Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 01-31 CCM Regular Session Minutes of the Proceedings of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center In the County of Hennepin and State of ____ Minnes+ota January 31, 1972 The City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Philip Cohen at 7:30 P. M. Roll Call; Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Also present were: City Manager Donald Poss, Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of finance Paul Holmlund, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Chief of Police Thomas 4' Hehir, and Administrative Assistants Blair Tremere and Daniel Hartman, Motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Britts to approve the minutes of the January 3, 1972 Council meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britt,, Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously, Mayor Cohen announced that pursuant to the City Charter and City Ordinances he had made the appointments to fill vacancies on the various advisory commissions. Motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Heck to confirm Mayor Cohen's appointment of Mr. Gilbert Engdahl, 5856 Dupont Avenue North to the position vacated by Mr. Paul Dieter on the Planning Commission for a two year term effective January 1, 1972. Noting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Lea Ausen Heck and Britt, Voting against: Motion r'Yr r . ng no ne 9 carried unanimously. Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Heck to accept the letter from Mr. Carl. Cross tendering his resignation from the Conserva- tion Commission to rmit him to ass appointment to P pe assume an a merit the Planning g Commission for a two year term effective January 1, 1972, Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Cohen noted that he would make an appointment to fill the vacancy on the Conservation Commission in the near fixture. Motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Heck to confirm Mayor Cohen's appointment of Mr. Roger Pickering, 5928 Bryant Avenue North, to the position vacated by W. Wayne Finley on the Park and Recreation Commission., Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Notion carried unanimously. Motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Leary to confirm Mayor Cohen's appointment of Mr. William Anthony, 5606 Aldrich Avenue North, to the seat vacated by Mr. Ron Coop on the Park and Recreation Commission„ Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against; none. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Councilman Brltts and seconded by Councilman Heck to confirm Mayor Cohen's appointment of Mr. James Ordner, 3000 - 63rd Avenue North, to the seat vacated by W. Jesse Sandoval on the Human. Rights Commission; and. further, to approve the Mayor's appointment of Mr. Ordner as Chairman of the Human Rights Commission. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen. Leary, Ausen., Heck and Britts. Voting against none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next explained that Mr. Ed Theisen, who served as Financial Chairman for the new Civic Center housewarming activities, was prepared to present a financial statement related to that function, ..1: The Mayor recognized Mr. Theisen who stated that he wished to publicly thank the City Council, the City administration, and City employees, as well as the many citizens who cooperated in producing a good housewarming. He then explained that the income for the housewarming had been $7,,277.34,, and the expenses had amounted to $6,496.34, leaving a net income of $781.00. He then presented the Mayor with a check for $781.00, Following comments by Mayor Cohen thanking Mr. Theisen and all those who worked on the housewarming activities, there was a motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Britts to direct the staff to prepare a resolution commending those persons whose efforts made the new Civic Center housewarming activities a success„ Voting in favor were; Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72.9 RESOLUTIOMAgOEEM WgU &OKE Ex C The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Howard Heck, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; Philip Cohen, john Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Maurice Britts; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City lVanager next recommended that a resolution be adopted routinely extending the authority to secure engineering and technical services as they may be needed from time to time from the N innesota Department of Highways during 1972. A brief discussion ensued concerning the types of services contracted and the reason for contracting with the Highway Department. The Director of Public rVbrks commented that the rates charged by the Highway Department were well within those rates charged by private engineering firms, and the services of the Highway Department were especially valuable with regard to inspection projects. Member Howard Heck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.. 72 -10 RESOLUTION TO REQUEST ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES DURING THE YEAR 1972 FROM MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWA)S The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member john Leary, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof.- Philip Cohen, john Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Maurice Britts; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager next offered a resolution draft which he stated was in response to a Council directive and was untended to approve a sign height variance for the Holiday Inn, Member Vernon Ausen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72 -11 RESOLUTION GRANTING HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR FREESTANDING SIGN PROPOSED - By TOPEKA INN NA ,ENT INC The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Maurice Britts, and upon vote being taken therm, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen.., John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Maurice Britts; and the following voted against the same: none,, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. -2- The City Manager next referred to a resolution draft which was submitted in response to a Council directive and was intended to reduce the cash escrow posted on behalf of Velie Oldsmobile., retaining a portion thereof to guarantee installation of a fence along the east property line. Responding to a question by Councilman Britts relative to what efforts the staff had made to assure that Velie Motor Co, completed its site improve- ments, the City Manager briefly reviewed the events leading up to the proposed resolution. He noted that there had been citizen concern in the neighborhood over the lack of proper fencing, and that the Council in 1970 had adopted a resolution recognizing the situation and directing the staff to persuade the owner to construct said fence. He further stated that on at least three occasions Mr, Velie had Indicated that he was preparing to put in the fence and had received estimates, but that as of last summer, Mr. Velie had informed the City that the economic situation made the installation of the fence impossible for the time being. The City Manager commented that the Velie Motor Co, then, through their attorney, requested return of the cash escrow claiming that the installation of the fence was not a provision of that guarantee. In response to a question by Councilman Britts relative to how much of the escrow could be retained legally to guarantee the insta ldion of the fence, the City Attorney stated that the City could hold enough to cover the cost of the fence and its installation. Councilman Britts stated that his main concern was the substantial amount of time that had elapsed for Velie Motor Co, to meet ordinance requirements, as well as the concern over what action would be taken if Velie Motor Co. did not meet the September 1, 1972 deadline set in the proposed resolution. Councilman Heck asked the City Attorney whether the Council could use the owner's failure to construct the required fencing as a bas #s for reviewing the automobile dealer's license. The City Attorney responded that it would not be Inappropriate to review the fence issue when the license comes up for review.. He stated that it indeed was a factor of the dealer's operation, The City .Manager further commented that the renewal date for the license was April 30th, and that the failure to erect a required fence could be interpreted as a violation of the reg- ulations of operation according to the licensing ordinance, Councilman Heck then stated that the Council should consider this license procedure as at least a recourse in enforcing the requirement for a fence. A discussion then ensued relative to the proposed completion date required in the proposed resolution, Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. Theodore Willard, a resident of the neighborhood.. who inquired whether any consideration had been given to moving the completion date up from September Ist. The City Manager responded that the September lst deadline was set primarily to permit the owner to construct the fence during the ensuing construction season. Following further discussion of the construction deadline, the Mayor polled the Council and determined that it was the majority opinion of the Council that an earlier date should be set. Member john Leary introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:' , RESOLUTION NO. 72 -12 RESOLUTION REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 68010 SUBMITTED BY VELIE OLDSMOBILE COMPANY, AUTHORIZING REDUCTION OF CASH ESCROW GUARANTEE, AND ORDERING INSTALIATION OF FENCING ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF VELIE OLDSMOBILE COMPANY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Vernon Ausen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen and Howard Heck; and the following voted against the same: Maurice Britts; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, -3- The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71057 submitted by Kenneth Nordling He stated that on December 13, 1971 the Council tabled the matter for a period not to exceed six months, with a re- quest that the Planning Commission review the Sign Ordinance with respect to freestanding signery for apartment complexes, "specifically considering the point that prior considerations have often equated R-5 developments with C-1 uses for purposes of providing buffering between commercial and residential areas and that it appears that the signery provisions for C--1 uses might be appropriate for large or medium apartment complexes ". He further noted that on December 20,, the Council was advised that precisely such provisions do exist in the Sign Ordinance for freestanding signs to serve apartment complexes and thus, a review by the Planning Commission would be redundant. He stated further that the Council had been informed on December 20 that the applicant, upon being told of the existence of such provisions, had agreed to comply therewith. Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Councilman Ausen and seconded by Councilman Britts to deny Planning Commission Application No. 71057 submitted by Kenneth Nordling, noting that the existing Sign Ordinance adequately provides relief, Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against; none, Motion carried. unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No, 71064 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. requesting,in part.. a variance from the City sprinkler ordinance. The City Manager reviewed that on July 26, 1971, Planning Commission Application No. 71025 consisting of site and building plan approval for a proposed office building to be located at Shingle Creek Parkway and County Road 10 had been approved and, subsequently, on November 22, 1971 the Council reviewed and approved a modified site and building plan proposal. Among the conditions of both approvals was the requirement "that the building be sprinklered with an automatic internal sprinkling system ", which was a restate- ment of ordinance requirements. He further reviewed that subsequently Viewcon.. Inc, had submitted Application No. 71064 requesting a variance from that provision to permit the use of a wet standpipe system in lieu of an automatic fire sprinkling system, The City Manager stated that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of that variance request on November 18, 1971 and the City Council on December 6, 1971 had agreed to the applicant's request to table the application indefinitely on the basis that "the State had not taken final action to institute the new Uniform State Building Code., and that a final determination had not been made as to the issue of whether the requirements of the State Code would super- se-de those of the City's ordinance requiring a sprinkling system," The City Manager noted that the applicant had now requested that the application be recalled for consideration. The Manager presented a statement in which he reviewed the arguments upon which the applicant based his request for variance and commented upon the relevant aspects of the State Building Code and the justification for Brooklyn Center's comprehensive fire sprinkling ordinance. He stated that it was the applicant's contention that the new State Building Code, scheduled to take effect July 1, 1972, would not require an internal fire sprinkling system in his building and that the State Building Code in replacing local building codes prohibited local governments from requiring more restrictive fire protection regulations. He stated that the applicant's only hardship in requesting a variance was based upon the fact that the installation of a fire sprinkling system would be an unnecessary expense in light of the impending State Building Code and that a wet standpipe fire protection system required under provisions of the State Building Code was less expensive, The City Imager commented that the chief purpose of promulgating a State Building Code was to eliminate the proliferation of obsolete, complex and unnecessary laws, rules and regulations contributing to unusually high construction costs and that local government officials generally concurred with this chief purpose. He stated that it is not the function of the State Building Code to limit the protection of the public health, safety, welfare, comfort and security of the citizens,. The City Manager charged that the advisory Building Code Standards Committee however, had become a sounding board for construction industry special interests and like many other state regulatory boards and commis- sions was fast becoming an advocate for the industry it was designed to regulate. -4- He cited -- argument allegedly made by construction industry representatives that the financial obligations of fire protection and safety should be public responsibility and not the responsibility of individual builders within the industry. He noted that the advisory committee and the apparent tentative State Building Code provisions reflected an intent to prohibit duly elected local government officials from meeting their basic responsibilities of providing for health, safety, welfare, comfort and security of their citizens. He stated his opinion that approval of the variance associated with Application No, 71064 would have ramifications that would effectively destroy the intent of Brooklyn Center's comprehensive fire sprinkler requirements, The City Manager noted that numerous structures, Includ- ing office buildings, have been erected in compliance with the comprehensive fire sprinkling provisions since mid 1969 and that the owners of many such structures have realized a bonus type savings of insurance premium costs to the extent of being able to amortize the sprinkler Investment over four to six year periods with in- pocket financial gain thereafter, The City Manager recommended the following: 1 That the City Council decry the variance requested through Planning Commission Application No. 71064; 2. That the City Council consider adopting a policy statement which would be submitted for the purpose of reaffirming and continuing the City's commitment to protect the public health, safety and welfare through the existing comprehensive fire sprinkler provisions; 3. That the City Council be prepared to fully support such a policy and to resist challenges to its validity by court action if necessary. The Mayor then recognized Mr. VanEeckhout, a representative of the applicant, who stated that the subject office building was a high - quality, fire resistant structure, and that no appreciable insurance savings would be realized on this type of structure, even with the Installation of a fire sprinkler system, He stated that he had a letter from an insurance underwriter to that effect. He further commented that the subject office building would be competing for tenants on a regional basis, and that similar buildings in other communities had somewhat of an advantage in that their construction casts were lower, not only because they were constructed earlier but because they were not required to have fire sprinkling systems. He stated that the City's fire sprinkler requirement would result In higher construction costs and thus higher rent would be necessary, Mr. VanEeckhout stated that the applicant felt the conditions for granting a var lance had been met In that 1 A fire sprinkler system was not justified In that the physical characteristic of the building was of a high quality fire resistant constructions 2. The use was relatively unique in that it was not intended to be a mass -- oriented commercial center and there was thus a small chance of any loss of life due to fire; 3. A hardship exists In that an adequate fire protection system could be provided with a wet standpipe and the economic difference between a wet standpipe and an Internal sprinkler system was substantial; 4. The absence of a fire sprinkler system In the subject office building would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Mr. VanEeckhout further stated that the applicant will provide a fire sprinkling system in the commercial areas of the structure. He also reminded the City Council that a variance from the fire sprinkler requirements had been granted to Holiday Inn and suggested that he was entitled to a similar variance. -6- A brief discussion ensued relative to the costs associated with a fire sprinkling system and a wet standpipe system. It was agreed that a fire sprinkler system typically amounts to approximately 3% of total construction cost, Mr. VanEeckhout estimated the cost of fire sprinkling the subject building would amount to $30,000 and contended that because of financing factors this cost would translate to a rent increase S% higher than would otherwise be required. The Mayor then recognized Mr, Donald Mason, Chief of the Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department who was accompanied by Mr. Ed Ring, a District Fire Chief in the City of Minneapolis. Mr. Ring noted that he had agreed to appear bef ore the Council to answer questions which the Council might have relative to fire fighting and fire prevention, and that he was not representing the Minneapolis Fire Department or the City of Minneapolis. Chief Mason stated that should a fire occur at the subject office building, it would have to be fought from wf#hin the building, and that in his opinion a wet standpipe system as well as the required sprinkler system, should be installed. Mr. Ring commented that In his experience he had found that where sprinkler systems had been Installed buildings were not lost to fire. Mayor Cohen asked Mr. Ring to comment on the argument that fire resistant construction materials eliminate the need for special equipment such as fire sprinkling systems, Mrs Ring responded that regardless of the construction of the building, the contents are still highly susceptible to fire which can spread throughout a building which has a structure commonly referred to as fire resistant. He cited examples observed during his career as a fireman, Councilman Heck inquired whether the new State Building Code required a wet standpipe system in lieu of a sprinkler system, The City Manager responded that it did, Chief Mason commented however,, that in the event of a fire it might not be possible for firemen to safely reach wet standpipe outlets. Following further discussion Mayor Cohen thanked Chief Mason and Mr. Ring for their comments. He stated that It was evident that the Brooklyn Center Fire Department supports the existing fire sprinkler ordinance. Councilman Heck noted that Topeka Inn Management had previously been required to Install sprinkler systems only In the commercial areas of the Holiday Inn, and not in the individual rooms, and he inquired whether the present applicant's request could be correlated with the Holiday Inn situation, The City Manager reviewed the circumstances of the Holiday Inn case and stated that the Council had determined no sprinklers would be required In the living units In that the applicant had offered apparently convincing evidence to the effect that the design of the rooms, primarily the low height of the ceilings, lent itself to malicious triggering of the sprinklers by the occupants and that such motel facilities are,, typically, never fire sprinklered. He further commented that the motel was, In effect, more escapable in an emergency due to the height of the structure, as compared with the present applicants seven story office building. Councilman Leary also noted that there was a substantial difference in attitudes between the transient occupant of a motel room and the relatively permanent tenant-owner of office space. At this time Mayor Cohen recognized former City Councilman Theodore Willard who stated that he had voted in 1971 to approve the fire sprinkler variance for Holiday Inn on the basis of convincing testimony presented by the applicants. He stated that he now considers the Holiday Inn variance approval a mistake since he has learned that the testimony was misleading and not entirely factual, citing the fire sprinkling of the new Radisson South Motel as an example. The City Manager observed that the City was birth fortunate and some- what unique in instituting strong fire protection prior isions through fire sprinkling requirements at a point in the infancy of its industrial/commercial development. He contended that as a consequence not only had the City provided maximum safety for the public health, safety and welfare, but its action also would prove econom- ically beneficial to taxpayers over the long term by tending to reduce public invest- ment in elaborate specialty -type fire protection equipment and by being able to extend the effectivemss of a volunteer fire department versus incurring the sub- stantial cost of supporting a full-time fire department. The Mayor again recogr dzed Mr. VanEeckhout who noted that under the State Building Code wet standpipe outlets must be within 75 feet of all areas of the building. He stated that Brooklyn Center's relatively unique fire sprinkler require- ments may be an expression of provincial pride rather than of public need. He commented that on a national and state -wide basis, buildings of fire resistant construction such as the subject office building were not required to have fire sprinkling system. Mr. VanEeckhout also said that the situation at a motel was notably more hazardous than in an office building, and that it would be discrim- inatory In the applicant* s opinion to have granted a variance to Holiday Inn and not the applicant, whose need for such fire protection was less, Mayor Cohen stated that the Council should consider the comments by the City Manager, comments before the State Building Code Committee that fire protection was a public and not a private responsibility, Brooklyn Center's financial situation, and the basic issue of a state regulatory agency in effect replacing local Judgment by the imposition of administrative rulings, He further commented that Brooklyn Center's adoption and adherence to a strong fire sprinkling ordinance was not a matter of provincial pride, but rather was a matter of main- taining quality public service such as fire protection, at the lowest possible public cost. In response to a question by Councilman Heck, the City Manager stated that all of the existing office buildings in the City, including one recently built by the applicant, constructed since the passage of the fire sprinkler ordinance have complete fire sprinkler systems._ Councilman Heck stated that the ordinance should be upheld and that he was not aware of any development that had refused to come into the City because of the fire sprinkler ordinance. He further stated that the advice of the Fire Department is valid and that arguments in favor of the ordinance over -ride those of the developer. Councilman Leary stated that while he recognized some merit in the applicant's contentions, the need for adequate fire protection of the type required was over- riding, Councilman Ausen said that while the benefits of a fire sprinkler system In most situations are convincing, the applicant had raised the valid question of what would happen after July 1st if the State Building Code should render the local ordinance invalid. He noted that one result of having to install both a required wet standpipe system as well as a fire sprinkler system would be an increase in rent. He further commented that It would seem appropriate for the City to encourage the State to adopt requirements for fire sprinkler systems, and that it seemed there were several ways to encourage such adoption based upon arguments of the health, safety and welfare. Councilman Ausen further noted that the City needed to make decisions now relative to what the situation would be after July Ist and that the Council should not penalize developers by requiring them to meet differing state and local oode requirements. Councib an Britts stated that he was concerned that the Holiday Inn was required to Install faire sprinklers in only commercial areas, and was concerned as well about the City's position after the July 1st State Building Code effectuation date. He further commented that he felt more information was necessary concerning what the City can and cannot require and what the fire safety measures are as provided in the State Building Code. The City Manager responded that there is no doubt about the enfiorcibility of the City's fire sprinkler requirements prior to July 1, 1972. He stated that the State Building Code was not unchallengable and that there are other options to achieve the fire sprinkling objective after July 1, 1972, He also stated that to his knowledge no prospective development had failed fulfillment in Brooklyn Center because of the existing fire sprinkler requirements, In response to a question by the applicant, the City Manager stated that the Fire Department as well as the Building Inspector had been consulted with regard to the Holiday Inn situation, and both felt that sprinklers should be required throughout. He noted that the Council had decided sprinklers should be required only in commercial areas after thoroughly reviewing evidence and testimony pre - sented by the developer, Councilman Ausen inquired as to how the City might test the question of whether the State Building Code pre- empted City fire protection requirements, Mayor Cohen responded that the City required fire sprinkling systems in the inter- est of the health, safety and welfare of the public and the firefighter. The City Manager commented that there were other means to test the issue as well, and he reiterated that the subject structure has been approved and the building con- struction has commenced prior to July 1st, not after the State Building Code has { been effectuated. Mr, VanEeckhout commented that the applicant has consistently stated that a variance would be sought and that the formal request had been delayed until it was determined what course of action the State Building Code Committee would take in setting forth fire protection requirements, Councilman Ausen suggested that unless the City is prepared to legally test the issue, then the application should be approved. He stated he was concerned that the applicant not be forced to halt construction or to continue construction illegally until such time the City decides the status of its fire pro- tection requirements. Motion by Councilman Ausen and seconded by Councilman Britts to approve that portion of Planning Commission Application No. 71064 submitted by Viewcon, Inc, requesting a variance from the City ordinances to permit the use of a wet standpipe system in lieu of the required fire sprinkler system, noting that the proposed State Building Code would apparently prohibit the City of Brooklyn Center from enforcing the existing fire sprinkling ordinance after July 1, 1972, The Mayor then called for a roll call vote. Voting in favor were: Councilmen Ausen and Brirtts, Voting against: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary and Heck. Motion failed, variance not approved. The meeting recessed at 10:30 P.M. and resumed at 10.46 P. M. j The City Manager next reviewed Plan Commission Application g Wing PP No, 71070 submitted by Pearl Lynch requesting subdivision by metes and bounds. He stated that the applicant apparently intends to proceed with the processing of a Registered Land Survey as suggested at the Council meeting of December 13, 1971, and that since the present application was tabled on that date, it was now recommended that the application be denied. Motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Heck to deny Planning Commission Application No, 71070 submitted by Mrs, Pearl Lynch. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against; none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No, 71077 submitted by Chester Oman, Jr, requesting a special use permit to operate a saw filing shop in the basement of his home at 6945 Lee Avenue North, He commented that saw filing,, skate sharpening, etc, are not specifically included in the ordinance as a special home occupation; however, it Is very similar to those uses that are permitted. Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Ausen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 71077 submitted by Chester Oman, Jr,. requesting a special use permit, stating that the permit shall expire In one year and may be re- submitted at that time, Voting In favor were: Mayor Cohen Councilmen Leary, Ausen Heck and Britts, Voting against: none, Motion carried unanimously, The next item of business was reconsideration of the liquor license application submitted by Green Giant Restaurants The City Manager explained that the application had been tabled on November 1, 1971 to permit evaluation Of the ramifications of the 1971 Omnibus Tax Bill,, and on December 6, 1971, the application was further tabled to the res nt tin A brief discussion p e meeting, rie n ensued concerning the status of the remaining liquor licenses, Mayor Cohen then recognized Mr. Van Rossum and Mr. Hayden, repre- senting the applicant, who presented renderings and sketches of the proposed refurbishment of the Green Giant Restaurant should the license application be approved. Mayor Cohen then reiterated his position that the intent of the split liquor legislation was to bring new development into the community and thus create a new tax base, and that while this was somewhat negated by the Omnibus Talc Law, there were other considerations, He stated that the City must evaluate the demand on public services which new enterprises would create and the prospect for increased employment. He noted that if an existing business such as Green Giant were granted a license, other existing enterprises could reasonably seek the remaining licenses, Councilman Leary reiterated his position that there was a need for a quality restaurant in the City, noting that the present applicant occupied a single purpose structure and was a dining facility only, whereas many of the other existing businesses were part of multi - purpose facilities. Councilman Heck re-stated his position that the intent of the split liquor legislation was to permit communities to attract new business. He commented that while the significance of the establishment of a new tax base may have been lessened, the potential for increased employment opportunities was vitally important. He commented that while he was not opposed to the e Green Giant Restaurant operation, the granting of available licenses should be based upon the desire to realize the maximum benefits for the City from a limited number of licenses. He stated that the City should work towards amending the law to permit communities such as Brooklyn Center more licenses, Councilman Briitts stated that he recognized the argument for attracting new development, but he noted that the present application represents a business which is in existence now and would bring new revenue to the City now as opposed to potential businesses which might at some future date decide to establish oper- ations in the City, Following further discussion, there was a motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Leary to approve the liquor license application sub - mitted by the Green Giant Restaurant. Mayor Cohen called for a roll call vote. Voting in favor were: Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Britts. Voting against: Mayor Cohen and Councilman Heck. Motion carried. The City Manager explained that a proposed resolution was submitted in response to a Council directive and was intended to express appreciation to former Councilman Theodore Willard for services rendered to the community. Member Howard Heck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72 -13 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDIQATED EMBLE §EMCE OF ML XDEo The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Vernon Ausen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Maurice Britts; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. -9- nie City Manager next reviewed a proposed resolution which would authorize the execution of an agreement with the Hennepin County Alcohol Safety Action Project. He stated the thrust of the project, which is federally financed_, is toward development of training programs designed to help police departments improve D,W,L enforcement and toward enforcement programs consisting of essentially saturation patrols for which local police departments would be financially reimbursed for extraordinary manpower and vehicle costs. Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 7214 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH THE HENNEPIN COUM AWQHOL S&FETY ACTION PRO C The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member john Leary, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, john Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Maurice Britts; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager next explained that to improve the administration of various City insurance contracts, an attempt had been made to consolidate the contracts into a single comprehensive package, and failing that, consolidate various insurance contracts into a single 3-year contract period. He stated that the Finance Director with consultation from Councilman Leary, had received quotations, thoroughly analyzed them, and recommended award of various insurance groupings to three insurance companies. He then called upon the Director of Finance to further explain the procedures followed in developing the three insurance packages. The Director of Finance presented a memorandum setting forth the development of the proposals as well as the recommendations for the awarding of contracts. Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Britts to award 3 -year insurance contracts commencing January 1, 1972 to Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co., the United States Fire Insurance Co, , and the Insurance Comny of North America as set forth In the January 18, 1972 memorandum submitted by the Director of Finance. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against none. Motion carried unanimously, The City Manager explained that a claim had been submitted by Mr. Harold E. Day and his daughter Catherine Day for damages allegedly resulting from an injury Involving a fall on a City skating rink, He stated the matter had been forwarded to the City's insurer. Motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Ausen to acknowledge the notice of the claim submitted by Harold E. Day and his daughter Catherine bay. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion - carried unanimously, The City Manager offered comments relative to the status of the planned Municipal System joint Powers Agreement and explained the agreement which would establish an association to be designated as the Minnesota Municipal Data System. He further stated that approval of the agreement was not sought at this time, in that several of the communities were in the process of resolving various technical aspects of the agreement. He stated that it was expected that the authorization to execute the Joint Powers Agreement would be sought in the near future, however. Motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Leary to approve the following licenses: Bowline Alley, License Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No. A ulk Vendinc License Brooklyn Center Lions 7000 Oliver Ave. No.. Lemke Vending 3635 Therese St. Cigarette License Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No. Brookdale Mobil 5710 Xerxes Ave. No. Brookdale Shell 1505 - 69th Ave. No. Denny's Standard 69th & Humboldt Ave. No. Duane's OK Tire Service 6900 Brooklyn Blvd. Chippewa Park Apt. /A -Bear Vend. 6507 Camden Ave. No. Eagle Industries / Brookdale 10 3938 Meadowbraak Rd. R.E. Fritz /Christy's Auto 5300 Dupont Ave. No. Ideal Northbrook Drug 5740 Morgan Ave. No. Langren's Mobil/B & H Vend. 6100 Brooklyn Blvd. Rog & Jim's Superette 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. Theisen Vending /Ricco's 3011 E. 42nd Ave. Theisen Vending /Shoppers City 3011 E. 42nd Ave. Food Establishment License American Legion Post #630 4307 - 70th Ave„ No. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave No ynd . Brookdale Red Owl 5425 Xerxes Ave. No. Brooklyn Center Baptist Church 5840 Humboldt Ave. No. Brooklyn Center Evan. Free Church 69th & Quail Ave. No. Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Ave. No. Evergreen Elementary School 7020 Dupont Ave. No. Fanny Farmers, Inc. (121) 1236 Brookdale Center Fanny Farmers, Inc. (123) Brookdale Center Future Homemakers of America Brooklyn Center High School Garden City Elementary School 3501 - 65th Ave. No. Harron Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Ave. No. LaCrosse Dairy Store 5845 Lyndale Ave. No. Maranatha Home 5401 - 69th Ave. No. Northbrook Alliance Church 6240 Aldrich Ave. No. Northport Elementary School 5421 Brooklyn Blvd. Orchard lane Elementary School 6201 Noble Ave. No. Taco Towne 6219 Brooklyn Blvd. Shoppers City Bakery 3600 - 63rd Ave. No. F.W. Woolworths 1212 Brookdale Center Gasoline Service Station License Belt Line Service 5001 Drew Ave. No. Brookdale Car Wash 5500 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Mobil Service 5710 Xerxes Ave. No. Brookdale Shell Service 1505 - 69th Ave. No. Christy`s Auto Service 5300 Dupont Ave. No. Denny's Standard 6900 Humboldt Ave. No. Duane's OK Tire Service 6900 Brooklyn Blvd. Tom's Texaco 6810 Brooklyn Blvd. Bill West's Service Center 2000 -- 57th Ave. No. Non- Perishable Food Vending Machine License Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No. Brookdale Shell Service 1505 - 69th Ave. No. Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. No. Canteen Co. 6300 Penn Ave. So. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 101 Central Ave. Continental Sign & Advertising 4315 - 70th Ave. No. Dayton's, Inc. 1100 Brookdale Center Eagle Industries/Brookdale 10 3938 Meadowbrook Rd. Anton J. Jochim 9463 Saratoga Lane Johnson Tobacco Co. /Sears 251 E. Grand Ave., Chicano Maranatha Home 5401 - 69th Ave. No. -11- Licenses (Cont' n Life Insurance 2950 County Rd, 10 Miag North America, Inc. 3515 - 48th Ave. No. Pioneer Distributing Co. 225 Border Ave. Precision, Inc. 3415 - 48th Ave. No. Prudential Insurance Co, 5650 N. Lilac Drive Ralph's Super Service 6601 Lyndale Ave, No. "Off -Sale" Non - Intoxicatirva Malt Liquor License Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No. Rog & Jim's Superette 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. "fln -Sale" 1Vorl- Intoxi_ Malt Liquor License Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No. Readily Perishable Food Vending License Canteen Co, of Minnesota 6300 Penn Ave. So. Superior Dairy Fresh Milk Co. 2112 Broadway N.E. Special Food Handling J&g,e Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #1 6445 Lyndale Ave. No. Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #4 Northbrook Center Ralph's Super Service 6601 Lyndale Ave. No, Snyder Bros. Drug Brookdale Center Vot ing n • favor were, M ayor o �g ayo Cohen,, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britt,. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager expimined that on December 30, 1971, the Council had approved a non - intoxicating liquor license for the Chin Wagon Inn subject to the condition that the staff return the license to the Council in approximately thirty days for review. He noted that the police had then felt further investigation was desirable and that the staff had since been informed by the police that no grounds have been established to recommend revoking the license. Motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Britts to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the renewal of an agreement with Crystal for the use by the Police Department of the Crystal Pistol Range. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen., Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts: Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager then offered comments relative to the determination by the Postal Service and the Corps of Engineers of a local site for a new post office facility. He explained that several possible sites in Brooklyn Center were being considered and that a decision should be made in the near future. Relative to the City's legal action challenging the interpretive authority of the State Tax Commissioner, the City Manager reported that the court had issued an order to restrain the County Auditor from reducing the City's budget and spreading the tax base, pending the final court decision which was scheduled on or before February 7th. He further stated that budget recertification would be recommended subsequent to the court's decision and that the staff would notify the County Auditor of that intent. Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Ausen to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Council meeting adjourned at 11 : P . M. Jerk Mayor -12-