Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 12-20 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 December 20, 1971 The City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Philip Cohen at 7:40 P.M. Roll Call: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Heck. Also present were: City Manager Donald Poss, Director of Public Works, James Merila, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Building Inspector Jean Murphey and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere. Motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Leary to approve the minutes of the November 22, 1971 Council meeting. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Heck. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71069 submitted by Richard Yackel requesting a special use permit for a home occupation, namely the sharpening of saws in his basement. He stated that the ordinance pro- vides for special home occupations in R -1 districts, and that Section 35 -900 defines special home occupations listing several types of services. He commented that although saw sharpening is not specifically mentioned, it is a service type use similar to those listed. Councilman Willard arrived at 7:45 P.M. The Mayor recognized Mrs. Yackel who stated that it was the applicant's intent to perform the service in the basement of their home and thus noise would not be emitted from the premises. She stated also that the applicant intended to sharpen saws and possibly ice skates and that they hoped to establish contracts with various hardware stores in the area. She then presented for the file a letter from neighbors indicating no objections to the special use. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Willard and seconded by Councilman Leary to approve Planning Commission Application No. 71069 submitted by Richard Yackel stipulating that the special use permit would be subject to review by the City Council one year from the date of approval. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of the release of the cash escrow held bytheCity to guarantee certain site and landscaping improvements by the Veiie Motor Co. The City Manager noted that the matter had been tabled by the City Council on December 6, 1971 to permit review of the proposed release by the City Attorney. The City Attorney stated his opinion that it would be difficult to uphold an interpretation that the agreement provision for "other landscaping" includes the installation of further fencing on the property. He also stated that while that portion of the fencing which had been installed did not impede pedestrian traffic, it was opeque, as required, in that it served as a sight barrier. Councilman Willard noted that at the time the cash escrow was established +� the ordinances had required fencing along the entire east property line, but that the applicant had requested and been granted a delay on the basis that the property to the east was yet undeveloped, and had thus installed only that portion of the fencing which now stands. The City Manager stated tha t only the City Council could determine if its intent was to make the complete fencing of the east property line a condition of the escrow guarantee. The City Attorney commented that he had not addressed the question of the intent of the Council, but rather had formed an opinion on the basis of the wording of the agreement itself. -1- A discussion ensued during which Council consensus developed to the effect that the deferred fence was covered by the cash escrow and that a neighborhood problem exists by virtue of the absent fence. The Mayor then recognized Mr. Harris, an attorney representing the Velie Motor Co. Mr. Harris reiterated his client's contention that the requirements as stated in the escrow guarantee had been met, and that they did not include the installationof fencing along the entire east property line. He stated that his client recognizes an obligation to install fencing along the east property line once the property is developed, but this is not a condition of the escrow guarantee itself. Councilman Ausen responded that the City was merely holding the escrow guarantee to assure that the applicant would complete all improvements agreed to by and required of the Velie Motor Co. The City Attorney noted that a developer is required by the City ordinances to construct an opaque fence when commercial property abuts residential property and that this requirement is clear. He stated that it appeared the Council had, in effect, temporarily relaxed this ordinance requirement, and is now attempting to assure that the requirement is met, The City Manager reported that the applicant had agreed that fencing along the east property line was desirable for his own benefit but the applicant claimed the fencing was not presently financially feasible, but that the fence would be installed when it became feasible. The City Manager further stated that it would be consistent with Council policy to hold a financial guarantee to cover the installation of the fence, but that it would not necessarily be consistent to hold the entire escrow guarantee if the amount is more than the cost of fence installation. Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Willard to direct the staff to estimate the cost to install the necessary fencing along the east property line of the Velie Oldsmobile Co. and to prepare a resolution ordering that such a fence be constructed at the earliest possible time along the east property line, as required by ordinance, using opaque and continuous material consistent with the residential character of the neighbor- hood; and authorizing release of the cash escrow to the extent it exceeds the estimated cost of installing the subject fence. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen, Heck and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager sought and received clarification that this action is intended to apply to the extension of the fencing rather than closing up of the existing fence. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71031 submitted by Bermel Smaby seeking revised site and building plan approval for a two story 10, 666 sq. ft. office building. He noted that the application was originally approved on September 2, 1971 for a three story 13,200 sq. ft. office building.: He st. ,at 54 parking spaces were provided on the revised plan and that these met wita ordinance parking requirements, Following. a brief discussion relative to certain revisions of the original site and building plan, there was a motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Ausen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 71031 submitted by Bermes Smaby subject to the following conditions: 1. All mechanical equipment located on the roof shall be adequately screened; 2. Whenever there is any mechanical equipment located on the roof there shall be a stair leading to a scuttle in the roof and such stair, scuttle, railings, etc. shall comply with the requirements of the State Building Code; 3. That an exterior lighting plan detailing fixtures and light intensity be submitted for staff approval; -2- 4. That an opaque fence 4 ft. high shall be located along the north property line extending from 15 ft. inside the. east line to IS ft. inside the west line; S. Utility and drainage plans are subject to the approval of the' City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 6. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 7. A performance agreement and performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee site improvements as designated on the plans submitted; 8. State laws governing public buildings in providing accessibility and usability features for physically handicapped persons shall be observed. Councilman Willard inquired as to the reason Condition # 2 and Condition # 8 had been imposed without specific policy determination by the City Council. The Building inspector responded that Condition# 2 is contained in the impending State Building Code and that the language of the code makes the requirement retro- active such that such access to the roof will have to be provided whenever any remodeling or alteration of the structure or equipment takes place. He stated that Condition # 8 was an existing State law requiring all new public buildings to have provisions for access by handicapped persons and that the condition was intended as a reminder to developers. Councilman Willard stated that his concern was not so much with the content of the requirements as with the fact that new requirements were being imposed with- out Council review of the merits of the conditions. The Mayor recognized a representative of the applicant who stated that the need for such requirements was acknowledged and that the applicant had included provisions for the requirements in the proposed site and building plans. The Mayor then called for a vote. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71054 submitted by Murn and Swenson requesting revised site and building plan approval. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the original application on November 4, 1971, but that the application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to review by the Council. He noted that the building had been changed from a Type IV with an inhabitable basement to a Type V with an uninhabit- able basement area. He stated that the Planning Commission had considered the. opinion of the Building Inspector that the exterior of the building should be a masonry veneer for maintenance and appearance purposes rather than the proposed wood siding. The City Manager explained that there is no formal written policy regarding the use of exterior materials but that the Planning Commission and the Council have been traditionally concerned with the quality of such buildings in Brooklyn Center and have considered the aesthetic design in the past. The Mayor recognized Mr. Rauma, the applicant's architect who stated that the single -use character of the building and the fact that the building abutted residential property on two sides led to the decision to use the wood siding in addition to the need to reduce costs. He noted that the original proposal indicated a stucco siding and that the applicant is willing to use the stucco exterior if economic factors permitted. A discussion ensued during which it was. concluded that the proposed wood siding was in character with the residential type neighborhood in which the building was located. -3- Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Heck to approve Planning Commission-Application No. 71054 submitted by Mum and Swenson subject to the following conditions: 1. That an exterior lighting plan detailing fixtures and light intensity be submitted for staff approval; 2. That all mechanical equipment located on the roof shall be adequately screened; 3. There shall be a stair leading to a scuttle in the roof and such stair, scuttle, railings, etc. shall comply with the requirements of the State Building Code; 4. That the State laws governing public buildings and providing accessibility and usability features for physically handicapped persons shall be observed; 5. Utility and drainage plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 6. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 7. 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. Councilman } Hillard reiterated his concern over the inclusion of the con- ditions relating to the access to the roof. The Mayor then called for a vote. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Council recessed at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened at 9:40 P.M. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71075 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park seeking approval of a Registered Land Survey which would subdivide Outlot C, Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Plat into two tracts of land. He stated that the proposed subdivision is along lines which are comprehended for future roadway development. The Director of Public Works commented that Tract B of the proposed Registered Land Survey would include most of the existing farm buildings and that Tract A would be comprised of the pasture land in the area. He commented relative to the City's concern that if the Registered Land Survey is approved, it will not serve as a detriment to the proper subdivision of the land in the future considering especially possible roadway development. He noted that the applicant had submitted a letter to the City indicating that approval of the proposed Registered Land Survey would in no way inhibit or impair the development of the area to its highest and best use for the community. Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Willard to approve Planning Commission Application No. 71075 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71041 submitted by White Advertising seeking a variance from Section 34 -140 of the Sign Ordinance to permit the construction of a temporary sign at the Holiday Inn Motel located at 1501 65th Ave. No. He stated that the application had been tabled at the December 6, 1971 meeting to allow the applicant time to address himself to the standar4s for granting variances. -4- The Mayor recognized Mr. Ittel who represented the applicant and who stated that the purpose of the proposed sign was to identify the nature of the con- struction. He stated that the 160 square foot sign was the only type available and that it was the standard sign utilized for Holiday Inn construction sites. Councilman Millard commented that it appeared the applicant's only stated hardship was that the "standard" sign did not conform to the ordinance requirements and that this was not an adequate basis for granting a variance. Councilman Ausen stated that the ordinance appeared to distinguish temporary signs and permanent signs primarily on the basis of their function, since the applicant could erect a permanent sign of the proposed size but not a temporary one since the maximum size permitted is 48 square feet. The City Manager responded that the provisions of the ordinance regarding temporary signs relate to vacant land and impending construction and development. He stated that the ordinance is not inflexible in this regard since the size of the temporary sign is established in a ratio with the area of land and suggested that the ratio scale could be revised and extended to permit larger temporary signs for areas greater than the present maximum size. Mr. Ittel stated that the site sign would be removed in the early spring when construction was completed and that the applicant was not involved with the erection of the proposed permanent motel sign, Councilman Ausen stated that while formal revision of the ordinance rather than revision by variance is the preferred procedure for resolving the problem, the revision process would take longer than the duration of the need for the applicant's temporary sign. Motion by Councilman Willard and seconded by Councilman Leary to deny Planning Commission Application No. 71041 submitted by White Advertising on the grounds that the ordinance standards for granting variances have not been met. Further discussion ensued during which Councilman deck stated that if the Council is to recognize different sign needs with regard to freeway - oriented businesses, then temporary signs should be included in such consideration. He stated however, that any freeway policy relative to signs should be established through formal ordinance revision procedures. Councilman Willard stated that such a policy relative to freeway-oriented businesses does not exist, and that the strength of the present ordinance provisions would be substantially weakened should the intent be revised through variances. The City Manager suggested that there was an alternative approach which would be consistent with the provisions of the sign ordinance; the applicant could seek a permit to erect the site sign as a permanent sign, but that it would have to be removed from the premises before the permanent business identification sign proposed by Holiday nn could be erected. Y e ted The Mayor then called for a vote. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71050 submitted by Topeka Inn Management requesting a height variance which would permit the erection of a permanent sign at least 80 feet in height. He commented that pursuant to the Council's direction, the Planning Commission had reconsidered the application as well as the new sight - distance evidence submitted by the applicant. He stated that it was the opinion of the Planning Commission that an 80 ft. sign did not appear to significantly enhance the distant sighting and identifica- tion of the sign in proportion to the extent of the variance and that it was the con- sensus of the Planning Commission that a 60 ft. high sign adequately fulfilled the purpose of such a sign. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Councilman Willard and seconded by Councilman Ausen to direct the staff to prepare a resolution relative to Planning Commission Application No. 71050 submitted by Topeka -Inn Manage- ment granting a height variance which wo uld permit the erection of a 60 ft. high permanent sign recognizing that: -5- 1. The potential patrons of the motel are comprised mainly of itinerant out -of -town motorists who are unfamiliar with the area; 2. Primary patronage of the motel will be realized during the evening and night -time hours; 3. The identification of and the access to the motel merit special consideration, given the volume - of traffic and the danger of vehicles weaving during rapid lane changes in freeway traffic; 4. The location of the motel and topography of the area present certain problems relative to the use of the freestanding sign to identify the motel. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was re- consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 71071 submitted by Developers Diversified requesting a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow the installation of a sign as indicated on revised plans. He commented that the Council had denied the application on December 6, 1971 and that the Planning Commission had reconsidered the application in light of the Council discussion. He noted that it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the applicant's proposed front wall design including the sign appears to be an integral part of the wail rather than part of the roof structure. The City Manager stated that there appears to be room for varying interpre- tation of the sign ordinance in this matter, based on an honest difference of opinion as evidenced by the discussion of the Council and the consensus of the Planning Commission. Councilman Ausen stated his concern that if the Council should approve this application for a variance, based upon the applicant's interpretation of the Sign Ordinance provisions, it would be difficult to disapprove any future buildings with comparable projections above the roof line. He stated that in effect, the Sign Ordinance was being altered without formal revision. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Councilman Willard and seconded by Mayor Cohen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 71071 acknowledging the reconsideration of the matter by and the consensus of the Planning Commission that the applicant's proposed front wall design, including the sign, appears to be an integral part of the wall rather than part of the roof structure. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Heck, Leary and Willard. Voting against Councilman Ausen. Motion carried. The City Manager stated that, as a matter of information relative to Planning Commission Application No. 71057, which was considered on December 13, the Sign Ordinance does in fact provide that apartment complexes such as the Chippewa Park Apartments may have a freestanding sign. He stated that coinci- dentally, it is a similar provision as that for C -1 and C -1A type developments. He further commented that the applicant had been informed of this and had agreed to comply with the ordinance provision relative to a freestanding sign. With regard to the applicant's request to retain existing signs facing the freeway, which exceeded the.- ordinance size limitations, the Mayor presented photographs of the signs taken by the staff. The City Manager stated that the staff did not intend to request Council action in this matter until the applicant could be afforded the opportunity to be present. The next item of business was a discussion of the status of the Brooklyn Center bus operation. Councilman Willard stated that he. had attended a meeting of the Metropolitan Transit Commission and had explained the Council's December 13th motion to request full financial support of the bus operation during an interim period after December 31, 1971 to permit the City to evaluate its ability to continue any financial support and to determine the public demand for the Brooklyn Center bus. - -6- Councilman Willard stated that the Transit Commission had, by a 5 to 4 vote, decided to provide full financial support of the bus operation through the first week in January, 1972 to allow the City time to prepare revised service and route plans, as well as fare schedules which would be submitted to the Transit Commission's operations staff for review. He stated that the Commission is relying on the results a of the Brooklyn Center bus experiment with regard to possible application in other suburban communities and that special attention is being given to the financial participation by the community. He said that the staff is currently working on a revised schedule and service plan and that after the revisions are reviewed by the Transit Commission's Operations - Staff the matter would be brought back to the Council so that the basic issue of whether the City intends to continue the bus service can be determined. The City Manager next offered comments relative to the City's pending legal action challenging the State Tax Commissioner's administrative interpretation of the 1971 Omnibus Tax Law. He stated that several organizations and communities had offered financial support for the suit and that it had been determined that additional legal counsel should be secured to aid the City Attorney in processing the legal action. He stated that Mr. Joseph Summers, a St. Paul Attorney familiar with the Ramsey County Court System as well as with community fiscal and tax matters, had been retained to serve as co- counsel with the City Attorney. Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Leary to approve the retention of Mr. Joseph Summers to serve as co- counsel with the Brooklyn Center City Attorney in processing the pending legal suit challenging the administrative interpretive authority of the State Tax Commissioner. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Councilman Heck and seconded by Councilman Leary to approve the following licenses: Food Establishment License: King's Academy Hot Lunch Program 6120 Xerxes Ave. No. Bench License: United States Bench Corporation 3300 Snelling Ave. Taxi Cab License: Town Taxi Corporation 7440 Oxford Street Heating and Air Conditioning License: Ryan Air Conditioning 9240 Grand Ave. So. Non- IntoxicatinaMalt Liquor On -Sale License: Jolly Green Giant Restaurant 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard Non- Intoxicatinq Malt Liquor Off -Sale Licenses: Brooklyn Center Country Boy 4401 -- 69th Ave. No. Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. No. Piggly Wiggly 6215 Brooklyn Boulevard Shopper's City 3600 - 63rd Ave. No. Super Va lu Stores, Inc. 5 801 Xerxes Ave. No. Cigarette Licenses: Brothers Brookdale (D. K. Carter) Brookdale Center Brooklyn Center Country Boy 4401 - 69th Ave. No. Brooklyn Center Liquor #1(Carter) 6445 Lyndale Ave. No. Brooklyn Center Liquor #2 (Carter) 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center Liquor #3(Carter) ,3rookdale Center Brooklyn Center Shell (Bill's Vending) 6245 Brooklyn Boulevard B.C. Union "76" (Bill Is Vending) 6840 Humboldt Ave. No. Brookdale DX (Bill's Vending) 6501 Humboldt Ave. No. Brookdale Motors, Inc. 2500 County Road 10 Brookdale Super Valu 5801 Xerxes Ave. No. County Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. No. -7- Cigarette Licenses (continued): R. E. Fritz (Dayton's Brookdale) 8039 Lewis Road R. E. Fritz (Dayton's Brookdale) 8039 Lewis Road Bud Holland's Mobil 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard Freeway Shell (Bill's Vending) 6545 Lyndale Ave. No. Marc's Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Boulevard N.W. Bell (A.R.A. Service) 5910 Shingle Creek Pkway Piggly Wiggly 6215 Brooklyn Boulevard Sears Roebuck (Johnson Tobacco) Brookdale Center Shopper's City 3600 - 63rd Ave. No. Wes' Standard Service 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard Gasoline Service Station Licenses: Brookdale DX Service 6501 Humboldt Ave. No. B.C. Shell Service 6245 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Service Center 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard George's Standard 6600 Lyndale Ave. No. Bud Holland's Mobil Service 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard Howe, Inc. (additional pump) 4821 Xerxes Ave. No, Langren's B.C. Mobil 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard Phillips Petroleum Co. 6548 Lyndale Ave. No. Sears Roebuck and Co. 1297 Brookdale Center Shopper's City 3600 —63rd Ave. No. Standard Solvent 4906 France Ave. No. Superamerica 1901 - 57th Ave. No, Wes' Standard Service 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager informed theCouncil that Mr. Ed Coleman, the City Civil Defense Director, had resigned and that a vacancy for that position now existed. He stated that Mr. Coleman' s resignation was accepted with regret and that Mr. Coleman had indicated a willingness to work with the City in the selection of a new director and to familiarize the new director with the position. Motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Heck to recognize Mr. Coleman's resignation and to direct preparation of a resolution expressing the City's appreciation for and recognition of the efforts and service of Mr. £d Coleman as Civil Defense Director of Brooklyn Center. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Councilman Leary and seconded by Councilman Ausen to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Heck, Ausen and Willard. Voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Council meeting adjourned at 11 :25 P.M. Clerk Mayor 8-