminary plat approval to create eleven single family residential lots on an
approximate three acre site located easterly of Xerxes Avenue North, south of
I -94 subject-to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of
Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances.
2. The final plat is subject to review by the City
Engineer.
3. Prior to final plat approval by the City Council,
an agreement shall be reached between the Osseo
School District and the Brooklyn- Center School
District so that their common boundary line does
not intersect proposed lots.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Application No. 79033 submitted by Dayton Development
for preliminary plat approval to subdivide and create an approximate 2.5 acre
parcel on the Dayton Development property between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn
6 -25 -79 -9-
j
Boulevard, north of County Road 10. Application No. 79.033 was recommended for
approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the parcel is bounded on the
west by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by County Road 10 and Northway Drive,
on the east by Xerxes Avenue North and on the north -by single family residential
property.. He explained the effect of the plat would be to create an approximate
2.5 acre parcel on the easterly portion of this site abutting Xerxes Avenue -North
and Northway Drive and an approximate 7.5 acre parcel abutting Brooklyn Boulevard,
County Road 10 and Northway Drive. The Director of Planning and Inspection also
commented a bank is proposing to develop the easterly 2.5 acres. He noted certain
corrections to the plat requested by staff had been submitted.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 79033. There was no one to speak on the application. There was a motion by
Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public
hearing on Application No. 79033. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Fignar asked that neighbors be informed of this action by the
Planning Department.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
to approve Application No. 79033 submitted by Dayton Development for preliminary
plat approval to subdivide and create an approximate 2.5 acre parcel on the
Dayton Development property between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard,
north of County Road 10, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review by the City
Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of.
Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and
Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Application No. 79018 submitted by Arthur- Kvamme for
a rezoning from R -1 (single family residential) to R -3 (townhouse /garden apartment)
of an approximate 3.5 acre site located between 55th and 56th Avenue at approxi-
mately Aldrich Avenue North. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission and
referred to the southeast advisory group on April 12, 1979. Application No. 79018
was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the applicant is seeking a
rezoning to construct seven quadra homes on the site if the rezoning to R--3 is
approved. The applicant contends that the area is in need of a condominium
complex for many of the older residents in the area; that public utilities to
service the area are already available, that the joint effort of comoining the
properties in the rezoning eliminates potentially land locked props -,; and makes
practical use of the land; the traffic to the area will be decrease-; that the
development will increase the City's tax base; and that the City would rid
himself of a nonconforming use (Madsen Floral Company).
The Director of planning and Inspection informed the Council that the southeast
neighborhood advisory group had met on May 3, 1979 and reco- that the
application be given favorable consideration. The Director of Planning and
Inspection noted the applicant's contention that R -1 development of the property
t r r Y
6-25-79 -in_
as presently zoned is unfeasible. According to the applicant, such development
would require variances from either Chapter 15 or Chapter 35.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated there is a scarcity of mid density
residential housing in the southeast neighborhood 'relative to other neighborhoods
in the City.
Before proceeding further, Mayor Nyquist presented for the record a petition
which had been submitted to him by Mary Simmons which stated the petitioners in
the immediate neighborhood objected to the proposed rezoning of the Madsen Floral
Company property in southeast Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned how the 1968 zoning plan under the Comprehensive
Plan envisioned the area. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the 1968
Comprehensive Plan does not speak specifically to this area although Madsen Floral
was made a nonconforming use in 1968. The present consultant working on the
Comprehensive Plan appears to have no objections to the requested rezoning.
In response to questions from the Council, the Director of Planning and Inspection
stated under R -3 zoning a private roadway would be allowed, whereas, under R -2
zoning a public roadway would be required.
Councilmember Lhotka questioned what the highest density building permitted was
under R -3 zoning. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated a two story
height building was the maximum. The total units possible is a function of the .
acreage. Eight units are allowed per acre. In this case, on 3.5 acres, 28
units would be allowed.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No.-79018. Mayor Nyquist recognized Arthur Kvamme who noted he was speaking on
behalf of Madsen Floral. Mr. Kvamme stated he had spoken with the property owners
of the-land locked lots in question, those owners being Madsen, Swennes, Trombley,
Walter, and Shetler.
Mr. Kvamme stated he would like to briefly review the plans he had for the area.
Mayor Nyquist reminded him that a rezoning should not be tied to specific plans.
Mr. Kvamme stated -he understood that.
By way of background, Mr. Kvamme stated many years ago an R -5 zoning had been
approved under a special use permit by the City Council. Madsens did not use
this special use permit at that time.
Later,*an R -4 rezoning proposal was denied.
Mr. Kvamme stated if a decision was made to rezone the property to R -2 and a
street was to be put in, the City would have to condemn the property and Mr. Kvamme
stated he did not believe that was a reasonable nor economical solution. Mr. Kvamme
stated his . investigat - ion shows the cost of putting in utilities would be prohibitive.
He stated he was attempting to find a reasonable use for the land. Mr.,Kvamme
briefly reviewed what he saw as the benefits deriving from a rezoning to R -3.
First, the property values in the area could potentially increase because the
quadra homes would be selling for approximately $60,000. Secondly, Mr. Kvamme
stated the quadra homes would actually cause less traffic.
He stated he had presented this idea to a group of neighbors and at that time
there had not been objections to the plan. Mr. Kvamme stated he would have no
objection to the City conditioning the R -3 zoning to require owner occupied
6- -25 -79 -11-
dwellings.
Mr. Kvamme pointed out certain misstatements had been printed in the Post,
Mr. Kvamme stated he would not rebut statements unless they were brought up
again at the Council meeting. He pointed out the accusations were serious
and furthermore, the accusations questioned the integrity of Madsens and himself.
Referring to Mr. Kvamme's earlier point, Councilmember Kuefler questioned
whether his cost analysis was based on the assumption of a straight street
rather than a. meandering street. Mr. Kvamme stated that was correct.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned the City Attorney as to whether the R -3
zoning could be conditioned. The City Attorney responded the zoning could
not be conditioned.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mary Simmons of 5530 Camden Avenue North, who stated
she wished to speak on the variance standards. She pointed out Mr. Kvamme
stated this development would upgrade the neighborhood. She stated it was her
opinion and the opinion of many of the neighbors that this development could
potentially downgrade the neighborhood. She stated Mr. Kvamme had indicated
the homes in the area were selling for approximately $55,000 to $60,000 and
she stated her home was valued at $90,000 and other homes in the neighborhood
were valued at considerably more than $55,000 to $60,000. Mary Simmons next
referred to Mr. Kvamme's earlier statement about a need for a variety of housing
and lifestyles. She stated the southeast area was the oldest corner of Brooklyn
Center and there already exists in the area a great variety of houses, people
and lifestyles. She stated there already were a sufficient number of multiple
family dwellings in the area. She further stated a potentially high density,
high turn over property will not be good for the neighborhood. She pointed out
there is no way to prevent the property from going to high turn over rental
units. She added the floor plan indicates that the units would comprehend second
floor bedrooms. She stated most elderly people don't want units with second
floor bedrooms so very few elderly people would be comfortable in these units.
Mary Simmons pointed out when Mr. Kvamme presented the plan to the neighbors,
the neighbors at that time were not aware that the plans for the townhouses
could be changed due to external circumstances such as financing. She pointed
out that although Mr. Kvamme's intentions might be good they may not be able to
be carried out.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Harvey Johnston, 5520 Bryant Avenue North, who
stated he was against the rezoning.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Ann Jarvimaki,.5625 Aldrich Avenue North, who stated she
did not want rental units in the area but believed owner occupied townhouses
would be an asset to the area. She stated she was particularly concerned that
young families would have the opportunity to buy a townhouse rather than rent.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Marvin .Nemec, 5538 Camden Avenue North, who stated
the proposed development will create more traffic.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Trombley, 803 56th Avenue North, who stated he was
one of the owners of the land locked lots. He stated he would not sell his
property unless sold for townhouses. He pointed out the townhouses, if developed,
would be occupied by people who would fit very well in the neighborhood. He pointed
out the townhouses cause little traffic and would benefit the area.
6 -25 -79 -12-
Mayor Nyquist recognized Roger Engstrom, 5448 Bryant Avenue North, who stated
the intent of the petitioners and those opposed to the development was not to
shut down plans for the area but the people and neighbors don't want to crowd
this type of development into the area. He stated double bungalows might be
acceptable. but this development was an attempt to cram too much into too
small of _: ,)use.
Mayor Nyquit recognized Mrs: Kvamme who stated she wished the opposing neigh -
bors would look at the townhouse developments in the north suburban area such
as New Horizon. in Maple Grove. She stated the area is beautiful and the homes
are occupied by old, young, and professional people.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Merill Nelson, 5619 Aldrich Avenue North, who
questioned whether or not the R -3 zoning could be conditioned to require owner
occupied townhouses. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that
would not be possible.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether the property could be conditioned by
private covenants. The City Attorney stated the property owners could place
restrictions by private covenant but the City would not be in a position to
initiate or enforce those private covenants.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Harvey Johnston, 5520 Bryant Avenue North, who
stated it was his understanding that R -3 zoning can include rental property.
The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that was correct.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Hollenbeck, 5406 Bryant Avenue North, who questioned
who would be responsible to take care of the townhouses. Mr. Kvamme responded
a homeowner's association would be responsible for the care.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Eric Edwardson, 5430 Camden Avenue North, who
stated he believed the development would decrease property values and increase
traffic in the area.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. JimaShetler, who owns one of the land locked
properties in question. He stated he resented the assumption that all neighbors
were against the development. Throughout the process, he stated many of the
neighbors have been in favor of the development.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Paul Fagerhaugh, 5445 Camden Avenue North, who
stated there was a great deal of in and out traffic from Belvue Park and that
if the development was put in, it would increase that already heavy traffic:
He.stated he objected to the number of units proposed.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mary Simmons, 5530 Camden Avenue North, who stated
Mississippi Court located in Minneapolis is a garden apartment. She stated she
does not wish to use scare tactics and does not wish to malign the intentions
of Mr. Kvamme but this type of garden apartment is acceptable under R -3 zoning.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Louis Sullivan who noted he the Chairperson of
the southeast advisory group. He stated at the meeting of the southeast advisory
group, the group voted to recommend favorable consideration of the proposed rezoning.
He pointed out it would be a false assumption to assume that all of the people in,
the neighborhood were opposed to the development.
A resident of the neighborhood questioned what actually constitutes a neighborhood.
The resident questioned this point because he had not received notification of
the proposed rezoning. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained ordinance
6 -25 -79 -13-
requires that neighbors within a certain distance of the affected property, in
this case 350 feet, be notified of the proposed rezoning. He stated this was
in accordance with State law. In addition, the information is published in the
official newspaper, the Post.
A resident of 5523 Bryant Avenue North, stated he had voted for the rezoning and
was still in favor of it.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Kvamme who stated he did not believe the 26 units
he is proposing was high density. He stated high density would be under an
R -7 zoning which would allow 106 units or an R -6 zoning which would allow 86
units.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler
to close the public hearing on Application No. 79018. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Fignar pointed out Mary Simmons had mentioned Mississippi Court.
as a reference point. Councilmember Fignar commented he would not like a
Mississippi Court complex in his neighborhood nor would anyone else. He
pointed out townhouse developments can be an asset to a neighborhood and referred
to the Ponds and Creek Villa. He pointed out since Mr. Kvamme is talking of
selling the units at $60,000 they will not devalue the property in the area.
He pointed out he did not believe that townhouses would be a detriment to the
neighborhood. He stated the Metropolitan Council has recommended scattered site
housing in the metropolitan area. Further, he stated the bad experiences in
townhouses are being overcome. He stated he supported the proposal.
Councilmember Lhotka observed the main contention of the group opposing the
development was that they wished to see owner occupied dwellings. He questioned
what could be done to guarantee owner occupied under the R -3 zoning. The City
Attorney responded private. covenants were the only possible solution and the
City Council cannot control a private covenant.
Mayor Nyquist observed once the area has been rezoned to R -3, the Council has
lost control of what type of development could be put in there. He commented
until that could be controlled, he had certain reservations.
Councilmember Kuefler commented townhouses can be an asset to an area rather than
a detriment. He stated it was incumbent on the developer or:owner to convince
the neighborhood that the development would be an asset to the area. He pointed
out the area is developable as an R -1 area even if the developer has stated it
would not be economical. He stated he would like to see the possibility of using
private covenants to bind the property as a possible alternative. Councilmember
Kuefler recommended against the rezoning until private covenants could be pursued.
Councilmember Fignar said he realized there can be no absolute guarantee that
townhouses would be put in but he places good faith in Mr. Kvamme and in the
Madsens. Councilmember Fignar said he would vote with the developer and staff
on this issue.
Councilmember Lhotka said he would vote with the neighborhoos but would also
be looking for a middle ground.
The Council briefly discussed the favorability of asking Mr. Kvamme and the
neighbors to explore using private covenants,
6 -25 -79 -14-
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
to table Application No. 79018 until the July 23, 1979 Council meeting to give
the developer and the neighbors the opportunity to investigate private covenants
being placed on the property in order to insure owner occupied dwellings versus
rental dwellings. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler,
Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The applicant, Mr. Kvamme, stated he was in favor of the motion as passed and
concurred that a July 23 Council meeting date would be appropriate.
In response to questions from Mary Simmons, the City Attorney responded a private
covenant is tied to the land not to the property owner.
:Mary Simmons questioned who would take the initiative in attempting to investigate
and work out a private covenant. Mayor Nyquist responded he assumed Mr. Kvamme
would take the initiative.
RECESS
The Council recessed at 10:00 p.m. and returned at 10:20 p.m. to resume the
meeting.
The City Manager introduced Application No. 79028 submitted by Hotline Realty
(Moorwood Townhouses) for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the three
single lots into Moorwood Townhouses Addition located at 58th Avenue & Shores
Drive. Application No. 79028 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979
Planning Commission meeting. The City Manager asked the Council to review
concurrently Application No. 79038 submitted by Hotline Realty (Moorwood Townhouses)
for site and building plan review for the construction of additional townhouse
units in the Moorwood Townhouse Development located at 58th Avenue North and
Shores Drive. Application No. 79038 was recommended for approval at the June
14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated it was the intent of the applicant
to complete the yet unbuilt portions of the Moorwood Townhouses. The Director
of Planning and Inspection stated that approximately two or three years ago,
the First Wisconsin Bank took over ownership of the complex following foreclosure
proceedings. Foundations had been made at that time in the area contemplated
for development under this application and the City required that either construc-
tion on the units be completed or the open foundations filled in because the
situation was considered a hazard. First Wisconsin chose not to continue the
construction in building the foundations. They also undertook a platting at
that time which established the three lots under consideration as outlots for
a future development.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated Application No. 79038 was a
request for site and building plan.approval to construct the sixteen townhouse
units. It is the applicant's intent to complete the buildings in the exact
manner as originally approved by the City with no deviations or changes.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the First Wisconsin Bank has
posted a site performance bond and has undertaken a completion of the approved
landscape plan for the commons area. He said a site performance inspection has
been made and the staff has met with the representative of First Wisconsin and
the applicant regarding site work remaining to be completed. The bond will be
until the City has assurance the original landscape plan will be implemented.
6 -25 -79 -15-
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether this building would complete the
complex. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated Outlot D remained
yet for development.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Applica-
tion No. 79028 and Application No. 79038. Mayor Nyquist recognized one of the
residents of the Moorwood Townhouses. She stated she was concerned that. the
proposed units be built with the same architectural design as the original units.
She stated she was also concerned because many of the site items had not been
completed by First Wisconsin. The residents of the townhouses had to take it upon
upon themselves<to have certain site items completed. She stated the residents
would like to recoup those expenses for such things as replacement of a sump
pump which did not work and work on the pool. She explained she had been informed
by Hotline Realty that they would be taking care of the pole lights. She'asked
the City to give the residents assistance in getting reimbursement for expenses
which they had incurred. She commented she was not opposing the plat.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Wayne Burmeister of the Moorwood Homes Association.
He recommended the Council deny the plat and site and building plan review
temporarily until disputes with First Wisconsin have been settled. Mayor Nyquist
explained the release of the performance bond is a separate action, not contingent
on approval of the plat. Mr. Burmeister stated he did not believe it was a
separate issue. Mayor Nyquist explained when the performance bond release comes
before the Council, the Director of Planning and Inspection can contact Moorwood
Homes Association.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Dale Melby, Hotline Realty, who stated Hotline
would not be assuming what First Wisconsin had not done except for those things
that had been agreed to after City staff recommendation.
Councilmember Fignar questioned whether or not the items which the residents are
seeking reimbursement for, are items related to common property problems. The
residents responded they have worked with Will Dahn in order to segregate the items
which would be applicable to site improvements only and are asking for reimburse-
ment for those items only.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to close the public hearing on Application Nos. 79028 and 79038. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar,-and Lhotka. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion. by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to approve Application No. 79028 submitted by Hotline Realty for preliminary
plat approval to subdivide outlots into Moorwood Townhouse Addition located at
58th Avenue North and Shores Drive subject to the following conditions:
1. Final plat is subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15
of the City Ordinances.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
to approve Application No. 79038 submitted by Hotline Realty for site and building
6 -25 -79 -16-
plan review for the construction of additional townhouse units in the Moorwood
Townhouse Development located at 58th Avenue North and Shores Drive subject
to the following conditions:
1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to.
the issuance of permits.
2. Any grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
permits.
3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in
an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be sub
mitted to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. The Homeowners Association agreement is subject to review by
the City Attorney to assure that the lots being developed are
properly included in the agreement.
5. Plan approval comprehends completion of Lake Curve Lane as a
full loop through to Shores Drive. B612 curb and gutter is
required in the area where it is not already in place.
6. Development of this portion of the Moorwood Townhouses shall
also be subject to applicable conditions from the original
development approval by the City Council under Application
No. 70012.
7. The property is subject to final plat approval prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits.
8. Trees and shrubs for the new townhouse shall be compatible
with the plantings for the existing units.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Nyquist explained to the residents that the performance bond for the units
will be reviewed separately and the Director of Planning and Inspection will
contact the people at that time.
The City Manager introduced Application No. 79031 submitted by Meadow Corporation
for site and building plan approval for Phase V of the Ponds planned residential
development located at 72nd and Unity Avenues North. Application No. 79031 was
recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. The
City Manager requested the Council to review concurrently Application No. 79032
submitted by Meadow Corporation for preliminary plat approval for Phase V of the
Ponds planned residential development located at 72nd and Unity Avenues North.
Application No. 79032 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning
Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the proposed plat under Applica-
tion No. 79032 consisted of all Outlots E and H and part of Outlots A and F of
the Ponds located at approximately what will be known as 72nd Circle and Unity
Avenue North. The plat would create 76 lots, 72 of which would be for dwelling
units, three of which would be for common areas and an outlot for a private road
way to be known as 72nd Circle. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the
6 -25 -79 -17-
landscape treatment proposed on the site and building plan indicated that the
plans seem to be consistent with the overall master plan for the development
area. The Director of Planning and Inspection added that there would be fencing
required between R -1 and R -3 districts to the east of the site.
In response to questions from the Council, the City Manager explained the Acting
Director of Public Works and he had met with two complainants of the Ponds
concerning a culvert in the road. He explained the design of the culvert is
acceptable by City standards, although because of the sloping of the yard to the
creek it has appeared to be somewhat inadequate. He stated the issue is a
private concern rather than a City concern. He added the complainant wants a
greater width and depth for the pond located in.his area because he compares
the pond in his area with the pond in other areas located within "The Ponds ".
Again, the City Manager noted the City is not specifically involved in this
problem. Again, he stated the drainage is per plan.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Applica-
tion No. 79032. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Dietrich, a representative of the
development, who stated the complainant will probably not be satisfied with what-
ever solution is decided.upon. Mr. Dietrich stated the developers are working
with a system recommended by the City and the system does meet the standards.'
Mr Dietrich reviewed the nature of the problem and.stated the best way
D et ch bri f 1 vz
briefly P
to solve the problem is to lower the water level in that a p articular area,.. He
reviewed the steps which were being aken by the developer to rectify the problem.
g
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to close the public hearing on Application No. 79032. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to approve Application No.- 79031 submitted by Meadow Corporation for preliminary
plat approval for Phase V of the Ponds planned residential development located
at 72nd and Unity Avenues North subject to the following conditions:
1. The 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 and utility and berming plans are subject
to approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
permits.
3. A'performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall
be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. Development of this portion of the overall development shall
also be subject to' applicable conditions of the original
development approval by the City Council under Application
No. 76041 including fencing along the R -1 (single family
residential) zoning district boundary.
5. Viable turf, such as sod or seed, shall be provided for all
open spaces in accordance with approval by the City.
6 -25 -79 -18-
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to approve Application No. 79032 submitted by Meadow Corporation for preliminary
plat approval for Phase V of the Ponds planned residential development located
at 72nd and Unity Avenues North subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15
of the City Ordinances.
3. The final plat shall indicate necessary drainage, utility and
walkway easements on the easterly portion of the site.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Application No. 79036 submitted by James Talmage
for an appeal from an administrative ruling regarding a nonconforming structure
located on the northeast corner of 50th and France Avenues North. The Planning
Commission recommended denial of the appeal on Application No. 79036 at the
June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained Mr. Talmage is seeking to
obtain a rental dwelling license for the property in order to use the home
for single family dwelling purposes. The property, he noted, is zoned R -4
in which single family homes are not permitted. The Director of Planning and
Inspection explained that according to Section 35 -111 of the City Ordinances,
a nonconforming use which ceases for two years cannot be resumed. The City
records indicated that the home has not been occupied since before January,
1977 and that he has, therefore, refused to accept the owner's application
for a rental dwelling license.
The Director of Planning and Inspection noted Mr. Talmage was.the owner of
Mikros Engineering. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the
applicant had purchased the property in question for the purposes of constructing
a parking lot accessory to the industrial use which he operates across the
street. He noted this was also a nonpermitted use in the R -4 district. He
explained the applicant's contention that the circumstances surrounding the
nonuse of the property over the past three years are unusual since during that
time he had had several discussions with members of the City staff regarding
the possible use of the property for the parking lot. The Director of Planning
and Inspection added that the former City Manager and former Director of Planning
and Inspection had communicated many times to the applicant, both in writing and
at various meetings, the unlikelihood of using the property for a parking lot.
Those communications also urged the applicant to make the premises fit for use
as a single family residence.
Councilmember Kuefler asked for a clarification as to whether or not under a
nonconforming use, the use can be expanded or the use can be changed. The
Director of Planning and Inspection explained that under a nonconforming use the
use cannot be expanded nor can the use be changed. He stated if a nonconforming
use is not used for two years, the use defaults to the appropriate zoning.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Talmage who explained he had intended to use the
land for a parking lot and did not rent the house on the parcel because he was
pursuing this option. This attempt went on for two years, and he explained that
6 -25 -79 -19-
the use for parking had been clearly ruled out so now he wished to rent out the
existing home. He stated while the ruling is technically.correct, there seems
to be unique circumstances which justify his appeal. He added the ordinance
does not differentiate between good and bad nonconforming uses. He stated the
proposed use does not impinge on the City in anyway. He explained if he had
known of the two year ruling, he would have applied for the rental dwelling
license within that time period.
The City Attorney commented the use in question is no longer a nonconforming use.
He added the land could be rezoned for a single family dwelling but the question
before the Council is whether or not the ruling is a_ correct interpretation of
the ordinance.
In response to questions from the Council concerning developing a triplex on that
property which met zoning, Mr. Talmage responded he was most interested in getting
a parking lot and that is why he did not want to develop or sell the land to
develop a triplex.
The Director of Planning and Inspection referred to comments made by the applicant
concerning parking. He stated the original Mikros application mentioned inside
parking for Mikros' employees. Mr. Talmage stated only seven spaces could be
provided internally and he did not believe that was an adequate solution.
.The City Manager explained the parking problem has been temporarily mitigated
by Mikros leasing land from NSP for parking. He suggested talking to NSP about
a permanent parking arrangement,
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether the consultants for the Comprehensive
Plan had addressed this area. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the
consultant had not addressed this area.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether there were grounds to extend the non-
conforming use. The City Manager responded there were not grounds to extend
the nonconforming use under the ordinance and, therefore, he would recommend
the appeal from the administrative ruling be denied. The City Manager stated
other alternatives might be able to be worked out but a denial of the appeal
was appropriate in his estimation.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to deny an appeal from an administrative ruling regarding a nonconforming
structure located on the northeast corner of 50th and France Avenues North under
Application No. 79036 submitted by James Talmage. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion
passed unanimously.
It was the consensus of the Council that they wished the City Manager to investi-
gate alternatives to solve the problem the applicant was experiencing with this
property.
The City Manager introduced Application No. 79037 submitted by Howe, Inc. for
an appeal from an administrative ruling regarding the application of current
zoning requirements for the reconstruction of the building destroyed by fire on
January 6, 1979 at Howe, Inc., 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. The Planning Commission
recommended denial of the appeal from an administrative ruling on Application No.
79037 at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting,
6 -25 -79 -20-
I!I
The Director of Planning and Inspection outlined the history of past applications
by Howe, Inc. to rebuild the *,warehouse which was destroyed by fire earlier in
the year. The City Council, on May 14, 1979, had concurred with the Planning
which would allow Howe Fertilizer
rt in findings h
Commission and made ce s of fact a g
to rebuild the north building on their property. A site and building plan
proposal (application No. 79016) and a variance (Application No. 79017), which
the Commission recommended denying, had been withdrawn by the applicant also on
May 14, 1979 with the indication that new site plans would be submitted. The
Director of Planning and Inspection stated he had discussed the action taken by
the City Council and direction given for further review of their plan with the
applicant's representative and in a letter dated May 17, 1979 conveyed the pro-
cedures and requirements for that review. A revised plan was submitted and a
meeting with the applicant was held at which time it was again indicated to the
setback requirements, land-
re
d-
applicant the current ordinance provision relating to q
scaping, parking, drainage and other matters would be applied. The Director of
Planning and Inspection stated it was pointed out to the applicant that based on
design, a building similar in size (both square footage and cubic footage) and
functional ability could be provided while meeting ordinance requirements for
setbacks, g buffers and landscaping. . It was also indicated that the traffic
P
circulation could be continued around and through t he site although $ h so
mewhat
modified and that the application of the current zoning ordinance requirements
was not unreasonable.
The Director of Planning and Inspection noted that at a meeting he was furnished
with a copy of a letter from Mr. Donald Notvik of the State Attorney General's
office regarding the highway property at 49th and Brooklyn Boulevard which could
change the interpretation for requiring a 50 foot building setback. In light of
the letter, the Director of Planning and Inspection st -ated he had informed the
applicant that a 10 foot building setback from the Highway Department would be
appropriate. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the revisions
requested on the Howe site plan would have applied to current ordinance provisions
to the area immediately north of the middl e building
g to rovide additional parking
on the site, and to address the need for correcting drainage problem. He main -
tained the revisions would not cause a major change in traffic patterns and would
provide a 100 foot buffer and landscaped area north of the middle building between
i n the single family residential property the reconstructed building and g y P P Y line to
the west.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that when asked by Mr. Howe's
attorney if he would accept a plan that did not meet with the requested revisions,
he responded that he would only accept such a plan if a variance application was
submitted concurrently with a written indication as to how the ordinance variance
standards were met. If this was not submitted, he would not place the matter
before the Planning Commission because they would be reviewing a plan that did
not meet current ordinance requirements. Mr. Russell's response was that because
Howe, Inc. is nonconforming as to use and structure, the Zoning Ordinance require -
ments adopted after the structure was built cannot be applied and no variance
can be required. He based this argument on his memo to the Director of Planning,
and Inspection on May 25, 1979.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that based on the direction
received previously from the Planning Commission in its review of the Howe site
plan and past precedent where the City has required compliance with current Zoning
Ordinance standards when major structural alterations were undertaken that he was
prepared to only accept a plan showing that the requirements were met or a variance
from these requirements was being sought. The Director of Planning and Inspection
reported that he had informed Mr. Howe's attorney that the City Attorney had
reviewed his May 25, 1979 memo and had advised him that he was proceeding properly.
6 -25 -79 -21-
The applicant was then advised of his right to appeal the administrative ruling.
In a notice of appeal dated June 4, 1979, Howe, Inc. appealed the administrative
determination using the May 25, 1979 memo from Mr. Russell as their basis of
appeal.
The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed a memorandum from the City
Attorney in which the attorney states that the application of certain ordinance
requirements regarding setbacks, landscaping, buffering, parking and other matters,
result in no significant loss of investment and that a building of the same size
and general configuration can be built on the site while adhering to buffer and
setback requirements. The City Attorney added that there is no unconstitutional
taking of property rights without compensation, therefore, the basis for justifica=
tion for permitting the building to be erected in violation of these requirements
does not exist. The City Attorney's memorandum also indicated that it must be
recognized that nonconforming use provisions simply do not provide the property
owner with the justification to ignore all regulations which have come into being
after 1957. Only those regulations which deprive the property owner of a sub -
stantial investment must be relaxed.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. James Russell, attorney for Howe, Inc., who stated
there was no generosity in Ordinance 35 -111 in its recitiation of rights that a
citizen has even without the ordinance because the rights are included in the
Constitution.
Mr. Russell cited three basic objections to the rebuilding posed by the City:
1) The site is a legal nonconforming use. 2) The residential area should be
rounded out according to the Comprehensive Plan. 3) All current zoning regulation
apply after fire. Mr. Russell stated the first two objections had been dealt with
under the last application. He argued that the third objection is equally faulty.
He framed the question as.whether Howe, Inc. can exist as it did before the fire.
Mr. Russell stated this is a Constitutional right. The State cannot deprive a
person of property without due process of law. He cited the case of Connor versus
Township of Chanhassen in�which the court ruled the plaintiff had a vested right
to operate their business.
Mr. Russell stated that for the City to pass an ordinance that allows a zero
setback (as in the 1950 ordinance) and then to pass an ordinance that requires a
100 foot setback amounts to a taking of property if the latter ordinance provision
is enforced. He pointed out to the Council that the portion of Section 35 -111
which states "the lawful use of any land or building existing at the time of
adoption of this ordinance even if such use does not conform to the regulation of
this ordinance ". Mr. Russell argued that if the City were not in a position to
apply the zoning regulations to the Howe property before the fire, they cannot
apply those regulations after the fire.
Mr. Russell stated that Howe, Inc. was willing to accept the requirements of the
building codes which have been added since 1957 for safety reasons.
Councilmember Kuefler pointed out that the plans submitted by the applicant was
not identical to the old building but in fact amounted to an expansion. Mr.
Russell conceded that there had been some give and take on that question.
Mayor Nyquist questioned Mr. Russell as to whether he was questioning the ordi-
nance or questioning the decision of the Director of Planning and Inspection.
6 -25 -79 -22-
Mr. Russell stated he was questioning the decision of the Director because it
was contrary to the ordinance. Mr. Russell added the source of property rights
is the constitution independent of the City ordinances.
Councilmember Kuefler stated Mr. Russell had taken certain words.out of context
in ordinance 35 -111. Councilmember Kuefler commented that if the words were
taken together,, a different interpretation results. -
Mr. Russell stated a nonconforming use may continue as it exists; it is a resident
property right. Councilmember Kuefler asked if the restrictions under discussion
would be applied to other similar structures. The Director of Planning and
Inspection stated similar setback, landscape, and buffering requirements would
be applied to similar structures.
The City Attorney stated he understood Mr. Russell's contention that they do not
want to give up vested property rights but the City's interpretation of the
ordinance does not require Howe, Inc. to give up vested property rights in terms
of value. The City has requested that Howe, Inc. meet setback, buffer and land -
scaping requirements and to rearrange the building.
Mr. Russell commented on the Attorney =s comments that Howe, Inc. does in fact lose
because Howe loses use of certain land for travel and parking purposes. The City
Attorney responded Howe could have traffic circulation under the City's recommended
plan.
Councilmember Fignar stated when an applicant wishes to add on or remodel property,
the City asks for concurrence with zoning. A precedent of that nature has been
set.
In closing, Mr. Russell stated if the Council believes the ordinance means the
opposite of what the words stated and if the Council believes the Constitution
is suspended in the City of Brooklyn Center, then the Council should-reject the
appeal to the administrative ruling, but if the Council believes the ordinance
means what the words stated and if the Council believes the Constitution is the
law of the land in Brooklyn Center, then the appeal to the administrative ruling
should be upheld.
Councilmember Kuefler asked the Director of Planning and Inspection if he could
cite an example of a similar situation in which the City required an applicant
to conform with ordinance requirements. The Director of Planning and Inspection
stated the Lynbrook Bowl application was similar.
Tom Howe stated the property in question had been available for use by Howe,.Inc.
and now the City is asking Howe, Inc. not to use certain portions of that property
but rather to put it into greenstrip. Mr. Howe commented, clearly that is a taking
of property and property rights are a vested right in the Constitution.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Leo Hanson who stated he wanted to know what was
going to be done with Howe because the health and safety of the residents in the
area was in question. Mayor Nyquist responded at this time the appeal to the
administrative ruling was being considered. Councilmember Kuefler suggested the
City Manager might wish to review for Mr. Hanson an update on the problem of
dying lawns and gardens in the vicinity of Howe, Inc., since Mr. Hanson had not
been at the Council meeting at the time of that review. The City Manager again
reviewed the status of reports on the dying lawns and gardens in the vicinity
of Howe, Inc.
6 -25 -79 -23-
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler
to deny an appeal from an administrative ruling regarding the application of
current zoning requirements for.the reconstruction of the building destroyed by
fire on January 6, 1979 at Howe, Inc. at 4821 Xerxes Avenue North under Appli
cation No. 79037 submitted by Howe, Inc. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion
passed unanimously.
Councilmember Fignar stated it is apparent that Howe., Inc. does not agree with
the Zoning Ordinance and it may be necessary to resolve this situation in the
courts.
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ITEMS
The City Manager introduced a discussion item on setting a public hearing date for
review of industrial revenue bond proposals. He explained since the passage of
the City Council's policy on the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds /
mortgages, the City has received three proposals for these bonds. He noted he had
received a number of other inquiries about the bonds but in terms of written
proposals, the City has received a request from Cass Screw for approximately
$800,000, Dale Tile for $1.4 million and from Medtronics for $4.3 million. These
requests amount to a total of $6.5 million or slightly over the Council's
established 5% of assessed valuation limit.
The City Manager recommended that the Council judge the three projects in compli-
ance with their policy guidelines and set a public hearing date for the second
City Council meeting in July to consider approving these bonds. He explained new
State law requires a public hearing.
Additionally, the City Manager recommended that the Council authorize the City
staff to establish forms consistent with the guidelines of the Council and the
State law. The City staff will negotiate with the applicants the cost of the
review on the part of the City. If the applicant and the City staff cannot agree
on the cost part of the proposal, then the City Manager recommended the applicant
be allowed to appeal the staff's decisic�u to the City Council at some meeting
prior to the late July public hearing.
The City Manager called the Council's attention to letters received concerning
industrial development revenue bonds from Medtronics and Dale Tile.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler
to set a public hearing on the three industrial revenue bond proposals for the
July 23, 1979 Council meeting. The Council authorized the City Manager to proceed
to establish forms and negotiate the cost of proposal review. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously,
The Council questioned the effective date of the Statute which required a public
hearing. Mr. Palmiter stated the effective date was the day of the Governor's
signature. The effective date of the law was June 1, 1979.
It was the consensus of the Council that they wished the City Manager to proceed
to establish the forms consistent with the guidelines of the Council and to
negotiate the cost with the applicant for review of the proposal. The Council
concurred that if the applicant and the staff disagree on the cost, then the
applicant should be allowed to appeal the staff decision to the City Council at
a meeting prior to the late July public hearing.
6 -25 -79 -
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIED RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE FOR CHIPPEWA PARK APARTMENTS
The City Manager called the Council's attention to a letter from Mr. Harold
Liefschultz of Chippewa Park Properties. Mr. Liefschultz stated all of the items
from the fire inspection of May 31, 1979 had been taken care of. He stated the
problem of screens and laundry room floors mentioned in a letter from the City
grass
dated December 13, 1978 had also been .taken care of. Regarding the g s
problem, Mr. Liefschultz explained in his letter that Chippewa Park Properties
had contracted with Virgil Stackhouse of Brooklyn Center to lay approximately
400 yards of sod, which would be accompanied by 15 loads of black dirt. He
stated, because of all the rain, the schedule for completing this job has been
delayed. He explained at this time approximately 1,200 yards of sod had been
laid and the additional sod would be laid as soon as the weather was dry enough
to complete the job. He stated if the weather is right, the job should be
completed by July 15, 1979.
The Director of Planning and Inspection recommended granting the rental license
based on the completion by Chippewa Park Properties of the items in question.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
to approve a rental dwelling license for Chippewa Park Apartments. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Nyquist asked the Council to return to a consideration of Brookdale Ten
as discussed earlier in the meeting. The City Attorney and Director of Planning
of Inspection had worked to draw up appropriate wording for a resolution which
would authorize the City Manager, the City Attorney and the Director of Planning
and Inspection to work with Brookdale Ten Investment Corporation to draw up an
agreement and schedule as to the completion of work at Brookdale Ten Properties.
As part of the resolution, a performance bond will be set and an end date will
be set as to when the tasks must be accomplished. Units of Brookdale Ten which
will be vacated July 1 will be posted for no occupancy and if an agreement between
the City and Brookdale Ten Investment Corporation is reached prior to July 1,
the posting for no occupancy will be removed and the apartments can be rented
as of July 1. If no agreement between the City and Brookdale Ten Investment
Corporation, the posted units cannot be rented July 1.
RESOLUTION N0. 79 -154
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
I
RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY REINSTATING THE OPERATING LICENSE OF BROOKDALE TEN
APARTMENTS
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, Tory Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
Councilm tuber Fignar questioned what the status of the master occupancy for
Brookdale Ten was. Councilmember Fignar stated it was his understanding Mr. Rozman
stated he would not give the City that master occupancy list because it was an
invasion of his privacy.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the City Attorney is producing
documentation to get a court order for that master occupancy list. The Director
of Planning and Inspection explained that for the time being the City has
adequate information concerning which units will be vacant as of July 1. At a
later time, the master occupancy list may serve as a verification of the names
6 -25 -79 -25-
so that new people are not allowed into the apartments.
LICENSES
Motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve
the following list of licenses:
GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE
Countrywide Sanitation, Inc. Box 46, Montrose
Dick's Sanitary Service, Inc 3417 — 85th Ave. No.
G. & H. Sanitation, Inc. 12448 Pennsylvania Ave.
Gallagher's Service, Inc. 1691 - 91st Ave. No.
Gordon Rendering Box 12785, New Brighton
Klein Sanitation Box 694, Monticello
Mengelkoch Company 119 N.E. 14th St.
Minneapolis Hide & Tallow Box 12547, New Brighton
Robbinsdale Transfer Co. 5232 Hanson Court
W. & W. Company 501 - 84th Ave. N.E.
LODGING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
New Life Homes - His Place 6108 Excelsior Blvd.
(group home) 1120 - 69th Ave. No.
MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE
Airco Heating & Air Conditioning 4014 Central Ave. N.E.
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Initial:
I. Joan Johnson 3313 O'Henry Road
Renewal
Sheehy Management Co. Shingle Creek Tower
Gary Scherber 5800 Logan Ave. No.
Gary Scherber 5830 Logan Ave. No.
Richard & Elfreda Ploof 5319,21 Queen Ave. No.
Raymond & Agnes Janssen 1425 - 55th Ave. No.
Jacob & Bonita Heinonen 1107 - 57th Ave. No.
Edward Doll 1201 - 57th Ave. No.
Transfer:
Lang- Nelson Associates Chalet Courts
Stone Investments 5500 Bryant Ave. No.'
Roger & Marie Krawiecki 5209 Xerxes Ave. No.
SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE
J. W. Leseman Sign Shop, Inc. 730 - 105th In. N.E.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION
The City Manager called the Council's attention to a memorandum from the Acting
Director of Public Works to the City Manager concerning a power outage at lift
station #2 on Saturday, June 2, 1979. The memorandum expressed concern that the
City can no longer be without an alternate power source at the City's lift stations.
It was proposed in the memorandum that the City set forth to provide standby
generators to all of the lift stations. It was `suggested that the City begin
with lift station #2 in the remodeling that will be necessary due to the force
main relocation in conjunction with FI -94 construction. The standby generator
can be located on the site of the lift station #2 as part of the remodeling. It
was recommended that the City also begin looking at a schedule that would provide
generating power next to lift station #1 and then to all of the other lift stations
by the end of June, 1980.
Council members questioned what the.approximate cost of this would be. The
Acting Director of Public Works said a 1977 estimate was $11,000 for station
#2.
Council members questioned the City Manager as to whether official action was
needed on this information. The City Manager stated he had provided this for
informational purposes only and the Council would be asked to act at a later time.
UPDATE ON CABLE TV
Administrative Assistant Mary Harty explained that on May 11, 1979 the Minnesota
Cable Communications Board approved the cable service territory for the northwest
suburban area. The CST proposal was submitted by Northern Cable Vision. She
stated the issuance of a CST is a necessary requisite to the issuance by a
municipality of a franchise. She noted the CST proposal can be put forth by a
municipality, a group of municipalities or a cable communications operator.
Despite the fact the proposal was submitted by Northern Cable Vision, a cable
communications operator, there is no presumption that the proposer will be
the successful applicant. Presently a joint powers study commission is investi-
gating working to establish a joint powers board or some other workable means
of joint or common franchising. While certain legal points dealing with joint
powers activity may need clarification, there appear to be alternative ways in
which the cooperative approach to securing cable service to all municipalities
in the proposed territory can be achieved. Presently, each municipality has the
right to franchise separately or can work together towards joint franchising.
Before a franchise can be let, each community must conduct a needs assessment
of the community. It has been suggested that a community leader survey needs
assessment be under taken. Administrative Assistant Mary Harty noted she had
put together a list of community leaders from the Chamber of Commerce, City
organizations., City churches and schools. These community leaders will be
invited to attend an informational session tentatively set for the end of July
and will be asked to complete a survey as to needs of the community as they.
relate to cable service.
The Minnesota Cable Communications Board recommends that two residents of the
community PP y be appointed to a needs assessment subcommittee. Presently, Council -
member Fignar is a member of the needs assessment subcommittee and it is
recommended that one other resident be appointed to that committee. Administrative
Assistant Mary Harty noted she had spoken with Councilmember Fignar and he had
suggested Mr. Ron Coop, a citizen interested in cable. Councilmember Fignar
stated he had spoken with Mr. Ron Coop and Mr. Coop had stated he would be
willing to serve on the needs assessment subcommittee.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to approve the appointment of Mr. Ron Coop to the needs assessment subcommittee
for cable television. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler,
Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
6-25 -79 -27-
The Council was also asked to note that an informational seminar on cable TV
has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 17, 1979 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:OO p.m. in
the City of Crystal. The seminar will be presented by Cable Television
Information Center.
APPOINTMENT OF A CITY PROSECUTOR
The City Manager explained currently the City's legal business is conducted with
the firm of Schieffer & Carson, Ltd. but the City has been advised that Mr. Clelland
and Mr. Carson, who are employees of the firm, are establishing their own business
outside of the firm. The City Manager explained for the last two to three years,
Mr. Clelland has served the City as the prosecutor and representative in court
for handling ordinance violations and police tickets and similar related legal
business. He stated Mr. Schieffer of the firm, has handled the general counsel
business of the City. Because the Police Department and City staff are very
satisfied with the services of Mr. Clelland as prosecutor and because it 'is
important to keep continuity as much as possible in those services, the City
Manager recommended that Mr. Clelland be appointed City Prosecutor and Mr. Schieffer
be retained as general counsel for the City. The City Manager explained that as
far as the City was concerned the appointment of Mr. Clelland as prosecutor
would assure the status quo in terms of legal services for the City.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether there could be a problem with assigning
the prosecution to a specific attorney as opposed to assigning the prosecution
work to a firm. Councilmember Kuefler stated it would appear that if the prosecu-
tion work were assigned to a firm, there would be a back up, whereas, if the
prosecution work was assigned to an individual or a very small firm, there would
be less back up,
The City Manager responded the Police Department has been very satisfied with
the services of Mr. Clelland and they prefer the continuity. The Police Department
has indicated they have not perceived need for a larger firm. Councilmember
, Kuefler responded it would appear that with a larger firm, the numbers of people
would give you more options.
The City Manager explained it has been the experience of many police departments
that dealing exclusively with one large law firm has not always resulted in
getting the best quality prosecution. In certain instances, the newest, least
experienced lawyer is designated as the prosecutor for a City. Oftentimes,
under these circumstances, prosecution work is not as effective as it might
be and, furthermore, there is a great deal of changeover as new lawyers entar
the r rm.
Mayor Nyquist suggested the Council might wish to appoint Mr. Clelland as
prosecutor for six months to try out and see if one person could handle
the prosecution work.
Councilmember Lhotka stated during last year's Budget sessions, he had made
suggestions that the City investigate different law firms and the cost of
different firms. He stated the City definitely wants qualified people but
if the City is paying a bill, they should be able to get what they pay for.
Councilmember Lhotka stated he would favor a limited time contract and favor
an investigation of the use of other firms.
Councilmember Fignar stated he agreed with the City Manager's recommendation and
concurred that continuity was important but suggested this approach could be
reviewed at year end. He stated if the police are satisfied with the prosecutor,
they should be listened to.
6 -25 -79 -28-
Councilmember Lhotka again stated he would like to see the Council set
parameters for what they're looking for in legal services and ask firms
to respond to that.
Councilmember Kuefler stated he would prefer to select a law firm rather than
a specific attorney.
Council members questioned the City Manager as to when the firm of Schieffer &
Carson would be split. The City Manager responded the split would occur on
August 1, 1979. It was the consensus of the Council that they wished to lay
over any decision on this until a later Council meeting. Councilmember Kuefler
suggested, in the meantime, Council members should investigate other alternatives.
REVIEW OF GOLF COURSE FEASIBILITY STUDY
The City Manager called the Council's attention to a copy of a proposal the
City has received from Brauer & Associates to do a feasibility study on a par 3
golf course on the south side of Highway 100 adjacent to the water tower in
Lyons Park. The City Manager stated the idea had been reviewed but on a very
preliminary basis on a number of occasions by the Park and Recreation Commission.
He explained because the City is currently in the process of planning for the
Shingle Creek Trailway System south of Highway 100, it would behoove the City
within the next twelve months to conduct such a study as proposed in the attached
r
proposal. The City Manager explained he was bringing this to
the Council s
attention because of the need to have some answers before the planning process
of the trailway system has been completed. If a decision was made to build a
golf course in the area, the trailway system design would be affected. The
City Manager suggested the Council might wish to study this out of the City
Council's 1979 Consulting Budget or the City Council might wish to consider as
part of the 1980 Budget.
The City Manager explained that the proposal had been sought from Brauer &
Associates because they are the people who have over the years worked with the
Park and Recreation Department and the City on the planning of the City's parks.
Councilmember Kuefler stated it was his understanding that the proponent of
this plan was basically the staff. The City Manager responded that the staff
was the basic proponent simply because it was important to the planning process
to have some idea of whether or not a golf course was feasible. The City
Manager stated he had reviewed briefly the concept with the Chamber of Commerce
and their major question was is the golf course economically feasible. The City
Manager stated some very initial work has been done by the staff.
Councilmember Kuefler stated he would be more comfortable if there was other
non -City staff advocates for the proposal. The Council briefly discussed the
position of the Park and Recreation Commission in regard to the idea for a
golf course in this area.
Councilmember Fignar stated he would like to get the pulse of the community on
this idea. Council members suggested it might be helpful to refer this idea
to the Park and Recreation Commission for a recommendation. After further
discussion, the City Council concurred a necessary first step before a decision
could be made would be the feasibility study.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka•
to authorize the City.Manager to contract with Brauer & Associates to determine
the feasibilit y of a golf course so this information would be available in the
planning process for the trailway system. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion
6 -25 -79 -29-
passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler,
Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The
Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 1:40 a.m.
fyy� Clerk .
6 -25 -79 -30-