Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 10-16 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 Minnesota October 16, 1972 The City Council met in regular session and was called to order at 7 :38 p.m. by Mayor Philip Cohen. Roll Call: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Heck, Leary, Ausen and Britts. Also present were City Manager ,Donald Poss, Director of Public Works James Merila, Chief of Police Thomas O'Hehir, Administrative Assistants Daniel Hartman and Blair Tremere. The invocation was offered by Rev. Christianson of the Brooklyn Center Evangelical Free Church. Motion by Councilman Ausen, seconded by Councilman Britts to approve the minutes of the September 25, 1972 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Councilman Heck, seconded by Councilman Ausen to approve the minutes of the September 27, 1972 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor Were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Heck, Ausen and Britts. Councilman Leary abstained explaining that he was not present at the September 27 meeting. Motion carried. Motion by Councilman Heck, seconded by Councilman Leary to approve the investments in the amounts of $10,000 and $25,000 recommended and approved by the Brooklyn Center fire Relief Association. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against; -none. Motion carried unanimously. The Director of Public Works commented relative to a draft resolution amending the sidewalk network. Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution and moved Its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72 -184 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 72 -34, 72 -49 & 72 -79 RELATIVE TO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 192 6 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 Lear Vernon A J y, non Ausen, Howard Heck and Maurice Britts; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilman Ausen stated his concern with the clean up procedures following sidewalk installation and he specifically inquired about the status of the median strip along Xerxes Avenue. The City Manager responded that the staff had been developing a proposal for the possible use of a mix of materials for landscaping the median strip rather than the exclusive ii- tion of sod. Member John Leary introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72 -185 RESOLI___TTION DECLARING SURPLUS , UIFMQTT -1- 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 Manager next explained Planning Commission Application #72475 submitted by Brooklyn Gen -ter Development Corporation, which was peeking site and building plan approval for an industrial building on a parcel easterly of the Municipal Garage on 69th Avenue North. Ne stated the size of the proposed building was approximately 113,412 sq. ft. and the site area was approximately 9 acres. He noted that this would be the fourth such building and that the plans indicate 10,400 sq. ft. would initially be utilized for office space. He stated, however, that based upon the 309 parking spaces actually provided, it had been determined that potentially over 45,000 sq ft. could go to office use. The City Manager reviewed the concern of the Planning Commission that there should be no access onto 69th Avenue from the site. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the ramifications of such an access upon the nearby residential area. The Director of Public Works reviewed the site plans and commented that the two -inch ash trees indicated were relatively small given the large size of the building and the site. It was noted that the Planning Commission had recommended that the ash and sugar maple plantings along the 69th Avenue side of the site should be at least 3 1/2" in diameter. Councilman Heck inquired whether the soil on the area would support substantial land- scaping. The City Manager responded that consideration of landscaping in terms of this application was important for two basic reasons: first, the proposed structure would be the first in the area and thus, would tend to establish the design upon which future developments along the perimeter of the Industrial Park would be based; second, special. attention was required due to the residential area nearby in that the proposed building, as with the Municipal Garage, would set the aesthetic tone of non - residential develop- ment along 69th Avenue. It was suggested that the Council carefully scrutinize the site plan with particular regard for the landscaping. An extensive discussion then ensued relative to the landscaping and specifically the types of trees proposed for the site. The concern of the Planning Commission relative to the exterior finish of the building was noted in that the color and design of the exterior should be such that the bulk of the building was de-emphasized so that it would blend into the overall neighborhood. Mayor Cohen commented that the applicant should submit revised plans indcating the exterior finish of the Proposed structure as well as the upgrading of the proposed landscaping. Councilman Heck noted his concern with the signery, especially that which would be visible from 69th Avenue North and he stated that the approval of any signery should be as restrictive as possible. Discussion ensued and it was suggested that the stipulation of approval be that no signs be permitted until reviewed and approved by the Council The City Manager stated that given the concern of the Council for the effects of the development upon the neighborhood, consideration might be given to stipulating that lighting be specified as a type which would be directed away from the residential areas. Councilman Britts agreed noting the design of the building and the location of the parking lot, and thus the possible ramifications of the exterior lights indicated on the plans. -2 - Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Heck, seconded by Councilman Ausen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 72075 submitted by Brooklyn Center Development Corporation, subject to the following conditions: 1. The exterior finish and color of the building shall be harmonious so to blend in with the over -all neighbor- hoods; 2. Landscaping plans shall be revised so to indicate more substantial tree plantings along 69th Avenue North, specifically indicating that the proposed ash and sugar maple plantings be at least 3 I /2" in diameter; such plans shall be submitted to the City Council for final approval; 3. Plan approval is exclusive all signery, and no signery shall be installed until approved by the City Council; 4. All exterior lighting shall be of such design so to be directed away from the residential areas northerly of the site; 5. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 6. Utility and drainage plans including berming specifica- tions are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 7. A performance bond and a performance agreement (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee the .installation of the site improvements as designated on the approved plans; 8. There shall be no access point onto 69th Avenue North. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next explained Planning Commission Application No. 72076 submitted by Mr. Gene Kasmar. He stated that the applicant requested variances from Section 35 -311 (accessory building in R -2 districts) and Section 35 -400 (setback requirements) to permit construction of a 484 sq. ft. addition to an existing 484 sq. ft. garage on the property located at 5559 Lyndale Avenue North. He stated the applicant desired to double the size of the present garage to permit the pursuit of 'a year -round hobby of restoring classic automobiles. He noted that the present garage had a side yard setback of 7 -1 /2 feet and the ordinance requires 25 feet. He stated that the 17 -1/2 feet variance existed as ar non-conforming use and the proposal represented a major addition to that use. It was noted that the applicant contended the garage war_ucturally sound and usable for its current use of parking the family autQpAbfle, and that to remove or relocate the structure would create a phy un- necessary hardship. The Manager commented that there would be no apparent detrimental effect upon the traffic on the neighboring street or upon the adjacent property due to the proximity of the proposed construction of 1-94 and the planned termination of 56th Avenue North near the property. -3- The Manager further explained that the applicant also sought a variance from the ordinance provision requiring that the ground coverage area of an accessory building shall not exceed 75'0 of the ground coverage area of the dwelling building or 1000 sq. ft. , which ever is lesser. He noted that 75% of the ground coverage area of the 1097 sq. ft. house was 823 sq. ft. , and that the size of the proposed garage with the addition was 968 sq. ft.; thus, the variance was for 145 sq. ft. He noted the applicant's contention that the large lot size, the design of the proposed addition, and the fact that the adjacent property has been acquired for the freeway right -of -way made the property unique. He stated the applicant contended a hardship was realized regarding the capability to provide adequate enclosed space for the pursuit of his hobby for providing a noise and site buffer from the site of the freeway, and for providing an aesthetic improvement of an older property. Extensive discussion ensued relative to the ordinance requirements regarding accessory buildings in the proportional relationship to primary dwellings. A discussion also ensued regarding the impending highway development in the area as well as the applicant's intended use of the addition. The appli- cant further explained his hobby and noted that it was not intended to be a business. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Councilman Britts, seconded by Councilman Heck to approve Planning Commission Application No. 72076 submitted by Gene Kasmar, noting: 1. The location of the property to the proposed freeway; 2. The proposed termination of 56th Avenue; 4 3. The size of the subject property; 4. The fact that there were no residents adjacent to the proposed addition; S. The applicant's desire to pursue a hobby and to enclose old cars rather than scattering them around the property. In further discussion Councilman Ausen stated that he was not convinced the hardship standards in the ordinance had been met. He then reviewed the original intent of the ordinance requirements for residential districts and noted the size of accessory buildings were set because of a concern with possible business activities in that district. He stated that it appeared approval of this application would grant a variance on the grounds of a hobby and not because of any hardship created by the ordinance. Councilman Leary stated that he was also concerned with establishing a precedent and inquired whether it was possible to lessen the length of the building to avoid the variance. The applicant responded explaining the nature of his hobby and stated the amount of space proposed was minimal. Councilman Heck noted that the location was unique and noted the extensive discussion held by the Planning Commission documenting this factor. Mayor Cohen commented relative to Councilman usen's concern and stated that there was a valid issue in terms of the principle involved but not in terms Qf the instant application. Councilman Britts stated that the situation was unique and was not commonly found within the R -1 or R -2 districts; he noted also the lack of residences on the property adjacent to the garage. -4 Mayor Cohen noted that none of the notified property owners were present and he called for a vote. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Heck, Leary and Britts. Not voting: Councilman Ausen. Motion carried. The meeting recessed at 9:15 p.m. and resumed at 9:40 p.m. The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 71025 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. (Darrel Farr Development) and noted that the applica- tion had been considered and approved by the Council on November 22, 1971 subject to the condition that the landscape and lighting plans be submitted for approval. The City Manager stated that the staff had reservations concerning the type and density of the proposed landscaping around the building due to a concern that a bulk of the building should be diminished as much as possible by the land- scaping and lighting. A discussion ensued relative to the nature of the plans submitted and it was noted that a representative of the developer was not present. The City Manager stated that the developer was notified. Motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Britts to defer consideration of the landscaping and lighting plans for Planning Commission Application No. 71025 until such time that the applicant is present; and, further to note the general dissatisfaction of the Council with the landscaping as proposed. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Heck, Leary, Ausen and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Member John Leary introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 72 -19 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LICENSING AND REGULATING THE SUNDAY SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Section 11 -550. SUNDAY SALES AUTHORIZED. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11 -512 of the City Ordinances, establishments to which "on -sale" licenses have bee i ssued for the sale of intoxicating liquors may, upon obtaining a special license, serve intoxicating liquors between the hours of 12 :00 o'clock noon and 12.00 o'clock midnight on Sundays in conjunction with the serving of food. Section 11 -551. LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall directly or in directly sell or serve intoxicating liquors as authorized in Section 11 -550 with out having first obtained a special license from the City Council. Application for such a special Sunday license shall be filed with the City Clerk Section 11 -552. LENSE FEES The annual license fee for a special "on -sale" Sunday license; sha11 be in an amount as set forth in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances. The annual license f e ahail be paid in full before Jhe applicationfor a license is accepted. All iiggwes shall expire on the last day of D ecember of each year. Upon rejection of any.applioUon for a license, or ppon withdrawal of application before the ap roval of izjMce by the City Council the license fee shall i berefunded to the applicant,. ThWft6 for a license granted after the commencement year shall be prorated on a monfihly basis Section 2: Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Section 23 -010. LICENSE FEES. The fees for the various licenses shall be as hereinafter stated, notwithstanding other ordinance provisions regarding the specific fee. -5- Fee (annual, unless Type of License Required by Section License Ex2ires otherwise stated, Sundav On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor 11 -551 Dec, 31 $200.00 Section 3: This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Maurice Britts, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Howard Heck, Vernon Ausen and Maurice Britts; and the following voted against the same: none', whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager explained a draft ordinance relative to the detection and control of Dutch Elm disease. He explained that the goal was implementa- tion of a program to control the nuisance created by the diseased trees, both living and dead. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the provisions of the draft ordinance and Councilman Ausen inquired about the cost of removal, the assurance of removal and destruction, and the possibility that economic hard- ship might occur for certain property owners even though the nuisance is not particularly their fault. Councilman Ausen stated that possibly the Dutch Elm disease program could be treated similarly to an immunization program against human disease, in that it would be recognized as a public service and the cost could be spread among all taxpayers. The City Manager responded that in following that reasoning the same argument could be applied to street and utility installation since they were, in effect, general improvements. Councilman Heck stated he recognized the validity of Councilman Ausen's comments but he noted the difficulty which the City would realize in attempting to finance. such a program. He inquired about the possibility of a long -term assessment policy since the cost realized could very well be high and actually prohibitive in some cases. In further discussion the City Manager suggested that certain wording in the proposed Section 19 -1505 be deleted and this would allow for a policy implementation at a future date along the lines suggested by Councilman Heck, that is, the extension of the assessment period. Further discussion ensued relative to other provisions of the draft ordinance and alternative control programs. Mayor Cohen suggested possibly he merits and costs of a spraying Y program could be analyzed. He inquired whether there were provisions for the replacement of removed elm trees from boulevard areas and the City Manager responded that there were not and at this time the intent was to encourage private replacement of such trees. Councilman -Ausen stated that it seemed the r,4#w ce was written to s discourage people from cooperating voluntarily to a9p##1 the spread of Dutch Elm disease, in that people would tend not to report a diseased tree and consequently an epidemic could develop. Mayor Cohen inquired of Councilman Ausen whether he was advocating the creation of a public fund and Councilman Ausen responded in the affirmative. Councilman Leary stated while he agreed in principle with Councilman Ausen's concern, he was concerned as to where the adequate financing would be derived. The Mayor stated the question was whether the Council was willing to fund such a program and Councilman Leary stated the until such a decision is made there is an immediate need to initiate the machinery to cope with the problem of Dutch Elm disease. -6- The Mayor then reviewed the basic concerns of the Council: the need to establish a preventative program; the need to establish a replacement program; the method of financing such a program. He stated that it appeared that the language revisions suggested by the City Manager would allow a program to be initiated at this time and that the questions of financing methods and replacement policies could be reviewed at a later date. Following further discussion Councilman Leary moved and Councilman Heck seconded the first reading of an ordinance relative to the detection and control of Dutch Elm disease as amended. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilman Heck and Leary. Voting against: Counc illmen Ausen and Britts.. Motion carried, The City Manager presented a report relative to the current status of the change in Metropolitan Sewer Cost Allocations. He stated that essentially the ramification of the recently approved allocation formula would be an approximate four -fold increase over the present rate for the City. He stated this seemed to be ablatent violation of the legislative intent in creating the Metropolitan Sewer Board and the incumbent jurisdictional powers. The Director of Public Works presented an extensive background review of the development of the new formula. His remarks were amplified by Mayor Cohen who stated that the Sewer Board as an administrative ages cy was totally non - responsive to the attempt at an input by the communities in the metropolitan area and he commented relative to the inequitable treatment of the newly established rate policy. He noted that efforts to communicate with the Board as to the feeling and situation of the involved communities had been largely ignored. He stated the prime question at this. time was what action to take, if any, in terms of challenging the approved allocation formula and stated it would be a disservice to the community and future developers not to pursue the issue and challenge the Sewer Board action in court. In response to a question by Councilman Heck, the City Manager stated that it was difficult to predict chances of success of such a challenge in court, but he noted that there was no question as to the grounds for the challenge. Mayor Cohen then passed out to the Council members the copy of a proposed joint powers document, noting several other communities were consider- ing similar legal action. The City Manager stated that the intent of the joint i ers agreement was to pur-cue the legal challenge on a joint baate with. hrnrad cysts. He stated that the costs to the individual- communities would be negligible, Particularly In* consideration of the stakes involved. He noted furthertBrooklyn Center would be the primary vehicle for pursuing the suit and that -the costs for Brooklyn Center would be covered by the .Public Utilities Fund. Following further discussion there was a motion - by Councilman Britts , seconded by Councilman Leary to authorize the participation of the City of Brooklyn Center in a legal juit challenging the validity of action of the Metropolitan Council in its determination to adopt a new formula for the allocation and collection of certain costs to be borne by municipal governments; and further to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a joint pow1rs agreement with such other communities which have determined to pursue c arable action. Councilman Heck and Councilman Britts noted the importance of taking this action and stated it was vital that the people should be fully informed as to the reason for the suit as well as the ramifications upon the community .if the new policy is allowed to take effect. The Mayor then called for a vote. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against; none. Motion carried unanimously. -7- The City Manager next explained that the City of Brooklyn Park had decided to build a water treatment facility and has approached neighbori` communities to determine the possible interests in j,ofnt participation. He noted that there was a factor of economy in size and, in reviewing the background of - the concepts, noted that the City of Brooklyn Center had given some consideration to eventually construct its own water treatment facility. The Director of Public Works then presented an analysis of the situation including an updated version of a prior study regarding the prbvis ions for water treatment in the City. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the proposal and Mayor Cohen noted that questions merited more discussion. He noted the Council policy involving such major community decisions and that more public input should be secured. The City Manager commented that the staff was at this point merely providing available information and was not prepared to make a recommendation at this time. It was the consensus of the Council to have the staff develop further information regarding the proposed joint water treatment facility and to place the matter on a future agenda. Motion by Councilman Britts, seconded by Councilman Aus en to approve the following licenses: Christmas Tree Sales License Premium Quality Trees 69th & Brooklyn Blvd. Premium Quality Trees 5040 Bro oklyn Blvd. Garbage Haulers License Arthur Willman & Sons 51 - 28th Ave. No. Readily Perishable Food Vehicle King's Academy 6120 Xerxes Ave. No. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck, and Britts, I Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Relative to the pending Federal Revenue Sharing Bill, Councilman Aus en inquired as to the possibility of amending the adopted tax levy in that possibly revenue sharing funds could be used to supplement the 1973 budget, thus eliminating the requirements for exceeding the levy limitation and realizing a penalty. The City Manager commented relative to the status of the Revenue Sharing Bill and a brief discussion ensued as to the possible uses of the money. Mayor Cohen stated that the Council should wait until the #=dP are actually received and then a determination can be made as to the proper use ir. light of any special regulations are set regarding the use and intent of the funds. He stated that it vas essential to evaluate carefully what apparently seemed to be worse situation regarding next year's budget. Councilman Ausen noted that if the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds had been available at the time of the adoption cal: the levy, he would have voted differently relative to increasing the levy and exceeding the limitations. He stated it was appropriate to consider reversing the decision made in adopting the 1973 levy. The motion by Councilman Leary, 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 city Council m ti g adjourned at 12:27 a.m. Cler • Mayor _g_