Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 10-02 CCM Regular Session Fr Minutes of the Proceedings of the City Council Of the City of Brooklyn Center In the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota October 2, 1 972 The City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Philip Cohen at 7 :30 PM. 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 O'Hehir, and Administrative Assistants Daniel Hartman and Blair Tremere. The invocation was offered by Reverend Thronson of the Cross of Glory Lutheran Church. Member John Leary introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION NO. 72 -174 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION FOR STREET SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1971 -23 AND STREET RESTORATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 1972 -33 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. Mayor Cohen read a letter from Mrs. Bonnie Snater stating that she was resigning from the Brooklyn Center Conservation Commission because she was moving from the community. Motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Leary to accept with regret the letter of resignation submitted by Mrs. Bonnie Snater. Voting in favor:. 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 -175 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MRS. BONNIE SNATF.R 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. Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72 -176 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 15, 1972, THROUGH OCTOBER 21, 1972, AS "CLEANER AIR WEEK" IN BROOKLYN CENTER 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. -1 - Member Vernon Ausen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72 -177 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT NOXIOUS WEED CUTTING .ACCOUNTS FOR 1972 CUTTING TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Maurice Britts; 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 next item cf business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No, 72018 and No. 72041 submitted by R.W. Steiner. The City Manager reviewed the past consideration given the applications by the Planning Commission and the City Council and noted that the Council had, on August 28, 1972, referred the matters to the Planning Commission for further review of revised plans. He stated that the applicant's attempt to negotiate an easement along the west property line with the neighboring developer had been fruitless, and that the applicant had revised the submitted plan proposing to have the entire 30 ft. roadway easement on his property. The City Manager noted that the Commission had considered the proposal and had recommended approval for the site and building plans as well as the proposed preliminary plat. Mayor Cohen then inquired of the City Attorney whether documentation had been sulmitted to support the applicant's proposal. The Attorney responded in the affirmative stating that more was required and was to be submitted. The Director of Public Works briefly discussed the need for utilities In the area and the City Manager noted that the cost of utility installation on the property would be the developer's total responsibility. Mayor Cohen left the table at 8 :05 P.M. The Director of Public Works further commented relative to the proposed preliminary registered land survey for the property. In response to a question by Councilman Britts he stated that the 30 ft. roadway easement along the west property line has been of concern to the City and that initially the intent had been a joint easement with the property to the west. A brief discussion then ensued relative to the proposed easement. Mayor Cohen returned to the table at 8:15 P.M. The City Manager commented on the various proposals which had been submitted over the years to develop the area and noted the staff's and Planning. Commission's concerns with the mediocre planning represented by the proposal. He stated that the area had been a most difficult and problematic area to achieve quality development. He further commented that the City's concern for the several easements and access provisions represented an effort to keep options open regarding the future completion of development in this area, but was not necessarily an assurance of quality development. Councilman Heck agreed and stated that even though the applicant had met the minimum ordinance requirements and had complied with the City's recommendations for access and easements, the present proposal represented a poor approach to the development of the subject commercial area. He stated that there were very possible bad ramifications from the mediocre effort evidenced by the applicant's total planning effort for the entire parcel. Mayor Cohen noted that the concern for proper planning had been loud • and clear during the extensive consideration of the applicant's proposal by both the Planning Commission and the Council, but that the Planning Commission had finally recommended approval, noting the application was technically in order, meeting with ordinance requirements. -2- He stated that it seemed that the Planning Commission would note serious objections if the applications had not been in order. Councilman Heck further stated that the Council should not be backed into a decision if there were quality deficiencies in the planning effort. Councilman Britts stated that while he shared Councilman Heck's concern f he noted the long term efforts to develop the property and that at least the appli- cant's proposal represented a start. He noted that it was difficult to determine concrete grounds upon which to deny the application. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Heck to deny Planning Commission Application No. 72418 noting that the quality of the submitted plans was riot acceptable and that the proposal was not in the best interests of good planning or of the community. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Cohen stated that he . shared Councilman Heck's concern, but noted the difficulty in denying the application without specific grounds which would have been noted by the Planning Commission, considering the extensive con- sideration which that Commission had given the proposal. The City Manager noted that the staff had related the City Council's concern for the duality of the proposal to the Planning Commission, but that the Commission had been primarily concerned with the legality of recommending denial of the application since it appeared that the applicant had met with the ordinance requirements rather than the quality of the planning. Following further discussion there was a motion by Couneilaa n Britts, seconded by Councilman Leary to approve Planning Commission Application No. 72018 submitted by R.W. Steiner, noting the relatively mediocre planning effort by the applicant; the remanding of the application to the Planning Commission; the reconsideration and recommendation of the Comnission for approval and, subject to the following conditions: 1. All utility and drainage plans are subs act to the approval of the City Engineer; 2. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 3. A performance agreement and a performance bond (in an amount to be determined Y d b the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee the installation of the site Improvements as shown on the puns; 4. Sidewalk easements shall be provided along the northerly property line; 5 There shall be a stair leading to a scuttle in the roof and such stair, scuttle, railings, etc.` shall conform with the requirements with the State Building Code; 6. All required easements will be filed with the City PdDr to the issuance of building permits and aye subject to review by the City Attorney; 7. - Required installation of permanent B -512 type curbing line may along the west property Ii Y be deferred for 3 years, pending the development of the property to the west, subject to the following conditions: a. Nothwithstanding the above conditions, the City nay require the installation of curbing at any earlier time than may be necessary; b. During the interim period temporary bituminous curbing will be installed along the west property line; -3.. c. If, during this period of time, the adjacent area should be developed with a plan that would not require the curb, and the City approved the plan, the City could waive the curb requirements in these areas; 8. All other permanent curbing around driving and parking areas shall be the B -612 type curb and gutter; 9. Appropriate screening and buffering devices as approved by the City Council shall be provided should any future residential use be approved for the remainder of the subject property. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Britts. Voting against: Councilman Heck. Motion passed. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Leary, and seconded by Councilman Britts to approve Planning Commission application No. 72041 submitted by R.W. Steiner subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of the Platting Ordinance; 2. The final plat is subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 3. The final plat shall indicate that portion of Tract B, lying westerly of Tract A, as being 30 ft. wide; 4. All required easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the release of the final plat for filing with the county; 5. Approval shall be contingent upon the securing and filing upon the adjacent properties an easement for ingress and egress upon the westerly 30 ft. of the subject property, said easement to be appurtenant to the adjacent parcels. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Britts. Voting against: Councilman Heck. Motion passed. The City Manager next explained Planning Commission Application No. 72067 submitted by Northbrook Alliance Church and Planning Commission Application No. 72055 submitted by Vanman Construction Company seeking respectively, a special use permit and site and building plan approval for a Sunday School addition to the Northbrook Alliance Church. He noted that the staff and Planning Commission had been particularly concerned with the impending improvements for FAI -94 and the possible ramifications upon the subject property. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the status of the Highway Development Citizen's Advisory Group proposals and the pending review and decision by the Highway Department. The City Manager noted the Planning Commission had concluded there was little grounds for deferring the present application because of the highway development although he noted the suggestion by the Commission to the applicant that other possible locations of the proposed addition upon the substantial site owned by the church might be considered. Mayor Cohen then recognized Pastcr Bubna who responded that the church officials did not feel that noise emitted from the freeway area was a problem. Following a brief discussion of the various ramifications of near freeway development, Mayor Cohen noted that it was vital that the applicant fully recognize the potential problems that could develop. -4- Following further discussion, there was a motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Britts to approve Planning Commission Application No. 72067 submitted by Northbrook Alliance Church. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting Against: none. Motion carried unanimously. . Following a brief review of the submitted site and building plans and the recommendations by the Planning Commission, there was a motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Ausen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 72055 submitted by Vanman Construction Company subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 2. Drainage and utility plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit 3. A performance agreement and a performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee the installation of site improvements as designated on the approved plans; 4. All parking and driving areas shall be paved and curbed utilizing the B -612 type curbing. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9:13 P.M. and resumed at 9:40 P.M. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 72072 submitted by Mr. Gerald Stasson. He stated the applicant was seeking approval of a special use permit to operate a beauty shop in the home located at 4818 - 71 st Avenue North. He noted that there had been an approved beauty shop operation at that location for over 11 years and that the applicant had purchased the house and desired to continue the special home occupation. He stated the applicant had indicated the beauty shop would be operated solely by his wife and no outside employees would be hired. The Mayor then introduced and had the Clerk read a letter submitted by Mrs. Gerald Stasson, outlining the proposed operation of the beauty shop. The Mayor then stated the meeting was open for the public hearing of the proposed special use permit. The Mayor recognized Mr. W. G. Pehrson, 4812 - 71 st Avenue North who presented pictures of the subject property and stated his objections to the traffic and nuisance allegedly generated by the former beauty shop operation. He noted a petition which had been submitted to the Planning Commission signed by several persons in the neighborhood objecting to the applicant's proposal. Councilman Ausen commented that the traffic intensity in the area and the appearance of the premises could conceivably remain in their present status without a beauty shop operation. Mayor Cohen agreed stating further that the appearance of the property was not necessarily contingent upon the consideration of a special use permit. The Mayor also recognized Mr. Magnuson of 4830 - 71st Avenue North and Mr. Kneefe of 4836 - 71 st Avenue North who noted their apposition to the proposed special use permit and further commented relative to an existing special use permit at 71st and Brooklyn Blvd. They stated their concern for possible intensified commercialism of the neighborhood with particular regard for the increasing traffic and the safety for the many children in the area. -5- Mayor Cohen stated that the basic question appeared to be one of Council control of the issuance of special use permits. He noted the concern of the neighborhood was an important consideration, but further noted that there was not a history of complaints in this particular case. He stated that while some arguments are made in all special home occupation permit hearings, it was im- portant to determine in each case the degree of control by the Council versus the right to conduct a home business by the property owner. Councilman Leary noted the relatively large number of permits that have been issued over the years and the small number of uses which have resulted in problems. He stated that it was difficult to find any legal or practical grounds for denying the application. He further noted the applicant's apparently positive approach to overcoming some of the existing problems in the neighborhood regard- ing the special use at that address. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the standards for issuing special use permits as set forth in the ordinance; the differentiation between special home occupation permits and home occupations; the role,the opinions, and desires of neighbors should play in issuing permits; and, the merits of existing ordinance procedures compared to possible alternatives such as licensing. In response to an inquiry by Councilrra n Britts, the City Attorney stated that neighborhood opinion was not a good legal basis for denial, in that the governmental authority was vested in the Council, not the individual neighborhoods. He further commented relative to the features of permits versus licenses. Following further extensive discussion there was a motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Leary to approve Planning Commission Application No. 72072 submitted by Gerald Stasson, subject to the following conditions: I . The permit shall be subject to annual review by the City commencing with the date of issue; 2. No person outside the household shall be employed for the operation of the special use; 3. Adequate on -site parking shall be provided; 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to the period, 9:30 A.M. - 7 :30 P.M.; S. A copy of the beauty shop and beauty operator's license issued by the State of Minnesota shall be placed on file with the City prior to the issuance of a permit; 6. Driving and parking areas shall be appropriately paved by May 1, 1973; 7. Appropriate opaque fencing shall be installed along the east property line by May 1, 1973; 8. There shall be no signery visible from the exterior of the house, Councilman Ausen inquired whether it was Councilman Britt's intention to rigorously apply such standards to all special home occupation permits in the future. Councilman Britts responded that he did in general intend to apply such standards. Referring to the remarks by the City Attorney, Councilman Ausen stated that there had been very little substantiation of the alleged problems such as traffic and parking and stated that establishing seemingly arbitrary standards would set an undesirable precedent. Councilman Heck stated the need for a recognition that it was a privilege to conduct a special home occupation and that if there were evident problems, certain conditions of approval were needed. -6- Councilman Ausen stated that it appeared there should be a better vehicle ontrolling such special home occupations. E Following further discussion the Mayor called for a vote. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck and Britts. Voting against: Councilman Ausen. Motion carried. Motion by Councilman Ausen and seconded by Councilman Leary to direct the Planning Commission to review the special home occupation provisions of the City Ordinances, noting particularly the standards for granting such permits such as the provision for outside employees. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. In other business the City Manager commented that correspondence had been received from an attorney representing the Darrell Farr Development Corp. requesting that the Council determine whether a reconsideration of the rezoning proposal for the property located near County Road 10 and Major Avenue was feasible. The City Manager further noted that other correspondence had been received in a similar vein regarding an application for rezoning which had been recently denied, which noted certain mitigating circumstances which the applicant felt merited reconsideration. The City Manager stated the question was to what extent the Council wanted to embark upon a policy of rehearing disposed applications. Mayor Cohen responded that if a final decision had been made then the applicant was expected to go through the established procedure of review by the Planning Commission and staff, if there was in fact new evidence to support the application. He further, stated that there was not a need to create a special new vehicle for spontaneous review of applications solely for the convenience of the applicants. Councilman Ausen agreed that the Planning Commission should be recFaired to review the re- submitted applications, but that it eras not clear that a rehearing procedure should be totally ignored, in that there might be certain circumstances where it was desirable. Councilman Heck stated he did not perceive a need to change the established procedure. Councilman Leary stated the basic issue was the un- desirability of leaving any and all negative decisions open. He stated that if substantial new facts developed over time, they could be presented via a new application. The City Attorney con, merted that the Council should be cautious of permitting a cursory review of decided cases which could be used by the applic to establish a "new" reccrd, which then could possibly be used in court if the ultimate decision was negative and the applicant decided to challenge that dacisioa,4,> Member Howard Heck introduced the foilowing ordinance and moved its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 72 -17 71f AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 TO PROVIDE FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIA D EVELOPMENT IN R -3 DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C MI OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 35-312 entitled R3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT is hereby amended by adding the following: 3 b` P lanned Residential Developments c a variety of dwelling modes as a special use permitte i n the R -3 district subject to the fo wing conditions (1) The minimum land area shall be 15 acres; �2) At least 25% of the total number of dwelling units shall be R -3 type dwelling units as defin d in Section 3 -7- (3) If the Planned Residenti Development is to be constructed in multiple phasgs , at least 20% of the total number of dwel ling_ units in each phase shall be R -3 tv2e dwelling units, until the above minimum requirement has been fulfilled; (4) No dwelling unit or other permitted structure shall exceed three stories in height; (5) Certain commercial uses intended for the convenience and enjoyment of the residents of said development shall be permitted. including retail grocery shops, laundry an dry cleaning pick-up stations, beauty parlors, barber shops and valet -shops, within multiple family dwellings containing t (3 ) or morA dwelling units. subject to the following conditions: (aa) Such shots shall be accessible to the residents-through a common hall or lobby; (bb) No advertising or display shall be visible from outside the building; (cc) Such shops shall be restricted t around floor or sub - floors: (dd) The total area of such shops shall not exceed 50% of the total floor area of the ground level of the building; (ee) Such shops are subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and laws relative to licensing for the health, sa and welfare of the community; (f f) An shop or shop not indicated on the in itial _approved Plans shall b c and a�T)roved by the Planning Commission and C Ity Cou before said commercial use is established; (gg) The size and number of said shops shall represent a factor in the determination of required parking spaces for the building. Section 2: This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance 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 ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Maurice Britts introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 72 -18 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF EARLE BROWN DRIVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN'AS.FOLLOWS: Section 1: That portion of Earle Brown Drive, Plat of Twin Cities_ Interchange Park, between Summit Drive North and the south boundary of Outlot B, B.C.I.P. , Plat 1 is hereby vacated as a street. Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. -8- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance 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 ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. Motion by Councilman Ausen and seconded by Councilman Heck to approve the following election judges: Precinct 1 Loretta Stewig 5455 Colfax Av. N. Dorothy Olson 5443 Logan Av. N. Marilyn Cashman 5622 Emerson Av. N. Marian Smith 5431 Oliver Av. N. Everiel Larson 5620 Girard Av. N. Dorothy Decker 5412 Morgan Av. N. Precinct 2 Dorothy Boman 6419 Fremont Av. N. Eileen Smith 6330 Fremont Av. N. Adeline Lonn 6342 Fremont Av. N. Ethel Irving 6020 Emerson Av. N. Mary Ellen Karlsgodt 6001 Fremont Av. N. Anna Adler 6733 Emerson Av. N. Precinct 3 Esther Durland 6851 Lyndale Av. N. Myrtle McQuillen 6912 Oliver Av. N. Rose Werner 1005 - 69th Av. N. Joyce Shelso 6850 Lyndale Av. N. Gloria Guimont 7119 Willow Lane Sharon Finucane 7013 Morgan Av. N. Pr 4 Mary Pascoe 7060 Perry Av. N. Alice Madir 7024 Quail Av. N. Marjorie Grr ;c]h�n 6920 Lee Av. N. Patricia Blom A Vi olet Av. N . Pat Bednarczck 3624 Violet Av. N. Precinct S Geraldine Dorphy 4306 Winchester Lane Alice VanMeerten 4519 Winchester Dane Gladys Leerhoff 4301 - 66th Av. N. Dorothy Rogers 5207 - 65th Av. N. Mavis Lane 6436 Perry Av. N. Precinct 6 Emma Gageby 3200 - 66th Av. N. Denise ' Hainlin 5936 Zenith Av. N. Joyce Schackor 6501 Brooklyn Drive Barbara Jensen 6539 Drew Av. N. Virginia Fourre 6543 Beard Av. N. Marge Marrone 6103 Xerxes Av. N. Precinct 7 Lucy Sandberg. 6236 Lee Av. N. Barbara Sexton 3924 - S8th Av. N. Jean Hamilton 6230 Lee Av. N. Mona Hintzman 4018 - 58th Av. N. Gail Nelson 6236 Noble Av. N. Precinct 8 Phyllis Rydberg 3500 Admiral Lane Doris Smietana 5316 E. Twin Lake Blvd. Ethel Pettman 4919 Beard Av. N. Joan Jagodzinski 3501 - 47th Ave. N. Janice Keto 3918 France Place Helen Ryden 5730 Drew 1�v. N. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, userr, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried urnimously. The City Manager explained a license submitted for approval regarding the Schramm Toyota dealership which was occupying the premises of the former Brook-dale Chrysler agency. A lengthy discussion ensued in response to Councilman Heck's inquiry whether the special conditions of approval for the Chrysler dealership would apply to the current operation. .Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Ausen to approve the license for Schramm's Toyota, subject to the conditions noted in the agreement between the City and the Chrysler Corp. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Heck to reconvene the hearings for the 1973 proposed budget. The Mayor then recognized Mrs. Jensen who stated that approximately 1, 900 signatures had been obtained relative to the staff proposal that a number of existing ice skating rinks not be operated in the coming year. She stated that there had been an indication of concern over the various alternatives and it appeared the conclusion was the Council should be asked to increase the levy to assure the opening of the rinks. Mrs. Jensen stated that she expected to have over 3,000 signatures for the Council's consideration prior to the final approval of the budget. The City Manager then proceeded to review a proposed budget document. Extensive discussion ensued relative to the proposals for the Street Department Account. The City Manager further reviewed the accounts for Street Lighting, Conservation of Health, Judgments and Losses, and the Unallocated Labor. Lxtensive discussion ensued regarding the ramifications of the Omnibus Tax Bill and specifically the levy limitations upon municipalities; the undiminished demand for services by the citizenry; the escalating costs of providing such services; and the effect of spending practices in the current year upon ensuing years . Noting the hour, the Mayor stated that the staff should be directed to prepare. alternative draft resolutions adopting the 1973 levy and that the Council should defer a final decision until a special meeting. Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Heck to adjourn the 1973 budget hearing until 9:00 P.M., Wednesday, October 4, 1972. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Britts to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The Council meeting adjourned at 1:15 A.M. Clerk Mayor -10-