Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 11-20 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 November 20, 1972 The City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Philip Cohen at 7:35 p.m. Roll call: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Heck, Leary, Ausen, 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 first item of business was a review of the Green Giant liquor license authorization. The City .Manager stated that on January 31, 1972 the Council had authorized the issuance of a liquor license for the Green Giant Restaurant. He stated that since that time changes have occurred in the corporate structure and management, as well as in the interior floor plans for the proposed liquor lounge and restaurant. He stated that, consequently, the existing Green Giant site was deficient in parking and the Green Giant Company was concurrently seeking a special use permit for off -site parking. He noted that pending Planning Commission application No. 72079 requested approval of a special use permit for live entertainment and a special use permit for supplemental off -site parking. Regarding that application Mr. Tremere ex- plained that the request for a live entertainment permit was in order and noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval. Relative to the application for a special use permit authorizing accessory off -site parking, the City Manager reviewed the Planning Commission action as recorded in the November 2, 1972 minutes. Mr. Tremere reviewed the plan sub- mitted and noted the seating plans indicated accommodations for 183 persons, and the manager of the restaurant had stated there would be a total of 13 employees at the maximum shift. He further explained that since minimum parking must be pro- vided at a rate of one space for every two seats or two employees, a total of 98 spaces were required and thus a balance of 6 spaces remain. The Director of Public Works commented that he had discussed the land- scaping plan with the applicant and was suggesting that the locust trees be a minimum of two inches and that sod be placed on the periphery of the parking area. The Mayor then recognized Messrs. Hottmann, Jones, Sebastian, Graff and Sziraki, who represented the applicant. Mr. Jones noted the concern of the appli- cant for providing sod around the edge of the parking area, and that experience had shown a certain amount of kill -off due to the overhang of automobiles. Further discussion ensued and the applicant indicated that sod could be provided and larger locust plantings could be installed. Administrative Assistant Dan Hartman reviewed the liquor license applica- tion and the results of the police investigation. Regarding the parking, the City Manager commented that the applicant had maximized the seating capacity relative to the provided parking spaces and he noted that as a result of planning sessions with the applicant, it had been determined an additional 8 seats could be provided in the future but that it was difficult to make a definite accounting of the possible number of waiting customers or standees, who would patronize the lounge area. Extensive discussion ensued and Councilman Ausen inquired of the City Attorney relative to the encumbrance of the accessory parking site to the principal use. He stated that it appeared to be a private agreement and he asked what the relationship of the City would be should any problems arise concerning the owner -- ship and use of the property. The City Attorney commented to the effect that the proposed encumbrance would meet the interests of the City. Mr. Hottmann stated that the check the Council would have as to the use of the property and the assurance that it would be available for parking for the restaurant was the annual review and issuance of the liquor license. -1- Mayor Cohen noted that none of the notified property owners was present. He then recognized Mr. Sebastian, President of Green Giant Restaurants, who commented as to the operation of the restaurants in various communities. The City Manager inquired as to when the applicant intended to commence the sale of liquor and Mr. Jones responded that the remodeling should be completed in early February. The City Manager noted that the current authorization for the issuance of the liquor license was good through January 31, 1972. The City Manager also commented that the applicant had submitted a request for a Sunday liquor license and the Council proceeded to review the documents sub - mitted in support of both liquor license applications. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Britts seconded by Councilman Ausen to approve Planning Commission application No. 72079 submitted by Green Giant Restaurants, Incorporated, consisting of a special use permit for live entertainment and a special use permit for accessory off -site parking, the latter being subject to the following conditions: 1. The drainage and grading plans are subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. The landscaping for the parking site shall be amended to include 2" locust plantings, as well as sod around the periphery of the lot. 3. Appropriate documentation indicating that the off -site parking property is legally encumbered to the sole purpose of providing parking accessory to the principal use shall be filed with the City. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Heck stated that a policy requiring review of complete land - scaping plans by the Planning Commission should be enforced to the extent that no application shall be brought to the Council until full review has been made by the Planning Commission. Mayor Cohen agreed to the suggestion and the City Manager noted that the staff had consistently informed applicants that complete plans were required prior to full Planning Commission review and that the Planning Commission had been increasingly insisting upon such complete plans. Following further discussion of the Green Giant liquor license application, there was a motion by Councilman Britts, seconded by Councilman Heck to acknowledge and approve the amended application for the previously authorized liquor license for the Green Giant Restaurant. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britt s. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Cohen noted that the submitted documents supporting the liquor license application had been reviewed by the Council and that actual issuance of the license was subject to completion of the investigatory procedures. Motion by Councilman Leary, seconded by Councilman Britts to authorize the issuance of a Sunday liquor license to the Green Giant Restaurant. 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. 72074 submitted by A. E. Melling. He explained that the applicant was seeking approval of a variance to permit subdivision by metes and bounds description of a parcel located at 6821 Lyndale Avenue North. He stated the applicant's intent was to create two buildable single family residential lots, one with frontage onto Lyndale Avenue North and the other onto Fifth Street North. Mayor Cohen noted that none of the notified property owners was present, and a brief discussion ensued. -2- Motion by Councilman Heck, seconded by Councilman Britts to approve Planning Commission application No. 72074 submitted by A. E. Melling noting that substantial precedence exists for such variances and that the requirement for formal subdivision procedures would be unduly restrictive in this case. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager noted that Brooklyn Center. Industrial Park, Inc. , had requested a postponement of consideration of Planning Commission application No. 72077. City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission application No. 72080 submitted by Clarence Dudley. He explained the applicant was seeking site and building plan approval for an addition to a structure located at 6510 Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the structure served as the applicant's home and was a non- conforming use in a C1 district. He stated that the applicant proposed to operate a beauty shop in the addition as a C1 use. The City Manager then reviewed the extensive consideration by the Planning Commission as reflected in the November 2, 1972 minutes, noting particularly the Commission's concern with the various ramifications of the application upon the City's non -- conforming use policies. The Director of Public Norks briefly reviewed the site and building plans submitted by the applicant in an effort to conform with the requirements of the Cl district. The City Manager stated that the applicant had indicated his intent to reside on the premises and he noted that residential occupancy in a commercial zone was not permitted. The Council then reviewed the plans and the Mayor recognized the applicant: 1VIr. Dudley commented that he had communicated with the Building Inspection De- paitment some time in July and that he had been informed that the only requirement for constructing an addition to a home was the issuance of a building permit. He stated that upon applying for the permit he had been informed that formal site and building plan review and approval by the City was required for his project because of the zoning, and that he had then proceeded to develop certified plans intended to meet the criteria of the ordinance regarding plan approval. He stated that he had not been aware of the non - conforming use provision which prohibited the structural alteration or enlargement of his home due to zoning of the land. He also commented that he did not have knowledge of the fact that residential occupancy was not a permitted use within the 01 zone. Mr. Dudley further stated that he felt it was his right as a property owner to add on to his house and he noted the length of time which he had resided at that address. Mayor Cohen noted the correspondence in the file from the Building Depart- ment to the applicant relative to a stop order placed on construction which had commenced at the subject address without a building permit. He asked the applicant why he had proceeded to build the addition before securing the necessary building permit, and the applicant responded that he had constructed the founda- tion in anticipation of winter freeze -up and filled in the foundation work for the safety of children who might be coming to his residence on Halloween. The Mayor stated that the issue was not how the construction had proceeded but why work had commenced without a permit. The applicant then responded that he had not been aware that a building permit was required for a small addition and furthermore, he desired to get the footings and foundation in place prior to the winter season. Mayor Cohen noted that building permits are common and well known re- quirements for construction and not a matter of internal procedural requirements unique to the City. Councilman Heck stated that he wanted to clarify a conversation he had at the applicant's initiation during the time when the application was being processed; administratively. He stated that he had, in essence, informed the applicant that a beauty shop was a permitted use in the C1 district, subject to the requirements -3- of the ordinance. He stated that he had not indicated tothe applicant that con- struction without a permit could be undertaken. Mr. Tremere briefly reviewed the contacts held between the applicant and the administrative office. Councilman Ausen inquired whether the applicant had been adequately informed of the difference between an occupational special use in the home versus a business, and the applicant responded that he did not feel beauty shops should be permitted in homes but rather should be contained in separate facilities such as the proposed addition. Councilman Leary stated that traditionally the concern has been with dis- couraging lot -by -lot development and that the Council had been consistent over the years with the principle behind that concern. Further discussion ensued be- tween Councilman Britts and Councilman Heck relative to residential occupation in a commercial district, and the applicant stated that he had not been aware that such occupancy was prohibited by the ordinance. Mayor Cohen asked the applicant for his reaction to the Planning Commis- sion recommendation that he consider, along with his neighbors, a rezoning of the area back to Rl . Mr. Dudley responded that such a request did not seem fea sible . Councilman Heck observed that perhaps the non - conforming use constraint providing that such a use may not be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than occupied when the zoning ordinance was adopted, might be too harsh when applied to single family residential occupancy in a non - residential zone. 1-b suggested that if his observation was valid and acceptable and a con- straint were changed to permit enlargement of single family dwellings in a non- residential zone for residential purposes, the reasoning could be extended to permitting the occupant to conduct a home occupation or a special home occupa- tion within the structure. He then inquired of the City Attorney about the possi- bility of so relaxing the non - conforming use constraints and the resulting effect on the objective of prohibiting a purely commercial use within the structure The City Attorney responded that legally such a relaxation of the non- conforming use provisions could be implemented but he stated that the important consideration was the policy matter of the objective of the non - conforming use provisions of the ordinance. Additional discussion ensued regarding the intent and purpose of the non- conforming use provisions during which Councilman Leary stated that the subject application was a proposal to enlarge a non - conforming use for a specific business purpose and not for residential purposes. The City Manager reviewed the development of the non- conforming use section of the ordinance, recommending that the basic objective was to limit non- conforming structures and the monetary investment in them only to the extent of a normal, useful life. Mayor Cohen reviewed the discussion relative to the ramifications of comprehensive zoning. He stated that to allow the proposed construction and the modified use incorporating a special use permit would set a potentially un- desirable precedent. Noting the considerable discussion held regarding the application's rela- tionship to the basic principle of non - conforming use and the integrity of zoning districts evolving from the comprehensive plan, there was a motion by Council - man Leary, seconded by Councilman Ausen to deny Planning Commission applica- tion No. 72080 further noting the following: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the informal planning policy which does not comprehend the use of residential type structures for commercial purposes, particularly along Brooklyn Boulevard. -4- 2. Given the intent and desires of the applicant, the proposal is not feasible without a substantial variance to permit residential occupancy of a commercial use. 3. The proposal is not consistent with the planning goal stated in the Comprehensive Plan relative to the retention of residential uses in the subject area until such time that a planned redevelopment of the total area is presented for consideration. 4. An alternative exists for the accomplishment of the applicant's stated goal to operate a beauty shop, in that a special use permit for such an operation could be granted for the existing home in its non - conforming use status. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck, and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Councilman Heck, seconded by Councilman Ausen to request the Planning Commission to further study the non - conforming use provisions of the ordinance to determine if there is any merit in permitting residential building expansion in a commercially zoned district; and to request a recommendation from the Planning Commission in that regard. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting recessed at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 10 :35 p.m. The City Manager explained that the final plat of Creek Villas' subdivision had been submitted and that in considering the plat it was suggested that a review., discussion be initiated regarding the adequacy of the screening betwverr the development and the existing single family homes along the south side of the project. He noted that the staff had been engaged in discussions with the applicant regarding the screening due to complaints which had been received from neighbors to the south that the berming was not adequate for screening light from automobiles. He also noted concern with the provision for maintenance of the public utilities . He stated that the basic question was whether the utilities were public, to be publicly maintained, or to be maintained at the expense of the Homeowners Association and that a determination should be made regarding that question prior to approval of the final plat. He stated that given these concerns the recommendation at the moment was not to grant final approval. Mayor Cohen then recognized Mr. Jim Gillespie, the representative of the applicant who stated that approval was requested at this time in that there were a number of sales pending the filing of the final plat. He stated that in the opinion of the developer the matter was a difference of philosophy: that to treat the 103 townhouse homeowners differently from other homeowners was discrim- inatory. The City Manager briefly commented as to the City's policy concerning housing complexes and the maintenance of utilities. An extensive discussion then ensued relative to the application of the policy to townhouse owners versus the owners of rental apartment units. Mr. Gillespie stated that while the applicant was willing to enter into an agreement with the City regarding the provision for and maintenance of utilities in the project, it would be done so reluctantly due to the applicant's feeling that the status of the townhouse property owners should be the same as individual property owners in the City. Following further discussion the City Manager recommended the possibility of approving the final plat subject to certain conditions. _5.._ Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Heck, seconded by Councilman Leary to approve the final plat submitted by the Dietrich Construction Company regarding the Greek Villas Townhouse Project subject to the following conditions: 1. Homeowner Association documents which assure maintenance of the physical facilities and utilities by the association with the provision that the City would assume such responsibility upon City Council determination that the Homecwners Association failed to do so, shall be submitted to and approved by the City. 2. That the applicant contact and reach agreement with the concerned property owners to the south relative to the provision for effective screening between the properties. In further discussion Councilman Ausen inquired as to whether the City Manager could provide a written document expressing the referred to policy for utility provision and maintenance. The City Manager responded that while a formal written policy did not exist, the policy was reflected through longstanding practice. As to the matter of the ownership versus rental factor,, the City Manager stated that this could and, in other communities, has changed very rapidly, noting that apartment units have been sold and converted to condominium units and vice versa. Following further discussion the Mayor then called for a vote. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck, Ausen, and Britts. Voting against were: none. Motion carried unanimously. Member john Leary introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72 -188 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT NOTES 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, Howard Heck, Vernon Ausen, a nd. Maurice.Britts;:.a.ndithe follow vdted a a nst. .1he on same: no whereupon 4 g � p taid,rewhitignzwar dwfaped.duly ps ss e&and adopted. Member John Leary introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ,(CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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, Councilmen John Leary, Howard Heck, Vernon Ausen, 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 -194 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK (CONTRACTED BY CITY -6- 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. Member Vernon Ausen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 72 -191 RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT NO. 57153 -M REGARDING MAINTENANCE FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS AT THE T.H. 94 INTERCHANGE RAMPS AND T.H. 152 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 City Manager briefly explained a proposed draft ordinance recommended for the purpose of conveying the land underlying the Brooklyn Center Branch of the Hennepin County library system to Hennepin County. Following a brief discussion Councilman Heck moved, and Councilman Leary seconded the first reading of an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of real estate from the City of Brooklyn Center to Hennepin. County. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next explained that a proposal was introduced on November 6, 1972 with the intention of reducing the 1973 property tax levy in the amount by which that levy exceeded the levy limitations. He stated the proposal further comprehended that the amount of the reduction be replaced in, the 1973 budget by Revenue Sharing funds. He noted that draft resolutions had been prepared presenting alternatives intended to implement the amendment to the 1973 tax levy. He stated that if the proposal was implemented, additional action would be required in the future to transfer monies from the Revenue Sharing fund to va.ious budget accounts. The City Manager further noted that since the November 6 meeting the staff had become aware of a portion of the budget which was exempt from the levy limitations, and thus the levy exceeding limitations had been reduced from approximately $20,000 to approximately $11,000 in reporting to the County Auditor. Extensive discussion ensued and it was suggested that the matter of apply- ing Revenue Sharing funds to the 1973 budget for purposes of eliminating the levy limitation penalty could be deferred to a future meeting. The City Manager stated that this was recommended due to negotiation and consultation with the State Administration. It was explained that on the one hand if it was determined necessary to initiate court action against the State Tax Commissioner's levy limit regulations, then a tax levy in excess of Brooklyn Center's limitation may be necessary to establish legal standing to initiate a suit. On the other hand, in the event that negotiations were successful in reducing or eliminating the onerous elements of the proposed levy limit regulations, then there may be a tactical advantage to staying within the levy limitations. Motion by Councilman Ausen and seconded by Councilman Britts to defer consideration of the proposal to reduce the 1973 property tax levy in the amount by which that levy exceeded the levy limitations until the December 4, 1972 meeting -7- Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager commented that the Cities of Brcoklyn Park and Coon Rapids were somewhat anxiously awaiting a definite response from the Council relative to the proposed joint water treatment facility. He noted that analysis showed Brooklyn Park and Coon Rapids have certain common problems, whereas the long term objectives of the City of Brooklyn Center differed somewhat. He noted, however, that there were reasons why Brooklyn Center would find it advantageous to enter in to such a project for economic reasons. He stated that a meeting date had been set wherein the Brooklyn Park and Coon Rapids Councils were meeting in joint session and had invited the Brooklyn Center City Council to attend for purposes of determining the community's intent to participate. Mayor Cohen noted the current thinking of citizens of keeping costs down and that until a definite demand and need could be documented for water treatment, it would not be advisable in his opinion to proceed at this time. The City Manager indicated that he would like a formal reading of the Council's opinion so that the officials of the two cities could be so informed. Mayor Cohen then polled the Council and stated it was the consensus of the Council not to participate in a joint water treatment facility project with the Cities of Brooklyn Park and Coon Rapids at this time. Motion by Councilman Britts, seconded by Councilman Heck to approve the following licenses. CIGARETTE LICENSE Ralph's Super Service 6601 Lyndale Ave. No. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Hot Sam Company 1264 Brookdale Center Poppin Fresh Pie Shop 5601 Xerxes Ave. No. GARBAGE AND REFUSE CO LLECTI ON LICENSE Modern Services , Inc. Box 4445, M pls . GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE Brooklyn Center Union 76 6840 Humboldt Ave. No. Ralph's Super Service 6601 Lyndale Ave. No. HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING INSTALLA LICENSE Suburban Air Conditioning 3419 Center Drive MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INSTALLATION LICENSE Wm. H. Klatke Plbg. & Heating 2656 Sheridan Ave. No. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. I Motion by Councilman Heck, seconded by Councilman Britts to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Ausen Lear Heck and Britts. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Council meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Clerk Mayor �� —+