Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 12-04 CCM Regular Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 4, 197$ 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 :04 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn, Building Inspector Andy Alberti, and Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman and Mary Harty. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Lhotka. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1978 There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the minutes of the November 20, 1978 City Council meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM The Mayor noted he had received no requests to speak at the Open Forum, He asked whether anyone in the audience wished to speak at the Open Forum; there bein g p none the Open Forum was closed. BOND REDUCTIONS AND RELEASES The City Manager recommended bond reductions for the following: a bond reduction to .$1 , 000 for Boulevard Properties located at 59 01 Brooklyn Boulevard, submitted by Dr. Check; a bond reduction to $1,500 for Brookdale Towers apartments located at 7015 Humboldt Avenue North, submitted by Miles Construction /Towers Manage- ment. The City Manager recommended the release of a performance bond for Riverbrook Townhouses (renamed Riverwood) located at 6700 Camden Drive, submitted by IDS Mortgage Corporation, There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the bond reductions and releases as recommended by the City Manager. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 12 -4 -78 -1- The City Attorney arrived at 7 :09 p.m. The City Attorney left the table at 7 :10 p.m. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL The City Manager recommended final plat approval for Eisenbrand Addition located at the southeast quadrant of 73rd Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on May 8, 1978 under Application No. 78022. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the final plat. The City Attorney returned to the table at 7 :15 p.m. Councilmember Kuefler arrived at 7:16 p.m. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the final plat for Eisenbrand Addition located at the southeast quadrant of 73rd Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, RESOLUTION NO,, 78 -268 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF NINE (9) TYPEWRITERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly secoi °ued by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -269 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoptions FE- SOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THREE- (3) POLICE PATROL VEHICLES 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, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none,_ whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -270 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY C ITY) 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 12 -4 -78 -2- favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, RESOLUTION NO. 78 -271 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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: De:.n Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, B -ill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 7 8 -272 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -273 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO, 78 -274 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 12 -4 -78 -3- RESOLUTION NO. 78 -275 Member Celia Scott "introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO, 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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, Gene Lhotka, and Celia- Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, RESOLUTION NO. 78 -276 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY C ITY) 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, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, RE SOLUTION NO o 78 -277 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO, 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY C ITY) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -278 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STREET GRADING, BASE _ & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJ.bCT NO. 1978 -45 AND- CURB & GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -46 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution traas duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -27 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 12 -4 -7$ -4- RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SALT STORAGE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -43 AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1978 -T) 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, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 78-280 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR FRONT END LOADER AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 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, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 78-281 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR AERIAL QUINT FIRE TRUCK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO, 78 -282 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TERMINATING PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION FOR THE SUBURBAN HEALTH NURSING SERVICE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted In discussion of the resolution, the City Manager explained the Suburban Public Health Nursing Service will now be the purveyor of nursing services in Hennepin County. The Director of Finance noted it is unlikely that cities will be assessed per capita dues for this service in 1979. This change in health purveyor will not 12-4-78 -5- curtail services only eliminate middle management. In presenting the next resolution., the City Manager explained although the proposal received by the Associated General Agency and the Home Insurance Company decrease in 1979, in 1978 there had been approximately a 200% increase. The Director of Finance replied in response to questions from the Council that the dram shop portion of the insurance cost approximately $10,000, The Director of Finance further noted there had been the greatest increase in the general City liability, RESOLUTION NO. 78 -28 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RENEWING INSURANCE CONTRACT 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, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. - RESOLUTION NO. 78 -284 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78 -188 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, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION ITEMS The City Manager asked that one of the discussion items, the approval of the animal control contract, be deferred until the next meeting, The Council agreed to defer the approval of the contract until the next meeting. The next discussion item was a report on a stop sign request on Palmer Lake Drive and Urban Avenue North. The Director of Public Works explained the study had been conducted in response -to a previous request from - Mr. Lee Srapko of 6931- West Palmer Lake Drive and other residents of the area between 69th Avenue and Violet Avenue Mr. Snapko and other petitioners had requested the installation of a three -way stop sign at Urban Avenue and the installation of park and school warning signs along West Palmer Lake Drive. The traffic study conducted by the Public Works Department was conducted to determine past and present traffic volumes , percentage of traffic generated by West Palmer Lake and the West Palmer Lake School, and the accident and speeding problems. The study indicates that the average daily traffic volume has increased by approxi- mately 10% when a comparison of the April, 1970 traffic volumes is compared with the November, 1978 volumes. However, it appears that summer traffic has increased by approximately 72% when comparing the November nonschool traffic 12 -4 -78 6 with the August traffic volumes. Reviewing the number of homes that are directly abutting West Palmer Lake Drive and the traffic volumes utilizing West Palmer Lake Drive, indicates that the roadway is functioning more as a collector street rather than as a purely residential street. The City of Brooklyn Center traffic accident records for West Palmer Lake Drive over the past four years indicate no significant accident problem exists. It does appear that the Police Department has not been contacted regarding some of the accidents that have occurred in this area. Concerning the question of spee the surveys show the majority of vehicle on West Palmer Lake Drive to be traveling at a reasonably safe speedo The st>>dy shows the traffic to be traveling slightly faster in November than it was in August and September. In November, approximately 89% of the vehicles surveyed were traveling less than 35 miles per hour and 99% at less than 40 miles per hour. The Chairman of the Hennepin County Municipal Prosecutors Association indicated that good police administrators strive to achieve 90% of the traffic flow to travel at a speed within 5 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. Therefore, with 96% in September and 89% in November, of traffic flow traveling at less than 35 miles per hour and the existing low rate of accidents, the vehicles on West Palmer Lake Drive appear to be traveling at a reasonably safe speed. Pedestrian counts were also made along West Palmer Lake Drive between 69th Avenue and 72nd Avenue North, Automobile traffic counts taken at the same periods of time indicate that in the morning, there is an average of 20 cars per hour while in the afternoon period there is an average of 96 cars per hour. The afternoon traffic volume provides for a time lapse of approximately 37 seconds between the passing of automobiles. In examining the traffic studies, the Director of Public Works noted that warrants are not met for the installation of a three -way stop sign in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. As indicated earlier, the accident records along West Palmer Lake Drive did not indicate an accident problem at the intersection. The installation of a three -way stop sign at the above location could actually aggravate the accident situation since traffic on West Palmer Lake Drive would be taken unaware of the stop situ- ation, thereby creating rear end potentials, commented the Director of Public Works. He further explained,' the use of stop signs is not considered by traffic engineers to be effective for reducing vehicle speeds. The Director of Public Works quoted from an article in the Western Institute of Traffic Engineers Professional Journal "that three residential speed control measure studied by the City, did not reduce vehicle speeds; in fact, vehicle speeds of the studied streets actually increase slightly." Based on the findings of the •study, the Director of Public Works recommended the following: 1) Stop signs not be installed on West Palmer Lake Drive and Urban Avenue North o 2) Warning curve signs be installed at the north and south approaches to the curve between Urban and Violet Avenues North with 20 mile per hour advisory signs attached. 3) Continued speed 12 -4 - -7- surveillance by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. 4) Some control by the Park and Recreation Department with regard to teams using the park. Following the explanation by the Director of Public Works, Councilmember Lhotka asked what effect speed signs or arrows would have on the problem. The Director of Public Works explained that stop signs do not appear to control speed and the speed sign or arrow would only alert the driver of the curve. Councilmember Fignar indicated he favored placing a stop sign in the area and presented a motion for the Council's consideration. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar to install three -way stop signals somewhere between the school and 69th along West Palmer Lake Drive. He further added the existence of the school and park made the area more dangerous than a normal residential setting and it was the duty of the City to find some way to slow traffic down in the area. He further noted a stop sign would have more of an effect in controlling traffic than a curve sign. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lhotka but Councilmember Lhotka also asked the motion be amended «dding that in addition to the stop sign, curve and warning signs also be added. Councilmember Fignar agreed with the amendment. In discussion of the motion, Mayor Nyquist asked for a clarification of where the sidewalk was located. The Director of Public Works explained the sidewalk runs along the east side of West Palmer Lake Drive and, therefore, a stop sign would not primarily be to aid children crossing the street because they cross all along West Palmer Lake Drive. Councilmember Kuefler asked whether stop signs south of 57th on France Avenue had helped the problem in that area. The Director of Public Works replied the City has =-eceived fewer complaints but at the last neighborhood meeting of the neighbors in that area there were still complaints of speeding in the area, Councilmember Scott noted she had received complaints from people in the area that since the stop signs had been installed many drivers were squealing from stop sign to stop sign. Councilmember Scott noted the complaints she had received would indicate that the stop signs had not solved the problem in fact, many people run the stop signs Councilmember Kuefler suggested the City should firs: try out the staff recom- mendation and check_ the problem at a later date, at which time, a stop sign could be installed if there, was a need. Councilmember Lhotka _ suggested trying the opposite solution which - v:ould be placing the stop signs now and checking later to see whether they were working. Councilmember Kuefler voiced concern over the Council becoming involved in the traffic business. Councilmember Kuefler further noted he was concerned with reducing speed limits within the City but he indicated that issue should be dealt with separately. The Mayor noted the studies .indicate that using stop signs as speed control is ineffective. 12-4-78 -8- Councilmember Fignar explained he was aware that installing a stop sign there was the most extreme measure but given the situation and the location of the school and park, he felt a stop sign was needed. The Director of Public Works again explained relative to the installation of stop signs, the warrants in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices had not been met. Putting a stop sign in at this location in opposition to the recommendation of the Director of Public Works and not in accordance with the warrants of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices could possibly jeopardize signing funds. Additionally, it is-possible the C;tv might be found liable if stop signs were installed and an accident occurred resulting from the installation of a stop sign. In clarification of this point the City Attorney noted if the issue went before a court, one side would argue the need of a stop sign and the other side would argue a stop sign was not needed and it would be up to the court to make the final decision. It would be in the best interest of the City to be able to justify their action based on technical data. In clarification of the motion, the motioner and the seconder repeated the motion and the second. Councilmember Fignar moved the installation of a three -way stop signal somewhere between the school and 69th along West Palmer Lake Drive due to the existence of the school and the park in the area making the area more dangerous than a normal residential setting. He further explained he felt it was the duty of the City to attempt to slow traffic down in the area and a stop sign would have more effect than curve signs. Additionally, he asked that and curve warning signs be added. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lhotka. In vote on the motion the following voted in favor: Councilmembers Fignar and Lhotka. Voting against: Mayor Nyquist, Council- members Kuefler and Scotto The motion was denied. PLANNING COMMISSIO ITEMS The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 78064 sub - mitted by Mr, Gene Hamilton for a variance from Section 35 -400 to permit a carport accessory structure to encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback at 6230 Lee Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance at its November 2 1978 Planning Commission meeting. Consideration of Application No. 78064 was originally scheduled for the November 13, 1978 City Council agenda. Mr. Hamilton requested a rescheduling of consideration of Application No. 78064 because he was not able to attend the November 13, 1978 City Council meeting due to prior professional commitments. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the applicant sought a variance from Section 35 -400 of the City Ordinances to allow the carport accessory structure which had been erected without a building permit to encroach approximately 20 feet into the 35 foot front yard setback at 6230 Lee Avenue North. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed a transparency of the area and pointed out the location of the applicant's property. He explained the applicant's carport had been the subject of Application No. 77064, an appeal from an administrative ruling that the structure encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback and could 12 -4 -78 -9- not be allowed. He" stated that the Council earlier had denied the appeal and the present application was a request fora variance to permit the structure to encroach into the front yard. He stated the applicant had submitted a written statement explaining his request and outlining his justification for the variance, in which he claims the placement of the house on the lot, the number and place- ment of existing trees and the lack of an alley make it virtually impossible to construct a detached garage in the rear yard and have access to it. The applicant also contends the carport provides a margin of safety on many days when an unprotected car would be subjected to sleet and snow and fogged windows. He noted that the location of the carport on his property is unique in that the grade of the driveway and the existing trees and shrubbery make it appear to blend into the surroundings. The applicant also claims that the winter weather conditions and the location of the one car garage create a hardship and points out that 14 neighbors signed a petition supporting his variance request. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the standards for a variance in Section 35 -200 (2) of the City Ordinances, which allow for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance inAnstances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration after demonstration that all four of the qualifications have met. The.Director of Planning and Inspection continued that it was not felt that this variance request met the qualifications of a hardship contained in the ordinances opposed to a mere inconvenience, nor that the conditions of the variance were necessarily unique to the parcel. He pointed out that single family homes with tuck under single car garages similar to that of the applicant are relatively common in Brooklyn Center.—He added that consideration should also be given to the prece- dent that would be set if this variance were granted and what, if any, distinctions would be made with respect to this application and a similar request from another individual requesting the same type of encroachment into the front yard setback. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated it was also felt that the alleged hardship claimed by the applicant was not necessarily related to the requirements of the ordinance. He explained that setback standards are minimum standards, and the ordinance does not mandate that houses be built at the 35 foot setback, only that they do not encroach on this minimum setback. He also explained that the ordinance does not require garages or any other type of protection for cars, and also does not specify the placement and number of trees and shrubbery on single family residential property. He pointed out that these are decisions made by builders, developers and property owners, all persons having an interest in a parcel of land. The standards for a variance require that the alleged hardship be related to the requirements of this ordinance anti_not have -been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land, The Director of Planning and Inspection concluded that it was felt that the variance request did not clearly meet the standards for variances, particularly in Terms of uniqueness and hardship and recommended denial of the application. Additionally, the Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the comments made by the Planning Commissioners at the November 2, 1978 Planning Commission meeting at which time the Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 78064. 12 -4 -78 -10 Gouncilmember Scott questioned why Commissioner Book abstained from voting on Application No. 78064, The Director of Planning and Inspection noted Com- missioner Book had made comments against approving Application No, 78064 during the meeting but had abstained from voting. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated he did not know why Commissioner Book had abstained from voting:. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing on Application Nos 78064. Mayer Nyquist recognized Mr. Gene Hamilton, Mr, Hamilton noted he had begun work on this particular issue as of July 3<.. 1977. He noted nothing in the City Ordinances speaks to a carport only to a canopy. He contended that while the issue was in the hands of the City, progress in reaching a resolution of the issue was very slow but Mr. Hamilton noted he had appeared only once before the Council after which he received a 30 day notice from the court to tear the structure down, He contended that as long as the issue was in the hands of the City, progress was slow and he questioned why he had received the notice from the court after only appearing before the Council once and intending to appeal for a variance. He noted he had appeared. last Friday in court and had asked that the case be continued until fanuary because he was appearing before the Council to request a variance, Mr. Hamilton noted he had not appealed to friends and supporters on this issue to come before the City Council but he felt at this time it was necessary. Mr. Hamilton alleged that one Council member had told the residents that he, i:he Council member, had to vote "no" on the application because he was instructed to vote "no" by the City Attorney, Mr, Hamilton also alleged that other of his friends had been told by a Council member that some petition signers had changed their mind and were no longer in favor of allowing Mr. Hamilton to keep the accessory structure. Mr. Hamilton noted that he felt he had been mistreated by the City, Mr. Hamilton explained that the request for the variance harms no one and that his neighbors accept the accessory structure and understand that in terms of safety it stands on its own merits. Mr. Hamilton noted that aesthetically the structure did not detract from the area. Mr. Hamilton proceeded to show slides of other accessory type structures which were allowed in the City of Brooklyn Center, He noted several of these other accessory structures were visually far less appealing than his own structure. Mrs. Hamilton noted that they did not contend that the hardship was in scraping their windows but contended that the hardship is that there is not room on the back or sides of the property to construct such a structure. A citizen residing at 58th and Admiral Lane indicated he was in favor of allowing Mr. Hamilton's accessory structure to remain, granting the variance. He indicated Mr. Hamilton's structure was a safe structure and many of the others shown in 12 -4 -78 -11- the slides Mr. Hamilton had shown were not safe accessory structures. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public hearing on Application No. 78064, Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager commented that in initial discussions with Mr. Tremere, the Director of Planning and Inspection at the time, Mr. Hamilton decided to take the route of the appeal of the administrative ruling. The legal appeal of the interpretation of the administrative ruling had been exhausted and, therefore, the City turned the case over to the court. The structure was originally constructed without a building permit in violation of City Ordinances, The City Manager explained it was, therefore, up to the courts to decide whether or not the action taken by the City in deciding to deny Mr. Hamilton's appeal of the administrative ruling was legal or not legato In response to Mr. Hamilton's comments concerning the time line and its slow - ness when the issue was in the hands of the City, the City Manager commented that Mr. Hamilton had agreed to the slow time line so that the issue could be handled fairly. Additionally, the court date had been set before the variance had been applied for, Councilmember Lhotka asked the City Attorney to again comment on the legal ramifications of granting a variance The City Attorney reiterated that it is clear that no variance applies to one individual only but precedents are set when a variance is granted. Every variance granted allows a particular property to not meet the standards of the ordinance. If a property owner is not required to meet the specified standards for a - ariance in order to have the variance approved, the City in granting the variance does not give citizens equal pro- tection and it becomes a constitutional issue. If a variance is granted without the particular property meeting the standards for a variance, all subsequent requests for a similar variance would also have to be granted making the ordinance unenforceable, Councilmember Kuefler stated he felt the accessory structure on Mr. Hamilton's property was aesthetically acceptable but the structure does not meet the hard - ship criteria required in the standards for a variance. Councilmember Kuefler further commented he - did -not sense the community wanted to change the setback standards and, therefore, Councilmember Kuefler did not feel the variance should be granted. The Mayor concurred with Councilmember Kue comments and stated although he was not concerned with the appearance of the structure on Mr. Hamilton's property, he was concerned about the precedent that would be set if the structure was allowed to stand. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to deny Planning Commission Application No. 78064 submitted by Mr -. Gene Hamilton because the application does not meet the standards for a "variance with respect to uniqueness and hardship. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council- 12-4-78 _12- members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce for an amendment to the special use permit for a home occupation (beauty shop) at 3313 Lawrence Road. Application No. 78066 was tabled at the November 20, 1978 City Council meeting due to the fact that Councilmember Kuefler was not present to vote on the application and wished to vote on the application. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the application, as the Council was familiar with the application from their review of the application - at the November 20, 1978 City Council meeting. Councilmember Kuefler stated his concern was over a question of whether or not the special use permit would be denied when the applicant was no longer the primary employee. Mayor Nyquist stated two concerns: first, under the special use permit, could an employee become the primary or must the employee maintain a supporting role, second, Mayor Nyquist expressed concern that there was a C -1 district located across the street and would this type of use of Cynthia Pierce's home lead to an eventual request for rezoning. Councilmember Kuefler asked if it would be appropriate if Cynthia Pierce was required to put in at least 51% of the working hours in the business. The City Manager clarified the issue stating the concern was a question of when a home occupation ceased to be a home occupation. I the person granted the special use permit no longer works in the home, then the business would cease to be a home occupation. Councilmember Scott noted the Planning Commission had placed restrictions on the permit that Cynthia Pierce could not work in the business when her other employees were working there. Councilmember Scott further noted the percentage suggestion could not be enforced by the City. Mayor Nyquist again stated that when the employees become the principals in the business, it is no longer a home occupation. Councilmember Fignar questioned whether the parking of four cars in the driveway would block the view within the neighborhood. Councilmember Kuefler questioned if a precedent would be set by allowing the home occupation use as suggested in Cynthia Pierce's application when the home owner might at some time not be actively involved in the home occupation. The City Attorney suggested a possible solution might be to grant the special use permit for a period of one year during which time the staff could research the legal question of home occupations and what the stipulations on them should be. The staff, in their research, could attempt to determine whether an employee 12 -4 -78 -13- - of a person granted a special use permit for a home occupation was limited to a supporting role or could become the principal in the home occupation. Addi- tionally, during the one year period, the applicant would have more time to decide whether or not she wanted to remain in the beauty business or if her principal occupation was going to be real estate. The Director of - Planning and Inspection added that special use permits were subject to staff review on an annual basis and if there were problems with parking or other problems, the issue could be brought before the Council again at the one year time period. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Planning Commission Application No, 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce subject to the conditions as set by the Planning Commission at its November 16, 1978 meeting, In discussion of the motion, the Mayor recognized Mr. and Mrs. Reetz of 3309 Lawrence Road who commented that parking was a problem and there were often times cars parked on both sides of the street as a result of customers to Mrs. Pierce's beauty shop. They also commented they did not want the City to put them in a position of having to police this situation in their neighborhood, Councilmember Fignar asked whether concerns from the neighborhood was criteria for denial of the special use permit. The City Attorney commented that point 5 in the Planning Commission's recom- mended conditions of approval deals with the parking situation stating that "all parking related to the special use shall be off - street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. " Councilmember Lhotka asked how the parking provision was enforced. The City Attorney responded that the situation was generally policed by the neighbors and if there were consistent violations, the problem was generally brought to the staff's attention. For purposes of clarification, the motion on the floor was repeated. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the proposed use and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is - subject to applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and violation, thereof, shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The permit acknowledges the employment on the premises, at any one given time, of not more than one person who is a nonresident of the premises, and violation of this condition shall be grounds for revocation. 12 -4 -78 -14- 4. The current copy of the applicant's State operator's license as well as a current copy of any employee State operator's license shall be kept on file with the City, 5. All parking related to the special use shall be off - street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. 6. The hours of operation shall be Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, 2:00 p.m. to 8 :00 p.m. and Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 3 :00 p.m. 7. There shill be one operator working at any given time. 8. The special use permit is subject to annual review. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist asked that the records show that he voted affirmative on the motion because of the stipulation that there would be a review in one year's period ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced two ordinances concurrently. The first was an ordinance authorizing the operation of certain gambling devices by licensed organizations and was a second reading of the ordinance. The second ordinance was an ordinance authorizing the operation of bingo by licensod organizations and was also a second reading of the ordinance. The City Manager noted Mr. Bill Clelland from the City Attorney's office was in attendance at the Council meeting and was prepared to answer any questions the Council might have on this ordinance. Mr. Clelland had done much of the work in drafting the ordinances. Councilmember Lhotka asked Mr. Clelland to elaborate on the position that the present ordinances would put small organizations or organizations which only wanted to hold one event which included gambling or bingo. Mr. Clelland explained a Minnesota Statute had been passed in April which makes all gambling illegal unless permitted and licensed by the municipality in which it is located and furthermore stipulates which organizations can be licensed. He further explained a municipality can make the licensing criteria more restrictive but cannot make the licensing criteria more expansive. If the City of Brooklyn Center does not pass an ordinance which sets up the mechanism for licensing organizations, there would be no gambling or bingo allowed in the City of Brooklyn Center. The City Manager explained the City of Brooklyn Center could have adopted the Minnesota State Statute by reference but the public would then be forced to read through the Statutes in order to ascertain what could and could not be done. Councilmember Scott asked about organizations which have been in existence for three years or more but had changed their title. Mr. Clelland stated that if 12 -4 -78 -15- there was not a significant deviation in the purpose of the organization or the change in name was 'not a subterfuge and the original organization was eclipsed by the organization with the new title and was the legitimate successor to the original organization, he could see no problem and believed the organization with the new title would qualify, Councilmember Scott also asked whether it would actually -take 180 days to approve the application as was stated in Section 23 -1903. Mr. Clelland replied that the 180 days stipulation was taken directly from the State Statutes. The City Manager explained that 180 days was the maximum time allowed and the Council would have to act within 180 days. The minimum time was 30 days,, The City Manager indicated he felt most applications would not take the full 180 days and would more than likely be processed in the 30 day minimum time limit. Councilmember Scott also asked whose name would be put on the application as the name of the person to be investigated, Mr. Clelland explained each organiza- tion must designate a person to serve as the bingo or gambling manager and this person becomes responsible for the operation of the bingo or gambling. He further indicated that the designation of the gambling or bingo manager is part of the State Statute. Councilmember Kuefler asked about the four hour limitation on the bingo ordinance. Mr. Clelland explained the four hour limitation had been deleted. In response to questions concerning the license fee and the investigation fee for the license, the City Manager explained those fees would be set by the Council. There was a brief discussion on the license fee and the investigation fee for licensing, Mr. Clelland explained that organizations could not be subdivided into their component parts and each of them apply for licenses. For example, the Men's Club within a' church could not apply for an individual license, rather the church as a whole would apply. In response to questions from the Council as to whether or not the fee could be waived, Mr. Clelland explained the fees charged must be fair and nondiscriminatory. The waiving of a fee must be done only on a rational nondiscriminatory basis. The Cwy Manager further noted fees could be established by resolution separate from ,ale ordinance Councilmember Kuefler suggested the scope of the tnvestiga- tion necessary for the gambling and bingo license should be determined and the fees should be set accordingly. Councilmember Kuefler suggested the license fees should be nominal relative to the number of games and the hours of operation. The City Manager explained that the rationale for fees in some cases of licensing is the amount of dollar flow which may have a direct effect on the need for enforcement efforts. In response to questions from Council members, Mr. Clelland explained the difference between the State law on gambling and the State law on bingo is that fewer organizations can be licensed for gambling. There is a wider 12 -4 -78 -16 I eligibility for bingo as compared to gambling. ' A citizen concerned with the gambling and bingo licensing fees was recognized by the Mayor. The citizen commented that a $50 investigation fee may be prohibitive to small organizations, whereas, $50 to other organizations might be a very small amount. Mr. Ken Nelson, Pastor of Berean Evangelican Church, stated the Council had a unique opportunity in setting the license fees. Mr. Nelson stated he was concerned with the gambling atmosphere particularly because of many studies that indicate gambling is definitely a problem in this country. Mr. Nelson suggested setting the license fee significantly nigh enough in order to discourage proliferation of gambling within the City of Brooklyn Center. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to defer action on the bingo ordinance and the gambling ordinance until further information could be gathered concerning licensing fees and investigation fees which might be appropriate. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager noted he would be able to provide that information to the Council possibly at the next Council meeting. In further discussion, the hiayor noted he did not feel the City should subsidize the cost of the investigation for the gambling license or the bingo license for organizations. Council member Lhotka also noted he had no trouble with the wording of the ordinance as written, but he too felt the City should not subsidize the cost of the investigation for the licenses. He also suggested it would be helpful to have additional information on a fee structure. Councilmember Kuefler concurred in the position taken by Mayor Nyquist and Councilmember Lhotka. Councilmember Scott suggested a categorization of types and organizations by size, dollar volume, etc. might be helpful in setting a rate schedule of fees. Councilmember Kuefler agreed with Councilmember Scott's suggestion to attempt to put organizations into categories and, thus, set a rate schedule. RETURN TO DISCUSSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced the next discussion item, a report on a stop sign request at Logan Avenue North and 55th Avenue North. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the results of the traffic study on Logan Avenue North and 55th Avenue North. The Director of Public Works noted the results indicate the area is fairly close to meeting the warrants of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices although the accident rate does not meet the warrants. The volume of traffic in the area is close to meeting the warrants but again does not meet the warrants. Councilmember Lhotka indicated he felt although the site does not meet the warrants as set in the Manual, the warrants are somewhat arbitrary and it is 12 -4 -78 -17- his feeling a stop sign is needed in the area, Councilmember Kuefler explained he felt rather than placing stop signs all over in the City there should be an attempt made to change the speed limit in the area and in many other areas in the City. Councilmember Kuefler stated he felt speeding was a community wide problem and people within the community are looking towards the Council to do something about enforcement. Councilmember Scott suggested it was important to speak with elected officials and request that they speak to the State Highway Commissioner in order to change speed limits. She concurred with Councilmember Kuefler that cars speeding on residential streets were a definite problem. Councilmember Fignar questioned the Director of Public Works as to whether a 53rd Avenue corridor would have any effect on the traffic on Logan Avenue, increasing the traffic at that location. The Director of Public Works replied measures were being taken to prevent a large increase of traffic on Logan Avenue. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to install stop signs at 55th and Logan Avenue North. In vote on the issue, the following voted in favor: Councilmembers Lhotka and Fignar. Voting against: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler and Scott. The motion was denied. The City Manager introduced the next discussion item, a temporary extension of a joint parking agreement between Northwestern Bell and Brooklyn Center School District for property located in the area of 65th and Dupont. He recom- mended a motion approving the joint parking agreement. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained he had received a letter from a representative of Northwestern Bello The letter explained that Northwestern Bell's use of the remodeled area in the Northwestern Bell building at 1101 65th Avenue North continues to be used for office space. Northwestern Bell's plans are basically the same as in 1976 of vacating most of the people from this location, however, the date of this vacation has not been firmly seta 'The letter indicated that Northwestern Bell had negotiated a renewal of the lease for temporary parking space with the Brooklyn Center Independent School District #286. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the joint parking agreement was approved in 1975 and as a letter indicated, Northwestern Bell still has need for temporary parking. The Council's action, in actuality, acknowledges the joint parking agreement. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the temporary extension of a joint parking agreement between .Northwestern Bell and Brooklyn Center School District for property located in the area of 65th and Dupont. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 1 2-4-78 -18- The City Manager introduced the next discussion item, a discussion of the County Seat Instructional Program sponsored by the Department of Revenue. The City Manager indicated the City Assessor had received a letter inviting the presiding officer in each City or a representative appointed by the presiding officer and the City Assessor to attend the instructional program. Mayor N uist stated he would be able to attend the instructions) program Y Yq 1 1 p g sponsored by the Department of Revenue. The Mayor questioned the Council as to whether it was their wish to appoint a member to the Charter Commission. The Council briefly reviewed earlier discussions on Charter Commission appointments. It was still unclear as to when the Judge had received official notice of Commissioner Higgins' resignation. It was known that the Judge had received notification in a letter from Chairman Kanatz on November 9 but it was unclear whether or not he had been notified prior to November 9 of Commissioner Higgins' resignation. The Council agreed to wait until the next Council meeting and appoint a member to the Charter Commission at that time if the judge had not made an appoint- ment before the next Council meeting. TEMPORARY RE OF SPECIFIED RENTAL LICENSES The City Manager indicated that inspections had been made on the Chippewa Park apartments at 6507 Camden Avenue North for the purposes of determining whether or not a temporary license renewal should be made. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained he had spoken with the manage- ment of Chippewa Park apartments at an earlier inspection and suggested to them that he would recommend a temporary extension of the license if they took care of the fire related violations and many of the housing _maintenance violations. The Director of Planning and Inspection further explained that another inspection had been made on December l . The results of that inspection show that the fire related violations and the housing related violations had not been taken care of to date. In discussion of the issue, it was the consensus of the Council that the license should not be renewed until the fire related violations and the housing maintenance violations were taken care of. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to revoke the license until the fire related violations and the housing maintenance violations were taken care of . Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In further discussion, the Council noted the management of Chippewa Park apart- ments had been given a chance and yet they had not complied. Councilmember Scott stated it was important to back up the inspectors so that the inspectors of the City would remain effective, 12 -4 -78 -19- Planning n n The Director of and Inspection explained when a license is not renewed, n nn b n ted, vacant apartments are red to tagged and the red tagged apartments is ca of be I gg gg p After inspections of Chippewa Park apartments have been made which indicate that the fire related violations and the housing maintenance violations have been taken care of, the license will again be brought to the Council. If the management of Chippewa Park apartments rents apartments which have been red tagged, there is a penalty for each day an apartment is rented without a license and this includes each unit as a separate violation. The people living in the apartments now will not be evicted. The red tags affect only those apart- ments which are vacated. The Director of Planning and Inspection further indicated the management of Chippewa Park apartments had suggested that they hoped to be in compliance before the next Council meeting of December 18, 1978. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: BOWLING ALLEY LICENSE Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive CHRISTMAS TREE SALE LICENSE P.Q.T..Company 3119 Thurber Road (2 lots) 63rd & Brooklyn Blvd. & 5040 Brooklyn Blvd. CIGARETTE LICENSE Advance- Carter Company 850 Decatur Ave. No. Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #1 6800 Humboldt Ave. No. Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #3 5711 Morgan Ave. No. Wookworth's Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Bonine Vending 125 Riversedge Way Brookdale Towers 2810 County Road 10 Brooklyn Center A & W 6837 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Country Boy 4401 69th Ave. No. _ Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive_ Northwest Microfilm 1600 67th Ave. No. Theisen Vending, Inc. 3804 Nicollet Ave. So. Nino's Steak Round -Up 6040 Earle Brown Dr. Olive's East Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Bill West 76 Station 2000 57th Ave. No. Woodside Enterprises 2500 Nathan Lane, 4209 Poppin Fresh Pie Shop 5601 Xerxes Ave. No. Zayre Shopper's City 3600 63rd Ave. No. 1:2 -4 -78 -20- COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE Zayre Shopper's City 3600 63rd Ave. No. GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE L ICENSE Brooklyn Disposal 1014 Klondike Drive GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE Allied Black Top Company 3601 48th Ave. No. Brooklyn Center City Garage 2501 69th Ave. No. Metropolitan Transit Commission 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. The Plum Company 6840 -20 Shingle Creek Pkwy , LODGING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Riverside Motel 5608 Lyndale Ave. No. MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Ryan Air Conditioning 9240 Grand Ave. So NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Northwest Microfilm 1600 67th Ave. No. OFF -SALE NON INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Brooklyn Center Country Boy 4401 69th Ave. No. Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. No. Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. No. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive Red Owl Stores, Inc. 5425 Xerxes Ave. No. SuperAmerica 1901 57th Ave. No. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENS Northwest Microfilm 1600 67th Ave. No. POOL AND BILLIARD TABLE LICENSE Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE DeMars Signs 8340 East River Road Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 12 -4 -78 -21- t ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to adjourn the City Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11 :27 p.m. Clerk lay 12-4-78 -22-