Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 12-13 CCM Special Session Minutes of the Proceedings of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center In the County of Hennepin and State of .Minnesota December 13, 1971 The City Council met in special session and was called to order by Mayor Philip Cohen at 7:35 P, M. Roll Call: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, and Willard. Also present were: City Manager Donald Poss, Director of Public Works James Merila, Cbief of Police Thomas O'Hehir, Building Inspector Jean Murphey, and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere. Member John Leary introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION NO. 71 -232 RESOLUTION REGARDING CANVASS OF SPECIAL BOND REFERENDUM ELECTION OF DECEMBER 7. 1971 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Theodore Willard, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted, in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen and Theodore Willard; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager explained that the 1971 budget contains an amount of $3,465.00 for the purchase of photography equipment for the Police Department and that a proposed resolution comprehends the purchase of the major portion of the required equipment. Member Vernon Ausen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 71 -233 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS DARKROOM EQUIPME 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 and Theodore Willard; and the follovI ng voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member John Leary introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 71 -234 RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL'S CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION CAPITAL OUTLAY ACCOUNT TO PROVIDE FOR LIGHTING ALONG THE "' WALKWAY AND BRIDGE CROSSING WEST OF THE CIVIC CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Theodore Willard, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen and Theodore Willard; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted„ Member Theodore Willard introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 71 -235 RESOLUTION A THORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT NOTES The motion for the adoption of the; foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Vernon Ausen, and upon voft being taken thereon, the following voted in favor there- of: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen and Theodore Willard; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. -1- The City Manager next recommended the approval of the purchase of various investments made by the Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association. A brief discussion ensued relative to the investment buying procedure of the Fire Relief Association. Motion by Councilman Ausen and seconded by Councilman Leary to approve the purchase of certain investments by the Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association as authorized by the Association Board on November 30, 1971. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and - Millard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next commented on a letter received from the State Building Inspector relative to an inspection tour made by the State Building Inspector and a representative from the State fire Marshal's Office of the new Civic Center complex. He stated that the letter commended the City of Brooklyn Center for the high quality of the Civic facilities and especially for the provision for handicapped individuals, and that the letter suggested the City give consideration to the installa- tion of a ramp in the front drive area which would facilitate access to the City Hall by handicapped persons. The City Manager commented that such a ramp was planned and would be installed in the spring of 1972 and that the State Building Inspector had been informed of this intent. The City Manager next explained that in response to various problems with the City's animal control services the staff had investigated alternatives to the current one -man operation, He stated several larger, more wide spread services had been examined and that it was the recommendation that the City contract with the B and E Patrol for animal control services. In response to comments by Councilman Millard relative to the procedures used by the B and E Patrol, the City Manager stated that the service is expected to exceed the present service and it features a two -way delivery service at no extra charge. He further noted that the B and E Patrol has been informed °of the City's procedures and it has an excellent reporting service as well as . 6, low complaint rate. He commented that the present notification procedure would continue wherein complaints are received through the City Hall and the Police Department and referred to the animal control service. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Willard and seconded by Councilman Leary to authorize the City Manager and Mayor to contract with the B and E Patrol for animal control services in the City of Brooklyn Center. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was reconsideration of a resolution declaring certain ouiidings located at 5338 Emerson Ave. No. dilapidated buildings and ordering them to be removed, which was tabled at the December 6th meeting for purposes of permitting the subject property owner to appear before the Council. The Building Inspector explained that the owner had purchased the house in order to remodel it and had received a permit for renovation. He stated that the owner apparently had financial problems and nothing has been done with the house for months. He further stated that a number of complaints had been received from neighbors and that earlier in the year the owner had been asked to remove various debris from the property, which he did. He stated, however, that the house is not in good condition in that it has been stripped and that the original construction is also in poor condition. The Mayor then recognized the owner, Mr. Brandvold, who stated that it now appeared as though he could go ahead with the remodeling since he has recently arranged financing. He stated that it is his intent to raze the building and build from the ground up. He also commented that he needs at least a week to complete the financial arrangements for the remodeling. -2- The City Manager stated that notwithstanding the owner's good intentions, the problems of the Building Inspector in responding to complaints are not resolved. He recommended that the Council establi^h a definite date to be met by the applicant in initiating his plans. Mr. Brandvold commented that he could start razing the building within two weeks whether financing were arranged or not and that he intended to use new materials in the reconstruction. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Ausen to table the proposed resolution until January 17, 1972 at which time the Building Inspector will report to the Council as to the condition of the property and building at 5338 Emerson Avenue North. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 70012 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. He stated that the Council had approved the application on June 14, 1971 subject to the standard conditions as well as the following: 1. That a model 4 -unit cluster would be allowed to commence prior to the construction of the remaining units in Phase 1 of the development; 2, That the master site plan be approved with the provision that the balance of Phase 1 and Phase 2 be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council upon completion of the 4 -unit model cluster to determine if there are any necessary adjustments to the total development plan prior to entering into the balance of Phase 1 and Phase 2; 3. That the Homeowner's Association agreement is consistent with the state and/or local laws governing such agreements and subject to the approval of the City Council. The City Manager stated that the applicant had commenced construction of the 4 -unit model cluster and that he desired to proceed concurrently with the construction of the remaining 58 units in Phase 1. He further noted that special attention was given on June 14th to the Homeowner's Agreement and that it was the Council's intent to permit the applicant to proceed vAth a 40 -unit model until such time the Homeowner Agreement documents had been refined, and that final approval of the entire project rested upon this. He commented that the applicant had placed on file with the City a copy of the final Homeowner's Association documents on October 19th. Councilman Ausen stated that he had not had a chance to review the documents and that he could do so during a brief recess. The Mayor then recognized Mr. Van Eeckhout representing the applicant who stated that the Homeowner Agreement documents had been reviewed and approved by the Federal Housing Administration and that the applicant would like to immediately proceed with the total development, getting at least twenty units under construction this season. The Mayor then deferred further consideration of the matter until after the Council's recess. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71057 submitted by Kenneth Nordling for the Chippewa Park Apartments. He stated the applicant is requesting an extension of time for a temporary sign located at the south side of the apartment complex and adjacent to I -94 freeway, and that under Section 34 -140 of the City Ordinances the project was entitled to a 320 sq. ft. temporary sign for a period not to exceed.two years from November 25, 1968. -3- He stated that the staff had notified the owner on October 5, 1971 that the time limit for his sign had expired and that it must be removed. He stated that Mr. Nordling contended that he had 33 vacant apartments and still had need for the sign. The City Manager commented that the Planning Commission had noted that any action by the Commission or the Council would be relative to a new variance and a permit rather than an extension of an existing sign permit since the original permit expired in November, 1970 and the sign was, in fact, not currently authorized. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the applica- tion stipulating that the variance be granted for a period of one year from the date of approval by the Council or the date when a 90% occupancy is realized by the Chippewa Park Apartments, whichever comes first. The City Manager noted that the matter has been before the staff `s attention for some time and that it had been determined there was nothing unique about the application and that the applicant's request was fora new variance and not an extension. He stated that the sign has remained up because the City has not proceeded to have it removed via legal procedures. He stated that the present ordinance is very clear in its requirements in this case and that the present application, as well as other recent requests. for variances from the ordinance, are indicative of a trend which would alter the intent and effectiveness of the ordinance. He said there was a need to be particularly scrutinous of the variance requests and especially to note whether the standards for granting a variance are met in each case. The Mayor then recognized the applicant who stated that he had numerous vacancies and had determined that the sign is essential for attracting tenants as indicated by present tenants who noted they were attracted to the apartments by the sign.. Councilman Willard stated that there was little evidence of a hardship or uniqueness which would serve as a basis for granting a variance. He further recalled that the intent of the ordinance was to allow two years for the time to complete construction of the projects. The City Manager reviewed the provisions of the ordinance which allow such signs for a period of two years or until 90% occupancy has been achieved. The applicant stated that while he had been entitled to the sign for a period of two years commencing in November of 1968, the first building in his apartment complex had not been occupied until August of 1969. He further stated that he had received no complaints about the sign and that given the size of the complex he felt the sign was necessary to attract more occupants. Mayor Cohen stated that granting a variance was not the most desired procedure and that the matter should be tabled. or deferred to permit study by the Planning Commission and the staff. Councilman Ausen stated that there was a need to review the ordinance relative to provision for a freestanding identification sign for apartment complexes as distinguished from wall sign provisions for individual apartment buildings. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Councilman Willard and seconded by Councilman Ausen to table Planning Commission Application No. 71057 for a period not to exceed 6 months to permit a review of the Sign Ordinance provisions relative to freestanding signery for apartment complexes. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Willard. Voting against none. Motion carried unanimously. Following further discussion regarding the need to examine the provisions of the Sign Ordinance there was a motion by Councilman Willard and seconded by Councilman Leary to request the Planning Commission to review the Sign Ordinance with respect to 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. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Willard. Voting against, none. Motion carried unanimously. -4- Councilman Willard left the Council table at 9 :10 P. M. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71063 submitted by Bermel Smaby requesting approval of a subdivision by registered land survey for the property in the northeast quadrant of Brooklyn Blvd. and 65th Avenue North intersection. He stated that this is the property upon which an office building was approved under Planning Commission Application No. 71031 and that the City had received notice that the applicant intends to redesign the proposed office building.. Following comments by the Director of Public VVorks there was a motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Ausen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 71063 submitted by Bermel Smaby Realtors. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, and Ausen. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Willard returned to the meeting at 9:15 P. M. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71067 submitted by Carl F. Russert requesting a variance from Section 35 -400 of the City Zoning Ordinance to permit a house addition 7 ft. from the interior lot line. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Ausen and seconded by Councilman Leary to approve Planning Commission Application No. 71067 submitted by Carl Russert. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71068 submitted by Kathleen Harrison requesting a special use permit for a beauty - shop to be located in the basement of her home. He stated that a letter had been received for the file signed by the applicant's neighbors indicating no objection to the special use. Mayor Cohen then recognized the applicant who stated she would be the sole employee of the beauty shop operation and that she foresaw no parking problems in that two spaces were available in her driveway and that the work was scheduled by appointment only. She further noted that a second fire exit from the basement would be installed in the spring and that she did not intend to operate the business until the exit was installed. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Ausen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 71068 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the special use will not commence until a second fire exit has been constructed from the basement area; 2. That a copy of the State Shop Owner's License shall be placed on file with the City; 3. That the special use permit is granted for a two year period from the date of approval of the City Council. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71070 submitted by Pearl Lynch requesting a variance from Section 15 -104 of the City Ordinances to permit subdivision of her property using a metes and bounds description. He stated that the extension of Knox Avenue North across the petitioner's property separated her property into two parcels leaving a small lot on the east side of Knox Avenue and a parcel on the west side large enough for two lots. He also noted that due to the location of the existing house at 7224 Logan Avenue North an additional variance for either the rear yard of the existing house or the depth of the proposed lot was required. -5- I The City Manager then commented relative to the informal policy of the Council regarding variances from the Platting Ordinance, namely that a metes and bounds subdivision will not involve more than two parcels and that the basic descriptions of the resulting parcels shall be earily translated into readily identi- fiable lots. He stated that neither criteria was met by Application No. 71070, The Director of Public Works stated that it was preferable to use a registered land survey rather than metes and bounds description in creating a subdivision, because registered land surveys permit clarification of the sub- division and facilitate any future conveyances, Councilman Willard inquired as to the practical problems which gave rise to the preference for registered land surveys and further, he inquired as to what difficulty the applicant would have in securing a registered land survey. The Director of Public Works responded that registered land surveys permitted more concise and easily identifiable descriptions and that this was important in tax assessment procedures. He further responded that cost would be the primary difficulty in securing a registered land survey. The City Manager noted that the applicant had previously completed most of the work in obtaining a registered land survey except that the survey had yet to be filed. The Mayor then recognized the applicant who stated she had been informed the registered land survey could not be properly completed for a variety of reasons. Councilman Heck arrived at 9:40 P. M. The City Manager stated that the staff could further consult with the applicant and her attorney and attempt to resolve the apparent problems regarding a registered land survey. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Willard and seconded by Councilman Leary to table Planning Commission Application No. 71070 submitted by Pearl Lynch so that the applicant could reconsider the completion of a registered land survey and consult with the City staff in resolving any obstacles. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9 :45 P. M. and resumed at 10.05 P. M. Relative to prior discussion of Planning Commission Application No. 70012 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. Councilman Ausen stated he had examined the Homeowner's Agreement and had discussed the provisions with the applicant. He noted that his concern had been that full responsibility for the maintenance of internal roads and common areas would be assured. He stated that this pro - vision appears to be adequately met. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Ausen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 70012 submitted by Viewcon, Inc, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the master site plan be approved with provision that Phase 2 be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council upon completion of Phase 1 to determine if there are any necessary adjustments to the total development plan prior to entering into the construction of Phase 2; 2. That additional berms beyond those indicated on the site plans be provided adjacent to the single family residences along June Avenue; further, that such berms be constructed as early as possible and that such mD rk be prosecuted in a reasonably continuous fashion subject to the influences and constraints of accepted construction practices; -6- 3, That a snow fence or other effective device be erected on the east property line and maintained during the construction of the berms and subsequent thereto that such device be relocated on the westerly side of such berms to contain construction debris on the construction site and to inhibit children's access to the construction site; 4. Utility, drainage, and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 5. That the Homeowner's Association Agseement is consistent with the State and/or local laws governing such agreements, 6. That building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 7. That a performance agreement and performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee the site improvements as designated on the plans submitted; 8. That the platting requirements be waived because of the uniqueness and peculiarities of the condominium development until such time as a given phase of the development is completed. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager commented on legal action instituted to clarify the authority of the Commissioner of Taxation and recommended that the 1972 budget not be recertified at this time. He further commented upon a letter sent to state municipalities by the Executive Director of the N dnnesota League of iMunici -- palties explaining the suit for which the City of Brooklyn Center was serving as plaintiff. He explained that the court action is being undertaken through the City Attorney's office with the support of the legal staff of the League of Municipalities, challenging the interpretation of the 1971 Omnibus Tax Bill by the Commissioner of Taxation, whereby the Commissioner assumes authority to reduce municipal tax levies to the respective levy limitation points and to sit in judgement over individual appeals from municipalities. Following a lengthy discussion of the provisions of the tax bill and the ramifications of the Tax Commissioner's interpretations there was a motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Heck to approve the action taken by the City Manager to seek a court decision regarding the interpreation of the Omnibus Tax Bill by the State Tax Commissioner. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Lary, Ausen, Heck and IvYiUard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously, Councilman Willard left the Council table at 101.35 F. M. The City Manager explained that the City of Brooklyn Center has been participating in discussions and negotiations leading to a joint data processing Program involving ten or more suburban communities and one or possibly two counties, He noted the program comprehends funding by the municipalities, the Metropolitan Council, the State of MAnnesota, and Federal government. Mr. Willard, representing the Metropolitan Council, gave a presentation on the integrated system of data processing concept. Councilman Leary inquired whether a provision for such a Pte' am was comprehended in the 1972 budget. The City Manager responded that it was, and that revenues would be realized through the Finance Office account and through Public Utilities. He said that the City's prime concern was to gain relief from day to day manual data processing and to escape future rather major costs, -7- In response to an inquiry by Councilman Heck as to why the City's day to day operations are getting more complex since the growth of the City is leveling off, 'the City Manager responded that the reporting requirements of the State and Federal governments generated more data requirements and that the City probably furnishes far more data to other units of government than for the City's own needs. Following a lengthy discussion it was the consensus of the Council that the City of Brooklyn Center should proceed with the evaluation of the need for and the participation in a joint data processing effort, Councilman Willard returned to the meeting at 11:15 P, M. The City Manager reviewed the Brooklyn Center bus operation which is scheduled to crease operation on December 31st. He stated that ridership has not responded to the changes which were initiated and the operation continues to constitute a significant financial drain. Councilman Willard stated that he had appeared before the Metropolitan Transit Commission Operations Committee and had explained the status of the bus operation. He stated that possibly the City should request that the Metropolitan Transit Commission support the bus operation through January of 1972 to permit a thorough evaluation of the bus operation. Councilman Heck stated that if the - bus service is extended it should be without cost to the City of Brooklyn Center. Mayor Cohen commented that there is a need to examine the alternatives, especially with regard to the 1971 omnibus tax legislation. He commented that If the City cannot realize the funds necessary to support the present budget that it would be almost impossible to continue the support of the bus operation. Councilman Ausen stated that if the City is not willing to consider some participation in the bus operation then there is not much point in extending it through January, Councilman Willard noted that even under the best conditions. such as the summer operation, there would be a need for subsidization and that the operation cannot break even based on past experience_. Following further discussion there was a motion by Mayor Cohen and seconded by Councilman Leary to petition the Metropolitan Transit Commission to respectfully consider funding the operation of the Brooklyn Center bus through January 31, 1972, so that a full evaluation of the bus service can be made during the holiday season and for the purposes of: 1. Conducting a local public hearing on the need for the bus; 2. Reviewing the finances needed to continue operation during 1972; 3. Evaluating the ability of the City of Brooklyn Cm ter to participate in any funding of an internal bus operation; 4, Examining alternative methods of financing,. namely increased fares and possible financial subsidy from other sources; S. Evaluating the possibilities of rescheduling. Voting in favor were; Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Willard. Voting against:. Councilman Heck, Motion carried. Motion by Councilman Ausen and seconded by Councilman Heck to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor were; Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Willard. Voting agains tion carried unanimously. The Council adjourned at 12. i Clerk Mayor