Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 09-25 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 SEPTEMBER 25, 1978 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 :05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Director of Parks and Recreation Gene Hagel, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, and Administrative Assistants Mary Harty and Brad Hoffman. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Celia Scott. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11 1978 & SEPTEMBER 13 1978 Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fiqnar to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of September 11, 1978 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka abstained as he was not present at that meeting. Motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the Special Session of September 13, 1978 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none, The motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purposes of the Open Forum explaining a request had been received from Sandra Rath of 6511 Humboldt Avenue North to address the City Council concerning a problem with day care. Sandra Rath was not present. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated he had spoken with Sandra Rath over the phone concerning the problem of day care for one of her children. He noted she resided in the apartments located on 65th and Humboldt which was zoned R -5. According to the present City ordinance, day care facilities are not a permitted use in the R -5 area. Sandra Rath can receive grant money to pay for licensed day care for her children but only if the day care center is licensed. Although the County licenses day care centers not the City, the County will not license a day care center in an apartment or a home in the City which is not zoned for day care centers. A neighbor of Ms. Rath, also living in the apartments at 65th and Humboldt has consented to care for the child but this person cannot be licensed for day care because the City rdinances Y do not allow day ar centers y e e ters in the R -5 zone.. The 9 -25 -78 -1- Director of Planning and Inspection indicated Sandra Rath wanted to speak to that issue before the Council. It was the consensus of the Council to wait to deal with the issue until Sandra Rath presented the information to the Council. Mayor Nyquist next recognized Phyllis Plummer. Phyllis Plummer of 6520 Brooklyn Boulevard spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters and the Housing Com- mission and thanked the Council for their support of the Housing Awareness Seminar.' She thanked Councilmember Fignar and Mayor Nyquist for their presentations at the seminar. She also thanked Councilmember Kuefler for his attendance at the seminar, Councilmember Kuefler noted the seminar was excellent and provided a great deal of information in the area of housing. He expressed his thanks to the League of Women Voters and the Housing Commission for co- sponsoring the seminar. The Mayor next recognized Mr. Ron Blake of 3812 Janet Lane. Mr. Blake presented a statement and a signed petition to the City Council urging the Council to grant an additional $40,000 contract for services to CEAP. He stated under the current situation, the City had realized a cash in hand advantage of $85,000 from the insurance and will realize a cash in hand advantage of approximately $100,000 from the sale of the property on Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted the City would be in a position to collect tax revenue on the property after the property is sold, whereas, if the fire had not occurred, the City would have title to the land and the building, but would not have the cash in hand option as both the land and building would have been used by CEAP for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Blake also stated consideration must be given to the fact that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees donated over 6,000 hours of labor and $2,500 of Chapter Funds to the renovation of the building for CEAP. The signers of the petition feel it is not unreasonable to expect the City Council to allow CEAP a fair return of the insurance money to enable them to again conduct their business, especially in view of the cash in hand advantage that the City now enjoys. Mr. Blake stated he had spoken with Council members individually in the past few weeks, as a citizen of Brooklyn Center, He indicated the petition was not presented as a-resolution from the Jaycees Chapter but rather it was a petition signed by 70 past and present members of the Jaycees. Mr. Blake also noted he was not presenting the petition as a board member of CEAP nor at the urging of LEAP. He asked the Council to consider this statement and the petition as the Council proceeded in their budget discussions. Mayor Nyquist next recognized Mr. Arnie Foslien of 7215 Dallas Road. Mr. Foslien stated he was before the Councii because he was concerned about finding property for CEAP to rebuild on. He recommended Council consideration of property located at 69th and Dupont, east of the Church of the Master near the water tower. He indicated he had spoken with the City Manager and with individual Council members concerning the appropriateness of this property for a future building site for CEAP. 9 -25 -78 -? The City Manager explained the site suggested by Mr. Fo"slien was set as the potential site for a future water treatment plant facility. Presently the site is used for storage of miscellaneous City equipment and materials. The Director of Public Works showed a milar reproduction of the site pointing out the area designated for the water treatment plant. He explained a survey will be conducted in the winter of 1979 to ascertain whether or not the residents of Brooklyn Center desire a water treatment plant within the City. The present site is approximately 10 acres and is zoned R -1. Councilmember Fignar inquired whether it was feasible to use a small part of that 10 acres, approximately 1 acre, for a CEAP building. The Director of Public Works indicated he was unsure whether this was feasible because he dica not know the exact amount of land needed for the water treatment plant. Presently there does not appear to be &n-'excess of land. Further study would have to be undertaken in order to determine that. Tho Director of Planning and Inspection noted, in the past, LEAP was located in the -C -1 (Service /Office) area, P ERFORMANCE BONDS - Release and Reduction The City Manager explained site inspections had been made and on the basis of completed site improvements bond releases are recommended for: Bermel- Smaby, and Schell Clinic. A bond reduction is recommended for Hiawatha Rubber. There was, a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to release a $2,500 bond submitted by Bermel -Smaby of 6500 Brooklyn Boulevard; to release a $1 , 000 cash escrow submitted by Dr. Robert Schell for Schell Clinic of 412 6,6th Avenue North; and to reduce a $5,000 bond sub- . mitted by Hiawatha Rubber to $1,000 for Hiawatha Rubber of 1700 67th Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -202 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SHADE TREES 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. The City Manager explained the next resolution was being recommended to express the appreciation of the City to Lieutenant Bob Leonard for his 22 years of service clr the police force in the City of Brooklyn Center. 9 -25 -78 -3- RESOLUTION NO. 78 -203 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF LIEUTENANT ROBERT LEONARD 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 -204 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT NOTES 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. The City Manager introduced the resolution for improvement projects for the Ponds. He noted the public hearing is scheduled to be held on October 16, 1978 at 8 :00 p.m. The projects are located on Unity Avenue North in the area of 69th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North. The Director of Public Works explained the project: had been requested by 100% of the owners so technically, a public hearing is not required but the Cit7 will be holding a public hearing on October 16, 1978. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -205 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -31, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -32, STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -33, CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -34, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -35, STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -36, AND CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -37 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 -206 , Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 9 -25 -78 -4- RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -33 AND 1978 -36; AND CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -34 AND 1978 -37, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (STREET PAVING AND CURB & GUTTER CONTRACT 1978 -P) 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. The City Manager introduced the next resolution for improvement projects located on Brooklyn Boulevard south of the northern City boundary. The Director of Public Works explained the projects had been requested by 100% of the property owners so a public hearing is not technically required. A public hearing will be held on the improvement projects and the hearing is scheduled to be held October 16., 1978 at 8:00 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -207 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -4 AND SANITARZ SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -5 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken ther on, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fign r, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: no e, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager requested the resolution accepting; quotation for Landscaping Contract No. 1978 -Q be deferred until the Special Session Council meeting on September 27, 1978, The City Manager recommended the resolution authorizing the rental of a drag line for the Central Park relocation, The Director of Public Works explained the quotations from vendors for equipment rental had been taken. It is recom- mended the quotation of $3,818 per month from the Hayden Murphy Company be accepted. In response to questions from Council members, the Director of Public Works stated three quotations had been received but no two quotations had been received on the same size machine. The size equipment quoted in the Hayden Murphy quotation seemed to best fit the needs of the City at the price quoted, The Director of Public Works stated the work would begin in the latter part of this week & early next -week and would last approximately two to three months. The work will be initiated dependent on the approval of the County Commission and the passage of this resolution by the City Council. The dragging of Central Park will be done in house because a person experienced in operating drag line equipment is employed by the City. 9 -25 -78 -5- The funding for the excavation of the creek does not come directly from the LAWCON grant because the guidelines of the LAWCON grant prohibit creek relocation. The actual excavation will not be paid by LAWCON monies but the grading and moving of the material excavated from the creek will be paid by the LAWCON grant, RESOLUTION NO. 78 -208 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the fullo -ping resolution and moved its adoptions RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RENTAL OF A DRAG LINE FOR CREEK RELOCATION PROJECT NO. 1978 -40 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 Figna, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a resolution to amend the Central Park Creek Reloca- tion Contract to include a portion of Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40 relating to lowering a 16" water main. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -309 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78 -IS8 APPROVING PLANS AND .SPECIFICATIONS FOR UTILITY CONTRACT N0. 1 �8 -0 AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 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 adoptec.. RESOLUTION NO 78 -2 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALT STORAGE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -43 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 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 Kuefl (-r, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted,, The City Manager recommended a resolution to approve plans for a salt storage building. The Director of Public Works showed Council members photographa of a similar structure currently used by the State Highway Department. He noted the material used in construction of the building is the same as the material used 9 -25 -78 -6® in constructing the noise walls. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -211 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SALT STORAGE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -43, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1978 -R) 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. It was decided to defer the resolutions concerning proposed assessments until after the special assessments hearings had been held. The City Manager introduced a resolution to appoint a .citizen to the Citizen's Participation Committee for Urban County for the Community Development Block Grant. The City Manager noted the person appointed to the Committee could not be a presently appointed Commission or Council member. The Council made several suggestions for members to the committee, Council- member Scott recommended Mr, Bogucki, Councilmember Lhotka recommended Mr. Maurice Britts, Councilmember Fignar recommended Mr. Howard Heck or Mr. Henry Dorff, and Mayor Nyquist recommended Mr. Vernon Ausen It was decided to defer the actual appointment until the people recommended could be questioned as to their availability and preference for being on the Committee. It was decided the appointment would be made at the Special Session Council meeting on September 27, 1978. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the Health and Sanitation Ordinance. He noted the ordinance amendment is first reading and is presented for the p1.rpose of changing Health and Sanitation Ordinance 8- 108.01 . In discussion of the proposed amended ordinance, Councilmember Lhotka noted the City Sanitarian had spoken against the amended ordinance in earlier Council meetings. The City Sanitarian explained control would be a problem with the amended ordinance. Councilmember Lhotka indicated there is a potential health problem and this problem should be looked at carefully. Councilmember Lhotka indicated he was not in favor of amending the ordinance. In response to Council members questions, the City Attorney indicated it is doubt - ful the City's liability would be increased as a result of the amended ordinance. Liability would increase only if there was negligence on the part of the City staff concerning enforcement of the health and sanitation ordinances. There was a motion by Co> >ncilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to offer for first reading Chapter 8 of the health and Sanitation Ordinance. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. 9 -25 -78 -7- Voting against: Councilmember Lhotka. The motion passed. The City Manager introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City g P Y Ordinances. The ordinance is a first reading and is presented for the purpose of changing 35 -400 (2) of the City Ordinances. The City Manager noted the City Attorney was prepared to comment -on the legal ramifica -tions of this proposed amendment. As a point of clarification, the City Attorney explained it is doubtful the City would be able to prove there is a difference in need for setbacks on 75 foot lots as opposed to foot lots. If a 25 foot corner setback is necessary and reasonable for a 90 foot corner lot it is also reasonable for a 7 5 n b foot corner lot The setback requirements should not be related to the width of a lot if the are in fact reasonable = q Y and necessary, Councilmember Scott noted the ordinance language as proposed does not address only lots of 75 feet. The proposed ordinance language addresses all corner lots under 90 feet. Councilmember Kuefler asked whether a challenge by residents of 90 foot corner lots regarding a setback of only 15 feet allowed to substandard corner lots would win in court. The City Attorney indicated a challenge of this nature would likely be sucessful. Mayor Nyquist stated the original ordinance lanuuage "was of legal record on December 19, 1957" was appropriate. - Councilmember Fignar stated the average citizen is not aware of ordinance require- ments. Councilmember Fignar explained he felt all residents of substandard lots should be treated equally regardless of when the property became a property of record. Councilmember Fignar indicated he did not wish to see two sets of rules applie Councilmember Kuefler stated he did not support reducing the setback require - ments on 90 foot corner lots ' and therefore, he felt the ordinance should not be amended because of the legal ramifications of amending the ordinance to allow less of a side yard setback on substandard lots. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to recommend denial of the amended ordinance because the Council would be hard - pressed to justify` changing 'she ordinance. The wording in the original ordinance is clear and in establishing the date, the ordinance as written is justifiable in court. Additionally, the people living on corner lots chose to live there, in part, because of certain amenities which are protected by setback requirements. In discussion of the motion, Councilmember Fignar indicated he opposed Council- . member Scott's motion language because of the double standard that exists in the setback requirements Councilmember Fignar indicated he felt the language was discriminator , w Councilmember Lhotka .ndicated he would not vote for amending the ordinance but at the same time he also felt discrimination exists in the present ordinance wordinc, 9- 25 -78_ eS- In the vote on the motion, the following voted in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council- members Kuefler, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: Councilmember Fignar. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS * ' It was decided to defer discussion and the public hearing on Federal Revenue Sharing until later in the meeting. There was no one in the audience to participate in the Federal Revenue Sharing public hearing. The Mayor opened the special assessment public hearing at 8:10 p.m. The City Manager explained the public hearings for all of the proposed assessments would be held first and afterwards, the resolutions concerning those proposed assess- ments would be considered. The Director of Public Works briefly explained the statutory authority for the proposed assessments and the payment plans available for paying for the assessments. He noted all of the property owners had been notified concerning the public hearing on the proposed assessments. A public hearing was opened for the Street Surfacing Project No. 1977 -14 located at 52nd Avenue North from.Drew Avenue to the east approximately 135 "feet. The assessment method unit assessment. There was no on'e to speak on the project. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Council- member Scott to close the public rearing on. Project No. 1977 -14. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on the Water Main Project No. 1977 -15 located on Unity Avenue from 460 feet north of the center line of 69th Avenue. The assess- ment method was footage and area assessment. There was no one to speak on the project. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing on Project No. 1977 -15. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1977 -16 located on Unity Avenue from 420 feet north of the center line of 69th Avenue to 73rd Avenue. The assessment method was unit assessment. There was no one to speak on the project. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Council - member Lhotka to close the public hearing on Project No. 1977 -16. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on Street Surfacing (storm sewer portion) Project No-. 1977 -17 located on Unity Avenue from 443 feet north of the center line of 69th Avenue northerly approximately 460 feet. The assessment method was acre method. There was no one to speak on the project. Motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Project No. 1977 -17. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, .Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 9 -25 -78 -9- A public hearing was opened on Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1977 -21 located on Lakeside from the center line of Twin Lake Avenue easterly approximately 170 feet, The assessment method was unit assessment. There was no one to speak on the project. Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Council- member Fignar to close the public hearinq on Project No. 1977 -21 Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Counciimembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on Street Surfacing Project No. 1978 -17 located on Irving from approximately 165 feet south of 70th to 69th Avenue, proposed Irving Lane from approximately 723 feet east of Logan to Irving, and services on the north side of 69th from Irving westerly approximately 245 feet. The assessment method was unit and footage assessment. The Mayor recognized Mr. Robert Ryan, an attorney representing the owner of Brookdale Towers apartments. Mr. Ryan asked that the public hearings on special assessments be called off and rescheduled because the City had given improper notice concerning the special assessment public hearing. He noted, according to Minnesota Statute 429.061, reference must be made to Statutes 435.193 and 435.195 in the public notice. Reference to those Statutes had not been included in the public notice sent to Mr. Ryan's client. In addition to the fact that proper notice had not been given, Mr. Ryan noted there was no increase in the market value of the property due to the recommended improvements. Mr. Ryan indicated he was prepared to argue on behalf of his client that neither the present use of the land nor the future use of the land in question will be benefited from the proposed improvement project. He stated there would be no increase in services to the property as a result of the improvement projects. As a point of clarification, the City Attorney noted the City need not be limited by the present use of the land in establishing benefit and carrying out improve- ment projects. The property in question could be rezoned in the future. The City Attorney questioned Mr. Ryan as to what prejudice his client had suffered ,through lack of complete notice. Mr. Ryan replied no prejudice had been suffered but other people may have suffered prejudice in that they did not realize that they might fall under the hardship category as designated in the Statute. The City Attorney question the Director of Public Works as to what schedule and timetable problems might result in deferring a decision on this project. The Director of Public Works indicated a delay in passing the resolution on this improvement project would require the City to until next year to assess the project. Carrying costs and interest charges would be carried over until l next year resulting in a higher cost to the property owners. At this times the - Director of Public Works also explained, in greater detail, the City's assess- ment procedures. (Assessment Procedures Manual) Mr. Ryan suggested $5,000 would be an excessive cost for whatever benefit might acrue to his client as a result of the additional fire hydrant made possible by the improvement project. Mr. Ryan further noted the City's assessment policy was one that could potentially charge present property owners for work done in the past. The law states assessments must bear resemblance to the improvement. Each assessment must benefit the property owner being assessed. Mr. Ryan indicated he was prepared to argue, the assessment, as proposed,. 9 -25 -78 -10- does not benefit his client. It was decided to defer action on Improvement Project No. 1978 -17 until the City Attorney had a chance to review the Statutes. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing on Project No. 1978 -17. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on Sanitary Lateral Improvement Project No. 1978 -18 located on Irving Lane from an existing manhole 718 feet east of Logan easterly 118 feet; and Irving Lane from Irving westerly approximately 175 feet and services to Lot 1, Block 1, Irving Estates. The assessment method was unit assessment. There was no ":one to speak on Project No. 1978 -18. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Project No. 1978 -18. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -19 located on Irving from 70th to Irving Lane. The assessment method was unit assessment. There was no one to speak on the project. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Project No. 1978 -19. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on the Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -25 located on the proposed James Circle from Freeway Boulevard southerly approximately 545 feet. The assessment method was area assessment. There was no one to speak on the project, There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Council- member Fignar to close the public hearing on Project No. 1978 -25. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on the Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -26 located on the south side of Freeway Boulevard from proposed James Circle easterly approximately 200 feet to an existing inlet on Freeway Boulevard. The assessment method is area assessment. There was no one to speak on the project. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing on Project No. 1978 -26. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on Sanitary Sewer Hookup Improvement Projects located at the Ponds and at 7242 Knox Avenue North. The assessment method was the square foot assessment. There was no one to speak on the project. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to 9 -25 -78 -11- close the public hearing on the Sanitary Sewer Hookup Project. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on the Water Hookup Projects at the following locations: 1601 67th Avenue North, 7000 Brooklyn Boulevard, 3400 48th Avenue North, 6637 Humboldt Avenue North, 4210 -14 Lakeside, 3918 57th Avenue North 7242 Knox Avenue North. There was no one to speak on the projects. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on the Water Hookup Projects. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The'motion passed unanimously. A public hearing, was opened on the Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1978-1. There was no one to speak on the project. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing on Project No. 1978-1. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on assessments for delinquent public utility accounts. There was no one to speak at the public hearing. There was a motion by Council- member Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on delinquent public utility accounts. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council - members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was opened on assessments for delinquent noxious weed cutting accounts. There was no one to speak at the public hearing There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing on delinquent noxious weed cutting accounts. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -212 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS 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 -213 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS 9 -2 , -72 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. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -214 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT NOXIOUS WEED CUTTING ACCOUNTS FOR 1978 CUTTING TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS 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, RECESS I The City Council recessed at b.03 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p,m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced Application No, 78043 submitted by Jerry Harrington for site and building plan approval for a wholesale distribution center on the C -2 property located at 4455 68th Avenue North. The application was recom- mended for approval at the September 14, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection showed a transparency of the area and reviewed the application. He stated the applicant proposed a wholesale distribu- tion center consisting of three 20,000 square feet office warehouse buildings on the C -2 zoned property located easterly of the NSP facility and westerly of the Iten Chevrolet site. He explained the same applicant had received site and building approval under Application No, 77049 in October, 1977 for a comrercial speculative building proposed for multiple tenancy on the same site. He stated the applicant had not been able to market the concept and contends the site is not well suited for standard commercial. retail uses due to its location, accessi- bility and the nature of neighboring land uses. He explained the Commission had reviewed the applicant's proposal and had determined there were three possible approaches to the concept: one, to rezone the land to I -1; two, to amend the zoning ordinance to provide for certain special uses in a C -2 district, such as wholesale distribution; and three, to accept an application for the proposed development and mare a finding that the proposed use was similar to other uses permitted in the C -2 district. The Director of Planning and Inspec- tion stated the Commission had determined the third alternative was the most viable and the application was formally reviewed by the Planning Commission at its August 10, 1978 meeting, and a number of _concerns were raised, including parking for this site under the proposed uses, as well as future parking needs if the -property were to be converted to a strictly retail use. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the concern is not with the use compre- hended in this proposal, but if in the future, a proposal would comprehend more 9 -25 -78 -13- of a C -2 use, would parking be adequate. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the applicant had proposed the possibility of providing a restrictive covenant, similar to that used in the S & H greenstamp application involving property at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North, that would require additional, parking to be provided inside one of the three buildings as parking became a problem at a future date. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported the City Attorney had reviewed a proposed restrictive covenant and had recommended not placing a restrictive covenant on the property for the following four reasons: l , The City must go through a sham transaction of owning the property, and then deeding it back to the applicant in order to place itself in the chain of title for enforcement purposes. 2. Real estate law is imbued with the rule against perpetuities, an ancient concept which looks unfavorably on owners of real estate who attempt to control the future land uses, therefore, restrictive covenants are not favored in litigation and courts can effectively remove them upon a change of circumstances. 3. The remedy for violation of restrictive covenants includes a district court civil action on the part of the City, the obtaining of an injunction, and the problems in enforcing a judgment of injunction, once it is obtained. By contrast, control of land by Zoning Ordinances effected through criminal court procedures which are much faster and which carry more positive forms of inducement to abide by the regulation. 4. There are no enclosed parking ramps within the City of this suburban area; certainly there are no one story enclosed parking ramps anywhere, leading to the conclusion that such a use of land is not economically feasible. If the property eventually does become more suitable for a retail use, the use of a large portion of it for garage facilities would make less sense than it does under present conditions. Attempting to enforce by restrictive covenant, a land use which is economic nonsense would find deaf ears in the market place and the courtroom. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated another aspect of the application which the Commission had carefully reviewed was a determination as to whether the applicant's proposed use is similar in nature to other permitted uses in the C -2 district. He pointed out the applicant felt this proposal was similar to the American Bakeries use on 6 `th Avenue North, which was not specifically list in the Zoning Ordinances as a permitted C -2 use. The Director of Planning and Inspection also reviewed the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission for Application No. 78043. A discussion ensued concerning the application. Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether the use of the structure was compatible with the Zoning Ordinance. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the wholesale distribution use was not comprehended in the present ordinance language. The applicant states the use is similar to that of the American Bakeries. There were several questions from the Council as to why a restrictive covenant is needed on the property when the proposed use meets the parking requirements. Councilmember Kuefler asked why the issue should need to be resolved in advance of a specific proposal. The City Attorney explained that a restrictive covenant would have to be laced on the property at this time because the City may not be A p p Y 9 -25 -78 -14- able to place the restrictive covenant on the property at a•future date. Councilmember Scott expressed concern over whether there was too large a building on too small a portion of land. She explained she had observed this type of building in New Hope and Wayzata and there was a severe problem with traffic and parking. In response to questions from the Council, the City Attorney indicated his concern with the restrictive covenant is not a concern to the degree which was indicated in his original memo. He explained that any time an ordinance or covenant requires something which is not economically feasible, there would be a potential problem if the case would go to court. . Councilmember Kuefler indicated he had not opposed the suggested use because he was aware that the developer had tried in the past to develop the land. Council- member Kuefler noted the property was not aesthetically the best piece of property. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78043 submitted by Jerry Harrington for site and building plan approval 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. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. i 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee , (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to insure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet MFPA Standard No. 13. 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. Plan approval- comprehends parking to - support the proposed wholesale distribution use; a restrictive covenant, approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the title to the property to provide parking in one of three buildings should the wholesale distribution uses cease and be converted to another C -2 use requiring more parking. 9 -25 -78 -15- 8. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 78053 submitted by Eloise Lowry for a special use permit fora home occupation to conduct porcelain art instructions at 6914 Lee Avenue North. The application was recommended for approval at the September 14, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection showed a transparency of the area and noted the applicant had submitted a letter outlining the proposed home occupation, which includes instructing individuals on the basic procedures for brush stroke and application of paint on porcelain, and instructing basic art concepts in connection with porcelain painting. The applicant had originally proposed to hold three classes per week for two eight week sessions, one in the fall and one in the spring. Initially, the applicant had also requested to have six or seven students per class, The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that a special use permit was required for the teaching of more than one, but no more than four nonresident students at any given time. He noted the applicant had been informed of this ordinance requirement. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported the Building Inspector had inspected the applicant's home and found there should be no problem with code related concerns with the application. The Building Inspector indicated off street parking for four nonresident students could be provided in the applicant's driveway. Based on ordinance requirements, the Planning Commission suggested to the applicant that she might like to add another class per week in view of the fact she would be limited to four students. The applicant responded affirmatively to this suggestion. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purposes of a public hearing on Appli- cation No. 78053 submitted by Eloise Lowry. The applicant was present but did not wish to add further comment concerning the application. There was no one else to speak on the application. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing on Application No. 78053. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78053 submitted by Eloise Lowry for a special use permit for a home occupation to conduct porcelain art instructions at 6914 Lee Avenue North subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the proposed use and is nontransferable. I 9 -25 -78 -16 2. The permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations, and violation shall be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking related to the special use shall be off street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. 4. The operation shall be limited to not more than four students as provided in Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances. 5. The hours of operation shall be 9 :30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, with no more than two classes per day and four classes per week. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 78057 submitted by Blumentals Architectural, Inc. for a site and building plan approval for an addition to the existing industrial building at 1601 67th Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its September 14, 1978 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection showed a transparency of the site showing the building and the proposed addition. He stated the reason for the addition to the building was to provide additional space for a new tenant for automotive parts distribution. He added that no additional office space was comprehended for the addition. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that 67 additional parking spaces would be required with the new addition, based on the ordinance formulas. He stated the applicant had proposed that 62 parking spaces would be provided and had submitted a proof of parking plan which showed that the required 67 spaces could be provided on the site. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that with the building addition, the applicant also proposed that the loading dock area be expanded to accommodate the addition. He explained the applicant had inquired about the possibility of moving the required 8 foot high opaque woad fence which was to extend northerly from the existing building and provide screening for the parking area in the north portion of the site. The applicant indicated the fence would be better located close to the property line, to screen the parking lot from the adjacent R -1 institutional use, and to provide easier access to the 50 foot green area between the property line and the existing building for maintenance and irrigation purposes. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the City held a performance bond for various site improvements comprehended under Application No. 77053 and it was felt the bond amount could adequately cover any additional improvements. The Director of Planning and Inspection also reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. There was a motion by Councilme tuber Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78057 submitted by Blumentals Architectural, Inc. for a site and building plan approval for the addition to the existing industrial building at 1.601 67th Avenue North subject to the following conditions: 9 -25 -78 -17- I . 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 plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the is suance of permits 3.. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet MFPA Standard No. 13. 4. All outside trash disposal facilities and any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view, 5. The current performance agreement being held for Application No. 77053 shall be retained to insure completion of any additional site improvements. 6. The fence approved for screening purposes under Application No. 77053 may be located near the property line. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Mananr r t.ntroduced Planning Commission Application No. 78059 submitted by Robert F.os `i ,�k i or site and building plan approval for the conversion of an abandoned filllixg :station for an eat -in and carry out restaurant at 5001 Drew Avenue North. ' e. application was recommended for approval at the September 14, 1978 Planning meeting. The Director c'.. - . ?ing and Inspection reviewed a transparency of the area and stated the site been the subject of previous proposal by Assurance Glass under Application ! c-, 78018 to upgrade the existing service station to a new service. He indicated ated the proposal had not materialized, and the owner of the property had submitted a letter stating that proposal was no longer active, The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the applicant's proposal comprehended remodeling the service station for the restaurant and utilizing the existing storage building on the westerly portion of the site to provide some em- ployee parking. He explained that 28 restaura seats and a maximum number of four employees were proposed, which would require 16 parking spaces. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the plans indicated 14 parking stalls around the proposed restaurant and two employee stalls in the adjacent storage building. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the ordinance required a 35 foot greenstrip and opaque screening where C -2 abuts R -1 property and that the home- owner directly to the north of this site at 5013 Drew Avenue North presently has a six foot high opaque fence which provides screening from the C -2 site. He stated there is an existing six foot stockade fence apparently erected to screen 9 -25 -78 _ -18- the service station from the residential property. He noted the applicant proposed to relocate the stockade fence, to provide screening for the trash receptacle and some of the parking spaces, The Director of Planning and Inspection stated when Application No. 78018 was considered, the property owner to the north had agreed that his - 'existing fence could serve as screening. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the homeowner was aware that screening was the responsibility of the C -2 property, and he felt his own fence probably had a maximum life expectancy of five years. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the owner of the C -2 property was aware of the requirements, and it is recommended, if the screening is to be deferred, that the owner execute an agreement to file with the property title acknowledging that screening would be installed should the screening on the adjacent property prove inadequate or be removed. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the recommended conditions of approval and stated that deferral of the eight foot opaque fence was recom- mended for a maximum of five years. In discussion of the application, there was a question from the audience concerning screening in the northwest quadrant of the property. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained no direct screening was required between C -2 and R -4 property. There were other questions raised from citizens in the audience. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted no public hearing was required for site and building plan approval but he suggested it might be helpful if the applicant would discuss his proposal with neighboring residents. In further discussion of the application, Councilmember Fignar suggested deferring the application until the next Council meeting in order to give the applicant a chance to discuss the proposal with neighbors. Councilmember Lhotka questioned whether or not sprinklers were required in this building. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained sprinklers were not required because the building was under 2,000 square feet. Mr. Pyle of 5013 Drew Avenue North, as a neighbor to the proposed restaurant, explained he preferred an eight foot fence because of the possible night hours of business. Iulr. Pyle also indicated he was concerned as to what type of operation was being proposed because of communication Mr. Pyle had with a possible employee of the new restaurant. The applicant, Mr. Robert Fosdick, explained there was a misunderstanding when Mr. Pyle spoke with the possible employee. The applicant explained the misunderstanding had occurred because he had spoken with a representative of the University of Minnesota Home Economics Depart- ment in hopes of finding employees for his restaurant. The woman that Mr. Pyle had spoken with did not understand the nature of the position available. Councilmember Scott noted she was in agreement with Councilmember Fignar's suggestion to defer the application. Councilmember Scott suggested the appli- cant should reconsider whether or not the stockade type fence should be reused. Councilmember Scott suggested the applicant might wish to consider extending 9 -25 -78 -19- i the opaque fence further in order to screen the lights of the business from the residents. She also indicated she would prefer to see the business closing before 2:00 in the morning, Councilmember Kuefler indicated he was concerned about -the possible odor which would be associated with a smoke house. He suggested that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Air Standard for odor emissions should- - be reviewed. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Council- . member Kuefler to defer consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 78059 until the October 16, 1978 City Council meeting in order that the applicant might discuss the proposal with the neighbors and consider the suggestions made by the Council. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist asked the Council to return to consideration of the resolution to confirm assessments for certain improvement projects as discussed earlier in the Council meeting. The Mayor asked the City Attorney to comment on appropriate action. The City Attorney explained the City's notice did not refer to the Statutes as mentioned earlier by Mr. Ryan. The City Attorney stated that the Statutes omitted from the notice referred to senior citizen deferments and that the City of Brooklyn Center had not adopted an ordinance pursuant to the Statute. Therefore, the notice would be irrelevantn a practical sense. The City Attorney noted, the City of Brooklyn Center, in the future, should include reference to those Statutes. The City Attorney indicated the court might invalidate the assessment due to lack of notice but the City Attorney recommended going ahead with the passage of the resolution. The City Attorney further noted that the questions as brought up by Mr. Ryan as to benefits is a fact question. The City Attorney also noted uses of the property in question could change in the future. Councilmember Fignar stated he felt it was unfair to hold up the assessments and charge additional interest to the property owners by holding up the assessments until 1979. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -215 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT 1977 -15 AND 1978 -17; AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT 1977 -16, 1977 -21, 1978 -18 AND 1978 -25; AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT 1978 -19 AND 1978 -26; AND STREET SURFACING IMPROVEMENT 1977 -14 AND 1977 -17; AND PUBLIC UTILITIES_ WATER HOOKUPS AND SANITARY SEWER HOOKUPS 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 Kiiefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 9 -25 -7$ 20- DISCUSSION ITEMS The City Manager explained City staff was prepared to recommend programs to the City for use of Community Development Block Grant money, He explained the City Attorney had reviewed the Urban County Joint Powers Agreement with Hennepin County, as per the request made by the City Council, and had recom- mended certain changes. The City Manager explained Hennepin County is not willing to modify the contract, particularly in light of the fact that 36 other communities have signed that contract. The City Manager further noted, if the City of Brooklyn Center signed the Joint Powers Agreement and later decided not to participate, the City of Brooklyn Center still has the option to withdraw from the program by not submitting a program plan of spending. Hennepin County would retain the right to use Brooklyn Center's demographics but would reallocate the money to other communities. The City Manager stated the City, in planning programs for Community Develop- ment Block Grant money, had attempted to design programs which were administratively less intense. Programs, as recommended, would not tie the City to programs impossible to continue if the funds were terminated after three years. Brad Hoffman reviewed project recommendations in the following areas: housing, handicapped projects, park development and administration. Mr. Hoffman noted the City would attempt to piggy back already existing programs M order to make them less administratively intense. Responding to questions from the Council, Mr. Hoffman stated the County does provide technical assistance in the area of Community Development Block Grants but does not ordinarily provide administrative assistance for the various programs, Councilmember Kuefler inquired whether or not it was possible to pool with other communities to handle administering the various types of programs and applications Councilmember Kuefler further questioned whether part of the Community Development Block Grant funds could be allocated to pay for that sort of an administration resource. Councilmember Lhotka was excused at 10:45 p.m. Eileen Oslund of 6000 Ewing Avenue North inquired whether or not a building for CLAP was a possibility for a program under Community Development Block Grant. Mr. Hoffman explained the City of Brooklyn Park had requested $85,000 from Community Development money as a capital improvement type project and, to the best of his knowledge, had acquired the money. Councilmember Kuefler inquired whether or not Brooklyn Center could apply for funds for CEAP from Community Development monies for a similar capital improve- . ment type project. Councilmember Lhotka returned at 10:47 p.m. Councilmember Scott indicated she was in favor of supporting CEAP with Community Development money if this was a possibility. She suggested some of the money proposed for housing might instead be used for CEAP. 9 -25 -78 -21- Mayor Nyquist was excused at 10:50 p.m. Eileen Oslund also questioned the amount of money recommended for park acces- sibility for the handicapped. Mr. Hoffman explained the money recommended included several different aspects including paving of parking lots, walkways and accessibility equipment for the handicapped within the parks. In response to questions concerning whether or not pedestrian bridges are being recommended as part of Community Development programs, the Director of Public Works explained pedestrian bridges are part of the development of Central Park Some of the pedestrian bridges are included in separate grants, for instance the LAWCON grant. Mayor Nyquist returned at 10:53 p.m. Phyllis Plummer of 6520 Brooklyn Boulevard asked whether Community Development money could be combined with tax increment financing to provide land for low and moderate income people.. The City Manager replied this was a possibility, but again, this type of use would be administratively intense. Further discussion ensued concerning a signature of the Joint Powers Agreement. Mr. Hoffman noted he had spoken with County staff and they indicated the contract would not be modified. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to adopt the Joint Powers Agreement Contract as written. Voting in .favor: Council.- members Kuefler, Fgnar., Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: Mayor Nyquist. The motion passed. The City Manager explained the - rental dwelling license for Bennie Rozman for the Brookdale Ten apartment complex had been temporarily extended to August, 1978. Mr. Rozman had agreed at that time to meet certain priorities in fixing the propercy. Inspections had been made based on those priorities. The City Manager noted a series of problems are still evident in the Brookdale Ten apartment complex. Many of the problem areas have not been dealt with. In conversation with Mr. Rozman, Mr. Rozman indicates flooding has caused delays in repairs and also a fire in an apartment complex belonging to Mr. Rozman, in St. Paul, has caused delays. The City Manager noted it appears Mr. Rozman is fighting a losing battle. Mr. Rozman indicates he is attempting to deal with the problems within the apartments because he feels the interior of the apartments is more important than the exterior of the building. Mr. Rozman, again in conversations with City staff, explained that he is attempting to raise the caliber of the tenants. Councilmember Kuefler noted the residents of Brooklyn Center have felt, from the beginning of the complex, that there are severe problems Councilmember Kuefler stated gains for the City can only be made if the complex is turned around. He suggested the Council's approach at this point, might be to trust Mr. Rozman's sense of direction in taking care of the problem. Councilmember Kuefler suggested the Council might wish to consider extending the license temporarily and asking Mr. Rozman to come back to the Council with a timetable and schedule of repairs. Councilmember Kuefler suggested Mr. Rozman should make a commitment, based on his own evaluation of the problems, to the Council. 9 -25 -78 -22- Councilmember Scott noted the two lists of repairs required indicate many of the repairs are safety repairs. She stated the list seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. She further stated-a crew could take care of many of those repairs in a very short period of time and she is not able to understand why the list gets continually longer. Councilmember Scott noted she would like to see some teeth in whatever the Council would recommend. The City Manager indicated the City Inspectors could go through almost any other complexes in Brooklyn Center and find a long list of needed repairs. He noted_ this statement was not in total defense of Mr. Rozman because he also feels there's definitely a problem in the Brookdale Ten apartment complex. The City Manager indicated the suggestion made by Councilmember Kuefler might be a reasonable approach to dealing with the problem. Councilmember Lhotka suggested, if Councilmember Kuefler's approach was pursued, definite guidelines'and time frames should be determined for Mr. Rozman. The City Manager stated, if it was the Council's wish, Mr. Rozman could be invited to put together such a timetable and schedule of repairs and be asked to present that to the Council in the next month. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained it would be important to define priorities because Mr. Rozman seems to feel his priority is dealing with the problems inside the apartments first, whereas, the Council seems to be concerned about the exterior of the complex as well. There were several people in the audience who commented briefly on the problem with the Brookdale Ten apartment complex. One citizen concurred with earlier comments in the Council meeting that the Council needs to put some teeth in whatever action it chooses to take. Ile suggested Mr. Rozman might be pursuaded by taking some of the problems to Column I or Action News. Mr. john Healy, employed by Mr. Rozman as maintenance crew leader, spoke concerning the problem. He noted nine people had been hired by Mr. Rozman for the maintenance crew. He explained, since the last Council meeting when Brookdale Ten apartments were discussed, one of the boilers had split open in the apartment complex. Additionally, 26 apartments had been flooded by the heavy rains this summer. He stated the magnitude of the problem was enormous as evidenced by leaking roofs, balconys falling off, and some of the original tenants in the building. He explained out of the 310 total units, 230 had been recarpeted by Mr. Rozman and all of the hallways had been recarpeted. He also noted the caliber of the tenants had improved considerably since Mr. Rozman had taken over this complex. He further explained one of the big problems vas in the construction of the building which made the hallway temperatures extremely hot. As a result of the heat in the hallways, tenants often times attempt to keep the fire doors open by breaking the springs on the doors. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to defer a decision on the license renewal for Mr. Rozman and ask Mr. Rozman to address the Council and provide for the Council a plan to deal with the problems, to include priorities, a schedule of repairs, and a definite time- 9-25-78 -23- table. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING The City Manager explained the reason a public hearing was held for Federal Revenue Sharing was to give citizens a chance to provide input into the spending of Federal Revenue Sharing funds. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purposes of a public hearing on Federal Revenue Sharing. There was no one to speak at the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. The Director of Finance explained Federal Revenue Sharing funds were for the purpose of assisting State and local governments to provide services. Federal Revenue Sharing funds were first established in 1972 and changes were made in the law in 1976. Federal Revenue Sharing funds are slated to be terminated in September of 1930. Federal Revenue Sharing payments are made to the City on a quarterly basis. The funds are allocated based on tax effort, income per capita, and population. As noted, changes were made in the Federal Revenue Sharing program as a result of 1976 amendments to the law, As a result of the changes, restrictions were lessened on the spending of money. Some of the restrictions were still maintained and these restrictions included the following requirements: revenue sharing hearings, publication of certain information concerning the expenditure of the funds, an audit every three years, a practice of nondiscrimination in the use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds, a use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds which abides by fair labor standards, and the compilation of use reports. The City of Brooklyn Center has followed a policy of usincr Federal Revenue Sharin(T funds only for capital expenditures and for expenditures that do not create on croi.nq programs. The 1979 Budget proposal comprehends a proposal to fund all capital outlay expenditures from Federal Revenue Sharinq funds. The Director of Finance noted there is a considerable increase in the proposed use of Federal Revenue Sharinq funds as compared to the past. The Director of Finance briefly reviewed the proposed use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds in the 1979 Budget within each department. Councilmember Kuefler reminded other Council members of the Metropolitan Municipalities Program scheduled to be held October 12, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. in the Richfield Council Chambers LI CENSES Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the following list of licenses: Q1I GAf:ETTE LICENSE JEM Bowl, Tnc. 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle GASOLINE SERVICE STAT LICENSE Pyramid Petroleum Corp. 2605 County Road 10 9 -25 -78 -24- ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Knights of Columbus Auxillary 5307 Winchester Lane (St. Alphonsus Flea Market) MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Del Air Conditioning, Inc. 9860 James Circle Key Plumbing & Heating 9 63 6 - 85 th Ave. No. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Frito Lay Company 9237 Penn Ave. So. JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Rich M. Childers 6806 Regent Ave. No. Lucille M. Irwin 5400,02 Russell Ave. No. Renewal: Lloyd J. Waldusky Georgetown Park Gale W. Pierce 5960 Brooklyn Blvd. Keith L. Nordby 5964 Brooklyn Blvd. - Don R. McGillivray 5740 Dupont Ave No. Michael & Elizabeth Keiffer 5456 Emcrson Ave. No. Gary D. Anakkala 5412 - 1/2 Fremont No. Donald L. Jensen 5547 Lyndale Ave. No. Kenneth W. Kunz 5601 Lyndale Ave. No. Robert M. Zappa 7206,12 West River Rd. Kenneth E Patterson 3614,16 - 50th Ave. No. Gary & Vickie Sodahl 610 - 53rd Ave. No. Jack & Elizabeth Fahrenholz 620 - 53rd Ave. No. Transfer: Richard Weicht 5301 Dupont Ave. No. Dennis Tollefson 5328,30 Queen Ave. No. Eugene O. Klawitter 6725 West River Road SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Cragg, Inc. 9636 - 85th Ave. No. 9 -25 -78 -25- Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT - Motion by Mayor Nyquist and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the 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 11:50 p.m. Clerk , ,,Mayor 9 -25 -78 -26-