Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 02-10 CCP Regular Session 0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 10, 1992 7 p.m. 6:30 p.m. - Viewing of Video Tape from Council Chambers and Council Meetings from Blaine, New Hope, and Golden Valley (Conference Room A) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Open Forum 5. Council Report 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine b the City Council ill be enacted b y y 1 and w y one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed form the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 7. Approval of Minutes: *a. January 27, 1992 - Regular Session 8. Mayoral Appointments: a. Park & Recreation Commission b. Planning Commission 9. Proclamation: *a. Declaring March 15 -21, 1992, as National Middle Level Education Week 10. Planning Commission Items: (7:05 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 92001 submitted by Phillips 66 Company requesting site and building plan, special use permit approval to construct an 1,831 sq. ft. gas station/ convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. -This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 16 and January 30, 1992, meetings and denial was recommended through Planning Commission Resolution No. 92 -1. b. Planning Commission Application No. 92002 submitted by Phillips 66 Company requesting preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site an 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single- family residence to the north. -This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 16 and January 30, 1992, meetings and approval was recommended. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 10, 1992 C. Planning Commission Application No. 92003 submitted by Phillips 66 Company for variance approval from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a gas station/ convenience store /car wash approximately 28' from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50' required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. -This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 16 and January 30, 1992, meetings and denial was recommended through Planning Commission Resolution No. 92 -1. 11. Ordinances: (7:15 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Wall and Freestanding Signs in the C-2, I -1 and I -2 Zoning Districts -The City Council discussed this ordinance amendment proposal at its December 2, 1991, and December 16, 1991, meetings. The amendment reduces the amount of allowable wall signs in the stated zoning districts from the current 300 of the wall area to 15 %. The ordinance also establishes a provision to allow additional freestanding signs in these zoning districts provided the establishments agree to forego all other permitted wall signs and comply with various standards established. This ordinance amendment was offered for a first reading on January 13, 1992, published in the City's official newspaper on January 22, 1992, and is offered this evening for a second reading. 12. Discussion Items: a. Communications Task Force Update b. Agreement for Cablecastin g Services 1. Resolution Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget to Provide Cablecasting Services C. Prioritization Process for Unit 11 - City Council Budget d. Appointment of Council Member to Tri City Airport Commission e. Feasibility of Joint Meeting between City Council and Four School Districts f. Enforcement Policy for Vehicle Emission Standards Violation in Brooklyn Center g. Five -City Joint Dispatch Facility Feasibility Study 1. Resolution Authorizing Participation in a Five -City Joint Dispatch Feasibility Study and Transferring Funds h. Acquisition of House at 706 53rd Avenue North CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- February 10 1992 i. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 Regarding the Fire Department and Fire Prevention 1. Resolution Approving Amendments to the Fire Department Bylaws j. Cultural Diversity Committee 13. Resolutions: *a. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Well No. 3 Sand Removal, Improvement Project No. 1992 -05, Contract 1992 -A *b. Establishing Project, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids, Trunk Sewer Replacement under I- 94/694, Improvement Project No. 1992- 03, Contract 1992 -D *c. Authorizing an Appropriation from the Capital Improvements Fund for the City's Share of the Cost of Construction of a Joint Facility for Pets under Police Security (P.U.P.S) *d. Authorizing Replacement of Damaged Police Vehicle *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date February Io; 1992 Agenda Item Number 7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 1992 - REGULAR SESSION DEPT. APPROVAL: Patti A. Page, Dep y City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: _ � �'' g, E ' " #y No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUNDiIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 13, 1992 CITY ILALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Couneilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, City Attorney Charlie LeFevcre, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Council Secretary Carla Wirth. OPENING CEREMONIES Elaine Bernards uffcrcu the invocation, Mayor Paulson announced the birth of his daughter, MacKenzie Claudette. EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOGNITION PROGRAM The City Manager explained the Council recognizes the long -term contributions of employees on an annual basis. While awards of less than 20 years were given out by department heads, the Council had requested the opportunity to distribute awards for more than 20 years of service. This is the 13th annual presentation by the City Council of senice awards to City employees. The Finance Director provided a brief history of employee's service while Mayor Paulson distributed awards to Police Officer Richard Fryer, Police Captain Scott Kline, Police Officer Donald Spchn, Police Officer Richard Handy, and Public Works Superintendent Richard Schwab. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:10 p.m. to enjoy a reception for these employees. Thcy reconvened at 7:33 P.M. 1/13/92 - 1 - Councilmember Rosene asked Mr. Stovike if the Council's concerns were valid. Mr. Stovike stated he felt they were since stolen merchandise could be brought into the pawn shop, but an honest operator would immediately report this type of transaction to the Police Department who could then make an arrest. Mr. Stovike disagreed the immediate area of the pawn shop would see an increase, in crime since the thief would probably chose to pawn the stolen goods in a different area. He added stolen merchandise will be sold regardless of whether in a pawn shop or on the street; however, with a pawn shop, the merchandise would be reported. Mr. Stovike indicated he, would consider taking a petition around the area he was considering locating in to get input. No one else appeared to speak, so Mayor Paulson entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to clox the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Tho motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 92 -02 Mejnbcr Celia, Stott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 23 -601 THROUGH 23 -633 TO THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO PAWNBROKERS AND SECONDHAND DEALERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -15 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR PAWN SHOP AND SECONDHAND GOOD DEALERS LICENSES AND INVESTIGATIONS THEREOF The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CIIAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING WALL AN FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THE C2, I -1 AND I -2 ZONING DISTRICTS The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Wall and Freestanding Signs in the C2, I -1 and I -2 Zoning Districts. He indicated the ordinance was offered for first reading. 1/13/92 F } MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 13R00"YN C LNTEK IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 27, 1992 CITY MALL GALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:04 p.m, ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Engineer Mark Maloney, EDA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Council Secretary Peggy McNabb. OPENING CEREMONIES Helen Jacobsen offurcd the; OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had received one request to use the open forum session this evening and invited Edward Noble to address the Council. EDWARD NOBLE, 5117 XERXES AVENUE NORTH Mr, Noble advised the Council he is concerned with police and fire accessibility to the rear of the homes from Brooklyn Boulevard to Xerxes Avenue from 51st Avenue to 53rd Avenue. He requested a road be constructed for police and fire access to those lots so he can build a home on the land he owns. He felt the residents in that area are being charged for a service they need, but do not have, He stated it would be very easy to put a road through; however, the garages for the apartment building are currently in the way. Mr. Noble stated he is additionally concerned with the heavy truck traffic on Xerxes Avenue North. Mr. Noble concluded his address by advising the Council he has provided written information regarding his concerns to both Sy Knapp and Mark Parish, 2 1 27 9 - - / / 1 The City Manager advised the Council staff has been communicating with Mr. Noble on this issue, and he will provide the Council with a written summary of what has been communicated to date. Mayor Paulson inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Paulson welcomed a group of Brooklyn Center seventh and eighth grade girl scouts working on their leadership badges by attending the City Council meeting. Mayor Paulson also welcomed Mr. Genelhotka, former concilmember and former city manager, Mr. Don Poss. Councilmember Rosene advised the Council he had recently observed the City's water rescue squad practicing underwater rescue maneuvers at Twin Lakes. He. was very impressed with their abilities and felt confident they are very capable of doing an excellent job for Brooklyn Center. Mayor Paulson requested a copy of the minutes be forwarded to the members of the City's rescue squad noting Councilmember Roscne's observation and praise of their fine performance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Cohen requested item 13a be removed from the consent agenda. Mayor Paulson advised the Council staff have requested item 13e be removed. Mayor Paulson also requested the minutes from the January 13, 1992, regular session be removed from the consent agenda. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 92 -19 Mcnibcr Davc Rosenc introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER FROM ALL TELEPHONE SERVICE FOR THE PURCHASE OF OKI DISCOVERY SWITCH PHONE SYSTEM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar. The motion passed unanimously. 1/27/92 -2- LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: BOWLING ALLEYS Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N Lilac Drive FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Maranatha Place 5415 - 69th Ayonuc N GASOLINE SERVICE STATION United States Post Office 6548 Lee Avenue N NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Iten Chevrolet Co. 6701 Brooklyn BIvd. Minnesota 'Vikings Food Service 52OU West 74th Street Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway Group Health 6845 Lee Avenue N Hennepin County Service Center 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway Hiway 100 Hcalth Club 4091 Lakebreeze Avenue N Schmitt Music 2600 Freeway Blvd. Zubaz 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Iten Chevrolet Co. 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th Street Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway Group Health 6S45 Lee Avenue N Hiway 100 Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue N Schmitt Music 2690 Freeway Blvd. Zubaz 67U7 Shingle Creek Park SPECIAL. FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Liquor #1 1500 - 69th Avenue N Brooklyn Center Liquor #2 6520 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Liquor #3 1966 - 57th Avenue N Snydcr Brothers Drug 1296 Brookdale Center 1/27/92 - 3 - TAXICAB Loon Service 6843 Colfax Avenue N #1 Suburban Yellow Cab Co. 3555 Fifth Avenue S #89 -S Town Tani 2500 Washington Avenue N #77, #111, #118, #125, #127, #137, #138, #169 TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT K -Mart 5939 Earle Brower Drive The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 13 1992 - REGULAR SESSION Mayor Paulson noted the correct spelling of his daughter's name is MacKenzie. He also noted on page 11, the first paragraph, that he believed Councilmember Rosene asked Mr. Stovikc if the Council's concerns were valid. He added he would like these corrections made to the minutes. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of January 13, 1992, regular session as corrected. The motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION Mayor Paulson reappointed Agatha Eckman and Kathleen Carmody to serve on tlic Human Rights and Resources Commission through December 31, 1994. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar authorizing Mayer Paulson's reappointments to the Human Rights and Resources Commission. The motion passed unanimously. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Mayor Paulson asked that appointments to the Park and Recreation Commission be tabled for further consideration. HOUSING COMMISSION Mayor Paulson reappointed Neal Nclson, Robert Torres, Ernie Erickson, and Barb Jensen to serve on the Housing Commission through December 31, 1994. 1/27/92 -4- There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene authorizing Mayor Paulson's reappointments to the Housing Commission. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Paulson requested appointmciit, to the Planning Commission be tabled for further consideration, NORTHWEST HENNEPIN H MAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION Mayor Paulson reappointed Bettilou Christopher to scn'e on the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Advisory Commission through December 31, 1993. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene authorizing the Mayor's reappointment to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Advisory Commission. The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION BY AD HOC COMMUNICATIONS TASK FORCE Mayor Paulson introduced Dr. Fred Capshaw, President of North Hennepin Community College, and chairperson of Brooklyn Center's Ad Hoc Communications Task Force. Dr. Capshaw ad-lsed the Council he and the six task force members, Joel Andrewjeski, Jody BrandvoId, Patricia Keehr, Gale Tollin, Susan Warner, and Mike Miller, have met three times to date. He stated they have drafted a preliminary report outlining the goals /purpose of the Task Force which is to assist Brooklyn Center in advancing communication between Y g the City and its residents and work force based on the City's goals for information, involvement and identity, Dr. Capshaw reviewed each portion of the draft outline dated January 5, 1992, as contained in the Council members' agenda packets, and recommended rY g p the task force proceed with developing a communications plan based on these goals if approved by the City Council. Dr. Capshaw advised the Council members the Task Force is looking for a response to the outline and for some direction as to where the Council members felt the first and strongest emphasis should be placed. Dr. Capshaw advised the Council the Task Force unanimously supported broadcasting City Council meetings on cable television, and recommended starting with minimal expenditures and gradually improving the programming. Dr. Capshaw further recommended a full time communications position be created to market Brooklyn Center. He felt the Task Force should he involved in developing the job description for this position based on the communications plan. 1/27/92 - 5 - Councilmember Cohen thanked Dr. Capshaw for chairing the Task Force and for the presentation, and recommended the Task Farce consider holding a public information meeting to obtain input from the residents at this paint. The 'Task Force and Council could then incorporate the information obtained at that public information meeting into the communications plan, fn response, Dr. Capshaw supported the idea of holding a public information meeting; however, he indicated the Task Force is really looking for some input/direction from Council at this point, Councilmember Cohen requested that citizens have an opportunity to review the outline prior to the Task Force moving ahead with the plan. Councilmember Pedlar commended Dr. Capshaw for the fine work he and the other Task Force members have done to date and asked if they had discussed prioritizing the goals. Dr. Capshaw said they had not; and emphasized the Task Force'$ desire for direction from the City Council. Councilmember Scott expressed appreciation for the work of the Task Force and stated she felt the three portions of the outline -- information, involvement and identity -- are equally important, and need to be addressed simultaneously in order to be effective. She suggested each Council member formulate his/her thoughts on the outline, and provide them to the City Manager who in turn can provide them to the Task Force prior to its next meeting. Councilmember Rosene also thanked Dr. Capshaw for his involvement. He felt Brooklyn Center has a lot to offer, and a lot of the City's residents are not aware of what is available to them. He expressed support of both the outline as presented and the creation of a full time communications position. He felt the City is certainly heading in the right direction in maximizing communication to its residents. Dr. Capshaw expressed enthusiasm in developing and implementing the communications plan to attract residents and jobs; to maintain property values; and to promote ecuTiomic. development. The plan also includes the development and implementation of a promotional campaign with a City slogan and ]ago to instill a positive image when people hear "Brooklyn Center." The Mayor stated he had reviewed minutes from the Communications Task Force meetings, and expressed appreciation that members of this Task Force, as well as iiiembe-rs of all the City's commissions, are clearly advocates of the respective commission's purpose /function. Dr. Capshaw stated the communications plan should make Brooklyn Center an attractive place in which to live and do business, which in turn should increase revenues for the City. Councilmember Pedlar stated he was attracted to the "identity" portion of the outline as a priority because there are so many good things to promote in Brooklyn Center. Hr- said when he sees "For Sale" signs on homes in the City he wonders why residents arc moving. He hopes they are simply taking advantage of the current low interest rates and relocating 1/27/92 -6- within Brooklyn Center; but he is concerned with media portrayal of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park as being high -crime areas. He has heard residents have left the community for that reason. He felt it would definitely be advantageous if the City could somehow verify why residents move from Brooklyn Center. In response, Dr. Capshaw stated a successful communications campaign can send good messages to residents and can counteract negative media reports. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott accepting the preliminary report of the Ad Hoc Communications Task Force, The motion passed unanimously. PU1 3L , TC HEARING -- BROADCASTING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON CABLE TELEVISION The City Manager advised the Uuncil a public hearing had been schcdulcd to receive comments on a proposal to broadcast City Council meetings on cable television. A notice of the public hearing had been sent to all City advisory commissioners; the Northwest News and the Brooklyn Center Sun Post were asked to publicize the hearing. A notice had also been posted on cable television channel 37. He stated Mr. Dave Kiser of Northwest Community Television was present at the meeting to answer any questions. The City Manager presented the staff report, and reviewed the five lighting options as contained in the report. Staff and Council members discussed the five lighting options, as well as the possibility and likelihood of moving the Council Chambers to free up the existing space for much- needed office space in City Hall. It was agreed that if the Council agrees to move ahead with cablecasting, the most effective lighting option would be the interim lighting as detailed in option #2. Councilmember Pedlar expressed support of cablecasting the Council meetings, and suggested viewing some programming for quality before making any concrete decisions on lighting. Councilmember Cohen asked about a sum of money that had been provided to each metropolitan municipality by the Cable Commission to promote the cablecasting of city council meetings. In response, the City Manager stated the amount was $218,000, and it is in an interest- earning account. He added that while the Cable Commission provided the money to promote cablecasting, the cities were not legally required to spend it for that purpose. Brooklyn Center had purchased a new Counicl Chambers sound system with a portion of the funds. Councilmember Cohen also supported cablecasting Council meetings, and stated the importance of getting accurate information to residents is critical given the fact that elected officials are often misquoted in the media. He requested the Mayor open the public hearing to obtain input from residents on this matter. i 1/27/92 - 7 - Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding broadcasting of City Council meetings on cable television at 8;05 p.m. He inquired if thcrew was anyone present who wished to address the Council. KRISTIN MANN, 541 EAST TWIN LAKE BOULEVARD Ms. Mann recalled the issue of ca bl ecast ing Council meetings had been brought up a couple of years ago, and she stated she was pleased to learn the Council was once again considering cablecasting, She recommended airing surrounding communities' Council meetings, as residents can obtain useful information from those meetings as well as from Brooklyn Center Council meetings. She stated she would like to see the City Council reetings of Robbinsdale, Maple Grove, Plymouth and Golden Valley. Counci mb r Imc e Rosene asked if there were any detriments to airing other communities meetings. The City Manager said the only detriment is that it cuts into airing time of other local programming; and consequently, local program scheduling has to be worked out with the cable channel. The Personnel Coordinator advised the Council the Communications Task Force will be addressing the issue of program scheduling with Northwest Community Television. Councilmember Rosene felt it would be beneficial for residents to see neighboring communities programming as well and felt it was a matter that could best be determined by residents. DIANE LERBS, 5107 EAST TWIN LAKE BOULEVARD Ms. Lerbs su o rtcd cablecasting Council meetings. She stated it would provide an excelle nt I�p g p and conven w i nlc t ay n which residents can learn about issucs the Cit Council is addressing. She said it is often difficult to get out at night, and cablecasting the meetings would be an excellent service to residents. The City Manager briefly discussed labor costs for camera operators and a director, as well as a supervisor for the first two or three meetings. The estimated annual cyst for ihcsc services provided by Northwest Community Television based on twenty -four four -hour Council meetings is $2,100. DON PQ S. 3212 - 65TH AVENUE NORTH Mr. Foss, city manager of the City of Blaine, advised the Council he had learned of the public hearing in the local press and wanted to share his cablecasting experience with the Council. The City of Blaine has been cablecasting its Council meetings for three years. He became acquainted with cablecasting when he attended his first Blaine City Council meeting as city manager. He learned at that meeting that an individual was and had been recordin the roceedin s on a camcorder, taking the film back to the studio editing it and a iring i t P g g rm g g in the edited version hour after hour on the cables stem in Blaine. After a couple le of Y p mnnths it became clear a small group of residents was interested in seeing the Council meetings cablccast, and he persuaded the Council to do so. He felt cablecasting has greatly 1/27/92 - 8 - enhanced the structure and reputation of the Council, The feedback has been very positive; residents have observed a hardworking group of officials in a professional, well run meeting environment. He felt cablecasting the Brooklyn Center City Council meetings would easily promote the pride and positive identity Brooklyn Center is so worthy of. Mr. Pass concluded his address by stating Blaine began with simple fluorescent lighting above the Council members, and it works very well. He invited the Brooklyn Center City Council members to visit the Blaine City Council Chambers. R_ON CHRISTENSEN 610 JUNE AVENUE NORTH Mr. Christensen supported cablecasting. He felt it would: 1) keep thG Council focused on the issue at hand; 2) prevent one member from putting a consensus on the entire group because viewers could see for themselves any differences of opinion and voting on motions; 3) eliminate misquoting of Council members in the media; and 4) increase resident interest in city government. JOSEPH MANN 5415 EAST TWIN LAKE BOULEVARD Mr. Mann supported cablecasting both the Brooklyn Center City Council meetings and neighboring communities' council meetings, He asked about the need to purchase recording equipment. The City Manager advised Mr. Mann the City does have the necessary recording equipment, BERNARD ACKERSON 53RD AND FRANC, AVENUES Mr. Ackerson asked if the Council meetings would be broadcast live or taped and aired at a later date. The City Manager briefly discussed the different broadcasting possibilities, and stated the meetings would most likely be broadcast both live and then repeated a few times throughout the week, Mr. Ackerson recommended an improved sound system be installed in the Council Chambers as he had trouble hearing and understanding the Council this evening, DAN REIVA. 1707 AMY LANE Mr. Reiva advised the Council he had spoken with Mayor Paulson about advanced broadcasting technologies, The City of Bloomington, for example, has an interactive technologTy system wherein residents can phone in and order just the information they want to see. At some point in the near future, residents will also be able to order video tapes of just the information they are interested in. He stated the advantage to this type of technology is that the City could easily track the types of information people are interested in having. In response to Councilmember Cohen's question as to the cost of such technology, Mr. Reiva stated it would cost approximately $10,000 to set up a good cablecasting sybtcm in the existing Council Chambers, The advanced type of interactive technology used in Bloomington ld ost n would c between $25,000 and $30,000. 9 1 27 - / /2 - 9 Councilmember Rosene suggested the new communications staff person could certainly respond to phone calls received during Council meetings if the Council would choose to offer that type of opportunity to its residents. Councilmember Cohen expressed continued support of cablecasting and stated that even if only 100 to 200 people tune in and those people in turn each talk to five more people about a City issue, the City would certainly be making communications progress. He asked the City Manager to check into the possibility of providing an incentive or subsidy for residents to hook up to the cable system to make it affordable to more residents. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing at 9 p.m, The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Paulson recommended the Council recommend to the Ad Hoc Communications Task Force the City begin immediately to cablecast City Council meetings. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to proceed with plans to cablecast City Council meetings beginning with the February 10, 1992, meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Rosene suggested the Council members coordinate a time to visit the council chambers in Blaine, New Hope and Golden Valley as a group. He further recommended taking along a video camera to record the chambers for others to view. Following a brief discussion on staff needs to cablecast the meetings, there was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to direct staff to enter into negotiations with Northwest Cable Company to provide staff to cablecast the Council meetings, The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Paulson expressed the gratification he felt in seeing the Council members work so well together on this issue, R ECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:10 p.m, and reconvened at 9 :33 p.m. LETTER FROM BARB SEXTON, PRESIDENT OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS Mayor Paulson rend a letter he had received from Barb Sexton, President of the League of Women Voters expressing support of Cable Casting Brooklyn Center Council meetings. COUNCIL REPRESENTATION AT FUND - RAISING EVENTS Mayor Paulson suggested the Council members consider a policy on City representation at fund- raising events. He recommended the Council discuss it at a future meeting. 1/27/92 - 10- RESOLUTION HONORING MOLLY 'VfALECKI, CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Paulson advised the Council the Planning Commission is lflannii18 a reception honoring Molly Malecki's years of service on the Planning Commission. After having served many years as a member of the Planning Commission, and having served as chair for the past three years Molly has decided to give up her service. The reception will be Thursday, January 30 following the Planning Commission meeting which begins at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Paulson felt it would certainly be great if the Council members could attend RESOLUTION NO. 92 -20 Member Phil Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICTED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MOLLY MALECKI The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 QF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO RF011IRE A MINIMU S EPARATION BETWEEN CERTAIN EARLY MORNING/24 HOUR CO OPERATIONS AND SINGLE - FAMILY AND TWO- FAMILY DWELLINGS IN R1 AND R2 ZONING DISTRICT" The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Require a Minimum Separation betwccn Certain Early Morning/24 Hour Commercial Operations and Single - Family and Two - Family Dwellings in R -1 and R -2 Zoning Districts for a first reading, The Council had discussed amending this ordinance at its January 13, 1992, meeting; and the ordinance amendment reflects the Council's discussion from that meeting. Councilmember Cohen requested that a copy of the ordinance amendment be sent to the new executive director of the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Chamber. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the eight points in the amendment on which the Council had provided direction. The City Attorney stated the ordinance clearly states businesses that are affected by this are made nonconforming only with respect to their hours of operation. The busincsae5 may expand in physical size and operation, but they cannot expand their hours of operation into the prohibited hours, 0 1/27/92 The Director of Planning and Inspection presented an overhead transparency and reviewed the properties and businesses that will be affected by the amendment. He advised the Council public hearing notices will be sent to all affected property owners and businesses, as well as to the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Cohen requested maps highlighting the affected properties and businesses be. sent along with the public hearing notices. The Director of Planning and Inspection agreed to this request. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Require a Minimum Separation between Certain Early Morning/24 Hour Operations and Single - Family and Two- Family Dwellings in R -1 and R -2 Zoning Districts and setting a public hearing date of February 5, 1992, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. REQUEST FROM AMERICAN LITTLE LEAGUE FOR USE OF LAND IN GARDEN CITY PARK The City Manager presented a request from American Littic Lcague for use of land at the south, end of Garden City Park as an additional Little League playing field. The request was initially made by Mr. Les Thurs, President of the American Little League, at the November Parks and Recreation Commission. The land they are requesting is currently a soccer/football field which is used very little, if at all. One of the fields the leas ue owns repeatedly flood throughout the baseball season. In addition, a third field is leased from Brookdale Christian Center Assembly of God Church and could be lost at anytime. The City Manager presented an aerial map of the area, and recommended scheduling a neighborhood meeting to discuss the matter, as he anticipates objection ftom neighboring residents from past experiences. Councilmember Scott stated that when the third field was added the neighbors were concerned about traffic, parking, and noise. She strongly recommended the Park and Recreation Commission hold a neighborhood meeting to address these types of concerns. The City Manager passed around some photographs of the flooded fields, and the Council members agreed there is a definite need for more adequate playing fields for the American Little League. Mayor Paulson invited Mr. Les Thurs, President of the American Little League, to address the Council. Mr. Thurs presented statistics of the American Little League. He stated it has grown from 26 teams to 40 teams over the last eight years. Over 600 games have to be scheduled and played within the three -month summer period; three reliable fields are essential. 1/27/92 - 12 - Mr. Thurs stated the American Little League intends to fully build and pay for the field; there will be no cost to Brooklyn Center. The Council and Mr. Thurs discussed the deteriorating condition of the soil in the area, and the long -range plans of the American Little League. In response to the Mayor's question as to whether or not the requested land space is also sinking, the City Manager stated that while it is further above the flood plain, sinking is certainly possible. Mr. Thurs stated they will basically be moving from the ball field/playing area from the southern portion of the park area to the northern portion of the park area which is actually further away from the neighboring homes. The Mayor invited Roxanne Bridges, 6712 Emerson Avenue, to address the Council Mrs. Bridges strongly supported the American Little League's request for use of the additional land space to provide improved playing conditions for the tcalus. She did, however, request the City Council include in the lease agreement some type of stipulation that the girls' program be continued, rather than be divided up as has been discussed by the League. The City Attorney stated a provision could be included in the lease agreement on a complaint basis, whereby the provision would only be enforced if the City received complaints on the matter. In response to Mrs. Bridges' concerns and comments, Mr. 'Thurs stated the American Little League does not intend to eliminate any of the girls program. They would like to forin another charter and then requcst to play inter - league. Presently, girls from the National League area in the southern part of the City are playing in the American League because they do not have the room to add a National League girls' program. The American Little Lcague plans to form another charter from the National Little League and then apply for inter- league play. The Council members discussed this request, and agreed to support it. Following a brief discussion Uri ensuring both the boys' and girls' programs are improved equally, Councilmcmbers Pedlar and Cohen reminded the Council the issue before the Council a request for use of City park land, rather than ensuring equal time for boys and girls. The law clearly states there shall be equal opportunities for boys and girls; it would not have to be written into a lease agreement. There was a motion by Councilmembcr Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen recommending the Park and Recreation Commission hold a public hearing for the purpose of obtaining citizen response to the American Little League's request for use of land in Garden City Park as a baseball field. The motion passed unanimously. 1/27/92 - 13 - DISCUSSION ITEMS SELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING PROCUR MENT OF FNCTINEER NG SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting the Report of the Selection Committee for Procurement of Engineering Services for the Development of a Water Management Plan and Approving Execution of a Contract for Said Services with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. The development of Brooklyn Center's Water Management Plan was formally initiated at the Council meeting of November 18, 1991, by adoption of Resolution No. 91 -265, The Director of Public 'Works advised the Council the selection committee consisted of himself; William Monk, Crystal City Engineer; and Charles Lenthe, Blaine City Engineer. Brooklyn Center Engineer Mark Maloney also served as a non - voting member. He then reviewed the selection committee's selection process. The Selection Committee had received six proposals in response to the RFP; reviewed them all; narrowed them down to three; interviewed the final three; and then selected Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. The Director of Public Works reviewed the proposal rating summary used in the process as well as the consultant evaluation form. The Director of public Works reviewed the two areas of cost -- Phase I includes data collection /inventory, problem identification, priority ranking of problem areas, and scoping of phase II work, phase II would then consist of detailed planning and cost analysis to resolve problems, according to the previously adopted priority list. This proposed contract with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc, is for Phase I only. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., have estimated Phase I services not to exceed $83,818; and Phase 11 is estimated at approximately $60,000 for a total of $143,818, well within the City's $150,400 estimate and budgeted amount for this project. Mayor Paulson asked for a comparison of the estimated dollar figures of the other bidders. In response, the Director of Public Works said the selection committee's recommendation is based not only on cost, but the contents of the study. Of the three firms interviewed for Phase I, the lowest estimate was approximately $70,500; second was $76,000; and Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., was third at $83,000. He also pointed out that while higher on Phase I, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., was lower on Phase II, see there was a bit of a crossover. The selection committee felt that one of the reasons ne Anderlik and Associates Inc. was high wa that the cast of Bonestroo, Rosc g s the fact that they propnsed a very high level of citizen participation and involvement in the development of this study compared to the other firms. If the cost of citizen participation would be taken out of the proposed cost, it would be similar to the other firms. 1/27/92 - 14- In response to Mayor Paulson's request for the differences between the content of the three proposals, the Director of Public Works stated the City's RFP had required at least two public information meetings. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., had included those two public information meetings, plus the mailing of a questionnaire to every resident in the City. The study also included formation of a task force which would include resident members. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., also included in its proposal a review of the study with other engineers to get independent opinions. In addition, they will prepare monthly articles for the City newsletter. The Director of Public Works stated Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., was very heavy on the city involvement. In addition, the selection committee felt the firm is very well qualified from a technical standpoint. Councilmember Pedlar stressed the need to use in house resources. He felt there were several areas included in the proposal where in house staff could be used. In response, the Director of Public Works stated he certainly plans to use City staff for some of the work, and there is a contingency in the draft Professional Services Agreement between the City and Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., addressing this issue. The project engineers from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., Mr. Robert Schunicht Principal in Charge of the Project, and Ismael Martinez, the Project Manager, presented an overview of their proposal. Mr. Martinez felt state -of -the -art water planning processes inspire community commitment to quality water resources. He advised the Council the proposed plan has beeii tailor designed to meet the needs of Brooklyn Center, and includes; 1) citizen involvement; 2) balancing rcdevelopmcnt issues which results in proactive water quality planning; 3) experienced planning approach which assures implementation is affordable; and 4) detailed reports and review which results in a valuable community management tool. In addition, peer review enhances the quality of the plan; and maintenance oriented solutions are the key to successful plan implementation, Councilmember Cohen asked how the plan interfaces within the Shingle Creek Watershed District and how it works with other communities. In response the Director of Public works stated every city is required by State law to develop a local water management plan by approximately July 1, 1993. The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) has determined what must be contained in each of the local plans. Compliance with the BWSR requirements and Shingle Creek and West Hennepin Water Management Plans and Guidelines is a provision of the proposed contract. well presented ap to be above and beyond 1 w very e 1 re e ed � May Paulson felt the an as s MaY P rY P PP Y what is required. He questioned where the plan is on the City's list of priorities, and lie felt. $83,000 for a written report seemed excessive. He felt consideration should be given to the least expensive proposal. 1/27l92 - 15 - I In response, the Director of Public Works said he, staff and the other members of the selection committee felt the recommendation to go with Bonestroo, Rosenc, Auderlik and Associates, Inc., ensures a good workable plan that will be technically correct. The bottom line is going to indicate the need for spending millions of dollars for needed improvements, and the City needs the best possible report as to what the costs of construction are going to be. Councilmember Cohen supported the recommendation, but recommended the proposed resolution authorizing the project be amended to include the maximum dollar amount of Phase I to be $83,818. Councilmember Rosene expressed support of the proposal, and stated that while he appreciates frugality, he felt the City would be better off to have the best plan available. Councilmember Scott supported the recommendation, and stated several times over the years the City has gone with the lowest bidder only to end up with worthlrNs reports, most of which were not even understandable. She felt confident going with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -21 Member C_'.clia ~Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption subject to being amended to include the maximum dollar amount of the Phase I contract amount to be $83,818. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE REPORT OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR PROCUREMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROVING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR SAID SERVICES WITH BONESTROO ROSENE A.NDERLIK &t. ASSOCIATES, INC. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Phil Cohen. The motion passed unanimously. AN ORDI ADDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING TREE The City Managcr presented An Ordinance Adding Chapter 20 of the City Ordinances Regarding Trees for a first reading, and advised the Council the ordinance had been revised as requested by the Council at its January 13, 1992, meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve for first reading An Ordinance Adding Chapter 20 of the City Ordinances Regarding Trees and setting a public hearing date of February 5, 1992, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 1/27/92 - 16- RFP FOR EXECUTIVE_COMP NSATION STUDY The City Manager presented a Request for Proposals for a Compensation Study of Executive Positions, Councilmember Pedlar reviewed the RFP and pointed out the original RFP dated January 13, 1992, was included in the agenda packets as well as a revision dated January 27, 1992, which includes clarification of item A in the Compensation Study Objectives section of the RFP; the addition of job descriptions as an item in B in the Scope of Work section; and the addition of a new item DA in the same section. In addition, he stated item B under Compensation Stttdy Objectives on page one should be amended to read: "To obtain detailed metro region market data and compare it to the City of Brooklyn Center data." Item D -5 under Scope of Work on page two should be amended to read: "Make both a written report and oral report to the city council of your findings." Councilmember Pedlar stated the RFP as presented would provide the City an opportunity M develop good salary ranges for both good qualified incumbents and candidates to ensure the City will be paying them an adequate salary that meets the standards of the region. He asked for the Council's consideration of the RFP as presented. He stated he had spoken with Mr. Don Poss, who is the city manager at Blaine who supported the executive compensation study. Councilmember Cohen expressed thanks to Councilmember Pedlar for his work on this request for proposal and for getting it all sorted out. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott authorizing the Request for Proposal for a Compensation Study of Executive Pu ~lulls dated January 27, 1992, and as amended by Councilmember Pedlar. Mayor Paulson also expressed appreciation to Councilmember Pedlar for working on the RFP. He, however, felt the Stanton Study had plenty of information in it with which to make an evaluation of the executive positions. He expressed the need to first determine policy before setting salary ranges. He felt spending money while trying to save money is counter productive, and he said he would oppose the motion. The motion passed with Mayor Paulson 'T' mo p y opposed, ADMINISTRATIVE TRA COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUIT RELATING TO AC: 'IDENT AT BUS STOP The City Manager presented the recommendation of the Administrative Traffic Committee regarding a personal injury lawsuit relating to an accident at an MTC bus stop in June of advised he Council members the City's attorneys sou 1988. He ad t Co ty ht and obtained an out -of- y g court settlement with the plaintiff. He advised the Council the Administrative Traffic Committee has reviewed the City's policies regarding siting of MTC bus stops, and recommends that a policy change be made to reduce the City's liability should future accidents occur, 1/27/92 - 17- The City Manager stated the logical response following this incident is for the City to come to a liability agreement with the MTC to eliminate the City from being exposed to this type of liability. In the event an agreement with the MTC is not attainable, he recommended the Council consider removing the MTC signs posted within the City to eliminate the liability risk associated with them. Councilmember Scott asked how other communities handle this matter. In response, the City Manager stated he had not spoken with other communities, as hu preferred to meet with the MTC prior to making it a metro wide issue. Councilmember Pedlar asked if there are similar liability risks /situations the City should be concerned with and obtain hold harmless agreements. In response, the City Manager said staff is presently looking into this issue. The Director of Public Works advised the Council this is the only situation wherein the City has installed a sign at the request of another agency. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to work with the MT'G to further define options and come to a mutually acceptable agreement. The Mayor expressed dismay in the City's response to this incident, and stated he felt the City had been negligent in this case as it had clearly been given the responsibility of posting the sign. He felt at issue here, once again, is the manner in which the City responds to matters as they arise; and rather than focusing on this particular incident, staff should thoroughly review and improve the City's policy of responding to issues. He felt policies need to be developed to thoroughly address both sides of issues. He stated he would oppose the motion, and he encouraged the Council to do the same. The City Manager stated this matter goes back quite some time; and it was in response to a specific request from the MTC. The MTC had just taken over thu transit system and was changing over all the signs to MTC. The City did not site the location of the sign, it merely posted the sign on a County road as requested by the MTC. Councilmembers Pedlar and Scott withdrew their motion and second respectively, and a lengthy discussion ensued on how to adequately and properly address this matter. Mayor Paulson recommended a more positive approach of determining with the MTC what criteria make a bus stop safe, and then examining the safety at each existing site. Councilmember Pedlar questioned the City's safety expertise to make such determinations, and felt a better approach would be to eliminate or minimize the City's exposure by requiring the MTC to hold Brooklyn Center harmless. 1/27/92 - 18 - In response, the City Attorney stated the Court of Appeals had already determined the City undertook a duty to put the sign in a safe place, and the City has now learned it can be responsible for this type of decision. Councilmember Cohen reminded the Council this is actually a risk management issue. He felt the staff recommendation was a responsible action; and suggested the Mayor become involved in working it out with the MTC. Mayor Paulson felt it would be in the City's best interest to retain the responsibility of posting signs. He felt it is a City problem, and he was disappointed the City was foisting it off an another agency, He suggested if the City truly felt it is not a City responsibility, the matter should be brought to court rather than settled. The City Attorney stated the Court of Appeals had already made the decision that as long as the City continues to past signs, it does have a duty of reasonable care. In response to Councilmember Rosene's suggestion to take it to the Supreme Court, the City Attorney stated that had already been done. The Supreme Court had concluded the Court of Appeals was Correct. When the City participates in the placement of this kind of sign they take up a ditty to exercise a certain level of care in doing that duty. in this particular case, the City stopped in where it wasn't legally obligated to do so, but in doing so it took up a duty of care. Councilmember Rosene suggested proposing new legislation addressing the duty of care issue. The City Attorney said under Minnesota Statutes the State has given immunity in certain cases. There are still some categories; such as snow and ice removal, where the Legislature recognizes that the municipality continues to be immune. There is a short list of eight or nine categories where sovereign immunity continues; however, he felt it would be a long shot that posting signs would fit into one of those categories. The Mayor again suggested the City examine both its policy and the safety of the existing bus stops within Brooklyn Center. In response, Councilmember Cohen asked if the Mayor was suggesting a traffic safety expert be hired. The City Attorney stated even a traffic expert could not guarantee the City would not be sued. Following additional discussion on drafting a mutually acceptable motion, there was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen directing the Mayor, City Manager and the City's Legal Counsel to meet with the MTC to discuss and resolve this issue, keeping in mind the need to eliminate the City's exposure to liability. The motion passed unanimously. 1/27/92 - 19- LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The City Manager presented the Legislative Update for discussion. Councilmember Cohen briefly reviewed the proposed legislative update materials as contained in the CounCil members' agenda packets, and recommended the Council consider a resolution accepting the legislative update at the next Council meeting so it can be presented to the legislative delegation by the end of February at the latest. The City Manager advised the Council staff is in the process of setting up a meeting with Representative Carruthers and Senator Luther to go over the legislative update; and the Council will be advised of the date, time and location as soon as it is arranged so Council members may plan to attend if they so desire. RESOLUTION APPROVING PAY EQUITY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT Councilmcmber Cohen withdrew his request to have agenda item 13 -a, a Resolution Approving Pay Equity Implementation Report, removed from the consent agenda, and requested it be brought back to the Council as a discussion item after it is adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -22 Mrtmber Phil Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PAY EQUITY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 69TH AVENUE PHASE 11 IMPROVEM PROJECT NO. 1990 -1 Q, CONTRAQ - ,r NO. 1992 -B AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for 69th Avenue Phase II Improvement Project No, 1990 -10, Contract No. 1992 -13, and Directing Advertisement for Bids. He advised the Council Short- Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc., had completed preparation of plans and specifications for improvements to 69th Avenue between Brooklyn Boulevard and West Palmer Lake Drive; however, staff had requested the resolution approving the plans be removed from the consent agenda because of the recent development of a crack near the centerline of the surcharge area through Palmer Lake. The Director of Public Works distributed a memo to the City Manager and Council members outlining this development. He reviewed the memo in detail, and advised the Council that based on discussions and recommendations of the consultants (STS and SEH, Inc_) and staff, he recommended Council consider the resolution authorizing the plans and specifications so staff can proceed. He will keep the Council informed as information becomes available. 1/27/92 -20 - Councilmember Scott asked if the surcharge area had settled gradually as it should have, would it have settled as much as two feet. The uirector of Public Works stated it would have settled a lot more.. Councilmember Rosene recommended moving ahead as planned as he didn't feel the soil problem should prevent the City from getting started on the improvement project between West Palmcr Lake Drive and Brooklyn Boulevard. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -23 Member Dave Rg5cnc introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: R'F.90LUTION APPROVING PLNINS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 69TH AVENUE PHASE II IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10, CONTRACT NO. 1992 -B, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott. The motion passed unanimously. RET OF BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE CHIEF JIM LINDSAY The City Manager read a letter he had received from Police Chief Jim Lindsay announcing his plan to retire from service effective September 12, 1992; his last day of work will be September 11, 1992. Copies of the letter were distributed to the Council members. The City Manager stated that while retirement will certainly be a wonderful experience /opportunity for Mr. Lindsay, he will certainly be missed. The City Manager advised the Council the early notice will provide the staff and Council a good deal of time to hire a qualified replacement. He has asked the Personnel Coordinator to prepare a recommended plan for hiring a replacement, and staff will review the recommended plan with the Council to allow for timely execution of the replacementihiring process. ADJOURNMENT Thcrc was a motion by Councilmember Rosene, and seconded by Mayor Paulson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 12:35 a.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Prey M�,Naah Northern Counties Secretarial Service 1/27/92 -21 - CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Pcbruary 10 0. . 1992 Agenda Item Number y REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS DEPT. APPROVAL: Cc, IPCL Patti A. Page, De ty City Clerk MANAGERS REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Charles Rickart PLANNING COMMISSION Barbara Kalligher Jill Sherritt RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION The Mayor has recommended appointment of these people to the stated commissions. AP Pt- I.ICA T ION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSIO Name 2. Address ` '� L z_� ti c� Phone 3 . How long have you been a resident ? 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: - '' -tL.. i -Z -.� - ✓ -i V�-+7 "�.l �l �t�C'"li' i ,! L ,T:l , �,! ., ' ,.., /` ✓C! f 7';: I.r , ,t C ,,��y -?n continue on back- - J 5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Commission: / ✓r _ continue on back - C 6. Are you familiar with the purpose, authority, and responsibility of the Commission as described in the Zoning Ordinance? Yes No 7. Are you aware of the importance of regular Commission meeting attendance (normally twice a month on the 2nd and 4th Thursday nights) , and do you feel you have the time available to be an active participant? Yes No Comments: � Date S igna to Submit to: Mayor City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 /i'� J,, � ! ^/� �/ (�• i� L L, L 1/ =- � 4 =� C �' ;�'7 ---T., / �!% -� ? n v , ( ,� _ . � , �� uL,T, L,L i� �'�1 G G/L ?J Y J� ✓ � �u �/1 �'✓�{ .iL��i �(�'�/ :> / J(�(� �'� • % //(, j�l�J ; Vl�I � // f_���CC',�� `'` � f �` —�``-� l;G�- �.l.�f�% C��.:? 3'L� t��r�� 't�GC:I �%��,.s�� �' �' �• 1 GLj ��:�`iyC� k:../C.�ry'� ,',✓L i �i / � t�� CAL 'C/L � L / �! G Li/�iI'``/ �`,' 1 ,��: � ` %� c��'�( i 7 � 'y= C��t/4� 3 Lk ' r j A PPi,ICAT IC�1 FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOT;LYN CENTER PI ANNII\TG ADVISORY COMMISSION 1. Name 2. Address Phone 0 3. How long have you been a resident? 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: }l�C.�L i /7Li na ( s�C `71 l'1ct� �t1C l t - continue on back - 5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Commission: f( - continue on back - 6. Are you familiar with the purpose, authority, and responsibility of the Commission as described in the Zoning Ordinance? Yes -1 / No 7. Are you aware of the importance of regular Commission meeting attendance (normally t-.-,-ice a inonth on the 2nd and 4th Thursday nights) , and do you feel you have the time available to be an active participant? Ye s i/ he No Comments: Signa Lure Da to Submit to: Mayor City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 January 22, 1992 Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mayor Paulson, I understand that there are several openings on the city's Planning commission. I would like my name considered for appointment to the planning commission. As a community and neighborhood advocate I am well aware of the issues of land use that come before the commission. Having resided in Brooklyn Center for 9 years I also have seen the community age and change. I was the former President of the Brooklyn Center Community Action Group. This position gave me free access and a comfortable rapore with citizens. The planning commission will have to consider ordinance changes, rezonings, and appropriate land uses to accommadate community redevelopment. I beleive I would be a good addition to the planning commission team. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 535 -5870. Sincerely, Jill Sherritt cc: Gerald Splinter Ron Warren Celia Scott Phil Cohen Jerry Pedlar Dave Rosene January 15, 1992 Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Honorable Mayor Paulson: Enclosed please find a copy of my application for appointment to the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission. I have been a resident of Brooklyn Center for approximately two and one -half years and have been impressed with the quality of life the city has established within the community, through its planning activities. I would like to take an active role in maintaining the quality of life the city has so well established, by becoming involved in city activities such as the Park and Recreation Commission. My background in civil engineering and experience with conservation and environmental issues give me a strong background to provide the City Council direction in park and recreation matters. Should you have any questions or would like to meet with me, please give me a call at work (332 -0421) or home (561- 7522). Thank you for your consideration of my application. Sincerely, Charles T. Rickart 3408 66th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 CTR:dmv Enclosure APPLICATION [APPLCO�LM] FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Name - 7, >2i� Address (a P�\ 0 C - Street Zip Code Telephone Home 5 P " - 7-5 Z , ?— Work X 0 2 I Occupation � yle- 91J61�L'EP. Yea=s lived in Brooklyn Center Z ] ('2— am interested in serving on the: _ Park and Recreation Commission Park Service Area Committee Either I have read the Park and Recreation Commission Enabling Resolutions (Resolution Nos. 73 -25, 77 -52, and 87 -133), which defines the purpose, authority, and responsibility of the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission and the Park Service Area Committees. Yes No Comments A ��TC2or 1( �-� a� t1 costa i t�tj :Tia�.1«�s) %3G T�t� G N L -oQ A r Loc -Ar_ Tv7 }lF?J 'Zt r.LETiO,J Garr.rrtN ' St JL Rs 77tA7- Cr r , k" mENGtt7%o�S Cri /�SukS Lrt�c. -T Ta I understand the importance of regular Commission /Committee meeting attendance and participation and feel I have the time available to be an active participant. Yes X No Comments nW Try iLonzy o hfA s 1 mi VE2•� Pr- T?V , r .moo eTP—j< F?-� 60c.vuL r+I t .L —b Additional comments on my interest, experience, background, ideas, etc. F A ✓c� jZCrG¢i. A"TwrJ tai k+^S DL.'JeL.roFe:' p , Skre'je>:' 0r-j Yy �ZiTltP 7 I Yi�2� Fl•lf �R�t•r �l (`�,�ti „ r lfAs f� , tinFo,�T/t -i ±f1GiC 7O ltirt�a TA�r.1 T11� Ci�Ai.�T� i •���.T�ts r�,y1p �fJILUc -, CLTL /�ftS 7b r 7ftvJ S FG �c wi7fi in L- x( - t:�lis �Gt Fl <. Al tnJltl3 (vL� t C,1 irtc o4T t— UC t fc"J u i2t<.R C.tirTto;,iaci r�c.T�t ftt3 x L�cu�O 0�3�Gc C�.�� 1,jr 7-0 7 Y-- T'f+rlL I ¢ez-QEta.'T'Q'D Ne Signature Date Submit to: Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date February ►o. 1992 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 15-21,1992, AS NATIONAL MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION WEEK DEPT. APPROVAL: qaa� Patti A. Page, Depu City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEMENDATION: V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION qal PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 15 -21, 1992, AS NATIONAL MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION WEEK WHEREAS, middle level education has a special and unique function in the nation's educational system; and WHEREAS, early adolescents are undergoing dramatic physical, social, emotional, and intellectual growth, and are especially vulnerable; and WHEREAS, the habits and values established during early adolescence have critical, life -long influence; and WHEREAS, this influence impacts directly on the future health and welfare of our nation; and WHEREAS, an adequate public understanding of the distinctive mission of the middle level school is necessary for that mission to succeed. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of March 15 through March 21, 1992, as National Middle Level Education Week, and that the public be afforded special opportunities to visit middle level schools and participate in programs that focus on the nature of early adolescents and celebrate the ways in which our nation's schools respond to their needs and to the needs of the nation. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor Attest: Deputy Clerk f rr � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2110192 AL%:nda 11cm Number • xacxx:kie%e:;e ae �!eae�K:k:k?c �e ye �kMxieiexicxae acM�xxMicic�= :kx>i= �:xxM>k >k ae >K *a;exx>: ::cri:xicxx>;e >e REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDF',RATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOM MENDATION: v No comments to supplement this report Comments helow/attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X • MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 16, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The 1991 Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:47 p.m. ROLL CALL 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Bertil Johnson and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Commissioners Sander and Bernards were out of town and were excused. Chairperson Malecki called for a moment of silence in recognition of Commissioner Lowell Ainas who had passed away recently. Following the moment of silence, the Secretary pointed out that the City Council had adopted a resolution of appreciation for Commissioner Ainas' service on the Planning Commission and that resolution would be transmitted to the family. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 5 1991 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the December 5, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the 1991 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. CALL TO ORDER 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1992 Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki. ROLL CALL Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Chairperson Malecki noted that the Planning Commission members and the Chair have not been appointed for the 1992 year and that it would be appropriate to wait on the selection of a Chairperson Pro tem until that Chairperson has been appointed. APPLICATION NOS. 92001, 92002 and 92003 (Phillips 66 Company) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first three items of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1831 sq. ft. gas station /convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing 1 -16 -92 1 r Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard; a request for preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single- family residence to the north; and a request for variance approval from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a gas station /convenience store /car wash approximately 28 feet from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50 feet required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports for all three applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 92001, 92002 and 92003 attached). The Secretary also pointed out that although the property to the north is zoned C1, the staff recommend a screening device be provided in that location. He noted that a masonry wall was recommended in the PDQ case and that the Planning Commission may want to consider such a device here though the circumstances are somewhat different. The Secretary also noted that the City Engineer has yet to review the grading and drainage plan and that a condition relative to that plan should remain in effect. The Secretary stressed that the canopy faces cannot be backlit although the stripe on the building can be backlit provided it complies with the provisions for wall signery. The Secretary pointed out that the City Council has directed staff to prepare an ordinance to prohibit 24 hour operations near R1 and R2 land and that this property would be affected by such an ordinance. The Secretary pointed out that to allow the abutment between the service station and the R1 property to the west would constitute a use variance and that is the reason for the transfer of a triangle of land to the property to the north in order to eliminate this abutment. Regarding the variance application, the Secretary stated that the standards for a variance must be met and he felt there was some significant question as to what the affect would be of a variance approval on similar situations on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the joint meeting with the City Council in October discussed the major thoroughfare setback etback and that not a lot of g desire for change seemed to come out o that meeting. He stated g t f tang } that approval of a variance might in effect change the ordinance. g g The Secretary also pointed out the possibility for allowing for a lesser setback as part of a Planned Unit Development. He stated that the site in question is not a Planned Unit Development, but, that if it were a part of a larger area, it could be considered a Planned Unit Development. He concluded by saying that the Commission has to look at this particular parcel and this particular development and must consider the effect that a variance would have on other areas of the boulevard. Commissioner Holmes asked whether 69th Avenue North was going to be widened. The Secretary responded that there are plans to do so in the future. He stated that the 18' dedication will accommodate future widening and it is not needed for the present intersection improvement related to the City project east of Brooklyn Boulevard. 1 -16 -92 2 Commissioner Holmes asked what .as proposed for the neighborhood and whether homes were to be bought up. The Secretary responded that the Comprehensive Plan recommends redevelopment to C2 or general commerce of the blocks on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard back to June and Lee Avenues. He pointed out that the homes on Brooklyn Boulevard are nonconforming and that the Comprehensive Plan recommends redevelopment back to Lee Avenue. He noted that the City is not acquiring property at this time, but that the matter could be pursued privately. He stated that if the City were to pursue a redevelopment, it could use its condemnation powers, but that it is not involved as yet. In response to another question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that the homes on Lee Avenue are not nonconforming and that they can expand under their R1 zoning designations. He stated that the City has adopted a policy of withholding rezoning until a rezoning redevelopment plan is brought forth and found acceptable. Commissioner Holmes asked what is a "regulatory taking of property ". The Secretary stated that a taking occurs when a person is denied the reasonable use of their property and that it requires compensation under the Constitution. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jon Baccus, of Phillips 66 Company, explained to the Commission that Phillips had bought the property last May and that they understood that the climate might not have been right to pursue a development of this corner. He stated that Phillips preferred to develop the property in the spring rather than wait three to five years for developments to change on this block. Mr. Baccus explained that the plans have been prepared over the last two years with significant input from the City staff. He stated that there has been a fair amount of give and take over that time and that the plans have changed to accommodate staff concerns. He stated that they were advised that they would have to dedicate 18 feet of right -of -way along 69th Avenue North. He then showed the plan to the Planning Commission. He stated that the fencing on the north side of the property would be provided and that Phillips actually wants to do this. He also stated that curb and gutter would be provided as required. He showed the Commission pictures of the site as it presently exists and also pictures of other Phillips stations in the metro area. With respect to the variance request, Mr. Baccus stated that he felt that setbacks could be met if not for the dedication required off 69th Avenue North. He showed the Commission a plan that was submitted last summer with the car wash traffic moving in a counter clockwise direction entering off Brooklyn Boulevard and stacking in front of the car wash, exiting out toward 69th Avenue North. He stated that the dedication of additional right -of -way for 69th made this plan impossible. He concluded that Phillips could have a car wash and meet building setbacks if no dedication were required. 1 -16 -92 3 He, therefore, concluded that it was indeed the requirement of right -of -way dedication that caused the variance. Commissioner Mann asked Mr. Baccus what the intended hours of operation for this station would be. Mr. Baccus responded that they preferred a 24 hour operation and that they are not restricted in this respect in other locations. Commissioner Mann inquired as to the trench drain whether it would serve as a debris trap. Mr. Bill Anderson of Phillips 66, explained that silt would be caught in the trench drain and that water would overflow into the sanitary sewer. He stated that the drain would be cleaned out periodically to prevent silt from entering the sanitary sewer. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the project could be feasible without a car wash. Mr. Baccus responded in the negative. He stated that everyone who builds a service station builds a car wash with it. He explained the process that Phillips went through and analyzed the location in terms of its demographics and prices of gas in the area, etc. He stated that the lack of a car wash would affect gasoline sales at this location. He added that Phillips probably would not build the station without a car wash. The Secretary pointed out that the reason for the review by Hennepin County has to do with the fact that the property is being re- platted. He stated that the County also wanted 18' to 20' of right -of -way off Brooklyn Boulevard, but were willing to forego this request. He stated that when Brooklyn Boulevard is widened, right -of -way will be taken from one side or the other in all likelihood. The Secretary stated that if the request for right -of- way is the cause for a variance, the matter should be taken up with Hennepin County. He stated that he did not feel it was appropriate for the City to grant a variance because of right -of -way taking. The Secretary stated that the property is not being denied its use. He stated that the station could be fixed up, h not expanded P g P or rebuilt. He pointed out that the use of the property is nonconforming because of its abutment with R1 land to the northwest. The Secretary stated that the time simply may not be right to bring about a redevelopment of the property. He added he p p Y saw no roblem in waiting until development plan is 1 an appropriate riate d velo p g pp p P p submitted. Commissioner Holmes asked Mr. Baccus whether Phillips 66 had a standard sized lot that they used to develop this type of service station. Mr. Baccus responded that Phillips had developed the same facility on a 21,000 sq. ft. lot. Commissioner Holmes expressed concern regarding the 24 hour operation with the car wash. Mr. Baccus noted that the house next door is vacant and is not zoned residential anyway. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the hours would be the same for the store and the car wash. Mr. Baccus responded in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 92001 91002 and 92003) 1-16-92 4 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on all three applications submitted by Phillips and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding any of these applications. Mr. Bob Grosshans, of 6920 Lee Avenue North, addressed the Commission briefly. He stated that he had been a resident in the area for 23 years and had seen development take place over that time. He stated that he felt the granting of a variance would be a serious precedent, especially a variance to the extent being sought. He stated that others may ask for a similar type of variance on Brooklyn Boulevard. Ile added that Brooklyn Boulevard may be widened, thus making the shallow setback even shallower. Ms. Vicki Rau, the owner with her husband of the Holiday Express service station across 69th Avenue North, stated that she was opposed to any special use permit or variance for the proposed operation. She stated that when they had proposed their service station some years earlier they wanted more pumps, but were denied. She stated that they had given 15' of right -of -way without any compensation. She also stated that they had desired to put a car wash in their facility, but that staff had recommended against it. She stated that she did not see why Phillips 66 should be granted a special use permit or variance for things they had been denied. She added that she had been advised by City staff not to buy land at 63rd Avenue North which had a similar R1 abutment. She stated that she did not see how Phillips 66 could get what it is asking for when they were turned down for various items. She added that they have a store in New Hope and that there have been noise problems with the car wash near a residential neighborhood. Mrs. Rau stated that Phillips had indicated it was willing to take a risk. She stated that the first step in developing one's property is to check with the city. She stated that Phillips apparently had been willing to take a risk that they might be denied their use and went ahead and bought the property anyway. She stated that they created their own hardship. The Secretary stated that he did not disagree with Mrs. Rau, but also pointed out that she had the right to pursue the same sort of consideration as Phillips 66. He stated that he did not believe the staff had treated the Raus' differently from Phillips 66. The Secretary added that he did not feel the variance should be granted on the grounds of dedication of right -of -way. Mr. Dave Nelson, a party interested in re- developing this block, then briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that the city needs a re- development at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and that this is a good proposal. He stated that the Phillips plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area. He stated that he would try to buy homes on the block if the Phillips deal goes through. He recommended moving buildings closer to Brooklyn Boulevard in order to provide a buffer between them and the residential uses to the west. He concluded by saying again that 1 -16 -92 5 the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the report from the Maxfield Research Group. Chairperson Malecki asked whether anyone else present wish to speak regarding the applications. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann stated that the variance bothered her. She pointed out that the Planned Unit Development requires the minimum of one acre and that there is not an acre in this proposal. She stated that it would be good if homes were acquired and the lot were re- developed. She also recommended looking at the setback on Brooklyn Boulevard with an eye to possibly reducing that setback. Commissioner Johnson stated that the City had looked at Brooklyn Boulevard from Highway 100 North and that it has difficult problems with the Boulevard. He stated that his own experience is that you wait and it is difficult to comply with City regulations when a new development is proposed. He stated that the City wants development to look good, but asked how long the City should wait for a complying development. He wondered whether another 20 years would pass before something concrete happened. He stated that a 28 foot setback seems pretty tight to him, that he looked across the street and he would like to start over in this area. Commissioner Holmes stated that it was time to address the whole issue of redevelopment in this area. He stated that he did not like the variance request. He stated that one difficulty with this site is that cars would come out onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the existing gas station was not a heavy traffic generator and felt that the proposed station might overtax the site especially with a car wash. As to the triangle of land at the northwest corner of the property to be transferred, he stated that it seemed like a quick fix. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Holmes if he was in favor of the variance. Commissioner Holmes responded in the negative. Commissioner Johnson asked what was the position of the City with respect to the setback. The Secretary answered that the Planning Commission could certainly recommend a change to the setback requirement if it felt that it was appropriate. He stated that he felt that the proper procedure was to look at the variance first and that, if the variance is appropriate, the Commission can recommend the plat application as well. He stated that the staff did not recommend ordinance language but he felt that an ordinance amendment might well be more appropriate than a variance. He stated that he did not believe that the variance standards were 1 -16 -92 6 met. He also stated that it .could be important to be consistent with the treatment of the Raus ". He admitted that staff had recommended against the car •:;ash at the Holiday Station, but added that he did not feel that it fit in this location either. The Secretary asked the Commission whether they wanted buildings along a heavily traveled high speed roadway to be close to the street or set further back. He stated that a judgement has to be made not only for this property but for others as well. He stated that he did not believe that the direction from the joint meeting with the City Council was for an ordinance amendment. Chairperson Malecki stated that she felt that there was some openness to the idea. She stated that the 28 foot setback proposed by Phillips does not seem adequate and that she did not want other buildings to be closer. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern regarding safety. He stated that cars will likely wait to get out onto Brooklyn Boulevard and that the whole operation will get backed up. The Secretary stated that the backup of cars would be on the Phillips property and would not be on the public street. Therefore, it would be their problem. He stated that the county could disallow any access onto Brooklyn Boulevard but that is a tough position with this property. He stated the City 1 y was not at a point that it could deny access to this parcel. Chairperson Malecki asked how large the triangle of land was that was being transferred. The Planner indicated that it was about 400 square feet. The Secretary pointed out that the C2 buffer adjacent to R1 property should be 35 feet. He admitted that the triangle is contrived although it eliminates the abutment and the requirement for 35 foot buffer. Chairperson Malecki asked whether it would be appropriate to rezone the triangle to C1. The Secretary stated that it could be done, but that the entire area could also be rezoned to C2. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary indicated that the triangle would be sodded if the development is approved. In response to another question from Chairperson Malecki regarding the gas station at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard, the Secretary pointed out that there is R1 property across 63rd. The Secretary stated that staff had told both the Rau's and Phillips that re- development of their properties would be difficult. Commissioner Mann stated that she felt the use proposed was acceptable but did not feel that the variance standards were met. Mr. Dave Nelson stated that re- development of the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard site would bring in other development to that block. He stated that the plan being proposed would create a larger buffer than exists now and that it would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He admitted that there were some difficulties in developing an ideal plan but that the proposal was an 1 -16 -92 7 i improvement over the existing service station. He stated that the dedication of right -of -way was for the 69th Avenue project. The Secretary stated that was not his understanding but that it was for a future widening which the County may pursue at a later date. Mr. Nelson asked why the dedication was asked if it was only for future widening. The Secretary stated that it was for that reason, which was the same reason as the Raus' had to dedicate 8 feet from their property. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, the Secretary pointed out that there are a host of uses that would fit the Comprehensive Plan and would also be consistent with R1 abutment. There followed a brief discussion as to how to handle the application. It was agreed no one favored a variance. The Secretary recommended a resolution be brought back recommending denial. Commissioner Johnson stated that denying the variance won't solve the problem. He stated that he was not comfortable with denying something without providing a way for something to be built. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NOS. 92001 92002 AND 92003 WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to table applications 92001, 92002, 92003 and to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial on the grounds that the standards for variance were not met. Commissioner Mann also expressed a desire that ordinance language be developed to propose a reduced setback. The Secretary stated that he preferred to make such a suggestion to the City Council but that the direction for such language come from the City Council itself. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: None. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of re- development in the area and the meeting schedule for April, there was a motion by Commissioner Mann, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Chairperson 1 -16 -92 8 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 92001 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1,831 sq. ft. gas station/ convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the northeast by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by 69th Avenue North, on the west by the Northwest Residence group home, and on the northwest by a C1 zoned single- family residence. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C2 zoning district. They are not permitted to abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property, either at a property line or at a street line. The present service station site abuts an R1 zoned single - family residential property along the northwest 30' of the site. This abutment renders the existing service station a nonconforming use. A companion application, No. 92002, is a preliminary plat which proposes to transfer a small triangle of land from the northwest corner of the existing service station site to the site of the C1 zoned residence to the north. This transfer will eliminate the R1 abutment and allow for the service station redevelopment. Access /Parking The proposed site plan calls for three accesses to the site (one being strictly an exit drive from the car wash), two off Brooklyn Boulevard and one off 69th Avenue North. All accesses have been proposed at 30' in width. The Hennepin County Transportation Department has advised that the car wash exit drive be no wider than 24 It is to be signed "exit only." All access and utility work related to this development will require permits from Hennepin County since both Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue North are County roads. The plan provides for nine (9) regular parking stalls, including five (5) parallel stalls, and at least two stalls at the pumps. The ordinance requires 11 stalls for the first 2,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or fraction thereof. Three stalls are to be located at the southeast corner of the site; two parallel stalls along 69th Avenue North; one handicapped stall in front of the store; and three parallel stalls off a bypass lane north of the car wash. It is possible to count at least two stalls at the pump islands. The parallel stalls are proposed at only 20' in length instead of the required 24 The applicant has indicated they will revise the plans to provide longer stalls. 1 -16 -92 1 Application No. 92001 continued In addition, the plan shows stacking for at least five cars for the car wash. Six is recommended and is perhaps barely possible without blocking the access off 69th. Car wash traffic will move in a clockwise direction, stacking on the west side of the site and moving through the car wash on the north side of the site. The plan calls for four pump islands beneath a canopy to the south of the main building. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for numerous shrubs, three Black Hills Spruce trees, five Red Splendor Crab trees and two Pagoda Dogwoods. No shade trees are proposed. The plantings are to be located in perimeter greenstrips which are to be sodded and irrigated. The total point value of all plantings is 73 landscape points. The point system requires only 53 points. Given the need for visibility to and through the site, the heavy reliance on shrubs is probably acceptable. The Pagoda Dogwoods are not really considered a shade tree, though their proposed size is large (2.5" diameter). The locations of the Dogwoods would be logical for shade trees, but the Dogwoods are acceptable, we believe. The original plan calls for a 6' high ivy- covered chain link fence along the west and north property lines. Staff have indicated this is unacceptable and the applicant has agreed to provide an opaque fence in these locations to serve as a screening device. Grading /Drainage /Utilities The submitted grading plan is unacceptable in that it drains most water (precipitation) off the site rather than containing it on site and conveying by storm sewer to the City's storm sewer system located beneath 69th Avenue North. The applicant has agreed to revise the plans which should be available for the Commission's agenda packets. No utilities have been shown yet, but this too should be provided _in time for the Commission's review. The plans show a large catch basin inside the car wash and a trench drain on the exit from the wash, but does not show where these drains lead. The utility plan will provide this information. The plan submitted does not show B612 curb and gutter around the building. We have conveyed to the applicant that curb and gutter is the community standard and they have indicated that it will be provided if required. Curb and gutter is indicated around the perimeter of the lot. Building The building consists of a car wash, sales room, office and a storage room, as well as restrooms accessible from the exterior. The building itself is a prefabricated metal building with stone facing. There is to be a metal fascia band with a red stripe around the top of the building. The canopy over the pump islands 1 -16 -92 2 Application No. 92001 continued is to have a similar treatment. Staff have informed Phillips 66 that the canopy faces may not be backlit inasmuchas this would constitute separate freestanding signs. No information has been submitted on the freestanding sign, which is not part of this application. The canopy and building are to have a consistent Pp pY g exterior treatment all the way around. The plan proposes a 5' sidewalk around the sales building. Phillips has indicated that it is not their policy to store items outside. Therefore, a 5' wide sidewalk should be adequate for pedestrian traffic. We would recommend a condition with this application, prohibiting any outside storage or display of products or other materials on the sidewalk around the sales building. Lighting /Trash Site lighting is provided by seven pole mounted lights, 16' high, at various locations around the site. The photometric plan shows illumination to 5 foot candles crossing the property lines in various locations onto residential property. The luminaires are proposed at 400 watt metal halides. We have requested reducing those wattages to 250 watts to reduce light spillage off the site. The applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with this request. He has also informed us, however, that Phillips' lights are generally tilted up to direct light onto the site. We have expressed concern that the lights will then emit unwanted glare off the premises. We recommend that the light fixtures be required to focus downward. Even though this may not focus light intensity onto the site, it should reduce glare. Lights under the canopy will be flush with their mountings rather than crowned, thus reducing glare. The trash enclosure is to be 8' x 12' x 6' high of a masonry block. It was proposed at the northeast corner of the lot, but will be relocated to the area west of the building to make more room for the parallel stalls along the north side of the property. Special Use Standards The proposed gas station /convenience store /car wash is a special use under Section 35 -322 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. As such, it must meet the five standards listed in Section 35 -220.2 of the ordinance (attached) . The proposed service station should enhance the general public welfare and should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. We do not believe the service station will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor will it substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The establishment of the service station will not impede the normal and orderly 1 -16 -92 3 Application No. 92001 development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The service station development is consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan that this block be redeveloped with commercial retail type uses. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Particularly the car wash stacking nd the general circulation pattern implicit in the site g g p P layout is probably the best that can be achieved on this limited site. Finally, the service station will have to conform to the applicable regulations of the C2 zoning district. This cannot be accomplished unless the setback variance sought under Planning Commission Application No. 92003 is granted. Therefore, approval of this application is dependent upon a favorable action on Application No. 92003. Recommendation Approval of this application is contingent on approval of the accompanying plat and variance applications. We recommend that the Commission consider all these applications together. If either of the other applications does not meet with your approval, then some and perhaps substantial alteration of the plans would be necessary or the applicant may seek a hearing before the Council on these plans. If the Commission feels that the applicant's submittal is acceptable and is, indeed, the best design that can be achieved on this site for this use, then it may recommend approval. Approval should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 1 -16 -92 4 Application No. 92001 continued 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The special use permit is issued to Phillips 66 for the construction and operation of a gas station /convenience store /car wash. No other uses are comprehended. Any expansion or changes to the use will require an amendment to this special use permit. 12. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 13. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 14. No outside storage or display of merchandise or other materials shall be permitted on the sidewalk around the sales buildings. It shall be kept clear as a pedestrian walkway. 15. The faces of the canopy shall not be backlit in any way. Lighting under the canopy shall be completely recessed or shielded. Pole lights shall focus directly downward. 16. Plan approval acknowledges parking spaces at the pump islands for at least two vehicles. 1 -16 -92 5 Application No. 92001 continued 17. The plans shall be modified prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate the following: a) A grading and utility plan containing all precipitation on site and conveying it by storm sewer to City storm sewer in 69th Avenue North. b) The northerly access onto Brooklyn Boulevard shall be narrowed to 24 C) Parallel stalls shall be lengthened to 24 d) The wattage of the light fixtures on poles around the site shall be reduced to 250 watts and the fixtures shall focus light directly downward, not outward. e) An opaque fence or wall shall be indicated along the west and north sides of the site. f) Northwest and Southwest building elevations shall be provided. 18. All utility and access work comprehended by the development must be performed under Hennepin County permit. Submitted by, fj l Gary Shallcross Planner A roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 1 -16 -92 6 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 92002 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single - family residence to the north. The properties in question are zoned C2 (service station) and C1 (residence) and are bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the northeast, by 69th Avenue North on the south, by the Northwest Residence group home and a single - family home on the west and by a C1 zoned, single- family residence on the northwest. The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to transfer a small triangle of land from the northwest corner of the service station site to the C1 residence site in order to eliminate the abutment of the service station site with the R1, single - family residence site to the west. The abutment renders the service station a nonconforming use and would prevent any rebuilding of a service station on the site as is proposed under Application No. 92001. The proposed plat is simply a two lot subdivision to be known as Cady Addition. Lot 1 is the mostly C1 lot with a single- family home. Its area is to be 9,648 sq. ft. The minimum lot area for a C1 lot adjacent to a major thoroughfare is one acre. However, because no C1 development is proposed, and because the land being added to this parcel is zoned C2, not C1, we do not feel this lot requirement should be imposed with this subdivision. Lot 2 is the service station site and is to be 28,785 sq. ft., or .66 acre. If there is an issue with this application, it may be whether the triangle to be conveyed from the service station parcel to the C1 lot to the north is of an appropriate size or not. Staff have recommended that the triangle be as large as possible. However, to make the triangle much larger than proposed would affect the site layout in such a way that the bypass land and /or parking would be reduced. Eliminating the car wash would allow for a larger triangle, but with the car wash, the triangle is about as big as it can be. It should be pointed out that the site plan calls for a 5' buffer on the service station property. Assuming that the transferred triangle remains undeveloped, it adds an average of about 15' more to the buffer area. Aside from the fact that service stations are not allowed to abut R1 property, the minimum buffer for a general C2 use adjacent to Rl property is 35 The triangle technically eliminates the requirement for this buffer, but we feel some attention should be paid to buffer requirements when the size of the triangle is considered. 1 -16 -92 1 Application No. 92002 continued Another matter that should be noted is the dedication of land for 69th Avenue North right -of -way. The site plans show a dedication of 18' of right -of -way as requested by Hennepin County. However, the plat submitted to date does not show this dedication. We have raised this issue with Phillips 66 and they have indicated a willingness to dedicate the requested right -of -way. We await a revised preliminary plat as of the writing of this report. Recommendation This redevelopment project cannot be approved without some transfer of land along the lines proposed by the applicant. If the Commission is inclined to recommend approval of the development, approval of the plat also is recommended and should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate a dedication of right -of -way for future widening of 69th Avenue North of 18' in width. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner A roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 1 -16 -92 2 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 92003 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a gas station/ convenience store /car wash approximately 28" from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50' required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. Brooklyn Boulevard is classified as a major thoroughfare because it is a county road. The property in question is located at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and is the subject of Application Nos. 92001 and 92002. The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance may be granted after demonstration by evidence that the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240 of the ordinance are met. The applicant, in the person of Jon Baccus, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the standards for a variance are met. The applicant's arguments and staff response pertaining to each standard are contained below: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Applicant: "Because of the particular physical surroundings and shape of the specific parcel of land involved, a particular hardship to Phillips would result if the 50" building setback standard is imposed. The tract is relatively small, being approximately 29,000 square feet. Furthermore, the tract is very irregular. The site would become even smaller with the dedication of an 18' wide strip along 69th Avenue, which City staff has advised would be required to secure any redevelopment approval. The dedication would involve approximately 3,500 square feet with an approximate value of $60,000. "Phillips initially proposed its standard layout, but Phillips subsequently learned the City would require the dedication of land which rendered its layout impossible. Since then Phillips has worked with City staff and furnished them with numerous proposed layouts. Phillips has produced every conceivable layout which would still enable it to have a reasonable chance to obtain a reasonable return on such a sizable investment and compete with i 1 -16 -92 1 i comparable state of the art facilities in Brooklyn Park. The proposed layout which gives rise to the variance request is a special design to accommodate the dedication. It addresses more City staff concerns than the other layouts, and all other conceivable layouts would require more than one variance. "Phillips request is not based upon an attempt to avoid a situation of mere inconvenience. Unless Phillips is not required to dedicate 18' along 69th Avenue, is granted the requested variance, is granted other variances, or some combination thereof, it will be deprived of its intended use of the property. Furthermore, the existing circumstances make redevelopment into any higher and better use than the existing use infeasible." Staff: The applicant appears to reason that the need for setback variance from Brooklyn Blvd. results from the required dedication of land for 69th Avenue North. It also results from attempts to meet staff concerns with the site layout. Those concerns had to do primarily with stacking for the car wash, parking and circulation. They also related to variances for greenstrips, etc. The applicant is correct in stating that the proposed layout meets the most staff concerns regarding the layout while still providing a full gas station /convenience store /car wash facility. We must point out, however, that the setback deficiency relative to Brooklyn Boulevard is not caused directly by the dedication of land for a widening of 69th Avenue North, but is more directly a result of providing proper stacking for the car wash facility. This raises the question, which the applicant has not explicitly addressed, as to whether a car wash facility is indeed a necessary component of this development. Apparently, Phillips 66 feels it is necessary "to have a reasonable chance to obtain a reasonable return on such a sizable investment." To meet the 50' setback requirement will probably require either other variances or the elimination of the car wash. If the car wash is eliminated, the value of the land may be somewhat adversely affected. This raises a question as to whether the denial of a variance could constitute a regulatory taking of property. It should be pointed out relative to the takings question, that the land would still have substantial value and that there is no car wash presently located on the site. It is, therefore, not something which is being "taken away." (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "To the best of Phillips' knowledge the conditions upon which the application for a variance is based, taken as a whole, are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, 1 -16 -92 2 and are not common to other property within the same zoning classification. Phillips does admit, however, it has been advised the City has given some consideration to reducing front setback requirements in certain locations along Brooklyn Boulevard in order to encourage redevelopment. Based upon this, Phillips assumes there are other parcels with situations similar to one condition upon which Phillips' application is based; that being there is insufficient depth from Brooklyn Boulevard, coupled with a large 50' setback requirement, for redevelopment to be feasible." Staff: This parcel is fairly unique in shape, but the real reason for the variance application is the lack of depth off Brooklyn Boulevard which, as the applicant notes, is not really a unique condition. It is one of the reasons the City's Comprehensive Plan recommends that redevelopment go back to the next street beyond the Boulevard so that adequate lot depth can be achieved. We have discussed redevelopment of this entire block with Mr. Dave Nelson, but he does not control any of the properties at this time. Redevelopment of this corner parcel must, therefore, be considered on its own merits and within the constraints of that parcel. It should be pointed out that it is anticipated that other C2 parcels, as well as other parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard, would like to take advantage of a lesser building setback on the same basis as Phillips 66 is proposing. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "Phillips' hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance and /or the requirement that it dedicate its property along 69th Avenue. The hardship has been created by the apparent need for right of way for any future expansion of 69th Avenue, by the particularities of the tract of land, and by the ordinance." Staff: We would argue that the hardship, if there is one, is only minimally related to the requirement of right -of -way dedication for 69th Avenue North, if at all. The inability to meet the setback arises from the insufficient depth of the lot and the need for car wash circulation and stacking. The ordinance probably cannot be met with a rational design as long as the car wash is a part of the redevelopment plan. Since the car wash is proposed by the applicant and is not a requirement of the ordinance or the parcel of land, the hardship may be caused at least in part by the applicant's business plans. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 1 -16 -92 3 Applicant: "Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. If the other portions of Phillips' redevelopment request are approved, granting the variance will enable an obsolete, unattractive facility which creates a negative image to be replaced by a new, attractive, state of the art facility." Staff: There are other buildings in this neighborhood which have substandard setbacks. These are located primarily on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard on both sides of 69th Avenue North. The proposed variance is fairly substantial, amounting to a 44% reduction from the required setback. While the new facility may improve the visual environment at this corner, it is generally hoped that redevelopment will bring properties into conformance with ordinance requirements, not move in the opposite direction. This is not to say that variances should not be considered in a redevelopment package. It is more difficult to fit into a pre- existing parcel than to arrange the environment to suit a proposed use. The proposed setback is not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, but most of that neighborhood is increasingly deemed to be obsolete. From a functional perspective, it is less than desirable to have cars exit a car wash and enter almost immediately onto a major thoroughfare. We doubt that the site can be designed much differently without sacrificing stacking space and /or rational circulation and /or greenstrips and other setbacks. The proposed plan is probably about as good as can be achieved for a gas station/ convenience store /car wash on this parcel. What the Commission will have to advise the Council on is whether the compromises that have been made in this design are fair or whether the car wash simply overtaxes the site, as evidenced by the substandard setback. Recommendation Ideally, the proposed development would be part of a redevelopment plan for the entire block and land would be available to meet required setbacks. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. The proposal relates to a single parcel on a busy corner. This does not mean, however, that the Commission must accept a plan that overbuilds the site. The proposed plan certainly puts as much activity on this parcel as it can possibly accommodate. The Commission is urged to look carefully at the plan and to take all relevant testimony from the applicants and from other notified property owners. If, after consideration of the plans and relevant testimony, it is felt that the proposal overtaxes the site, we would recommend a tabling of the application, either for the applicant to revise plans or for staff to prepare a resolution of denial. If, on the other hand, the Commission feels that the design is appropriate and the activities contemplated can be accommodated on the site, then approval of the variance should be part of the package approving this development based upon a determination that all of the Standards for Variances are met. We 1 -16 -92 4 will be prepared to help develop language related to the variance standards if that is the Commission's wish. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Diector of Planning and Inspection 1 -16 -92 5 4 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JANUARY 30, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 16 1992 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of the January 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Sander and Bernards. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 92001 92002 AND 92003 (Phillips 66 Company) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request by Phillips 66 Company for site and building plan and special use permit, preliminary plat and variance approval to construct a gas station/ convenience store /car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary noted that these applications were considered by the Planning Commission at its January 16, 1992 meeting and that the applications were tabled with direction to prepare a resolution of denial on the grounds that the standards for a variance are not met and that the development proposal, therefore, cannot be approved as submitted. The Secretary then reviewed the draft resolution regarding all three applications and reviewed the grounds for denial. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the plat could not be approved. The Secretary stated that it was part of the development proposal package that included the plans and variance request. He stated that it could be pursued separately and that comment could be made on it if that were done. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the applications would go to the City Council at their next meeting. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He noted that the City Council has adopted an ordinance regarding altered plans. He stated that if the applicant wishes to revise plans, he should do so now, rather than spend the time of going to the Council and then being referred back. Commissioner Bernards asked whether any changes were in the offing. The Secretary responded that there was no indication of that. 1 -30 -92 1 Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jon Baccus, of Phillips 66 asked the Planning Commission to consider all of the aspects of the proposal. He s-_xted that Phillips 66 could go back to the old plan that was submitted last summer, but were told at that time that dedication of right -of -way would be required. He stated that the dedication of the right -of -way requires a variance and thus, the variance request was submitted. He added that he did not think Superamerica could put their building on this site. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mr. Baccus noted that the plan that he showed the Planning Commission was different from that which was formerly submitted. He stated that this plan had been developed last summer, but that they were told that right -of -way would have to be dedicated and that the plan became impossible without a variance. The Secretary asked Mr. Baccus whether he wanted to resubmit a different plan. Mr. Baccus stated that the plan needs a variance because of the right -of -way dedication. The Secretary stated that the staff's position is that the dedication can be made and that a service station can be built on the site though perhaps without a car wash. He added that the redevelopment of the property with a service station use requires the replat in order to eliminate the abutment with R1 property at the northwest corner of the site. He explained that this proposed replat was reviewed by the County which would require the right -of -way dedication. There followed a discussion between Mr. Baccus and the Secretary regarding the right -of -way dedication and the various plans that have been submitted. Mr. Baccus asked the Commission to consider the plat separately. The Secretary reviewed the recommended conditions for the preliminary plat and stated that staff could recommend approval of that application with those conditions. He stated that the Commission would then have to omit any mention of the preliminary plat from the resolution. Commissioner Johnson asked where the requirement of 18' of right - of -way dedication came from. The Secretary responded that, to transfer the triangle of land at the northwest corner of the site, the property must be replatted. He stated that the replat of the property would go to Hennepin County and that Hennepin County would impose the requirement for right -of -way dedication. He stated that staff had simply informed the applicant ahead of time that this right -of -way dedication would be required. Commissioner Mann asked if there were no replat, would the dedication of right -of -way not be required. The Secretary stated that staff would want to discuss such a right -of -way dedication, but that the requirement really comes about as a result of the plat. Commissioner Bernards asked why Phillips would want an action on the plat at this time. The Secretary responded that it was probably because any redevelopment of the site with a service station would have to eliminate the abutment with R1 property and 1 -30 -92 2 thus, the replat is necessary in the long run. .-Ir. Baccus stated that some investment has already been made in the replat and that they would just as soon see it followed through to completion. Commissioner Sander noted that the minutes indicated that this was to be a 24 hour operation. The Secretary pointed out that there has been a first reading of the ordinance to limit the hours of operation of commercial establishments within 200 feet of R1 and R2 property. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that this operation would be affected if the ordinance is adopted and it would not be able to be open between midnight and 6:00 a.m. There followed a brief discussion of the proposed plat and the possibility of eliminating mention of it from the resolution. ACTION ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 WITHOUT REFERENCE TO APPLICATION NO. 92002 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 Commissioner Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NOS. 92001 AND 92003 SUBMITTED BY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Sander and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. The following voted against: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 92002 (Phillips 66 Company) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 92002 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate a dedication of right -of -way for future widening of 69th Avenue North of 18' in width. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 1 -30 -92 3 ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:05 p.m. It is noted that this was the last meeting of Chairperson Malecki. A resolution of appreciation was presented to Chairperson Malecki following the meeting by Mayor Todd Paulson. Chairperson 1 -30 -92 4 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NOS. 92001, AND 92003 SUBMITTED BY PHILIPS 66 COMPANY WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001, 92002, and 92003 were submitted by Phillips 66 Company seeking site and building plan and special use permit, preliminary plat, and variance approval for a gas station/ convenience store/ car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Blvd.; and WHEREAS, Section 35 -240, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the four standards for a Variance listed in said section of the Ordinance are met; and WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Commission at its January 16, 1992 regular meeting during which a public hearing was held and testimony regarding the request was received; and WHEREAS, the site and building plans cannot be approved without a concurrent approval of a setback variance from Brooklyn Blvd.; and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated no willingness to alter its plans to meet setback requirements; and WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the proposal in light of the staff report, testimony received, and the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240.2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend that Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001 and 92003 be denied on the grounds that the applicant has not demonstrated by evidence that the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240.2 have been met. Specifically, the Commission finds that the standards are not met on the basis of the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that it is economically infeasible to develop the property without a car wash and thereby meet required setbacks. A gas station /convenience store was developed approximately two years ago by another company at 66th Ave. N. and Highway 252. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 } 2. The circumstance of a shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Blvd. is not unique. Many, if not most, lots along Brooklyn Blvd. are of insufficient depth to accommodate certain types of commercial development. It is necessary to either fit the development to the limitations of the site or to acquire more land to provide greater lot depth from Brooklyn Blvd. 3. The hardship experienced by the applicant is self - imposed by the applicant's requirement to have a car wash as part of its development. 4. Granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Blvd. If some relaxation of the setback along Brooklyn Blvd. is called for, it should be pursued with an ordinance amendment rather than with variances. BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission that based on the foregoing, it is determined that the standards for a variance contained in section 35 -240.2 of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. Without approval of a variance, the development plans and special use permit also cannot be approved. January 30, 199 Date Chairperson ATTtST. Secretary The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Sander, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Wallace Bernards, Ella Sander, Bertil Johnson and Mark Holmes and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 211019 Agenda Item Number 0— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION e �kMM�c �c (e �e �cae �c �e �c �e �c xcae�c}c�;e�!c ��K axM�icM x�!c �cMMMYe �c TC x�!c >kx acxx ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 92001 - Phillips 66 Company k�kkk�k�kk> k�! e�k�kKkk e�c c>! c> kyc>; c> k k> kx �' c! c�! c, ycac:! c: k% F�>; c:! cKa,' cicxx�xx�; c> K�:<>,< x�c�cxxx�c * * * * * * * * * * �k�k�k DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: Gr No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X e Planning ommission A p p lication No. 92001 submitted b Phill g pp Y s 66 p is a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1,831 sq. ft. gas station/ convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 16 and January 30, 1992. Attached for the Council's review are minutes, information sheets, various drawings, a map of the area and a copy of Planning Commission Resolution 92 -1 from those meetings. Recommendation Denial of the application is recommended through Planning Commission Resolution 92 -1. e MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JANUARY 30, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 16 1992 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the minutes of the January 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Sander and Bernards. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 92001 92002 AND 92003 (Phillips 66 Company) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request by Phillips 66 Company for site and building plan and special use permit, preliminary plat and variance approval to construct a gas station/ convenience store /car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary noted that these applications were considered by the Planning Commission at its January 16, 1992 meeting and that the applications were tabled with direction to prepare a resolution of denial on the grounds that the standards for a variance are not met and that the development proposal, therefore, cannot be approved as submitted. The Secretary then reviewed the draft resolution regarding all three applications and reviewed the grounds for denial. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the plat could not be approved. The Secretary stated that it was part of the development proposal package that included the plans and variance request. He stated that it could be pursued separately and that comment could be made on it if that were done. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the applications would go to the City Council at their next meeting. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He noted that the City Council has adopted an ordinance regarding altered plans. He stated that if the applicant wishes to revise plans, he should do so now, rather than spend the time of going to the Council and then being referred back. Commissioner Bernards asked whether any changes were in the offing. The Secretary responded that there was no indication of that. 1 -30 -92 1 Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jon Baccus, of Phillips 66 asked the Planning Commission to consider all of the aspects of the proposal. He stated that Phillips 66 could go back to the old plan that was submitted last summer, but were told at that time that dedication of right -of -way would be required. He stated that the dedication of the right -of -way requires a variance and thus, the variance request was submitted. He added that he did not think Superamerica could put their building on this site. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mr. Baccus noted that the plan that he showed the Planning Commission was different from that which was formerly submitted. He stated that this plan had been developed last summer, but that they were told that right -of -way would have to be dedicated and that the plan became impossible without a variance. The Secretary asked Mr. Baccus whether he wanted to resubmit a different plan. Mr. Baccus stated that the plan needs a variance because of the right -of -way dedication. The Secretary stated that the staff's position is that the dedication can be made and that a service station can be built on the site though perhaps without a car wash. He added that the redevelopment of the property with a service station use requires the replat in order to eliminate the abutment with R1 property at the northwest corner of the site. He explained that this proposed replat was reviewed by the County which would require the right -of -way dedication. There followed a discussion between Mr. Baccus and the Secretary regarding the right -of -way dedication and the various plans that have been submitted. Mr. Baccus asked the Commission to consider the plat separately. The Secretary reviewed the recommended conditions for the preliminary plat and stated that staff could recommend approval of that application with those conditions. He stated that the Commission would then have to omit any mention of the preliminary plat from the resolution. Commissioner Johnson asked where the requirement of 18' of right - of -way dedication came from. The Secretary responded that, to transfer the triangle of land at the northwest corner of the site, the property must be replatted. He stated that the replat of the property would go to Hennepin County and that Hennepin County would impose the requirement for right -of -way dedication. He stated that staff had simply informed the applicant ahead of time that this right -of -way dedication would be required. Commissioner Mann asked if there were no replat, would the dedication of right -of -way not be required. The Secretary stated that staff would want to discuss such a right -of -way dedication, but that the requirement really comes about as a result of the plat. Commissioner Bernards asked why Phillips would want an action on the plat at this time. The Secretary responded that it was probably because any redevelopment of the site with a service station would have to eliminate the abutment with R1 property and 1 -30 -92 2 thus, the replat is necessary in the long run. Mr. Baccus stated that some investment has already been made in the replat and that they would just as soon see it followed through to completion. Commissioner Sander noted that the minutes indicated that this was to be a 24 hour operation. The Secretary pointed out that there has been a first reading of the ordinance to limit the hours of operation of commercial establishments within 200 feet of R1 and R2 property. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that this operation would be affected if the ordinance is adopted and it would not be able to be open between midnight and 6:00 a.m. There followed a brief discussion of the proposed plat and the possibility of eliminating mention of it from the resolution. ACTION ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 WITHOUT REFERENCE TO APPLICATION NO. 92002 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 Commissioner Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NOS. 92001 AND 92003 SUBMITTED BY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Sander and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof. Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. The following voted against: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 92002 (Phillips 66 Company) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 92002 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate a dedication of right -of -way for future widening of 69th Avenue North of 18' in width. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 1 -30 -92 3 ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:05 p.m. It is noted that this was the last meeting of Chairperson Malecki. A resolution of appreciation was presented to Chairperson Malecki following the meeting by Mayor Todd Paulson. Chairperson 1 -30 -92 4 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NOS. 92001, AND 92003 SUBMITTED BY PHILIPS 66 COMPANY WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001, 92002, and 92003 were submitted by Phillips 66 Company seeking site and building plan and special use permit, preliminary plat, and variance approval for a gas station/ convenience store/ car wash at 6901 Brooklyn Blvd.; and WHEREAS, Section 35 -240, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the four standards for a Variance listed in said section of the Ordinance are met; and WHEREAS the application was considered b the Commission onsider pp Y at its January 16, 1992 regular meeting during which a public hearing was held and testimony regarding the request was received; and WHEREAS, the site and building plans cannot be approved without a concurrent approval of a setback variance from Brooklyn Blvd.; and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated no willingness to alter its plans to meet setback requirements; and WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the proposal in light of the staff report, testimony received, and the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240.2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend that Planning Commission Application Nos. 92001 and 92003 be denied on the grounds that the applicant has not demonstrated by evidence that the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240.2 have been met. Specifically, the Commission finds that the standards are not met on the basis of the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that it is economically infeasible to develop the property without a car wash and thereby meet required setbacks. A / as station convenience store was g developed approximately two years ago by another company at 66th Ave. N. and Highway 252. �- RESOLUTION NO. 92 -1 2. The circumstance of a shallow lot depth off Brooklyn Blvd. is not unique. Many, if not most, lots along Brooklyn Blvd. are of insufficient depth to accommodate certain types of commercial development. It is necessary to either fit the development to the limitations of the site or to acquire more land to provide greater lot depth from Brooklyn Blvd. 3. The hardship experienced by the applicant is self - imposed by the applicant's requirement to have a car wash as part of its development. 4. Granting a variance for this redevelopment project would set a precedent for other redevelopment in this area and all along Brooklyn Blvd. If some relaxation of the setback along Brooklyn Blvd. is called for, it should be pursued with an ordinance amendment rather than with variances. BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission that based on the foregoing, it is determined that the standards for a variance contained in section 35 -240.2 of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. Without approval of a variance, the development plans and special use permit also cannot be approved. January 30, 199 Date Chairperson ATT Secretary The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Sander, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Wallace Bernards, Ella Sander, Bertil Johnson and Mark Holmes and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 16, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The 1991 Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:47 p.m. ROLL CALL 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Bertil Johnson and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. It was noted that Commissioners Sander and Bernards were out of town and were excused. Chairperson Malecki called for a moment of silence in recognition of Commissioner Lowell Ainas who had passed away recently. Following the moment of silence, the Secretary pointed out that the City Council had adopted a resolution of appreciation for Commissioner Ainas' service on the Planning Commission and that resolution would be transmitted to the family. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 5 1991 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the December 5, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the 1991 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. CALL TO ORDER 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1992 Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki. ROLL CALL Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Chairperson Malecki noted that the Planning Commission members and the Chair have not been appointed for the 1992 year and that it would be appropriate to wait on the selection of a Chairperson Pro tem until that Chairperson has been appointed. APPLICATION NOS. 92001 92002 and 92003 (Phillips 66 Company) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first three items of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1831 sq. ft. gas station /convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing 1 -16 -92 1 Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard; a request for preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single - family residence to the north; and a request for variance approval from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a gas station /convenience store /car wash approximately 28 feet from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50 feet required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports for all three applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 92001, 92002 and 92003 attached). The Secretary also pointed out that although the property to the north is zoned C1, the staff recommend a screening device be provided in that location. He noted that a masonry wall was recommended in the PDQ case and that the Planning Commission may want to consider such a device here though the circumstances are somewhat different. The Secretary also noted that the City Engineer has yet to review the grading and drainage plan and that a condition relative to that plan should remain in effect. The Secretary stressed that the canopy faces cannot be backlit although the stripe on the building can be backlit provided it complies with the provisions for wall signery. The Secretary pointed out that the City Council has directed staff to prepare an ordinance to prohibit 24 hour operations near R1 and R2 land and that this property would be affected by such an ordinance. The Secretary pointed out that to allow the abutment between the service station and the R1 property to the west would constitute a use variance and that is the reason for the transfer of a triangle of land to the property to the north in order to eliminate this abutment. Regarding the variance application, the Secretary stated that the standards for a variance must be met and he felt there was some significant question as to what the affect would be of a variance approval on similar situations on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the joint meeting with the City Council in October discussed the major thoroughfare setback question and that not a lot of desire for change seemed to come out of that meeting. He stated that approval of a variance might in effect change the ordinance. The Secretary also pointed out the possibility for allowing for a lesser setback as part of a Planned Unit Development. He stated that the site in question is not a Planned Unit Development, but, that if it were a part of a larger area, it could be considered a Planned Unit Development. He concluded by saying that the Commission has to look at this particular parcel and this particular development and must consider the effect that a variance would have on other areas of the boulevard. Commissioner Holmes asked whether 69th Avenue North was going to be widened. The Secretary responded that there are plans to do so in i t s he future. He stated that the 18 dedication will accommodate future widening and it is not needed for r the p resent intersection improvement related to the City project east of Brooklyn Boulevard. 1 -16 -92 2 Commissioner Holmes asked %•:hat was proposed for the neighborhood and whether homes were to be bought up. The Secretary responded that the Comprehensive Plan recommends redevelopment to C2 or general commerce of the bloc�is on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard back to June and Lee Avenues. lie pointed out that the homes on Brooklyn Boulevard are nonconforming and that the Comprehensive Plan recommends redevelopment back to Lee Avenue. He noted that the City is not acquiring property at this time, but that the matter could be pursued privately. He stated that if the City were to pursue a redevelopment, it could use its condemnation powers, but that it is not involved as yet. In response to another question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that the homes on Lee Avenue are not nonconforming and that they can expand under their R1 zoning designations. He stated that the City has adopted a policy of withholding rezoning until a rezoning redevelopment plan is brought forth and found acceptable. Commissioner Holmes asked what is a "regulatory taking of property ". The Secretary stated that a taking occurs when a person is denied the reasonable use of their property and that it requires compensation under the Constitution. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jon Baccus, of Phillips 66 Company, explained to the Commission that Phillips had bought the property last May and that they understood that the climate might not have been right to pursue a development of this corner. He stated that Phillips preferred to develop the property in the spring rather than wait three to five years for developments to change on this block. Mr. Baccus explained that the plans have been prepared over the last two years with significant input from the City staff. He stated that there has been a fair amount of give and take over that time and that the plans have changed to accommodate staff concerns. He stated that they were advised that they would have to dedicate 18 feet of right -of -way along 69th Avenue North. He then showed the plan to the Planning Commission. He stated that the fencing on the north side of the property would be provided and that Phillips actually wants to do this. He also stated that curb and gutter would be provided as required.. He showed the Commission pictures of the site as it presently exists and also pictures of other Phillips stations in the metro area. With respect to the variance request, Mr. Baccus stated that he felt that setbacks could be met if not for the dedication required off 69th Avenue North. Fie showed the Commission a plan that was submitted last summer with the car wash traffic moving in a counter clockwise direction entering off Brooklyn Boulevard and stacking in front of the car wash, exiting out toward 69th Avenue North. He stated that the dedication of additional right -of -way for 69th made this plan impossible. He concluded that Phillips could have a car wash and meet building setbacks if no dedication were required. 1 -16 -92 3 He, therefore, concluded that it was indeed the requirement of right -of -way dedication that caused the variance. Commissioner Mann asked Mr. Baccus what the intended hours of operation for this station would be. 1 Baccus responded that they preferred a 24 hour operation and that they are not restricted in this respect in other locations. Commissioner Mann inquired as to the trench drain whether it would serve as a debris trap. Mr. Bill Anderson of Phillips 66, explained that silt would be caught in the trench drain and that water would overflow into the sanitary sewer. He stated that the drain would be cleaned out periodically to prevent silt from entering the sanitary sewer. Chairperson Malecki asked whether the project could be feasible without a car wash. Mr. Baccus responded in the negative. He stated that everyone who builds a service station builds a car wash with it. He explained the process that Phillips went through and analyzed the location in terms of its demographics and prices of gas in the area, etc. He stated that the lack of a car wash would affect gasoline sales at this location. He added that Phillips probably would not build the station without a car wash. The Secretary pointed out that the reason for the review by Hennepin County has to do with the fact that the property is being re- platted. He stated that the County also wanted 18' to 20' of right -of -way off Brooklyn Boulevard, but were willing to forego this request. He stated that when Brooklyn Boulevard is widened, right -of -way will be taken from one side or the other in all likelihood. The Secretary stated that if the request for right -of- way is the cause for a variance, the matter should be taken up with Hennepin County. He stated that he did not feel it was appropriate for the City to grant a variance because of right -of -way taking. The Secretary stated that the property is not being denied its use. He stated that the station could be fixed up, though not expanded or rebuilt. He pointed out that the use of the property is nonconforming because of its abutment with R1 land to the northwest. The Secretary stated that the time simply may not be right to bring about a redevelopment of the property. He added he saw no problem in waiting until an appropriate development plan is submitted. Commissioner Holmes asked Mr. Baccus whether Phillips 66 had a standard sized lot that they used to develop this type of service station. Mr. Baccus responded that Phillips had developed the same facility on a 21,000 sq. ft. lot. Commissioner Holmes expressed concern regarding the 24 hour operation with the car wash. Mr. Baccus noted that the house next door is vacant and is not zoned residential anyway. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the hours would be the same for the store and the car wash. Mr. Baccus responded in the affirmative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 92001 91002 and 92003) 1 -16 -92 4 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on all three applications submitted by Phillips and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding any of these applications. Mr. Bob Grosshans, of 6920 Lee Avenue North, addressed the Commission briefly. He stated that he had been a resident in the area for 23 years and had seen development take place over that time. He stated that he felt the granting of a variance would be a serious precedent, especially a variance to the extent being sought. He stated that others may ask for a similar type of variance on Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that Brooklyn Boulevard may be widened, thus making the shallow setback even shallower. Ms. Vicki Rau, the owner with her husband of the Holiday Express service station across 69th Avenue North, stated that she was opposed to any special use permit or variance for the proposed operation. She stated that when they had proposed their service station some years earlier they wanted more pumps, but were denied. She stated that they had given 15' of right -of -way without any compensation. She also stated that they had desired to put a car wash in their facility, but that staff had recommended against it. She stated that she did not see why Phillips 66 should be granted a special use permit or variance for things they had been denied. She added that she had been advised by City staff not to buy land at 63rd Avenue North which had a similar R1 abutment. She stated that she did not see how Phillips 66 could get what it is asking for when they were turned down for various items. She added that they have a store in New Hope and that there have been noise problems with the car wash near a residential neighborhood. Mrs. Rau stated that Phillips had indicated it was willing to take a risk. She stated that the first step in developing one's property is to check with the city. She stated that Phillips apparently had been willing to take a risk that they might be denied their use and went ahead and bought the property anyway. She stated that they created their own hardship. The Secretary stated that he did not disagree with Mrs. Rau, but also pointed out that she had the right to pursue the same sort of consideration as Phillips 66. He stated that he did not believe the staff had treated the Raus' differently from Phillips 66. The Secretary added that he did not feel the variance should be granted on the grounds of dedication of right -of -way. Mr. Dave Nelson, a party interested in re- developing this block, then briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that the city needs a re- development at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and that this is a good proposal. He stated that the Phillips plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area. He stated that he would try to buy homes on the block -if the Phillips deal goes through. He recommended moving buildings closer to Brooklyn Boulevard in order to provide a buffer between them and the residential uses to the west. He concluded by saying again that 1 -16 -92 5 the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the report from the Maxfield Research Group. Chairperson Malecki asked whether anyone else present wish to speak regarding the applications. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann stated that the variance bothered her. She pointed out that the Planned Unit Development requires the minimum of one acre and that there is not an acre in this proposal. She stated that it would be good if homes were acquired and the lot were re- developed. She also recommended looking at the setback on Brooklyn Boulevard with an eye to possibly reducing that setback. Commissioner Johnson stated that the City had looked at Brooklyn Boulevard from Highway 100 North and that it has difficult problems with the Boulevard. He stated that his own experience is that you wait and it is difficult to comply with City regulations when a new development is proposed. He stated that the City wants development to look good, but asked how long the City should wait for a complying development. He wondered whether another 20 years would pass before something concrete happened. He stated that a 28 foot setback seems pretty tight to him, that he looked across the street and he would like to start over in this area. Commissioner Holmes stated that it was time to address the whole issue of redevelopment in this area. He stated that he did not like the variance request. He stated that one difficulty with this site is that cars would come out onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the existing gas station was not a heavy traffic generator and felt that the proposed station might overtax the site especially with a car wash. As to the triangle of land at the northwest corner of the property to be transferred, he stated that it seemed like a quick fix. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Holmes if he was in favor of the variance. Commissioner Holmes responded in the negative. Commissioner Johnson asked what was the position of the City with respect to the setback. The Secretary answered that the Planning Commission could certainly recommend a change to the setback requirement if it felt that it was appropriate. He stated that he felt that the proper procedure was to look at the variance first and that, if the variance is appropriate, the Commission can recommend the plat application as well. He stated that the staff did not recommend ordinance language but he felt that an ordinance amendment might well be more appropriate than a variance. He stated that he did not believe that the variance standards were 1 -16 -92 6 met. He also stated that it •,ould be important to be consistent with the treatment of the Raus'. He admitted that staff had recommended against the car '::ash at the Holiday Station, but added that he did not feel that it fit in this location either. The Secretary asked the Commission whether they wanted buildings along a heavily traveled high speed roadway to be close to the street or set further back. He stated that a judgement has to be made not only for this property but for others as well. He stated that he did not believe that the direction from the joint meeting with the City Council was for an ordinance amendment. Chairperson Malecki stated that she felt that there was some openness to the idea. She stated that the 28 foot setback proposed by Phillips does not seem adequate and that she did not want other buildings to be closer. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern regarding safety. He stated that cars will likely wait to get out onto Brooklyn Boulevard and that the whole operation will get backed up. The Secretary stated that the backup of cars would be on the Phillips property and would not be on the public street. Therefore, it would be their problem. He stated that the county could disallow any access onto Brooklyn Boulevard but that is a tough position with this property. He stated the City was not at a point that it could deny access to this parcel. Chairperson Malecki asked how large the triangle of land was that was being transferred. The Planner indicated that it was about 400 square feet. The Secretary pointed out that the C2 buffer adjacent to R1 property should be 35 feet. He admitted that the triangle is contrived although it eliminates the abutment and the requirement for 35 foot buffer. Chairperson Malecki asked whether it would be appropriate to rezone the triangle to C1. The Secretary stated that it could be done, but that the entire area could also be rezoned to C2. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary indicated that the triangle would be sodded if the development is approved. In response to another question from Chairperson Malecki regarding the gas station at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard, the Secretary pointed out that there is R1 property across 63rd. The Secretary stated that staff had told both the Rau's and Phillips that re- development of their properties would be difficult. Commissioner Mann stated that she felt the use proposed was acceptable but did not feel that the variance standards were met. Mr. Dave Nelson stated that re- development of the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard site would bring in other development to that block. He stated that the plan being proposed would create a larger buffer than exists now and that it would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He admitted that there were some difficulties in developing an ideal plan but that the proposal was an 1 -16 -92 7 improvement over the existing service station. He stated that the dedication of right -of -way was for the 69th Avenue project. The Secretary stated that was not his understanding but that it was for a future widening which the County may pursue at a later date. Mr. Nelson asked why the dedication was asked if it was only for future widening. The Secretary stated that it was for that reason, which was the same reason as the Raus' had to dedicate 8 feet from their property. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan, the Secretary pointed out that there are a host of uses that would fit the Comprehensive Plan and would also be consistent with R1 abutment. There followed a brief discussion as to how to handle the application. It was agreed no one favored a variance. The Secretary recommended a resolution be brought back recommending denial. Commissioner Johnson stated that denying the variance won't solve the problem. He stated that he was not comfortable with denying something without providing a way for something to be built. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NOS. 92001 92002 AND 92003 WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to table applications 92001, 92002, 92003 and to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial on the grounds that the standards for variance were not met. Commissioner Mann also expressed a desire that ordinance language be developed to propose a reduced setback. The Secretary stated that he preferred to make such a suggestion to the City Council but that the direction for such language come from the City Council itself. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Mann, Johnson and Holmes. Voting against: None. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of re- development in the area and the meeting schedule for April, there was a motion by Commissioner Mann, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Chairperson 1 -16 -92 8 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No.-92001 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct an 1,831 sq. ft. gas station/ convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing Union 76 station at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the northeast by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by 69th Avenue North, on the west by the Northwest Residence group home, and on the northwest by a C1 zoned single- family residence. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C2 zoning district. They are not permitted to abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property, either at a property line or at a street line. The present service station site abuts an R1 zoned single- family residential property along the northwest 30' of the site. This abutment renders the existing service station a nonconforming use. A companion application, No. 92002, is a preliminary plat which proposes to transfer a small triangle of land from the northwest corner of the existing service station site to the site of the C1 zoned residence to the north. This transfer will eliminate the R1 abutment and allow for the service station redevelopment. Access /Parking The proposed site plan calls for three accesses to the site (one being strictly an exit drive from the car wash), two off Brooklyn Boulevard and one off 69th Avenue North. All accesses have been proposed at 30' in width. The Hennepin County Transportation Department has advised that the car wash exit drive be no wider than 24 It is to be signed "exit only." All access and utility work related to this development will require permits from Hennepin County since both Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue North are County roads. The plan provides for nine (9) regular parking stalls, including five (5) parallel stalls, and at least two stalls at the pumps. The ordinance requires 11 stalls for the first 2,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area or fraction thereof. Three stalls are to be located at the southeast corner of the site; two parallel stalls along 69th Avenue North; one handicapped stall in front of the store; and three parallel stalls off a bypass lane north of the car wash. It is possible to count at least two stalls at the pump islands. The parallel stalls are proposed at only 20' in length instead of the required 24'. The applicant has indicated they will revise the plans to provide longer stalls. 1 -16 -92 1 Application No. 92001 continued In addition, the plan shows stacking for at least five cars for the car wash. Six is recommended and is perhaps barely possible without blocking the access off 69th. Car wash traffic will move in a clockwise direction, stacking on the west side of the site and moving through the car wash on the north side of the site. The plan calls for four pump islands beneath a canopy to the south of the main building. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for numerous shrubs, three Black Hills Spruce trees, five Red Splendor Crab trees and two Pagoda Dogwoods. No shade trees are proposed. The plantings are to be located in perimeter greenstrips which are to be sodded and irrigated. The total point value of all plantings is 73 landscape points. The point system requires only 53 points. Given the need for visibility to and through the site, the heavy reliance on shrubs is probably acceptable. The Pagoda Dogwoods are not really considered a shade tree, though their proposed size is large (2.5" diameter). The locations of the Dogwoods would be logical for shade trees, but the Dogwoods are acceptable, we believe. The original plan calls for a 6' high ivy- covered chain link fence along the west and north property lines. Staff have indicated this is unacceptable and the applicant has agreed to provide an opaque fence in these locations to serve as a screening device. Grading /Drainage /Utilities The submitted grading plan is unacceptable in that it drains most water (precipitation) off the site rather than containing it on site and conveying by storm sewer to the City's storm sewer system located beneath 69th Avenue North. The applicant has agreed to revise the plans which should be available for the Commission's agenda packets. No utilities have been shown yet, but this too should be provided _in time for the Commission's review. The plans show a large catch basin inside the car wash and a trench drain on the exit from the wash, but does not show where these drains lead. The utility plan will provide this information. The plan submitted does not show B612 curb and gutter around the building. We have conveyed to the applicant that curb and gutter is the community standard and they have indicated that it will be provided if required. Curb and gutter is indicated around the perimeter of the lot. Building The building consists of a car wash, sales room, office and a storage room, as well as restrooms accessible from the exterior. The building itself is a prefabricated metal building with stone facing. There is to be a metal fascia band with a red stripe around the top of the building. The canopy over the pump islands 1 -16 -92 2 Application No. 92001 continued is to have a similar treatment. Staff have informed Phillips 66 that the canopy faces may not be backlit inasmuchas this would constitute separate freestanding signs. No information has been submitted on the freestanding sign, which is not part of this application. The canopy and building are to have a consistent exterior treatment all the way around. The plan proposes a 5' sidewalk around the sales building. Phillips has indicated that it is not their policy to store items outside. Therefore, a 5' wide sidewalk should be adequate for pedestrian traffic. We would recommend a condition with this application, prohibiting any outside storage or display of products or other materials on the sidewalk around the sales building. Lighting /Trash Site lighting is provided by seven pole mounted lights, 16' high, at various locations around the site. The photometric plan shows illumination to 5 foot candles crossing the property lines in various locations onto residential property. The luminaires are proposed at 400 watt metal halides. We have requested reducing those wattages to 250 watts to reduce light spillage off the site. The applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with this request. He has also informed us, however, that Phillips' lights are generally tilted up to direct light onto the site. We have expressed concern that the lights will then emit unwanted glare off the premises. We recommend that the light fixtures be required to focus downward. Even though this may not focus light intensity onto the site, it should reduce glare. Lights under the canopy will be flush with their mountings rather than crowned, thus reducing glare. The trash enclosure is to be 8' x 12' x 6' high of a masonry block. It was proposed at the northeast corner of the lot, but will be relocated to the area west of the building to make more room for the parallel stalls along the north side of the property. Special Use Standards The proposed gas station/ convenience store /car wash is a special use under Section 35 -322 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. As such, it must meet the five standards listed in Section 35 -220.2 of the ordinance (attached). The proposed service station should enhance the general public welfare and should not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. We do not believe the service station will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor will it substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The establishment of the service station will not impede the normal and orderly 1 -16 -92 3 Application No. 92001 development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The service station development is consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan that this block be redeveloped with commercial retail type uses. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Particularly the car wash stacking and the general circulation pattern implicit in the site layout is probably the best that can be achieved on this limited site. Finally, the service station will have to conform to the applicable regulations of the C2 zoning district. This cannot be accomplished unless the setback variance sought under Planning Commission Application No. 92003 is granted. Therefore, approval of this application is dependent upon a favorable action on Application No. 92003. Recommendation Approval of this application is contingent on approval of the accompanying plat and variance applications. We recommend that the Commission consider all these applications together. If either of the other applications does not meet with your approval, then some and perhaps substantial alteration of the plans would be necessary or the applicant may seek a hearing before the Council on these plans. If the Commission feels that the applicant's submittal is acceptable and is, indeed, the best design that can be achieved on this site for this use, then it may recommend approval. Approval should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 1 -16 -92 4 Application No. 92001 continued 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The special use permit is issued to Phillips 66 for the construction and operation of a gas station /convenience store /car wash. No other uses are comprehended. Any expansion or changes to the use will require an amendment to this special use permit. 12. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 13. The replat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 14. No outside storage or display of merchandise or other materials shall be permitted on the sidewalk around the sales buildings. It shall be kept clear as a pedestrian walkway. 15. The faces of the canopy shall not be backlit in any way. Lighting under the canopy shall be completely recessed or shielded. Pole lights shall focus directly downward. 16. Plan approval acknowledges parking spaces at the pump islands for at least two vehicles. 1 -16 -92 5 Application No. 92001 continued 17. The plans shall be modified prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate the following: a) A grading and utility plan containing all precipitation on site and conveying it by storm sewer to City storm sewer in 69th Avenue North. b) The northerly access onto Brooklyn Boulevard shall be narrowed to 24 C) Parallel stalls shall be lengthened to 24 d) The wattage of the light fixtures on poles around the site shall be reduced to 250 watts and the fixtures shall focus light directly downward, not outward. e) An opaque fence or wall shall be indicated along the west and north sides of the site. f) Northwest and Southwest building elevations shall be provided. 18. All utility and access work comprehended by the development must be performed under Hennepin County permit. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner A roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 1 -16 -92 6 Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for S ecial Use Permits A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the and enjoyment of other property in the immedi:.. vicinity for the purposes already permitted, rc_ substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses Permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion i ublic n the P streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- ment. HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS TEL Plo.6'_2- 930 -2513 Jan 7,92 10 :�1 P1o.010 P.02 s i DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South HENNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 - 8463 L _L PHONE: (612) 930 - 2500 FAX. (612) 930 2513 j TDD: (612) 930 - 2696 January 7, 1992 Mark Maloney, P.E. City Engineer tatty or Brooxlyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Phillips Site, Northwest Quadrant Brooklyn Blvd. at 69th Ave. (CSAH 130 at CSAH 132) Mark: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above -noted site reconstruction plans. We have several comments /recommendations regarding both traffic and utility activities. We are pleased to see the two driveways nearest the intersection being closed. This design will serve the roads and the site very well. Also, the locations and designs of the two service island driveways are acceptable and should function adequately. However, we are concerned about the northerly ancess.to Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 132). This driveway must be designated as an "Exit Only ", with appropriate on -site signage, and narrowed to 26 feet wide. This Action will preclude northbound left turns into the site and relieve on - site congestion along the north side of the car wash and for southbound right turns into the site. Secondly, we believe that some site runoff retention should be provided, other than the car -wash drains. TMls feature may be planned but is not apparent on the plans. Finally please be sure the necessary Cuunly permits (entrance and utilities) are in process from the applicant before final build permits /use permits are issues!. Also, since this is ultimately a plat situation, it must be sent to the Hennepin County Transportation Planning Section for review and comment. HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal opportunity emolover HENIN C T Y PUELIC WORKS TEL No , 6 ?513 Jan 7 , 92 10 °X11 No , 010 P , O i I Hark Maloney . .1Arnjary 7, 1992 Page Two Thank you again for the timely action. and please Feel free to call me at 930 -2548 if further questions or discussions arise. Respectfully. David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator OKZ:mvr cc: Gary Shallcross, City of Brooklyn Center Hennepin County Transportation Planning / / 1 UJITY N. ' -n Tot EDO AVE^N j p Sl ° ( -1 1rTi A.t, 1, ii''!. �j •.%� +1,. SCu1T A'.I I SCOTT AVE COTT t �.�_ �_�- ._ _� 1 �, i �� x j �♦ a z - o E N. < A VE_t r - - -- f A.t. °- z - REGENT AVE. EGENT A E. pm ( � �� ��� }� a N 1 X ( VE. ! f � � � i � � 1 � �� QUAIL AVE. J j -- -`�' OUAIL'A' N_ OUAIL AV N —< AVE. N. > - - - -L PERRY —z PERRY N. _ I Eftft m PERRY A VE_ N TI ! _ ORCHARD AVE N• v - > ' ' ORCHARD AVE. N. W I Ac`� R , P T ORCH DAR q`F NOBLE AVE. N. - -- -- - I . E AVE. N. NO L NOEL t, BLE AVE N �_- --- - -- - -- !-- - - \- -- - -- _ MAJOR AVE._N. - -- s- � MAJOR AVE. N! - y AVE. — TEE f z AIAJO R A >; 1. K / �`> Y' � <' • �1 °' _ _. _ � � _ —_ �'"� - � � _ fC hl� Ea i`I r1 T - � EE AVE. N. I - _ __ j N _ f " KYLE - k ffl AVE JU E AVE. N � F, - . — - - -- - - v" JUNE _ �� 1 _ -------- .y --- -- - -- r - JU AVE N_ TP IAN F IND 1 INDIA AV ? O rZ E ANA T Ii1L FA AVE. 7 rn - CD �_MARLIN_DR.. / GRIMES AVE. N. <, GRIMES rl - GRIDS -' I FyRANCE '.F�._RANCE-A N. - , z RANCE N FRPN / Il - -1 o P EW : ,� --%'�� ING AVE. N_ _I EWING N. I - '�'��,A EW I�i _A'��\ EW NG AVE.J ly _ _ 0 0 rn - 2 DREW L AVE. _ N. _ - - -- D � _ DREW AVE. n rn s� (\ ?; CHGMEN A N. RCHON N _ ♦ / f 0. O(, � p� /�- , �7v. � - � � �4� - µ . �ea� s4 r-r w.ot �� �.� � � 1 . �1. ♦ ,!�i. �� _ (.�` /"„J.. \ \ "Te-ro^_ ^.. ..` . c xeiT' �,ua �e is (R M ar n' W) It �l i owF / %" i r . i r �. / a v'' ,h ( j . 4°0 �iw Tr- - -� -M^ �-_.:-- +��.�` �� =.r_ �r= � aowEO isc. i y . �. r � s. �ir..� .e -� � • n+rW- _ �. _ -Y - -+� � t \,.� fl f " / �� , -' - -" r.� y � " L ���i � i �y� ��tar�r ie. I �,,,• ���� � <� is � a �i �� r J "/ f 4 ( /� •�— -.L— 1 I [Y� l J Mf:. X14 � ,t___ w i� . f( I N. i J f�_ ,ti 4'� "I •. ��� _ -�( 1 - - --- j - - -- -` - + 3 I i *.! a G� ,� � � �7 i J� / V ��4 � \ ♦ � ^ ll IIfIIII V �> �� �•�� to � / `� / i sw \�����! t �\ 1 -y i .+eRn.♦ c ,R ,w« �i 0� 1� /• r •ae..+e� ew. '% �r� /�! r � � w `� G ,:n � \ � �. • \L; ♦' � .}', +N' �.�.... �r.+,uol rwr � —_ N w. y` J \ \�- •- v 20• 5r ew v.,+ E= as si 1� 7� -_ -_- -� 11r ifti7't� _— _ - _ _ _ - _ _._ a a ,[ m / __� c _ __ _- 69.60• ° �. PHrwPS ss [ E �,.+:e ;:x� LAWRENCC A wiCKN.w, wRCMRECT �'� �• J � COM AI RO KLY CO �� - W N BOU A VROSPECT wfYp SurtC C �� a< �� vcrxo�t� ���, w _ — - -- w q = -- p R. COIUNS. cos- s[a -zo:Z PRE INv41N, R SITE G AN +__.._._ nKa7..� uoe. a i e,z R!✓ rEC �, u�.l,s - uc�s [♦. scw.c= n.x++ /z�u, �., K.z •. w. -..+. a. os ''_w -s D-4O80 1— 5 '�� ' -- • - � ✓rb �enl areA sc9aL wUw f a �a ,�'' JC .� ••a .a «r.�sr ..0 +►st ra r4uaa u+. � e. _ ; :�6 .--i - a� •ro Lro� a rt.. r.r•a , .cu -. ti' -� //% o � \�,. — �•. _ �- s. �•.: � .s,ra- .ww•si'cs�zr�- z- v- c -ce.�s � —wee tJ tT � `T' max � °.A � �. (• � �. U.,o:o. Wt r � a 16 1 \A4- A ? j.° ao \\ [ – )E.10' ( a aT tY w CANOPY DECK LT. DETAIL la 0 ' O S t I to ao t \ ! J %L 4a ta+ ..S DSO Irw 0 11 I P 1 i I a J •O � Q\ 1.0 f.D I as / ,x u M rl �� a■ ao i 5 ao lA 0.r °a v za sr i= 6 sl• r e /_ Q �'i�S� ]o IAwR[NC[ l WrC•f •.•aw, .aRCNR[Ct „frV[D R! w N a Isr.G a]ro G- .Rosw[cr Ro.tD surtc PHiWPS 66 COMPANY A OIYtSiON OF PHILLIPS F'CTROUM COWAW w rt. M—". Co §M25 ]O]- aa] -30]] =AL U} .9NATON PLAN rr �� O° " I i18^ RG�.i•t tieU a^••taA.c.. r+Kx rero. Gxnir � nw ,wv • a.oaar. eau.+o It sawD rot orr a,R..a.n w: s,00-an a+mt wl]eu "•� 0 -4080 6-2 E ll 1 — F r_.. WA �a OD ' PLAZA •_I q. , .,w SOUTHEAST ELEVATION •r�K'�� P.f , l...MiE.CE MI-- .BCr,ITECT PREP4.ED fpq a3,o e.sT PnpsPECT Bo.n wITE a PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY _.: � - -- rT CCl_�II+S GO BOS23 303- •93 -20Yf B.PT'�lSVI��E. Ona.r1Y1/. L. EXTERIOR PAINT SCHEDULE musom EXTERIOR EIEVAT IOrJS i WE H"4.,. /.+��*, $,(7�J ELEV.ATSON i� • 7E-r"k� ` � .w« : � 9t � .3, ..�.o.m t «.�... .,� . „ _, _ 0 -4065 1 -5 �nw ! r y J t.M , ♦I / 1 � " . O .o. SOUTWEST ELEVATION NORTHWEST ELEVATION w uwlYEr+cE w- wiC.cra..u, MCHrtLCT >.t.>I>(D �' PHIWPS 66 COMPANY 3J E. PROSr>ECt •OHO 6URL c ION OF Ph%IpS PETROLEUM CDWPA1 T. CO —$, CO. !0333 ]O] -1i] -3023 YwIRIMa3. OW.di. .o an tie.o. w EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS uwYZ tT.,d /3'U, MM .Mlul . /AV ¢,M pRl,WO iaiAr ".1F Q,IIOI aMSYir. ' /`"' D -4085 to -0 4� Allll 4— ;7 F— Z - 7 0 ., :aY J It - 78,10 T, ' A - 71 4 �S� / �,�� � �� -���i si'.�,� ^ui�tn�" _ \ y!- - 1- ,- wl _ o° d � I. �� .� J _7 7. - - - - - - - - - - 7- - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - �2 A A 0 "M (5 36* ♦ 41' 1Y E) 20' 57' L 69 6� -- —C— C PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY UYU 60ULEVARD 2310 E. PROSPECT R-0 11 TI C L.VSK)N OF P-1WP5 PETROLELQ CO--All w I 11 ' r V rr.tiK e 1 " L ` a y S/ � - Ct?R�`\� ti `� ^..: •io. TC�•. �7 d V n ( �� 9 F V /' I A, � J� �V;.f' ���AAA ���. a, i � \ Q .i.�+•4 .rtOOErt �.�w.E I � h r 1 li � /�' • 4 :r ' `,r- a �,�' � � �X� d� b1 `• n� �_•, [ � 7e.70• (N 36 tY w)�\ c E - _ - -\ ==== � 41ny 777VVV J � F '1 Q' t��p 1+ �� � � • P � � � � I I v A ° � ° y ° —�� + I � _`� i�� a ' � � U � �C 3 r Ago- ___'_� °���. '`' I' oF� a �• � I � � y �i a —?� "K� ., 9 Y fi •� � d 1 I I � I' ` I I I F u o� ay ���w ^;a 4y t� ;n� �scTwc �����^ r�\ I �_ °______= I � ..��. /� � i�• � �� ..• "a� ✓ > ? J �', r �1 `/ EE i i 1: 1 t � L.a�..�or...,,'r. — _ p J 7 CV A •! coR /-� / � � ~ �.� \ao � —Y— \ I � � rv+.'ci> 4r ►tip ' - J I - tl �. l � � � .' •JI II ,{tV �� •,'• -.. c .,oa... �� —_�t —i -- _ __ '4� (5 36 at' tY E) l" vv TT Crt L. 69.60• .v,vr. c. 'wn < . o' ��r .....w _ _ _. - �vs. ­ ­CE ENCC 4 wrCKr+..M, .<eCr.iTECT °K •"m rO. BROOKLYNTBOULEVARD 23+o E . ..os.EC .o.o su:TE c PHIWPS 66 C0MPANY a OMSICN OF PHIIJPS PcTv kzuu CowpA - w ` "/��� rt. towns. co. eo }ss 30J- •9 }_ppQp e.ann�Rll. O,twCw /` .o art ,MVw n �ZEL i+/,NG2Y LIT /UT� ,�n J ++ •z.s.' i�+T. ' .Pi+hLr .rrwcw ' —� li, -..1- c�pb 7 � G •� '� '6'•.1'TGMa�! -.x. ' [.� • IIT4 T /.^.t]+ ae .+CJ(a M.nc•v eO.Attsq ()-40,90 1— 5 PLANTING SCHEDULE mm" COM�MOoO+drNryryNAME A 90TLN I - I —NAME OIY. 512E ROOT COMMENTS 9N4 - C-. +3 Rlsa TKU�•°t•.o dxuoden+r+ 7 LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS: eMs e+dx Mw SR^a �+ +v —«�+•u 1 r aae -- - - - - - - " - - - DRM D..n Bwn Ron+ ++ Drw+wnc.. - ,. wr.pewurr.rrrrwr, w•.nw.ww � DMP Urrl Mu°In Pw P+.e nnp°.nq° la •S Pol - 1 NR G,vn BrtxrtY a+.s•,v •ar,pNp 1) te' Pa v+• d +�v aay.w .rd +.+•+. waar 4 ww.w..w r \ - NdrROSe. RngoP+. ) IC Pct a—Y PcD• I c«,...nmmo.. • w.w •n....r • I PG -� 561 Sa+G,Nn.MV Arvoe„dvw,w a 02 Pp wnw,•w... w www•.^., wrw.e. wrrw Sa•G.ed+' ___ __.. _ _ _..- 500 "� SJ Str4a.l.gs A.vvu°•w t+ •x Pa a �daw•• w u,m.r a w..d w.v viw w wr.m. nr d,w+.•r+r - � ll 5cy+ba T e5C aU Syeena Uap MaM. R+tl Spa,W 5 25' 8 a 8 Iv" _ A Pw•tTm m.a. -� Utw x' m•m °ePm a u vry r •v.s r+n. / •..°^. s, w yr ; ,/�.� \v/ \ / • Y - v �^ our ^. vw, a•wwwwq e�•ap.r / _ i `� � \ a aw•.aa *wad w.awvrr / ' ur a.ws a•a.v •.. c..n wnou,a � / Pt�EO' eve -------------T_,\ - SOD 1 '• 'v ^^""'"' ^ ^'v""^° ^"" ^r ^^.^� - SOD - AREA BETWEEN OLDI � ` AND NEW PROPERTY •r^a..^vr+n....r aa..r. aw.. ww.ee.. w,w v.s NO IRRIGATION IN AREAS ) - \- EV--c TAEE PIAH'RG CETAL OUT VR ry SIDE PROPERTY UNES F , - \ NO SCALE .,..r. •...a..wa .a Ewa. ...... w. a.�% t Rsr_ SOD W VM ca.. a oaaw wa w�w,.Nar •vv.r Y./ � G B 1RSC- - - /__. E -m'°�y ...w SODI a. \ '1..n4atry..eoa wxum va.......^aa- uwwnww.w / -_ ___.. "... __ _ •.e<_wo� v... v.marw r�..w °.w +u ua. •a w.0 - _ N•arn vw ar_w..n w..w.....aw.rorn.yr - -__ - _.. _... - -- __ - a e. d MR a,ww,.w sn.•„r ..., aa.m a,o_..,wvw., -+,... - —e G8 1�� - . Z y SOD wvarw.a wa•O •° —a5J _f- _ _ . I - CE_- PLANING CETAIL va wa•.. wr w«deoa+ � _ t _ - N04CALE ao�.^ mw..r w+vu.w.. d .. SOD 3 M 20MP ^ SOD ! 11 DMP- i0 rM — 1 RSP 1 SJ � - ,-t PQ I 1 DMP / RSC SOD 7 _) ce i ens -a - -T 50 . _._ SOD Y7. -SOD /1 , ^/' 4DD F ` D� x I YULCN BED WITH EDGER. 20 rM - -� �: ._. SYP____ -__ L° 69.60' a:.a.'�� - --' � ISGJ• - � . w �.NDD BROOKLYN BOULEVARD - PHiluPS 66 COMPANY . _. YULGH9ED WITH EDGER- 7Y2. __ • -': EON C V: 5 - _M L�`lPaw a DBN PLANTING PLAN 0 a A 17. 1993 P..Ina tN. «..0 f!>•a _ Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 92002 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single- family residence to the north. The properties in question are zoned C2 (service station) and C1 (residence) and are bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the northeast, by 69th Avenue North on the south, by the Northwest Residence group home and a single- family home on the west and by a C1 zoned, single- family residence on the northwest. The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to transfer a small triangle of land from the northwest corner of the service station site to the C1 residence site in order to eliminate the abutment of the service station site with the R1, single- family residence site to the west. The abutment renders the service station a nonconforming use and would prevent any rebuilding of a service station on the site as is proposed under Application No. 92001. The proposed plat is simply a two lot subdivision to be known as Cady Addition. Lot 1 is the mostly C1 lot with a single- family home. Its area is to be 9,648 sq. ft. The minimum lot area for a C1 lot adjacent to a major thoroughfare is one acre. However, because no C1 development is proposed, and because the land being added to this parcel is zoned C2, not C1, we do not feel this lot requirement should be imposed with this subdivision. Lot 2 is the service station site and is to be 28,785 sq. ft., or .66 acre. If there is an issue with this application, it may be whether the triangle to be conveyed from the service station parcel to the C1 lot to the north is of an appropriate size or not. Staff have recommended that the triangle be as large as possible. However, to make the triangle much larger than proposed would affect the site layout in such a way that the bypass land and /or parking would be reduced. Eliminating the car wash would allow for a larger triangle, but with the car wash, the triangle is about as big as it can be. It should be pointed out that the site plan calls for a 5' buffer on the service station property. Assuming that the transferred triangle remains undeveloped, it adds an average of about 15' more to the buffer area. Aside from the fact that service stations are not allowed to abut RI property, the minimum buffer for a general C2 use adjacent to R1 property is 35 The triangle technically eliminates the requirement for this buffer, but we feel some attention should be paid to buffer requirements when the size of the triangle is considered. 1 -16 -92 1 Application No. 92002 continued 0 Another matter that should be noted is the dedication of land for 69th Avenue North right -of -way. The site plans show a dedication of 18' of right -of -way as requested by Hennepin County. However, the plat submitted to date does not show this dedication. We have raised this issue with Phillips 66 and they have indicated a willingness to dedicate the requested right -of -way. We await a revised preliminary plat as of the writing of this report. Recommendation This redevelopment project cannot be approved without some transfer of land along the lines proposed by the applicant. If the Commission is inclined to recommend approval of the development, approval of the plat also is recommended and should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate a dedication of right -of -way for future widening of 69th Avenue North of 18' in width. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner A roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 1 -16 -92 2 Preliminary Plat of: CADY ADDITION \ t\ S \ \ \ \\ ,r ..u• . i / 11115_L1ll1121.L 9 x� - +�4 =. .. �, eF ,i\ \ lu.. ...n� � .rl,... ... .., r . I.,. .. ....... .. ..... (9648�s ..... ........ ...... ..... ...... ' po C -p o ..+.. � 9�F �� /°` j� .. I �f ,534 �� )�N �.. � - xc .a`c .,..,. ,._, � - -- �„ �,...� 41 - - -� \ \ \ ' CAFE 8 ASS00AUS Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 92003 Applicant: Phillips 66 Company Location: 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Request: Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a gas station/ convenience store /car wash approximately 28' from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50' required by ordinance from all major thoroughfares. Brooklyn Boulevard is classified as a major thoroughfare because it is a county road. The property in question is located at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and is the subject of Application Nos. 92001 and 92002. The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance may be granted after demonstration by evidence that the standards for a variance contained in Section 35 -240 of the ordinance are met. The applicant, in the person of Jon Baccus, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the standards for a variance are met. The applicant's arguments and staff response pertaining to each standard are contained below: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Applicant: "Because of the particular physical surroundings and shape of the specific parcel of land involved, a particular hardship to Phillips would result if the 50' building setback standard is imposed. The tract is relatively small, being approximately 29,000 square feet. Furthermore, the tract is very irregular. The site would become even smaller with the dedication of an 18' wide strip along 69th Avenue, which City staff has advised would be required to secure any redevelopment approval. The dedication would involve approximately 3,500 square feet with an approximate value of $60,000. "Phillips initially proposed its standard layout, but Phillips subsequently learned the City would require the dedication of land which rendered its layout impossible. Since then Phillips has worked with City staff and furnished them with numerous proposed layouts. Phillips has produced every conceivable layout which would still enable it to have a reasonable chance to obtain a reasonable return on such a sizable investment and compete with 1 -16 -92 1 i comparable state of the art facilities in Brooklyn Park. The proposed layout which gives rise to the variance request is a special design to accommodate the dedication. It addresses more City staff concerns than the other layouts, and all other conceivable layouts would require more than one variance. "Phillips request is not based upon an attempt to avoid a situation of mere inconvenience. Unless Phillips is not required to dedicate 18' along 69th Avenue, is granted the requested variance, is granted other variances, or some combination thereof, it will be deprived of its intended use of the property. Furthermore, the existing circumstances make redevelopment into any higher and better use than the existing use infeasible." Staff: The applicant appears to reason that the need for setback variance from Brooklyn Blvd. results from the required dedication of land for 69th Avenue North. It also results from attempts to meet staff concerns with the site layout. Those concerns had to do primarily with stacking for the car wash, parking and circulation. They also related to variances for greenstrips, etc. The applicant is correct in stating that the proposed layout meets the most staff concerns regarding the layout while still providing a full gas station /convenience store /car wash facility. We must point out, however, that the setback deficiency relative to Brooklyn Boulevard is not caused directly by the dedication of land for a widening of 69th Avenue North, but is more directly a result of providing proper stacking for the car wash facility. This raises the question, which the applicant has not explicitly addressed, as to whether a car wash facility is indeed a necessary component of this development. Apparently, Phillips 66 feels it is necessary "to have a reasonable chance to obtain a reasonable return on such a sizable investment." To meet the 50' setback requirement will probably require either other variances or the elimination of the car wash. If the car wash is eliminated, the value of the land may be somewhat adversely affected. This raises a question as to whether the denial of a variance could constitute a regulatory taking of property. It should be pointed out relative to the takings question, that the land would still have substantial value and that there is no car wash presently located on the site. It is, therefore, not something which is being "taken away." (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "To the best of Phillips' knowledge the conditions upon which the application for a variance is based, taken as a whole, are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, 1 -16 -92 2 and are not common to other property within the same zoning classification. Phillips does admit, however, it has been advised the City has given some consideration to reducing front setback requirements in certain locations along Brooklyn Boulevard in order to encourage redevelopment. Based upon this, Phillips assumes there are other parcels with situations similar to one condition upon which Phillips' application is based; that being there is insufficient depth from Brooklyn Boulevard, coupled with a large 50' setback requirement, for redevelopment to be feasible." Staff: This parcel is fairly unique in shape, but the real reason for the variance application is the lack of depth off Brooklyn Boulevard which, as the applicant notes, is not really a unique condition. It is one of the reasons the City's Comprehensive Plan recommends that redevelopment go back to the next street beyond the Boulevard so that adequate lot depth can be achieved. We have discussed redevelopment of this entire block with Mr. Dave Nelson, but he does not control any of the properties at this time. Redevelopment of this corner parcel must, therefore, be considered on its own merits and within the constraints of that parcel. It should be pointed out that it is anticipated that other C2 parcels, as well as other parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard, would like to take advantage of a lesser building setback on the same basis as Phillips 66 is proposing. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "Phillips' hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance and /or the requirement that it dedicate its property along 69th Avenue. The hardship has been created by the apparent need for right of way for any future expansion of 69th Avenue, by the particularities of the tract of land, and by the ordinance." Staff: We would argue that the hardship, if there is one, is only minimally related to the requirement of right -of -way dedication for 69th Avenue North, if at all. The inability to meet the setback arises from the insufficient depth of the lot and the need for car wash circulation and stacking. The ordinance probably cannot be met with a rational design as long as the car wash is a part of the redevelopment plan. Since the car wash is proposed by the applicant and is not a requirement of the ordinance or the parcel of land, the hardship may be caused at least in part by the applicant's business plans. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 1 -16 -92 3 Applicant: "Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. If the other portions of Phillips' redevelopment request are approved, granting the variance will enable an obsolete, unattractive facility which creates a negative image to be replaced by a new, attractive, state of the art facility." Staff: There are other buildings in this neighborhood which have substandard setbacks. These are located primarily on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard on both sides of 69th Avenue North. The proposed variance is fairly substantial, amounting to a 440 reduction from the required setback. While the new facility may improve the visual environment at this corner, it is generally hoped that redevelopment will bring properties into conformance with ordinance requirements, not move in the opposite direction. This is not to say that variances should not be considered in a redevelopment package. It is more difficult to fit into a pre- existing parcel than to arrange the environment to suit a proposed use. The proposed setback is not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, but most of that neighborhood is increasingly deemed to be obsolete. From a functional perspective, it is less than desirable to have cars exit a car wash and enter almost immediately onto a major thoroughfare. We doubt that the site can be designed much differently without sacrificing stacking space and /or rational circulation and /or greenstrips and other setbacks. The proposed plan is probably about as good as can be achieved for a gas station/ convenience store /car wash on this parcel. What the Commission will have to advise the Council on is whether the compromises that have been made in this design are fair or whether the car wash simply overtaxes the site, as evidenced by the substandard setback. Recommendation Ideally, the proposed development would be part of a redevelopment plan for the entire block and land would be available to meet required setbacks. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. The proposal relates to a single parcel on a busy corner. This does not mean, however, that the Commission must accept a plan that overbuilds the site. The proposed plan certainly puts as much activity on this parcel as it can possibly accommodate. The Commission is urged to look carefully at the plan and to take all relevant testimony from the applicants and from other notified property owners. If, after consideration of the plans and relevant testimony, it is felt that the proposal overtaxes the site, we would recommend a tabling of the application, either for the applicant to revise plans or for staff to prepare a resolution of denial. If, on the other hand, the Commission feels that the design is appropriate and the activities contemplated can be accommodated on the site, then approval of the variance should be art of the package approving this development based u p p g pp g on a p p determination that all of the Standards for Variances are met. We 1 -16 -92 4 will be prepared to help develop language related to the variance standards if that is the Commission's wish. Submitted by,, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Diector of Planning and Inspection 1 -16 -92 5 PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY HOUSTON, TEXAS 77251 -1967 BOX 1967 PROPERTY TAXES, REAL ESTATE AND CLAIMS January 3, 1992 SS #27831 Brooklyn Center, MN MN /Hennepin R001 The Board of Adjustments and Appeals City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Chairperson and Board Members: Phillips Petroleum Company proposes a redevelopment project in the City of Brooklyn Center to be located at the northwest corner of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. The proposed development is a state of the art gasoline station which would consist of a sales building, canopy and car wash building. Phillips' proposed redevelopment hinges on securing a variance from the front building setback. The applicable standard requires a building setback of 50' from Brooklyn Boulevard. Phillips' proposed plans depict the building being situated 28' from Brooklyn Boulevard. Phillips Petroleum Company requests the above described variance based upon the following qualifications: 1 Because of the particular physical surroundings and shape of the specific parcel of land involved, a particular hardship to Phillips would result if the 50' building setback standard is imposed. The tract is relatively small, being approximately 29,000 square feet. Furthermore, the tract is very irregular. The site would become even smaller with the dedication of an 18' wide strip along 69th Avenue, which City staff has advised would be required to secure any redevelopment approval. The dedication would involve approximately 3,500 square feet with an approximate value of $60,000.00. Phillips initially proposed its standard layout but Phillips subsequently learned the City would require the dedication of land which rendered its layout impossible. Since then Phillips has worked with City staff and furnished them with numerous proposed "J The Board of Adjustments and Appeals January 3, 1992 Page Two layouts. Phillips has produced every conceivable layout which would still enable it to have a reasonable chance to obtain a reasonable return on such a sizable investment, and compete with comparable state of the art facilities in Brooklyn Park. The proposed layout which gives rise to this variance request is a special design to accommodate the dedication. It addresses more City staff concerns than the other layouts, and all other conceivable layouts would require more than one variance. Phillips' request is not one based upon an attempt to avoid a situation of mere inconvenience. Unless Phillips is not required to dedicate 18' along 69th Avenue, is granted the requested variance, is granted other variances, or some combination thereof, it will be deprived of its intended use of its property. Furthermore, the existing circumstances make redevelopment into any higher and better use than the existing use infeasible. 2 To the best of Phillips' knowledge the conditions upon which the application for a variance is based, taken as a whole, are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common to other property within the same zoning classification. Phillips does admit, however, it has been advised the City has given some consideration to reducing front setback requirements in certain locations along Brooklyn Boulevard in order to encourage redevelopment. Based upon this, Phillips assumes there are other parcels with situations similar to one condition upon which Phillips' application is based; that being, there is insufficient depth from Brooklyn Boulevard, coupled with a large 50' setback requirement, for redevelopment to be feasible. 3 Phillips' hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance and /or the requirement that it dedicate its property along 69th Avenue. The hardship has been created by the apparent need for right of way for any future expansion of 69th Avenue, by the particularities of the tract of land, and by the ordinance. 4 Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. If the other portions of Phillips' redevelopment request are approved, granting the variance will enable an obsolete, unattractive facility which creates a ) The Board of Adjustments and Appeals January 3, 1992 Page Three negative image to be replaced by a new, attractive, state of the art facility. City Code provides that a variance may be granted after demonstration by evidence that certain qualifications are met. The described situation meets those qualifications and Phillips Petroleum Company respectfully requests approval of a variance from the 50' front building setback. Respectively submitted, Jon D, Baccus JDB:gp 0 JDBGP08 /PPCO `l CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/10/92 Agenda hem Number /0 b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 92002 Phillips 66 Company DEPT. APPROVAL: LA_J Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection J f� MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments helow/attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X • Planning Commission Application No. 92002 submitted by Phillips 66 Company is a request for preliminary plat approval to redraw the boundary line between the service station site at 6901 Brooklyn Boulevard and the single-family residence to the north. This application was reviewed by the Planning commission at its January 16 and January 30, 1992 meetings. Attached for the Council's review are minutes, information sheets, and a copy of the preliminary plat. Recommendation Approval of the preliminary plat was recommended by the Planning Commission subject to the three conditions listed on page 3 of their January 30, 1992 minutes. • ClTY{}FDRU()KLl'NCENTER c°=/uu*" Date _ Ax"ou" hem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No, 92002 - Phillips 66 Company OEP7 9p8 Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MAN&GEQ'S0EVlEW/8EC(}MM ENDATl(}N: No comments to supplement this report � Common* below/attached SUMMARY E}{9L&NAI}(lN: (Supplemental sheets attached Planning Commission Application No' 92002 submitted by Phillips 66 Company is a request for variance approval from Section 35-400 of the zoning ordinance to allow construction of gas station/ convenience/ store/ car wash approximately 28' from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of the 50 required by ordinance from all major � thoroughfares. This application was reviewed by the Planning commission at its January lG and January 30, 1992 meetings. Attached for the Council's review are minutes, information sheets, and a letter from the applicant addressing the variance standards' � Denial of the application is recommended through Planning coznruiaaioo Resolution No. 92-1 ' CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Niecting Date 2110192 Agenda hern Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ::e �e 7e �e !ex �e �e ie te�ie �e yc !cie �e ie *ye ycM iexxaex xie%e ie is is is is exxe ie i i:xye iex xae ie ae seM xsx ix iexxiexxic �e iexxrexxx!erex k k NC �K �k �K �K !e �e �k �k �k �k �!e k ye ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Wall and Freestanding Signs in the C2, I-1 and 1-2 Zoning Districts is * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Yc Y C is *icx > <YC icxx * * * * * * *:i: * * * * - x * DEPT. APPROVAL Ronald A. Warren, Director of planning and Inspection � MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: Ao No comments to supplement this report Comments helow/attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X On December 2 and December 16, 1991 the City Council considered and discussed a Sign Ordinance Amendment that would reduce the amount of allowable wall signs in the C2, I-1 and 1-2 Zoning Districts from the current 300 of the wall area to 15% and also, would establish a provision to allow establishments in these zoning districts to have an extra freestanding sign if they agreed to forego all permitted wall signs. The proposed ordinance would also establish certain standards for the additional freestanding sign. This ordinance was proposed in response to a request made by Mr. Frank Slawson, President of Marquette Bank Brookdale, for consideration of some Sign Ordinance modifications that would allow an additional, low-keyed freestanding sign at the bank. His request was first discussed by the City Council at the Council meeting on November 4, 1991. At the December 16, 1991 meeting the City Council, following review and deliberation on this matter, directed the staff to prepare an ordinance amendment reflecting their decision. This amendment was first read on January 13, 1992, was published in the City's official newspaper on January 22, 1992 and is now scheduled for public hearing. Recommendation is Following further review and the public hearing, it is recommended that the City Council adopt this ordinance amendment. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of ' 19 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances regarding wall and freestanding signs in the C2, I -1 and I -2 zoning districts. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING WALL AND FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THE C2, I -1 AND I -2 ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: SECTION 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS. 3. Permitted Signs Requiring a Permit A. Commercial (C2) and Industrial (I -1 and I -2) Districts 1. Wall Signs and Projecting Signs. a. Individual Establishments Individual detached establishments or enterprises not clustered in a shopping center complex or in a multitenant office or industrial building may have wall signs and projecting signs on each wall, provided the aggregate area of such signs does not exceed [30] 150 of the area of the wall supporting the signs. b. Clustered Establishments Attached establishments or enterprises clustered in a shopping center complex or in a multitenant office or industrial building may have wall signs and projecting signs subject to the following: ORDINANCE NO. i. Each establishment or enterprise may have such signs on each of its exterior walls, provided the aggregate area of such signs does not exceed [30] 150 of the wall supporting the signs; ii. In lieu of the above, the aggregate of the establishments or enterprises may have a wall or projecting sign on each wall identifying the tenants collectively, or identifying the complex or building; provided the area of each sign does not exceed [30] 15% of the area of the wall supporting it. 2. Freestanding Signs d. Wall /Freestanding Sign Tradeoff An individual or clustered establishment may be entitled to one additional freestanding identification sign if the building owner, or a duly authorized agent, agrees in writing to forego all permitted wall signs and the additional freestanding sign is consistent with the following standards: 1. The additional freestanding sign shall consist of individual letters or cutouts, each affixed to a masonry retaining or landscape type wall structure which is no higher than 6' above ground level; 2. The masonry retaining or landscape type wall structure may not be located in the required greenstrip area or a parking lot and must be within 50' of one of the walls of the principal building on the property; 3. The area of the individual letters or cutouts which are affixed to the masonry retaining or landscape type wall structure may not exceed 1/3 of the area of the permitted freestanding sign allowed for the property, per Table 34A of this ordinance; and 4. The individual letters or cutouts may not be internally lit, or backlit and may only be illuminated by indirect lights such as a spotlight or floodlight which is consistent with Section 35 -712 of the City Ordinances. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 2/10/92 Agenda Item Numbcr REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM: Communications Task Force Update DEPT. APPROVAL: Geraly R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOM WENDATION: V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUND IARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • At its January 27 meeting, the city council had asked the City's ad hoc communications task force to address a number of issues. The task force met on January 29 to review these issues and continues to work on them. With regard to cablecasting city council meetings, the task force recommended that council meetings should appear on cable TV beginning with the next council meeting using the most economically feasible arrangements to do so. The task force plans to hold a public hearing at some future point in time to gather input to assist in sorting out details such as keeping only Brooklyn Center council meetings on channel 37 versus airing Brooklyn Center and other cities'meetings; increasing the availability of cable TV in homes; interactive council meetings based on the technology available; and other related issues. The task force did make it clear that it feels the issue of improving the lighting is a decision that must be made by the city council because some of the lighting options have implications beyond the scope of the task force's mission (especially in relation to making decisions on space needs of the City). The task force is continuing to work on preparing a position description for a communications specialist and will report back to the council on the progress of this item. The next task force meeting is set for Wednesday, February 19, 1992, at 7 p.m. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss lighting options for cablecasting city council meetings and direct staff to begin preparations • for the option selected. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Mecting Date 2/10/92 Agenda Item Number 6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM: Agreement for Cablecasting Services and Resolution Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget to Provide Cablecasting Services DEPT. APPROVAL: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMINIENDATION: s F� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) At its January 27, 1992, meeting, the city council agreed to begin cablecasting city council meetings beginning with its next meeting set for February 10. The council expressed a desire to have Northwest Community Television ( NWCTV) rent lights to the City on a temporary basis until a more permanent lighting situation can be arranged. The council also requested that an agreement between NWCTV and the City be prepared for the next meeting. This agreement would provide for professional staffing (director, camera operators) from NWCTV to ensure that meetings are aired live and taped for reruns. The agreement is attached for the council's review and approval. A director and two camera operators will provide services at each meeting. A supervisor /trainer will attend at least the first two meetings. Also attached is a resolution amending the general fund budget which will transfer monies for the cablecasting services from the contingency fund in unit 180 to the professional services line item in unit 113 (city manager's office). The cost of the services for the remainder of 1992 has been calculated based on the number of regularly scheduled meetings from February 10 until year end (22 meetings). The average length of each council meeting in 1991 was four hours, so costs are estimated using this as a guideline. t Director ($8.50 /hr. x 4 hr. x 22 mtgs.) $ 748 Camera Operators 2($6 /hr. x 4 hr. x 22 mtgs.) 1,056 Supervisor/Trainer $20 hr. x 4 hr. x 2 mtgs.) ( / ) 160 g Overhead Charge ($25 x 22 mtgs.) 550 2 514 A couple of other miscellaneous expenses will be incurred as follows: Lighting rental ($20 /mtg. x 4 mtgs.) $ 80 Video tapes (25 cr $5 each) 125 Additional cables and batteries 100 • 305 I am recommending the transfer of $3,000 to cover expenses relating to cablecasting the meetings. NWCTV has informed us that in addition to airing the meetings live, NWCTV will replay the meetings on channel 37 on Tuesday evenings beginning at 6:30 p.m. and Wednesdays at 6:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. The City has the option of rerunning the meetings at additional times other than those already scheduled by NWCTV. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass a motion to authorize the mayor and city manager to enter into an agreement with Northwest Community Television for cablecasting services and pass a Resolution Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget to Provide Cablecasting Services. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE CABLECASTING SERVICES WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council plans to cablecast its meetings on cable television; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to enter into an agreement with Northwest Community Television (NWCTV) to provide professional services for cablecasting city council meetings; and WHEREAS, the cost of cablecasting these meetings for the remainder of 1992 is $3,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 1992 General Fund Budget is hereby amended as follows: Increase the appropriation for the following line item: Dept. 113, City Manager's Office Object No. 4310 $3,000 Decrease the appropriation for the following line item: Dept. 180, Unallocated Department Expense Object No. 4995 $3,000 Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. L=El 6900 rYinne #ka ve. ,l., Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 (612) 533 -8196 AGREEMENT FOR CABLECASTING SERVICES The following is an Agreement between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER (the "City ") and NORTHWEST COMMUNITY TELEVISION ( "the service company ") for the provision of professional services. I. SERVICES Northwest Community Television will provide staffing for cablecasting all regular City Council meetings. The City will provide an annual calendar of all scheduled meetings and will provide timely information on changes in meeting dates. If mutually agreeable to Northwest Community Television, the City may authorize cablecasting of additional special meetings. Standard staffing will include a director and two camera operators. Northwest Community Television staff will set up and take down equipment and provide character generator graphics for the meeting if character generation equipment is available. II. PAYMENT Northwest Community Television will provide a quarterly billing to the City of Brooklyn Center for services provided at the following hourly rates: Director - $8.50 Camera - $6.00 Supervisor /Trainer - $20 The City of Brooklyn Center will guarantee a two hour minimum for the director for each City Council meeting. There will be a $25.00 overhead charge for each meeting. Bills will detail the date of cablecast, hours per personnel category (director /trainer) and the overhead charge. Brooklyn Center . Brooklyn Park . Crystal • Golden Valley .Maple Grove . New [ • Osseo 9 Plymouth • Robbinsdale i III. SUPERVISION AND TRAINING N.W.C.T. will provide supervision and training for the cablecasting crew. Up to six hours of supervision /training is hereby authorized for cablecasting the first two Council Meetings. Supervisory personnel will attend additional meetings to provide assistance as requested by the City or the N.W.C.T. crew, and authorized in advance by the City. IV. EQUIPMENT The City will provide all equipment necessary to reasonably cablecast the meetings. Northwest Cutnununi cy Television's staff will work with the City o select a purchase appropriate y and p rcha e appr p equipment for the cablecasting with no fee for technical services provided. V. AMENDMENTS /TERMS OF SERVICES Services will begin at a mutually agreed upon date no later than February 10, 1992. This agreement can be amended or terminated with a sixty -day written notice by the City of Brooklyn Center and /or Northwest Community Television. Greg ' Moore Executive Director Northwest Community Television Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center Todd Paulson Mayor City of Brooklyn Center Date CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/10/92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM: Prioritization Process for Unit 111 - City Council Budget DEPT. APPROVAL: Geraly R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONVEMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SU DIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • As part of the City's financial task force's recommendations approved by the city council, each City department has been asked to develop an employee involvement process to generate ideas on cost reductions and revenue enhancements for the City with a goal of ten percent reductions. Because unit 111 of the City's General Fund Budget is for the city council, I am asking the mayor and each council member to review the line items appropriated in unit 111 and make suggestions on how a ten percent reduction might be achieved in this unit. The city council is asked to provide input on specific items regarding unit 111 using the attached form, which should be completed independently by the mayor and each council member and then returned to me by February 19, 1992. (Extra blank forms will be distributed at the February 10 council meeting.) The individual items will be compiled into one list by February 24, and the council will be asked to assign priorities to each of the items. These rankings should be returned to me by March 4 so a presentation of the composite results can be made to the council at its March 9 meeting. Hopefully the council will reach a consensus and finalize its rankings at this meeting. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION None -- informational item only. • Unit City of Brooklyn Center Financial and Service Prioritization Process IDEA: HOW IT WOULD SAVE TIME /MONEY: HOW IT WOULD AFFECT LEVEL OF SERVICE: HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS SERVICE /TASK /PRODUCT: ❑ Essential ❑ Not essential, but expected ❑ Not essential, but valuable ❑ Not essential, but nice ❑ Not essential, could do without WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC COST SAVINGS OR NEW REVENUES: Signature (Optional): LINE ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT 111 - 1992 CITY COUNCIL BUDGET 1992 OBJECT LINE 1992 NO. OBJECT ITEM ADOPTED 4130 Salaries, Part —time Employees $27,000 4t42 PERA — Combined 224 PERA — Defined Contribution 350 4146 Social Security 1674 4147 Medicare 392 4156 Unemployment Compensation 0 PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL $29,640 4220 Operating Supplies, General 550 Employee awards 300 Recognition plaques 250 SUPPLIES, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE TOTAL $550 4310 Professional Services 15000 Annual planning process 8000 Interpreter — hearing impaired 300 Secretarial service, council meetings 6700 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL $15,000 4350 Printing 0 PRINTING TOTAL $0 4411 Training and Conferences 4000 4413 Dues and Subscriptions 36620 League of Minnesota Cities 13650 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 6095 LMC Labor Relations Consulting Service 5000 U.S. Conference of Mayors 1850 Minnesota Mayors Association 15 North Metro Mayors' Association 10000 Minnesota Women Elected Officials to MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL _ $40,620 TOTAL UNIT NO. 111 $85,810 (HHDCS111) Organizational Unit: COUNCIL Unit No. 111 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Function: General Government Activity: Legislative Department: N/A Division: N/A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PURPOSE: Under the "Council- Manager Plan" of government as established by the City Charter, the Council exercises the legislative authority of the City and determines matters of policy. The Council consists of the Mayor and four Council members, elected at- large, all serving on a part -time basis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUDGET PROPOSAL: Slight adjustments have been made to each line item in the City Council's budget. In past years, $5,000 has been allocated in the professional services line item for community development activities even though it has never been specifically expended. In addition, such an expenditure may be more properly placed in the Economic Development Authority (EDA) budget. For these reasons, there was no request for community development activities y p ties in this unit. The increase in professional services reflects the addition of the secretarial services which is used for producing minutes for City Council meetings. A new appropriation, Council Training and Conferences, has been added this year to the Council Budget. In past years, this appropriation was included in the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Training and Conferences budget. 25 (GAOB111) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET Fund: GENERAL Fund No: 001 Organizational Function: GENERAL GOVERNMENT Unit: COUNCIL Activity: LEGISLATIVE Unit No: 111 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1992 OBJECT 1989 1990 1991 RECOM- 1992 NO. OBJECT ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED MENDED ADOPTED - - - - -- ---------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 4130 Salaries, Part -time Employees 16,261 16,581 27,000 27,000 27,000 4142 PERA - Combined 184 189 224 224 224 PERA - Defined Contribution 0 0 0 350 350 4146 Social Security 447 322 383 1,674 1,674 4147 Medicare 150 179 319 392 392 4156 Unemployment Compensation 0 147 0 0 0 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL 17,042 17,418 27,926 29,640 29,640 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 4220 Operating Supplies, General 247 983 300 550 550 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- SUPPLIES, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE TOTAL 247 983 300 550 550 -- - -- - - -; - -- -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 4310 Professional Services 4,564 16,868 13,000 15,000 15,000 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL 4,564 16,868 13,000 15,000 15,000 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 4350 Printing 0 0 350 0 0 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- PRINTING TOTAL 0 0 350 0 0 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 4411 Training and Conferences 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 4413 Dues and Subscriptions (1) 29,603 35,533 34,700 36,620 36,620 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL 29,603 35,533 34,700 40,620 40,620 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- OPERATING BUDGET SUB -TOTAL 51,456 70,802 76,276 85,810 85,810 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- TOTAL, UNIT NO. 111 51,456 70,802 76,276 85,810 85,810 (1) Membership Dues: League of Minnesota Cities $ 13,650 Association of Metro Municipalities 6,095 LMC Labor Relations Consulting Service Program 5,000 U.S. Conference of Mayors 1,850 Minnesota Mayors Association 15 North Metro Mayors' Association 10,000 Minnesota Women Elected Officials - - - - -10 Total Dues and Subscriptions $ 36,620 26 (IAP111) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS ------------------- Organizational Unit: COUNCIL Unit No: ill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROGRAM NUMBER PROGRAM --- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1011 Legislative Development 1012 Labor Contract Matters 26.1 (HDPS111) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET DETAIL OF PERSONAL SERVICES --------------------------- ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT: COUNCIL UNIT NO: 111 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1992 1992 COMPLEMENT 1991 RE- RECOM- 1992 ------------------------- ADOPTED QUESTED MENDED ADOPTED POSITION AUTH REQ REC ADP ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL --------------------- - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- Mayor 1 1 1 1 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Councilperson 4 4 4 4 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- Total Part - time #4130 5 5 5 5 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 Total Labor 5 5 5 5 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 26.2 (QDPSP111) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 1992 BUDGET AS ADOPTED PERSONAL SERVICES AND FRINGE BENEFITS PROJECTIONS DEPARTMENT: COUNCIL DEPT. NO. 111 PRINTER SETTING: L03 MONTHLY MAXIMUM (M) OR GOING RATE (G) 4141 4142 4140 4146 4147 4153 TOTAL --- --------- - - - - -- ANNUAL PERA BAS.PERA COR. PERA DEFC FICA MEDICARE DENTAL FRINGE TOTAL POSITION EMPLOYEE GRADE AMOUNT PROJECTED 10.73% 4.48% 5.00% 6.20% ° 1.45/° INSUR. BENEFITS C014PENS. - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- MAYOR PAULSON N/A (M) 583 7,000 0 0 350 434 102 0 886 7,886 COUNCIL COHEN N/A (M) 417 5,000 0 0 0 310 73 0 383 5,383 COUNCIL SCOTT N/A (M) 417 5,000 0 224 0 310 73 0 607 5,607 COUNCIL PEDLAR N/A (M) 417 5,000 0 0 0 310 73 0 383 5,383 COUNCIL ROSENE N/A (M) 417 5,000 0 0 0 310 73 0 383 5,383 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 27,000 0 224 350 1,674 392 0 2,640 29,640 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date February 10, 1992 Agenda Item Number / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER TO TRI CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION DEPT. APPROVAL: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOABIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUM1bIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • i i CIT 4' CRYSTAL 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, MN 55422 - 1696.537 -8421 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE January 29, 1992 Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mayor Paulson: You may know the Tri City Airport ort Commission was created in 1982 to address issues regarding safety at the Crystal Airport. The Commission is made up of representatives of the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and Crystal as well as airport operators and administrators. Each city has four representatives (one staff member, one council member and two citizens at large). In 1991, I attended Commission meetings as an interested resident. Throughout the year, the Commission discussed topics such as overruns and improving addressing and signage at the airport. The Commission also worked to improve communication between the cities, airport users and operators. At its January 7, 1992 meeting, the Crystal City Council appointed me as the Crystal Council Liaison to the Tri City Airport Commission. According to the current Commission membership list (see attached), the City of Brooklyn Center has no representative from the Council. I encourage you to appoint a councilmember to serve on the Commission. I believe in the past year, the Tri City Airport Commission has been successful in bringing about changes which improve the safety of operations at the Crystal Airport. Please take this opportunity for Brooklyn Center to participate in future discussions regarding operations at the airport. Mayor Todd Paulson January 29, 1992 Page Two If you have any questions about the Commission, please call Anne Norris, Crystal Community Development Director, at 537- 8421. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Yours truly,. rry es l�✓ ystal ouncil Liaison Tri City Airport Commission Encl: cc: Jerry Splinter, Brooklyn Center City Manager ✓ TRI CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION 1992 MEMBERS Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park ? , Council Rick Engh, Council Gerry Splinter, Staff Jim Winkels, Staff Charles Nichols, Sr., citizen Richard Vosika, citizen Bernie Swanson, citizen Roy Arneson, citizen Crystal Operators Garry Grimes, Council Max Messmer, KARE 11 Anne Norris, Staff Mark Naas, Naas Air James Kraker, citizen Service Ron Billstrom, citizen Doug Weske, Aero Sales FAA MAC Dennis DeForest Gary Schmidt CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date February 10, 1999 Agenda Item Number 1. G REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: FEASIBILITY OF JOINT MEETING BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND FOUR SCHOOL DISTRICTS DEPT. APPROV : Gerald G. 1 nter, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOABIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SU DIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • The Council has previously discussed the feasibility of joint meetings with Brooklyn Park and has just recently completed a joint meeting with Brooklyn Center school district. During the discussion of these two meetings the Council asked that a discussion item be put on at this meeting to discuss the feasibility of having similar meetings or common meetings with all four school districts serving Brooklyn Center. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss merits of having a joint council /school boards meeting and give staff direction on the matter. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date February 10, 1992 Agenda Item Numbcr /a F REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ENFORCEMENT POLICY FOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS STANDARDS VIOLATIONS IN BROOKLYN CENTER DEPT. APPRO La- erald G. S i ter, City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECON M1ENDATION: t�. r • .� No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Councilmember Rosene asked that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion as he is concerned regarding the method of enforcing emissions standards on vehicles which appear to be in violation of state emissions standards. I have requested the Police Department to look into this matter and we should have some information for the Council on Monday evening. • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Fcbmary 10. 1992 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: FIVE CITY JOINT DISPATCH FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY DEPT. APPROVAL: James Lind hief of Police MANAGER'S REVIE No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached --yes The city managers, police chiefs, and fire chiefs of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale have had discussions on the possibilities of combining the public safety radio and telephone communications for a central dispatch. Presently Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and Robbinsdale have their own dispatch and Golden Valley provides dispatch services for themselves and New Hope. Through these discussions, it was a consensus of the group that it appears to be beneficial to explore the concept of one central dispatch for the group. The group believes in the long run, this would have Zn benefits of reduced operating costs because of the combined labor plus increased efficiency and effectiveness of a centralized dispatch station. The consultant working with the group recommended p 9 Zn a five phase plan for researching this concept. Under phase one, the group combined to create a proposal for a feasibility study to have an expert evaluation made of existing public safety radio and telephone communications used by the five cities, receive recommendations and budget estimates to effect consolidation communications. Attached are copies of the request for proposal for the study and a consulting agreement engineering outlining the ZD 0 costs for phase one. You will note the total cost for the Study Would be $19,260. Our portion (one- fifth) of this cost would be $3,852. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council review the proposed phase one study for a five-city joint dispatch facility. If it is the City Council's decision to participate in the Study, the attached resolution authorizes participation. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN A FIVE -CITY JOINT DISPATCH FEASIBILITY STUDY AND TRANSFERRING FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, along with the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale wishes to explore the feasibility of a joint dispatch facility; and WHEREAS, phase one of this process is to obtain an expert evaluation of feasibility and costs; and WHEREAS, the cost of this study would be $19,260 to be divided equally among the five communities; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center's share would be $3,852. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to approve Brooklyn Center's participation in the feasibility and cost study. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to transfer $3,852 from Council Contingency to the police department's Legal and Professional Fees account (4312). Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. JUL 17 '91 14:21 P022IMGDnLE Pu^LIC�-' P.2. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FIVE CITY JOINT DISPATCHING Introduction The cities of Brooklyn center, crystal, Golden valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale are requesting professional assistance in the feasibility of establishing a five city joint emergency dispatch facility. Tntan 21 o'ect The goal of this project is to reduce coats to all of the cities and at the same time improve the efficiency of operations for emergency dispatching. It is the intent or the Cities to procure a feasibility study of current equipment, frequencies, and their potential use in a joint dispatch capacity within the five cities until the metro Wide 800mha trunxed radio system is implemented. It is further the intent to procure alternative configurations to the five city dispatch. That is, which cities could configure temporarily and use existing equipment to form two dispatch centers for the five citiee. Submission of Proposal Tan copies of all proposals must be sent to, and received by: John W. Spetch, Chief of Police Robbinsdale Police Department 4145 Hubbard Ave. N. Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422 NO LATER THAN 4 ;30 P.M. ON AUGUST I 1991- All proposals received by the deadline will be evaluated by the five cities' representatives. contact John W. Spetch, Chief of Police Robbinsdale Police Department 4145 Hubbard Ave. N. Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422 Phone: 537 -4534, Ext. 73 Background The five cities currently operate four 911 PSAPs. It is the desire of the cities to combine one or more of the PSAPs in order to reduce the expense of the operation and increase its efficiency. The dispatch center(s) can be located in a current facility if there is adequate space to handle the increased workload and equipment. JUL 17 '91 14:22 RO22imsDnLE POLI-CE P. 3"9 scope Yroiect I. study of the current frequency use and alternative combinations to maximize efficiency. 2. study of current equipment and provide alternative configurations to maximize its use and efficiency. 3. Study of current facilities to determine if there is enough space to handle the additional workload and equipment necessary for an efficient operation. 4. study the cost alternatives for the various configurations that are deemed most reasonable, keeping in mind that one of the primary goals is cost reduction while at the same time creating more operational efficiency. 5. Present the final report to the representatives of the five cities. Proposed Format Proposals should be submitted in the following manner: 1. Statement of intents 2. General information about the firm including a list of principle staff, their background and expertise; 3. Provide a list of actual projects of a similar nature and a list of references; 4. Indicate what city ssistance will be required b our firm. Y � Y Y E enaes Reimburseme Fees �II� XP 1. The proposal should include a schedule of hourly billing rates for each category of employee. It should also include rates of miscellaneous charged that are reimbursable expenses. It should also include how requests for additional services would be billed. 2. An estimate of the total fee expoctad to be charged and a dollar amount that will be the maximum total fee charged on the project. 3. The invoice pQriod intervals are a minimum of thirty (30) days with a payment date of thirty (30) days maximum from the date of the invoice. Other Pxgject i nformation 1. All information and recommendations are to be submitted in written form. 2. Meet with organizations, as required. 3. Close contact with the cities' staffs is expected throughout the project. 4. Copies of all reportb as needed. JUL 17 '91 14' 2 P.OEEINSDf1LE POLICE P, 4. Limitations This request for proposal does not commit any of the, five cities to award a contract and pay costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal of this request or to procure a contract for services or euppliee. The five citico recerve the right to accept or reject any or all of the proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to cancel in part or its antirnty this request for proposal if it is In the best interest of the cities to do so. CONSULTING ENGINEERING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the Citv of Robbinsdale, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Leader ", acting on behalf of the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale, and W.M. MONTGOMERY doing business W.M. MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, 18321 Ridgewood Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Engineer ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbins - dale, acting through Leader, desire to: a) have an expert evaluation made of existing public safety adio and d telephone communications used by the five cities; b) receive recommendations and budget estimates to effect consolidated communications; WHEREAS Engineer i an s experienced g and qualified professional engineer capable of ev alu - ating and designing modern communication systems and performing the above tasks; and, WHEREAS, the Engineer has made a proposal to Leader, dated September 16, 1991, which was revised November 5, 1991, both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; e ence• NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually greed between Leader and Engineer as follows: Y g A. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Leader hereby engages Engineer to provide services to evaluate P Y public safety communica- g tions and prepare a report of his findings according to the terms of this agreement. 2. Engineer will perform the specific services described in the attached proposal to Robbins- dale Police Chief John W. Spetch, dated September 16, 1991, as revised November 5, 1991, prepared by Engineer. 3. Engineer will start work within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this agreement signed by Leader and will continue such work until it is complete as described in the revised pro- posal. B. COMPENSATION 1. Leader agrees to pay Engineer and Engineer agrees to accept as full payment for such services, a total payment not to exceed Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Dollars ($19,260) for all work and services described in the proposal. Engineer shall bill Leader Page 1 of 3 pages in two monthly installments of $6,000.00 each plus a final installment of $7,260.00 when the Final Report is delivered. Invoices are payable net 30 days. 2. If additional tasks are added to the project. Engineer shall be compensated at the rate of Ninety Dollars ($90.00) per hour for professional engineering time and Sixty Dollars ($60.00) per hour for associate time required to accomplish the tasks, plus travel expenses outside Hennepin County, if any, associated with doing the tasks. C. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Engineer is an independent contractor for the purpose of this agreement and for the pur- pose of the Worker's Compensation Act. Engineer agrees to carry Workers Compensation insurance as required by the State of Minnesota. 2. Leader agrees that liability of Engineer for damages arising out of professional negligence in the performance of the contract shall not exceed total amount of fee income paid for services described herein. This shall be Leader's or any participating city's exclusive remedy. 3. Engineer does not make any express or implied warranty for this work, including but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for use for a particular purpose. Leader and participating cities acknowledges that assistance to be provided by Engineer in the recommendation of radio and telecommunications hardware, software, peripheral equip- ment, and all telecommunications services is in the nature of consulting service. Leader and participating cities agrees to look solely to the manufacturers of the equipment and providers of software or services for any warranty claims, including claim of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. 4. Leader reserves the right to cancel this agreement at any time it deems to be in the best interest of Leader upon giving fifteen (15) days written notice of such cancellation to Engineer. If this agreement is cancelled under this provision, Leader shall pay Engineer for time spent and expenses incurred under this agreement to the date of such notification. 5. Engineer shall, in the execution of services, ensure in and conform to all applicable Federal, State and Local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations except those which may be obtained by official documented waivers of the appropriate jurisdiction in the execution of this agreement. 6. Engineer is not an employee of Leader or any participating city, but is a contractor who may contract with individuals and /or corporations for specific services. It is agreed Engi- neer shall, to the best of his knowledge, contract only with parties that: Page 2 of 3 pages (1) withhold taxes as provided by law, and (2) do not discriminate against any employee or applicant because of race, sex, color, religion, age, or national origin. 7. Engineer warrants that he has not employed any person to solicit or secure this agreement for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. Breach of this warranty shall give Leader the right to terminate this agreement immediately. 8. No claim for compensation shall be entertained by Leader for extra services beyond the scope and compensation maximum of this agreement without written submittal and approval of an amendment to this agreement by Leader. 9. Engineer shall maintain complete and accurate records of time and expenses involved in performance of services included in Extra Services which may be provided by this agree- ment. 10. Engineer warrants that he is not employed by nor solicited from any potential source of radio or telephone communications equipment for which this work is intended a commis- sion, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. Breach of this warranty shall give Leader the right to terminate this agreement immediately. This contract is executed in two copies, each of which shall be considered original. Dated this day of , 1992. FOR: CITY OF ROBBINSDALE, MINNESOTA FOR: W. M. MONTGOMERY Title: Title: Principal And: Title: Approved as to form: Title: Counsel Page 3 of 3 pages CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2110/92 Agenda Item Numbcr I h REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: ACQUISITION OF HOUSE AT 706 53RD AVENUE NORTH DEPT. APPROVAL: Brad Hoffman, EDA Coof dinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The house at 706 - 53rd Avenue North has been taken back by HUD. The house is located on the block that borders the south end of Bellvue Park. This property is the second house from Camden and does not border the park itself. Previously, the Council had expressed some interest in acquiring the homes on this block as they become available. I believe our acquisition cost would be approximately $38,475, plus some closing costs. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Direct staff on how to proceed with this possible acquisition. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date io /y2 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 Regarding the Fire Department and Fire Prevention and A Resolution Approving Amendments to the Fire Department Bylaws DEPT. APPROVAL: ( A ll-lb Ron Boman, Fire Chief MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONL\IENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Following is a list of the major changes in the proposed fire department and fire prevention ordinance for the City of Brooklyn Center. These proposed changes have been brought before the members of the fire department for their comments and input. The members and I feel the proposed changes will give us the needed changes for a comprehensive fire code for the City of Brooklyn Center. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere has also reviewed the proposed changes. There are basically no changes to the fire department bylaws except cleaning up language such as deleting fire marshal, adding the safety officer position (required by OSHA), and changing the auditing committee to the financial planning and audit committee. The bylaws should be approved by resolution once the ordinance has passed for a second reading. MAJOR CHANGES IN CHAPTER 5 - FIRE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE PREVENTION 1. Section 5- 102.b. deletes residency requirements for the fire department and moves this to be established by the department's rules and regulations and approved by the city manager. The proposed criteria will be about a six to eight minute response time from a firefighter's residence to a fire station. This will conform to state regulations. 2. Section 5- 102.d. changes the age requirements to conform with current Federal law (age 60 for firefighters and 65 for administrative personnel including the chief, • assistant chief, and district chiefs). 3. Section 5- 102.e. sets the department complement at one (1) full -time chief, 40 volunteers, and any other full -time positions as authorized by the city council. 4. Section 5 -201 adopts the 1991 Uniform Fire Code and State of Minnesota Amendments. 5. Section 5- 204.b. rovides for fees for permits that will be required b this ordinance. P P q Y These will include, but are not limited to, inspecting, grease exhaust ventilation systems after cleaning; and storing hazardous materials in Brooklyn Center. The permit fees will be established by city council resolution. 6. Section 5- 204.c.2.(a) allows fire doors to be held open, so long as they are held open by electrical magnetic door holders and are released any time a smoke detector is tripped in the building. 7. Section 5- 204.0. requires all battery operated smoke detectors in rental units to be replaced with hard wired type smoke detectors. All multiple rental units will have to have smoke detectors and emergency lighting in common areas, such as hallways and atriums, by December 1993. 8. Section 5- 204.g. requires any person, firm, or corporation that is not a resident of the City or owner of real property paying taxes in the City, to be liable for the cost of extinguishing or controlling a fire or spill. There is some question whether the City has the authority to collect such charges (see attached League of Minnesota Cities article). 9. Section 5 -501 requires any persons, firms, or corporations performing ventilation cleaning to obtain a permit prior to the cleaning. 10. Section 5 -502 prohibits the parking, storing, or leaving unattended on roadways any vehicles carrying flammable or combustible liquids; explosives or blasting agents; hazardous material; or poisonous gases. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss and, if desired, approve for a first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 Regarding the Fire Department and Fire Prevention. DRAFT 2/10/92 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING BYLAWS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 92- amended chapter S of the City ordinances regarding the fire department and fire prevention; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to approve amendments to the bylaws of the Brooklyn Center volunteer fire department to make the bylaws consistent with the ordinance amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the bylaws of the City of Brooklyn Center volunteer fire department are hereby amended and dated Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DRAFT 2/10/92 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , , at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 Regarding the Fire Department and Fire Prevention. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 REGARDING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE PREVENTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 5 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: Section 5 -100 PURPOSE. It is the purpose of this ordinance to provide for and maintain a volunteer fire department comprised of part -time members and full -time members as authorized by the city council Section 5 -102 DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS. b. Residency: [Except for temporary nonresidency approved by the fire chief, firefighters shall reside within the City.] Residency requirements are as established by fire department rules and regulations and approved by the city manager. d. Retirement: Firefighters shall retire at age [56 provided, however, that firefighters who were members of the Fire Department on June 1, 1967, may serve until age 60.] 60. Administrative personnel shall retire at age 65. e. Complement: The complement of the fire department shall consist of one fire chief and not more than 40 firefighters, which number may be altered by resolution of the city council, upon recommendation to the fire chief. The complement does not include probationary firefighters, the number of which is within the discretion of the fire chief. f. Fire Chief A [volunteer] firefighter from the Brooklyn Center fire department [chosen] appointed by the city manager to act as head of the fire department. [g. Aggrieved Person: The firefighter affected by an appointment, rejection, suspension, demotion, discharge or other action of the city manager from which an appeal is provided.] -1- [h] Z. Oral Interview Report: The written summary of a discussion of job- related subject matter, uniformly conducted with all applicants, resulting in a composite numerical score which shall receive no more than [607] 407 weight in the appointment or approval. [i] h. Personnel Report: A compilation of job- related performance standards including length of service, number of meetings, drills and fire calls attended, hours of fire training and education, disciplinary actions, commendations, service awards, and other similar performance standards, resulting in a composite numerical score which shall receive no more than [607] 207 weight in the appointment or approval. [j] i. Peer Evaluation Report: A report assessing those personal qualities related to the successful performance of the job for which the applicant is being considered, resulting in a composite numerical score which shall receive no more than [307] 407 weight in the appointment or approval. [k. Fact Finding Hearing: A hearing before the city council designed to establish the facts underlying a judgment or decision.] [1] 1. Classification: Fire department members shall be classified as probationary firefighters, regular firefighters, inspectors and officers. [m] k. Officers: Fire department officers shall consist of a fire chief, an assistant fire chief, one or more district chiefs and captains, [a fire marshal] and such other officers deemed necessary by the fire chief, all of whom shall be regular firefighters. 1. Administrative Personnel: Administrative personnel shall consist of a fire chief, an assistant fire chief, and one or more district chiefs. [n] M. Determination of Merit and Fitness: The appointment procedures set forth herein shall determine merit and fitness and shall be the exclusive procedures for that purpose. [o] D. Criteria of Merit and Fitness: The subject matter covered in oral interview, personnel report and peer evaluation shall be compiled by the fire department with the assistance of the city['s administrative assistant for personnel] manager or the city manager's designee [and shall be included in the bylaws of the fire department]. The said subject matter and the procedures for appointment, promotion, discipline, suspension and removal shall comply with State and Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Laws and Regulations. Section 5 -103, PROBATIONARY FIREFIGHTERS. a. Recruitment: When the fire chief shall determine that additional probationary firefighters are required, and the number so required, the fire chief shall cause public notice thereof to be posted at five public places throughout the City and published in the official newspaper of the City, said posting and publishing to continue for three consecutive weeks. In addition -2- thereto, the fire chief, with the aid of the city['s administrative assistant for personnel] manager or the city manager's desiznee shall develop and implement an affirmative action program designed to bring these employment opportunities to the attention of all citizens of Brooklyn Center, including minorities and women, in accordance with the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. [e. Appeal: Any person aggrieved by the city manager's approval or rejection may, within 15 days of written notice of said appointment or rejection, file a notice appealing said decision to the city council for a fact finding hearing.] [f] e. Duties: The duties of probationary firefighters shall be the training for and execution of fire suppression first responder medical care and fire prevention activities under the direction of the fire department as prescribed by the fire chief. Section 5 -104. REGULAR FIREFIGHTERS. [d. Appeal: Any person aggrieved by the city manager's approval or rejection may, within 15 days of written notice of said appointment or rejection, file a notice appealing said decision to the city council for a fact finding hearing.] [e] d. Duties: The duties of the regular firefighters shall be the — g training for and execution of fire suppression first responder medical care, and fire prevention activities as prescribed by the fire department under the direction of the fire chief. Section 5 -105. INSPECTORS /TRAINING OFFICERS b. Duty Assignments: All eligible firefighters wishing to be assigned duty as an inspector or training officer shall notify the fire chief in writing, stating whether they prefer fire inspection or the conduct of drills, exercises and training maneuvers. Eligible firefighters shall be given duty assignments [on a rotation, lottery, or random selection basis] by the fire chief on the basis of merit fitness and the needs of the department Section 5 -106. OFFICERS. C. Duties: The duties of captains and district chiefs selected by the fire chief from the regular firefighters shall be the supervising and directing of fire suppression and first responder medical care and fire prevention operations and other activities as the fire chief shall deem necessary. d. Exception: This section shall govern the selection of all officers except [the fire marshal,] the assistant fire chief and the fire chief. Section 5 -107, ASSISTANT CHIEF [AND FIRE MARSHAL]. One assistant chief [and one fire marshal] shall be appointed to a term of four years and shall -3- be described as follows: a. Recruitment: Any member of the fire department complement [having more than six years service as a regular firefighter] is eligible to be appointed assistant chief [or fire marshal] , subject to performance standards set by the fire department for attendance at fire calls, meetings and drills, job - related education_, [and] training and experience qualifications, knowledge of fire department procedures and knowledge of applicable fire codes. Ninety days before the end of a term of office of the assistant chief [or fire marshal], the fire chief shall post notice thereof for a period of four weeks at each fire station. Any eligible member of the fire department complement wishing to make application for appointment to the position of assistant chief [or fire marshal] shall so notify the fire chief in writing within 10 days of the posting of the final notice, stating the position for which application is made. b. Oral Interview Reports rand] Personnel Reports and Peer Evaluation Reports: Pursuant to bylaws governing the internal affairs of the fire department, the fire department shall conduct with each applicant job - related oral interviews and investigations, and the fire department shall prepare a written supplemental personnel report, an oral interview report and a peer evaluation report based thereon which set forth objective statements of the applicant's job - related qualifications or lack thereof and which may contain a ranking of all applicants in order of preference. C. Appointment of the Assistant Chief rand the Fire Marshall: The oral interview report, the peer evaluation report and the supplemental personnel report shall be forwarded to the fire chief who may conduct further interviews either personally or by a panel of qualified persons [as set forth in Section 5 -108, paragraph (d) of this ordinance]. The fire chief shall appoint or reject the applicants within 30 days on the basis of merit and fitness, notifying the city manager of the decision. The fire chief shall forward the oral interview reports, the peer evaluation reports, and the supplemental personnel reports to the city manager, who shall approve or reject the appointments within 30 days upon the basis of merit and fitness, notifying the fire chief of the decision. Failure of the city manager to so appoint or reject within 30 days shall constitute the city manager's agreement to the fire chief's appointment. The fire chief shall so notify each applicant in writing. [d. Appeal: Any person aggrieved by the city manager's approval or rejection may, within 15 days of written notice of said appointment or rejection, file a notice appealing said decision to the city council for a fact finding hearing.] [e] d. Duties: [2. Fire Marshal: The fire marshal shall be in charge of the bureau of fire prevention and shall be responsible for its operations, the enforcement of the fire prevention code, and the enforcement of all ordinances and laws relating to fire prevention and safety, together with such other duties -4- as may be delegated or assigned by the fire chief.] [3. Fire Prevention: The fire marshal shall perform the fire prevention duties set out in Sections 5 -202 through 5 -211 of City Ordinances and shall be responsible for the operation of the bureau of fire prevention, together with all other laws, ordinances and regulations dealing with the suppression and prevention of fires.] Section 5 -108. FIRE CHIEF. One fire chief shall be appointed [to a term of four years and described as follows:] by the city manager in accordance with Section 17 -104 of City Ordinances a. Recruitment: Any member of the fire department complement [having more than six years service as a regular firefighter] is eligible to be appointed fire chief, subject to performance standards set by the fire department for attendance at fire calls, meetings and drills, job - related education. [and] training and experience qualifications and knowledge of fire department procedures and knowledge of applicable fire codes. Notice of position opening shall be posted at each fire station [One hundred twenty days before the end of a term of office of the fire chief, the assistant fire chief shall post notice thereof for a period of four weeks at each fire station. Any eligible member of the fire department complement wishing to make application for appointment to the position of fire chief shall so notify the assistant fire chief in writing within 10 days of the posting of the final notice.] [d. Appeal: Any person aggrieved by the city manager's approval or rejection may, within 15 days of written notice of said appointment or rejection, file a notice appealing said decision to the city council for a fact finding hearing.] [e. Approval: The city manager shall immediately notify each member of the city council of the appointment and shall cause to be placed on the city council's agenda at its next regular meeting, the question of the final approval of the appointee. The term of the said appointee shall commence only after final approval by the city council. If final approval does not occur before the expiration of the term of office of the incumbent fire chief, said incumbent shall hold office until a successor is appointed and given final approval by the city council. In any case in which an appeal is filed, said appeal shall pp be heard and determined before the question of the final approval of the appointee is considered and determined.] d. Duties: Duties of the fire chief shall be pursuant to fire department rules and regulations governing the internal affairs of the fire de partment. [f. Duties: J [1. Supervision of Firefighters: The fire chief shall supervise and direct all firefighters and shall be responsible for establishing and enforcing rules of conduct for firefighters.] -5- [2. Keeping of Equipment: The fire chief shall have control over all of the equipment and apparatus maintained by the fire department, and shall be responsible for the care and condition of the equipment and the fire station.] [3. Annual Fire Department Report: The fire chief shall, within reasonable time after the close of the fiscal year, make an annual report to the city manager and to the city council setting forth the activities of the fire department during the preceding year. The fire chief shall also submit such additional reports and recommendations as the fire chief or the city manager may from time to time deem necessary.] [4. Annual Budget Report: The fire chief shall annually prepare and submit to the city manager a budget setting forth the anticipated needs of the fire department for the ensuing year.] [5. Annual Fire Prevention Report: The fire chief shall annually present to the city manager a statement of objectives which shall define a fire prevention program and which shall be responsive to the fire prevention goals as established by the city council. Said statement of objectives shall include a brief explanation of each objective and the goals to which it contributes; an objective measurement of the extent to which the objective has been accomplished; a time schedule for the accomplishment of each objective with intermediate milestones for its final accomplishment; an estimate of the working hours required and the costs necessitated by the accomplishment of each objective. Upon mutual agreement between the city manager and the fire chief as to the statement of objectives and the approval of funding therefor, the fire chief shall be responsible for assuring their accomplishment. The fire chief shall provide periodic reports to the city manager concerning progress toward the defined milestones and corrective actions taken. Corrective actions may include extending schedules reallocation o g f the firefighters' working hours d' g g modifying objectives, or other alternatives mutually agreed upon between the city manager and the fire chief.] [6. Training and Drills: The fire chief shall be responsible for the proper training of firefighters and shall schedule at least four hours of drills per month and shall give the firefighters instructions in the approved methods of firefighting and fire prevention.] [7. Keeping of Records: The fire chief shall keep in convenient form a complete record of all fires. Such forms shall include the time of the alarm, the location of the fire, cause of the fire (if known), type of building, name of owner and tenant, purpose for which occupied, estimated loss or damage, names of firefighters responding to the alarm, and such other information as may be deemed advisable or as may be required from time to time by the city manager or the State Department of Insurance.] [8. Bylaws: The fire chief, within the terms of this ordinance, and with the advice and consent of the - firefighters, shall prepare and amend bylaws governing the internal affairs of the fire department. The bylaws and amendments thereto shall become effective ff ctive after review b the city ma y y Hager -6- and upon their adoption by resolution of the city council.] [9] e. Rules, Regulations and Efficiency_ The fire chief, with the advice and consent of the firefighters, shall formulate a set of rules and regulations to govern the operational functions of the fire department and to aid in the maintaining of discipline, morale, efficiency, and motivation of the firefighters. Such rules and regulations shall become effective upon approval of the fire department. Section 5 -109. DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE PROVISIONS. All firefighters shall be subject to verbal reprimand, written reprimand, discipline, suspension, demotion or discharge as follows: a. Discipline by the Fire Chief: All firefighters are subject to discipline by the fire chief in the form of oral reprimands, written reprimands, and other forms of discipline approved in the bylaws of the internal affairs of the fire department for just cause connected with the fire service. All firefighters are subject to discharge, demotion and suspension by the fire chief on the basis of merit and fitness connected with the fire service, with prior approval of the city manager. [Any firefighter disciplined by a suspension may appeal said suspension to the membership of the fire department in accordance with the bylaws governing the internal affairs of the fire department.] b. Suspension by the City Manager: The fire chief is subject to discipline, suspension, and removal, on the basis of merit and fitness connected with the fire service, by the city manager. [Removal of the fire chief shall be made final only upon a majority vote of the city council.] [c. Appeal: Any person aggrieved by any discharge, demotion or suspension by the city manager or the fire chief may appeal to the city council for a fact finding hearing within 10 days of written notice of such discharge, demotion or suspension. A written statement setting forth the basis of the discharge, demotion or suspension shall be provided to such aggrieved person upon the filing of such appeal.] [d] c. Commencement of Discharge Demotion or Suspension Proceedings: Proceedings for the discharge, demotion, or suspension of any firefighter may be commenced by initiation of the city manager, by the fire chief with city manager approval, or by the fire department to the city manager, in accordance with the bylaws governing the internal affairs of the fire department. [ Section 5 -110. APPEAL PROCEDURE. Appeal is perfected by filing a written statement thereof with the city clerk during regular business hours within the period of time allotted for the notice of appeal in the ordinance. The statement shall identify the decision or order appealed from and shall contain a simple and concise statement of the grounds of the appeal.] [a. Duties of the City Clerk: Within 10 days of receipt thereof, the city clerk shall determine whether or not the statement of appeal is timely filed. The city clerk may request additional information from the appellant in order to clarify the grounds of the appeal. The clerk shall forward a copy -7- thereof to the city manager and cause the original thereof to be placed on the agenda of the city council at its next scheduled meeting.] [b. Council Procedure: The city council shall acknowledge receipt of the appeal and set a date for a hearing thereon. The city council may hear and determine the facts as a committee of the whole, or may delegate such responsibility to a hearing officer.] [c. Hearing Procedure: Procedure at the fact finding hearing shall be governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, Sections 15.0418 and 15.0419, Minnesota Statutes (1974). The appellant may be represented by counsel and the city administration shall be represented by the city attorney.] [d. Findings of Fact: The city council or the hearing officer shall hear the evidence, shall resolve any material conflicts in the evidence, shall prepare a written summary of the evidence, and shall prepare a written statement of the relevant facts which are found to be true. Any summary of evidence and findings of fact prepared by a hearing officer shall be reviewed by the city council, and the city council shall make an independent judgment of the facts it finds to be true. The city council may refer the case back to the hearing officer for further proceedings. Upon determining that the facts found by the hearing officer are true, the city council shall give its approval.] [e. Termination of Appeal: Copies of the summary of evidence and findings of fact shall be forwarded to the appellant and to the city manager, which shall end the appeal procedure. The appellant may obtain judicial review by writ of certiorari to the district court based upon a full transcript of testimony taken at the hearing, the summary of evidence, and the findings of fact.] Section 5 -110. APPEAL PROCEDURE Any firefighter may appeal a discharge demotion or suspension first according to the fire department rules and regulations. Failing at this level the firefighter may then appeal to the city manager for disposition Failing at that level the firefighter may-present the grievance to the Public Employment Relations Board pursuant to state law. It is the Policy of the City of Brooklyn Center and the Brooklyn Center fire department to deal promptly and fairly with any grievance or appeal arising out of employment with the fire department The time frame within which appeals must be filed at each level shall be defined by the fire department rules and regulations. Section 5 -111. REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDUCT AT THE SCENE OF A FIRE EMERGENCY. b. Spectators at Emergency Scene: The officer of the fire department in command at the scene of any fire or other emergency shall have the authority to establish an emergency zone within which no person except members of the fire department, police department, or authorized members of the [civil defense] emergency preparedness department shall enter, unless directed or permitted to do so by such officer in command. No unauthorized person shall enter upon the premises which is the scene of a fire or alarm of fire, or other -8- emergency, unless and until directed or permitted to do so by the fire department officer in command. d. Police Powers of Fire Department Personnel: At all times when the fire department is engaged in traveling to a fire or to the scene of an alarm of fire, or is present at a fire, or the scene of an alarm of fire or other emergency, all officers of the fire department shall be vested w' p ith P olice powers and authority to enforce the provisions of this ordinance and to make arrests for the violation thereof. The fire a t de P r ment officer in command at the scene of a fire or a rescue emergency shall have the authority to direct the operations of all police and [civil defense] emergency preparedness personnel present at the scene. The fire chief or the fire chief's designated representative [and the fire marshal are] is hereby vested with all police powers necessary to investigate the cause, origin and circumstances of any fire, or alarm of fire, or other emergency requiring the attention of the fire department. Section 5 -201. ADOPTION OF FIRE PREVENTION CODE. [There is hereby adopted by the City of Brooklyn enter for the purpose of prescribing regulations Yn P P P g g governing conditions hazardous to life a g g nd ro ert from fire or explosion, that P P Y P , certain code known as the fire prevention code recommended by the National Board of Fire Underwriters, being particularly the 1970 edition thereof, save and except such portions as are inconsistent with other City Ordinances, of which code not less than three copies have been and now are filed in the office of the clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, and the same are hereby adopted and incorporated as fully as if set out at length herein, and from the date on which this ordinance shall take effect, the provisions thereof shall be controlling within the limits of the City of Brooklyn Center.] a. Purpose and Intent of Fire Regulations: It is the purpose and intent of the fire regulations to promote high standards of quality in the construction and maintenance of buildings to improve the tax base with well constructed and well maintained buildings and to enhance the value and condition of ro ert within the City of Brooklyn Center. It is not the intent of these -_P p v y v fire regulations to provide compensation to victims of fire to guarantee absolute compliance with all fire regulations or to indemnify owners of private property against loss occasioned by their failure to comply with fire regulations. b. Adoption of Codes and Standards: There is adopted and incorporated herein by reference as an ordinance of the City: 1. The Uniform Fire Code as promulgated by the International Conference of Building Officials and Western Fire Chiefs' Association (1991 Edition) is incorporated by reference and made part of Minnesota Rules 7510 3100 to 7510 3280 per Minnesota Statutes Section 299F.011 together with Appendices I -A I -B I -C II -A II -B II -D III -A III B III C IV -A. VI -B. VI -D (which code is herelfter referred to as the UFC code with changes and omissions hereinafter set forth): and -9- 2. Adoption of National Fire Code Whenever the Uniform Fire Code, as amended by parts 7510 -3100 to 7510 -3280 is silent on any subject for any reason, in any situation the provision of protection shall be in accordance with National Fire Code 1988 Standards Numbered 13 13A 13D 13R 14 20, 71. 72A, 72B. 72C 72D 72E, 72F 74 101 231 231C 231D and 231F and their_ appendices, issued by the National Fire Protection Association (Quincy Massachusetts. 1988) which are adopted by reference as part of this code as though set forth herein in their entirety. c. Codes on file: The city clerk shall file one (1) copy of the Uniform Fire Code 1991 Edition and one (1) copy of those parts of the National Fire Code referred to in section (2) of this Section marked "Official Copy" in his or her office, and the copies shall be kept available for public inspection d. Definitions: 1. Whenever the word jurisdiction is used in the UFC it shall mean the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. Whenever the term "corporate counsel" is used in the UFC, it shall mean the attorney for the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. Whenever the term "chief" is used in the UFC it shall mean the chief of the Brooklyn Center fire department or the fire chief's designated representative PREVENTION. Section 5 -202. ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES OF BUREAU OF FIRE 2. The fire [marshal] chief or the fire chief's designated representative shall be in charge of the bureau of fire,prevention. Section 5 -203. MODIFICATIONS. The fire [marshal] chief shall have power to modify any of the provisions of the fire prevention code upon application in writing by the owner or lessee, or his duly authorized agent, when there are practical difficulties in way of carrying out the strict letter of the code, provided that the spirit of the code shall be observed, public safety secured, and substantial justice done. The particulars of such modification when granted or allowed and the decision of the fire [marshal] chief thereon shall be entered upon the records of the department and a signed copy shall be furnished the applicant. Section 5 -204. NEW MATERIALS, PROCESSES OR OCCUPANCIES WHICH MAY REQUIRE PERMITS. The [city council] city manager, director of planning and inspection, building official fire inspector, and the chief of the fire department [and the fire marshal] shall act as a committee to determine and specify, after giving affected persons an opportunity to be heard, any new materials, processes or occupancies, which shall require permits, in addition to those now enumerated in said code. The fire [marshal] chief shall post such list in a conspicuous place (in his office] , upon approval or denial by the committee and distribute copies thereof to interested persons. -10- a_. Appeal: Whenever the committee shall disapprove an application or refuse to grant the permit applied for, or when it is claimed that the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code do not apply, or that the true intent and meaning of the Code has been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal from the decision of the committee to the city council, within thirty (30) days of the date of the decision. b. Permit Fees: The fees for any permit required by this ordinance and for each annual renewal thereof, shall be established by resolution by the city council of Brooklyn Center. All permits, unless otherwise noted, shall expire one year from the date of issuance. C. Amendments to the UFC: 1. Article 4 "Permits and Certificates" of the UFC is included in it's entirety with the following change: (aZ Section 4.101, No. 22, Hazardous Material, amended to read: 1. Class 1. A general hazard and fire safety inspections require a special hazard permit. 2. Class 2. A special hazard inspection involving various hazardous materials, or processes in the occupancies of buildings generally less than 3.000 square feet in area. 3. Class 3. A specialized hazard inspection primarily directed at, but not limited to, buildings or occupancies 3,000 square feet or more where any of the following are present: a. Multiple hazards. b. Storage, handling or processes involving dangerous or hazardous materials, substances or processes. C. Occupancies in which evacuation or high valuation presents unique circumstances. 2. The following sections of Article 10, "Fire Protection" of the UFC are amended as follows: (a) Section 10.307 (A) of the UFC is amended by adding a new para rg_aph which shall read as follows: If doors located in area separation walls, or fire doors installed in stairways, or smoke barrier doors are to be kept open, they shall be held open by electric magnetic door holders that are controlled and released by smoke detectors. (bZ Section 10.307 (C) of the UFC is amended to read as follows: (e) Standard for installation, inspection, and maintenance of fire alarm system shall be according to standards in the UFC and NFPA. -11- 3. The following section of Article 11 "General Precautions Against Fire" of UFC is amended as follows: (a) Section 11.204 of UFC is amended by identifying the first paragraph as (A) and adding a new paragraph to read as follows: (B) Test to establish flame retardant Quality shall be as provided in NFC standard NFPA No. 701. d. Minimum Standards: Whenever the UFC fails to be specific about a device or a liance it shall have a minimum standard of being UL "Underwriter Laboratory" approved t Fires and Barbecues on Balconies or Patios: In any structure containing three or more dwelling units no person shall kindle, maintain or cause any fire or open flame on any balcony above ground level or on any ground floor patio within fifteen (15) feet of the structure 1. Fuel Storage Prohibited: No person shall store or use any fuel, liquid or compressed gas barbecue torch or other similar heating or lighting chemical or device in the locations designated in subsection (e) 2. Exception: Listed electric or gas -fired barbecue grills that are permanently mounted wired or plumbed to the building's gas supply or electrical system and that maintain a minimum clearance of 18 inches on all sides, unless listed for lesser clearances may be installed on balconies and patios when approved by the fire chief. f. Fire Alarm Systems and Smoke Detectors: 1. Standards for installation inspection and maintenance of the fire alarm system shall be according to the standards in NFC 2. Whoever shall render a smoke detector or fire alarm system inoperable by removing the battery or disconnectinz or dismantling the detector, or fire alarm system in any rental commercial or business unit is guilty of .. ,.,a misdemeanor. 3. All battery- operated smoke detectors shall be removed from all rental_ units and replaced with smoke detectors hard wired into the units' 110 volt electrical system by December 31 1993 g I_ncident Control Costs: Every person firm or corporation that is not a resident of the City or the owner of real property in the City subject to real property taxes shall be liable -for all incidents or preventing- the spread, or extinguishing any fire caused by or resulting from his her, or its acts, negligence or omissions The fire chief shall keep a record of the -12- cost, including work done by firefighters and other City employees and equipment. The fire chief shall then bill the person, firm, or corporation liable for the fire. No license of any person, firm, or corporation liable for the expenses incurred in fire control as provided above shall be renewed if the licensee is default in payment of any bill hereunder. h. Interpretation and Conflict with the Minnesota State Building Code: In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the UFC or the NFC and the provisions of this ordinance, the more stringent provisions shall apply, provided, however, that no provision of this ordinance shall be interpreted to exceed the requirement of the Minnesota State Building Code as adopted by the ordinance of the City of Brooklyn Center. Section 5 -205. RIGHT OF INSPECTION. The chief of the Brooklyn Center fire department or any member of the fire department designated by [him] the fire chief as an inspector[, of the fire marshal,] may, at reasonable hours, enter any building or premises for the purpose of making any inspection which [he] the fire chief deems necessary to be made. Section 5 -302. FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS REQUIRED. Every story, basement, or cellar in every building hereafter erected in the I -1 (Industrial Park) , I -2 (General Industry) , C1 (Service Office) , ClA (Service /Office) , and C2 (Commerce) zoning districts shall have installed and be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system which system shall comply with provisions of the Sprinkler Standard, N.F.P.A. No. 13. Every story, basement, or cellar in every building exceeding three stories in height hereafter erected in any residential (Rl through R7) district shall have installed and be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system which system shall comply with provisions of the Sprinkler Standard, N.F.P.A. No. 13. The fire extinguishing system [shall be connected to the City of Brooklyn Center remote station fire alarm system according to the provisions of Section 5 -501 through 5 -505 of the City Ordinances or] shall be connected to a central station system approved and listed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. and shall remain so connected and maintained during the life of the building. Section 5 -501. INSPECTIONS OF VENTILATION SYSTEMS. Cleaning. Anv persons, firms, or corporations performing_ ventilation system cleaning in the City of Brooklyn Center shall, prior to ventilation system cleaning, at least five days in advance obtain a permit from the Bureau of Fire Prevention for each job and pay a permit fee as established by resolution by the city council of Brooklyn Center. Upon completion of each job, said persons, companies, or corporations shall notify the Bureau of Fire Prevention of the completion of the job and prior to leaving the job site, allow for inspection of work by a member of the Bureau of Fire Prevention. Section 5 -502. PROHIBITED VEHICLES. It shall be illegal to park, store, or leave unattended on any street, highway, avenue, alley or parking lot within the limits of the City of Brooklyn Center any vehicle carrying flammable or combustible liquids including, but not limited to, LP or propane, or containing explosives or blasting agents, or containing hazardous material or poisonous gases. This shall not prevent a driver from transferring the product -13- to or from the vehicle or a necessary absence from the vehicle in connection with the driver's normal duties, nor shall it prevent stops for meals. Vehicles that have become disabled due to mechanical failure must be removed within three hours. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted the day of Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) -14- DRAFT 2/10/92 (Includes amendments) CHAPTER 5 - FIRE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE PREVENTION Section 5 -100. PURPOSE. It is the purpose of this ordinance to provide for and maintain a volunteer fire P department comprised of art -time members and full -time P P members as authorized by the city council. Section 5 -101. ESTABLISHMENT AND CONTINUATION. Pursuant to the charter of the City of Brooklyn Center, in order to prevent and suppress fires, to protect lives and property within the City, and to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, the city council of the City of Brooklyn Center hereby continues and establishes a department of City government known as the Brooklyn Center volunteer fire department. Presently existing appointments of all fire department personnel shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5 -102 DEFINITIONS DEFIN I NS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS. a. Firefighter: The term firefighter shall include all members of the fire department. b. Residency: Residency requirements are as established by fire department rules and regulations and approved by the city manager. c. Aze Limitation: All firefighters must be 18 years of age or older. d. Retirement: Firefighters shall retire at age 60. Administrative personnel shall retire at age 65. e. Complement: The complement of the fire department shall consist of one fire chief and not more than 40 firefighters which number may be altered by resolution of the city council, upon recommendation of the fire chief. The complement does not include probationary firefighters, the number of which is within the discretion of the fire chief. f. Fire Chief: A firefighter from the Brooklyn Center fire department appointed by the city manager to act as head of the fire department. g. Oral Interview Report: The written summary of a discussion of job- related subject matter, uniformly conducted with all applicants, resulting in a composite numerical score which shall receive no more than 40% weight in the appointment or approval. h. Personnel Report: A compilation of job - related performance standards including length of service, number of meetings, drills and fire calls attended, hours of fire training and education, disciplinary actions, commendations, service awards, and other similar performance standards, resulting in a composite numerical score which shall receive no more than 20% weight in the appointment or approval. i. Peer Evaluation Report: A report assessing those personal qualities related to the successful performance of the job for which the applicant is being considered, resulting in a composite numerical score which shall receive no more than 40% weight in the appointment or approval. -1- j. Classification: Fire department members shall be classified as probatio firefighters, regular firefighters, inspectors and officers. k. Officers: Fire department officers shall consist of a fire chief, an assistant fire chief, one or more district chiefs and captains, and such other officers deemed necessary by the fire chief, all of whom shall be regular firefighters. 1. Administrative Personnel: Administrative personnel shall consist of a fire chief, an assistant fire chief, and one or more district chiefs. m. Determination of Merit and Fitness: The appointment procedures set forth herein shall determine merit and fitness and shall be the exclusive procedures for that purpose. n. Criteria of Merit and Fitness: The subject matter covered in oral interview, personnel report and peer evaluation shall be compiled by the fire department with the assistance of the city manager or the city manager's designee. The said subject matter and the procedures for appointment, promotion, discipline, suspension and removal shall comply with State and Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Laws and Regulations. Section 5 -103. PROBATIONARY FIREFIGHTERS. Probationary firefighters shall be appointed and described by the following: a. Recruitment: When the fire chief shall determine that additio probationary firefighters are required, and the number so required, the fire chief shall cause public notice thereof to be posted at five public places throughout the City and published in the official newspaper of the City, said posting and publishing to continue for three consecutive weeks. In addition thereto, the fire chief, with the aid of the city manager or the city manager's designee, shall develop and implement an affirmative action program designed to bring these employment opportunities to the attention of all citizens of Brooklyn Center, including minorities and women, in accordance with the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. b. Testing of Applicants: Applicants for probationary firefighters shall satisfactorily pass a physical exam. c. Oral Interview Report and Personnel Report: Pursuant to bylaws governing the internal affairs of the fire department, the fire department shall conduct with each applicant, job- related personal interviews and investigations and shall prepare a written personnel report and an oral interview report based thereon, which set forth objective statements of the applicant's job - related qualifications or lack thereof and which may contain a ranking of all applicants in order of preference. d. Appointment of Probationary Firefighters: The oral interview report and the personnel report shall be forwarded to the fire chief who shall appoint or reject the applicants within 30 days upon the basis of merit and fitne -2- notifying the city manager of the decision. The fire chief shall forward the oral interview reports and personnel reports to the city manager who shall approve or reject the appointments within 30 days upon the basis of merit and fitness, notifying the fire chief of the decision. Failure to so appoint or reject within 30 days shall constitute the city manager's agreement with the decision of the fire chief. The fire chief shall so notify each applicant in writing. e. Duties: The duties of probationary firefighters shall be the training for and execution of fire suppression, first responder medical care, and fire prevention activities under the direction of the fire department as prescribed by the fire chief. Section 5 -104. REGULAR FIREFIGHTERS. Regular firefighters shall be appointed and described as follows: a. Recruitment: Regular firefighters shall be appointed from the cadre of probationary firefighters with more than six months service. When the fire chief shall determine that additional regular firefighters are required to fill the authorized complement and shall determine the number so required, the fire chief shall give personal notice thereof to each probationary firefighter with more than six months service. Such probationary firefighters wishing to make application for appointment to the position of regular firefighter shall so notify the fire chief within 20 days of such notice. b. Oral Interview Report and Personnel Report: Pursuant to the bylaws g overnin g y � s the internal affairs of the fire department, the fire department shall conduct with each applicant, job - related interviews and investigations and the fire department shall prepare an oral interview report and a written supplemental personnel report based thereon, which sets forth objective statements of the applicant's job- related qualifications or lack thereof, and which may contain a ranking of applicants in order of preference. c. Appointment of Regular Firefighters: The oral interview report and the supplemental personnel report shall be forwarded to the fire chief who shall reject or appoint the applicants within 30 days upon the basis of merit and fitness, notifying the city manager of the decision. The fire chief shall forward the oral interview reports and personnel reports to the city manager who shall approve or reject the appointments within 30 days upon the basis of merit, and fitness, notifying the fire chief of the decision. Failure to so appoint or reject within 30 days shall constitute the city manager's agreement with the decision of the fire chief. The fire chief shall so notify each applicant in writing. d. Duties: The duties of the regular firefighters shall be the training for and execution of fire suppression, first responder medical care, and fire prevention activities as prescribed by the fire department under the direction of the fire chief. -3- Section 5 -105. INSPECTORS /TRAINING OFFICERS. a. Eligibility: All regular firefighters whose personnel report adequately demonstrates the applicant's knowledge and proficiency in dealing with state and local fire codes, fire prevention techniques and methods, together with such other skills, knowledge, and characteristics deemed necessary to carry out the duties of an inspector, are eligible for duty as an inspector. All regular firefighters whose personnel report adequately demonstrates the applicant's knowledge and proficiency in conducting drills, exercises and training methods, together with such other skills, knowledge, and characteristics deemed necessary to carry out the duties of a training officer are eligible for duty as a training officer. b. Duty Assignments: All eligible firefighters wishing to be assigned duty as an inspector or training officer shall notify the fire chief in writing, stating whether they prefer fire inspection or the conduct of drills, exercises and training maneuvers. Eligible firefighters shall be given duty assignments by the fire chief on the basis of merit, fitness, and the needs of the department. c. Limitation on Duty Assignments: The duty assignments of inspectors and training officers shall be limited by the funds authorized therefor in the fire department's annual budget. d. Duties: The duties of inspectors shall be, in addition to the duties of regular firefighters, the performing of inspections as directed by the f' chief in accordance with the bylaws of the internal affairs of the f department. The duties of training officers shall be the conduct of drill , exercises and training maneuvers or directed by the fire chief in accordance with the bylaws of the internal affairs of the fire department. Section 5 -106. OFFICERS. a. Eligibility: Any regular firefighter with a minimum of three years of service is eligible to become an officer. b. Duty Assignments: In accordance with the bylaws of the internal affairs of the fire department, the fire chief shall select officers from among the eligible regular firefighters and assign such duties to them as are deemed necessary. c. Duties: The duties of captains and district chiefs selected by the fire chief from the regular firefighters shall be the supervising and directing of fire suppression, first responder medical care, and fire prevention operations and other activities as the fire chief shall deem necessary. d. Exception: This section shall govern the selection of all officers except the assistant fire chief and the fire chief. Section 5 -107. ASSISTANT CHIEF. One assistant chief shall be appointed to a term of four years and shall be described as follows: 0 -4- a. Recruitment: Any member of the fire department complement is eligible to be appointed assistant chief, subject to performance standards set by the fire department for attendance at fire calls, meetings and drills, job- related education, training and experience qualifications, knowledge of fire department procedures and knowledge of applicable fire codes. Ninety days before the end of a term of office of the assistant chief, the fire chief shall post notice thereof for a period of four weeks at each fire station. Any eligible member of the fire department complement wishing to make application for appointment to the position of assistant chief shall so notify the fire chief in writing within 10 days of the posting of the final notice, stating the position for which application is made. b. Oral Interview Reports Personnel Reports and Peer Evaluation ReDOrts: Pursuant to bylaws governing the internal affairs of the fire department, the fire department shall conduct with each applicant, job - related oral interviews and investigations and the fire department shall prepare a written supplemental personnel report, an oral interview report and a peer evaluation report based thereon which set forth objective statements of the applicant's job- related qualifications or lack thereof and which may contain a ranking of all applicants in order of preference. c. Appointment of the Assistant Chief: The oral interview report, the peer evaluation report and the supplemental personnel report shall be forwarded to the fire chief who may conduct further interviews either personally or by a panel of qualified persons. The fire chief shall appoint or reject the applicants within 30 days on the basis of merit and fitness, notifying the city manager of the decision. The fire chief shall forward the oral interview reports, the peer evaluation reports, and the supplemental personnel reports to the city manager, who shall approve or reject the appointments within 30 days upon the basis of merit and fitness, notifying the fire chief of the decision. Failure of the city manager to so appoint or reject within 30 days shall constitute the city manager's agreement to the fire chief's appointment. The fire chief shall so notify each applicant in writing. d. Duties: 1. Assistant Chief: It shall be the duty of the assistant chief, in the absence of the fire chief, to perform all functions and exercise all authority to the fire chief and to perform such other duties as may be delegated or assigned by the fire chief. Section 5 -108. FIRE CHIEF. One fire chief shall be appointed by the city manager in accordance with Section 17 -104 of City Ordinances. a. Recruitment: Any member of the fire department complement is eligible to be appointed fire chief, subject to performance standards set by the fire department for attendance at fire calls, meetings and drills, job - related education, training and experience qualifications and knowledge of fire department procedures and knowledge of applicable fire codes. Notice of position opening shall be posted at each fire station. -5- b. Personnel Reports and Peer Evaluation Reports: Pursuant to bylaws gover the internal affairs of the fire department, the fire department s conduct with each applicant, job - related oral interviews and investigations, and the fire department shall prepare a written supplemental personnel report and a peer evaluation report based thereon which set forth objective statements of the applicant's job - related qualifications or lack thereof, and which contain a ranking of all applicants in order of preference. c. Appointment of Fire Chief: The peer evaluation report and the supplemental personnel report shall be forwarded by the assistant fire chief to the city manager. An oral interview board consisting of a management representative selected by the city manager from outside the City, a volunteer fire department representative selected by the fire department from outside the City, in accordance with its bylaws, and a representative appointed by the two appointees, shall be selected. The oral interview board shall conduct such interviews and investigations with each applicant as it deems necessary, and shall prepare a written oral interview report based thereon which sets forth objective statements of the applicant's job- related qualifications or lack thereof and which shall contain a ranking of the applicants in order of preference. The oral interview report for each applicant shall be forwarded by the oral interview board to the city manager who shall reject or appoint the applicants within 30 days, upon the basis of merit and fitness, notifying the assistant fire chief of the decision. The assistant fire chief shall so notify each applicant in writing. Failure to so appoint or reject within 30 days shall constitute the city manager's agreement to the preference ranking of the oral interview board and all applicants shall be notified in writ i by the assistant fire chief of the appointments to the position of fire ch in the order of the said preference ranking. d. Duties: Duties of the fire chief shall be pursuant to fire department rules and regulations governing the internal affairs of the fire department. e. Rules, Regulations and Efficiency: The fire chief, with the advice and consent of the firefighters, shall formulate a set of rules and regulations to govern the operational functions of the fire department and to aid in the maintaining of discipline, morale, efficiency, and motivation of the firefighters. Such rules and regulations shall become effective upon approval of the fire department. Section 5 -109. DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE PROVISIONS. All firefighters shall be subject to verbal reprimand, written reprimand, discipline, suspension, demotion or discharge as follows: a. Discipline by the Fire Chief: All firefighters are subject to discipline by the fire chief in the form of oral reprimands, written reprimands, and other forms of discipline approved in the bylaws of the internal affairs of the fire department for just cause connected with the fire service. All firefighters are subject to discharge, demotion and suspension by the fire chief on the basis of merit and fitness connected with the fire service, with prior approval of the city manager. -6- b. _Suspension by the Citv Manager: The fire chief is subject to discipline, suspension, and removal, on the basis of merit and fitness connected with the fire service, by the city manager. c. Commencement of Discharge Demotion or Suspension Proceedings: Proceedings for the discharge, demotion, or suspension of any firefighter may be commenced by initiation of the city manager, by the fire chief with city manager approval, or by the fire department to the city manager, in accordance with the bylaws governing the internal affairs of the fire department. Section 5 -110. APPEAL PROCEDURES. Any firefighter may appeal a discharge, demotion or suspension, first according to the fire department rules and regulations. Failing at this level, the firefighter may then appeal to the city manager for disposition. Failing at that level, the firefighter may present the grievance to the Public Employment Relations Board pursuant to state law. It is the policy of the City of Brooklyn Center and the Brooklyn Center fire department to deal promptly and fairly with any grievance or appeal arising out of employment with the fire department. The time frame within which appeals must be filed at each level shall be defined by the fire department rules and regulations. Section 5 -111. REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDUCT AT THE SCENE OF A FIRE EMERGENCY. a. Traffic: No person shall drive any vehicle over an unprotected fire hose except at the direction or command of a police officer or member of the fire department. Upon the approach of any fire department vehicle giving signal by bell, siren, horn, or flashing emergency lights, the driver of every other nonemergency vehicle shall immediately drive the same to a position as near as possible and parallel to the right -hand edge or curb of the street, clear of any intersection, and shall stop and remain in such position unless otherwise directed by a police officer or a member of the fire department, and until the fire department vehicles have passed. It shall be unlawful for the driver of any nonemergency vehicle to follow closer than 500 feet to any fire apparatus traveling in response to a fire alarm, and it shall be unlawful to drive into or park such nonemergency vehicle within the block in which such fire apparatus has stopped in answer to a fire alarm, unless permitted or directed to do so by a police officer or member of the fire department. b. Spectators at Emergency Scene: The officer of the fire department in command at the scene of any fire or other emergency shall have the authority to establish an emergency zone within which no person except members of the fire department, police department, or authorized members of the emergency preparedness department shall enter, unless directed or permitted to do so by such officer in command. No unauthorized person shall enter upon the premises which is the scene of a fire or alarm of fire, or other emergency, unless and until directed or permitted to do so by the fire department officer in command. c. Removal of Property Endangered by Fire: The fire department officer in command at any fire or other emergency shall have power to cause the removal of any property, whenever it shall become necessary for the preservation of -7- such property from fire, or to prevent the spreading of fire, or to prot adjoining property, and to that end he may enter or authorize any member the fire department to enter any premises for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this subdivision. d. Police Powers of Fire Department Personnel: At all times when the fire department is engaged in traveling to a fire or to the scene of an alarm of fire, or is present at a fire, or the scene of an alarm of fire, or other emergency, all officers of the fire department shall be vested with police powers and authority to enforce the provisions of this ordinance and to make arrests for the violation thereof. The fire department officer in command at the scene of a fire or a rescue emergency shall have the authority to direct the operations of all police and emergency preparedness personnel present at the scene. The fire chief or the fire chief's designated representative is hereby vested with all police powers necessary to investigate the cause, origin and circumstances of any fire, or alarm of fire, or other emergency requiring the attention of the fire department. Section 5 -112. TAMPERING WITH FIRE ALARM SYSTEM AND ISSUING FALSE ALARMS. It shall be unlawful for any person to tamper with or in any way interfere with any element of any fire alarm system within the City. It shall be likewise unlawful for any person to issue, or cause to be issued, an alarm of fire or other emergency condition when no fire or emergency condition exists. Section 5 -113. OBSTRUCTION OF FIRE HYDRANTS. No person shall park any vehicle in such a way as to obstruct a fire hydrant. The stopping or parking of a vehi within 20 feet of a fire hydrant shall be deemed an unlawful obstruction of s hydrant. Section 5 -114. PENALTIES. Any person violating the provisions of Section 5 -111 through 5 -113 of this ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not to exceed seven hundred dollars ($700) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Section 5 -201. ADOPTION OF FIRE PREVENTION CODE. a. Purpose and Intent of Fire Regulations: It is the purpose and intent of the fire regulations to promote high standards of quality in the construction and maintenance of buildings, to improve the tax base with well constructed and well maintained buildings, and to enhance the value and condition of property within the City of Brooklyn Center. It is not the intent of these fire regulations to provide compensation to victims of fire, to guarantee absolute compliance with all fire regulations, or to indemnify owners of private property against loss occasioned by their failure to comply with fire regulations. b. Adoption of Codes and Standards: There is adopted and incorporated herein by reference as an ordinance of the City: 1. The Uniform Fire Code as promulgated by the International Conference of Building Officials and Western Fire Chiefs' Association (1991 Edition) incorporated by reference and made part of Minnesota Rules 7510.3100 -8- 7510.3280, per Minnesota Statutes Section 299F.011 together with Appendices I -A, I -B, I -C, II -A, II -B, II -D, III -A, III -B, III -C, IV -A, VI -B, VI -D (which code is hereafter referred to as the UFC code with changes and omissions hereinafter set forth); and 2. Adoption of National Fire Code. Whenever the Uniform Fire Code, as amended by parts 7510 -3100 to 7510 -3280, is silent on any subject, for any reason, in any situation, the provision of protection shall be in accordance with National Fire Code 1988 Standards Numbered 13, 13A, 13D, 13R, 14, 20, 71, 72A, 72B, 72C, 72D, 72E, 72F, 74, 101, 231, 231C, 231D, and 231F and their appendices, issued by the National Fire Protection Association (Quincy, Massachusetts, 1988) which are adopted by reference as part of this code as though set forth herein in their entirety. c. Codes on file: The city clerk shall file one (1) copy of the Uniform Fire Code 1991 Edition, and one (1) copy of those parts of the National Fire Code referred to in section (2) of this Section, marked "Official Copy ", in his or her office, and the copies shall be kept available for public inspection. d. Definitions: 1. Whenever the word jurisdiction is used in the UFC it shall mean the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. Whenever the term "corporate counsel" is used in the UFC, it shall mean the attorney for the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. Whenever the term "chief" is used in the UFC, it shall mean the chief of the Brooklyn Center fire department or his designated representative. Section 5 -202. ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES OF BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION. 1. The fire prevention code shall be enforced by the bureau of fire prevention in the fire department of the City of Brooklyn Center, which is hereby established and which shall be operated under the supervision of the chief of the fire department. 2. The fire chief or the fire chief's designated representative shall be in charge of the bureau of fire prevention. Section 5 -203. MODIFICATIONS. The fire chief shall have power to modify any of the provisions of the fire prevention code upon application in writing by the owner or lessee, or his duly authorized agent, when there are practical difficulties in way of carrying out the strict letter of the code, provided that the spirit of the code shall be observed, public safety secured, and substantial justice done. The particulars of such modification when granted or allowed and the decision of the fire chief thereon shall be entered upon the records of the department and a signed copy shall be furnished the applicant. Section 5 -204. NEW MATERIALS, PROCESSES OR OCCUPANCIES WHICH MAY REQUIRE PERMITS. The city manager, director of planning and inspection, building official, fire inspector, and the chief of the fire department shall act as a committee to -9- determine and specify, after giving affected persons an opportunity to be heard, new materials, processes or occupancies, which shall require permits, in addition those now enumerated in said code. The fire chief shall post such list in a conspicuous place, upon approval or denial by the committee, and distribute copies thereof to interested persons. a. Appeal: Whenever the committee shall disapprove an application or refuse to grant the permit applied for, or when it is claimed that the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code do not apply, or that the true intent and meaning of the Code has been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal from the decision of the committee to the city council, within thirty (30) days of the date of the decision. b. Permit Fees: The fees for any permit required by this ordinance and for each annual renewal thereof, shall be established by resolution by the city council of Brooklyn Center. All permits, unless otherwise noted, shall expire one year from the date of issuance. c. Amendments to the UFC: 1. Article 4, "Permits and Certificates" of the UFC is included in it's entirety with the following change: a. Section 4.101, No. 22, Hazardous Material, amended to read: 1. Class 1. A general hazard and fire safety inspections requ' a special hazard permit. 0 2. Class 2. A special hazard inspection involving various hazardous materials, or processes in the occupancies of buildings generally less than 3,000 square feet in area. 3. Class 3. A specialized hazard inspection primarily directed at, but not limited to, buildings or occupancies 3,000 square feet or more where any of the following are present: a. Multiple hazards. b. Storage, handling or processes involving dangerous or hazardous materials, substances or processes. c. Occupancies in which evacuation or high valuation presents unique circumstances. 2. The following sections of Article 10, "Fire Protection" of the UFC are amended as follows: a. Section 10.307 (A) of the UFC is amended by adding a new paragraph which shall read as follows: If doors located in area separation walls, or fire doors installed in stairways, or smoke barrier doors are to be kept open, they shall be held open by electric magnetic door holde that are controlled and released by smoke detectors. -10- b. Section 10.307 (C) of the UFC is amended to read as follows: (e) Standard for installation, inspection, and maintenance of fire alarm system shall be according to standards in the UFC and NFPA. 3. The following section of Article 11, "General Precautions Against Fire" of UFC is amended as follows: a. Section 11.204 of UFC is amended by identifying the first paragraph as (A) , and adding a new paragraph to read as follows: (B) Test to establish flame retardant quality shall be as provided in NFC standard, NFPA No. 701. d. Minimum Standards: Whenever the UFC fails to be specific about a device or appliance, it shall have a minimum standard of being UL "Underwriter Laboratory" approved. e. Fires and Barbecues on Balconies or Patios: In any structure containing three or more dwelling units, no person shall kindle, maintain, or cause any fire or open flame on any balcony above ground level, or on any ground floor patio within fifteen (15) feet of the structure. 1. Fuel Storage Prohibited: No person shall store or use any fuel, liquid or compressed gas, barbecue, torch, or other similar heating or lighting chemical or device in the locations designated in subsection (e). 2. Exception: Listed electric or gas -fired barbecue grills that are permanently mounted, wired, or plumbed to the building's gas supply or electrical system and that maintain a minimum clearance of 18 inches on all sides, unless listed for lesser clearances, may be installed on balconies and patios when approved by the fire chief. f. Fire Alarm Systems and Smoke Detectors: 1. Standards for installation, inspection and maintenance of the fire alarm system shall be according to standards in NFC. 2. Whoever shall render a smoke detector or fire alarm system inoperable by removing the battery or disconnecting or dismantling the detector, or fire alarm system, in any rental, commercial or business unit, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 3. All battery- operated smoke detectors shall be removed from all rental units and replaced with smoke detectors hard wired into the units' 110 volt electrical system by December 31, 1993. g. Incident Control Costs: Every person, firm, or corporation that is not a resident of the City or the owner of real property in the City subject to real property taxes, shall be liable for all incidents or preventing the spread, or extinguishing any fire caused by or resulting from his, her, or its acts, negligence, or omissions. The fire chief shall keep a record of -11 the cost, including work done by firefighters and other City employees equipment. The fire chief shall then bill the person, firm, or corpora* liable for the fire. No license of any person, firm, or corporation liable for the expenses incurred in fire control as provided above shall be renewed if the licensee is default in payment of any bill hereunder. h. Interpretation and Conflict with the Minnesota State Building Code In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the UFC or the NFC and the provisions of this ordinance, the more stringent provisions shall apply, provided, however, that no provision of this ordinance shall be interpreted to exceed the requirement of the Minnesota State Building Code as adopted by the ordinance of the City of Brooklyn Center. Section 5 -205. RIGHT OF INSPECTION. The chief of the Brooklyn Center fire department or any member of the fire department designated by the fire chief as an inspector may, at reasonable hours, enter any building or premises for the purpose of making any inspection which the fire chief deems necessary to be made. Section 5 -206. INSPECTOR'S DUTIES. Whenever any such officer or inspector shall find in any building or upon any premises or other place: a. Combustible or explosive matter or dangerous accumulation of rubbish or unnecessary accumulation of waste paper, boxes, shavings or any highly flammable materials, and so situated as to endanger property, or b. shall find obstructions from any source whatsoever, including materia articles or merchandise, to or on fire escapes, stairs, corridors, or do liable to interfere with the operation of the fire department, or egress occupants, in case of fire, or c. shall find any condition on said premises which is so likely to cause fire as thereby to seriously endanger property or human life, or d. shall find at any premises a violation of any ordinance of this City or law of the State of Minnesota the continuing violation of which creates a fire hazard, then such officer or inspector shall order the same to be removed or the condition remedied. Section 5 -207. DUTY TO CORRECT HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS. Such order shall forthwith be complied with by the owner or occupant of such premises or buildings, subject to appeal within twenty -four hours to the city council of the City of Brooklyn Center, who shall within 15 days review such order and file its decision thereon, and unless the order is revoked or modified it shall remain in full force and be obeyed by such owner or occupant. Any owner or occupant failing to comply with such order within 10 days after said appeal shall have been determined, or if no appeal is taken, then within 10 days after the service of the said order, shall be liable to a penalty as hereinafter provided. Section 5 -208. SERVICE OF INSPECTOR'S ORDER. The service of any such order shall be made upon the occupant of the premises to whom it is directed by either delivering a true copy of same to such occupant personally or by delivering the same to and leaving it with any person in charge of the premises, or in case no such per -12- is found upon the premises by affixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous place on the door to the entrance of the said premises. Whenever it may be necessary to serve such an order upon the owner of the premises, such order may be served either by delivering to and leaving with the said person a true copy of said order, or, if such owner is absent from the jurisdiction of the officer making the order, by mailing such copy to the owner's last known post office address. Section 5 -209. NOTICE OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION POSTED ON BUILDINGS. Whenever any building of a public nature, or which is used for commercial purposes, or for any other purpose other than a private or two - family dwelling, is found to be unsafe for any reason set out in Section 5 -206, and the hazard therefrom is so imminent as to place human life in immediate jeopardy, the inspecting officer shall post or place at the principal entrance of such structure a notice stating that it is in a dangerous condition; and it shall be unlawful for any person to remove such notice without his written permission. If the owner or person in charge of such building or structure, when notified, shall fail to place the same in a safe condition or to adopt such emergency measures as shall have been directed within the time specified, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to occupy or use said building or structure until it has been rendered safe. Section 5 -210. WATER OUTLETS REQUIRED. On all commercial, industrial and other nonresidential construction which is supplied with an adequate well there shall be provided a four inch outside water fitting with frost -free valve so located as to be easily accessible for connection to firefighting equipment near to an alley or road. 0 It shall be so constructed that it can be easily operated from the outside at all times. Section 5 -211. PENALTY. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding seven hundred dollars ($700) or imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. The hazardous condition that invoked the penalty shall be remedied within a reasonable specified time; failure to do so shall constitute a separate offense. ESTABLISHING FIRE PREVENTION PROVISIONS IN INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL. AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Section 5 -301. FIRE PREVENTION POLICY STATEMENT. It is declared to be the policy of the City of Brooklyn Center to vigorously promote the safety and welfare of its citizens. In this context, the traditional approach to fire service -- suppressing fires once ignited, rescuing survivors, and too frequently exposing firemen to physical danger and death, all at a disproportionately high community investment of resources in manpower and equipment - -is declared unacceptable for Brooklyn Center. Rather, it is the fire safety policy of the City of Brooklyn Center to efficiently utilize its resources and maximize life, safety, and citizen welfare by requiring that fire prevention and extinguishing systems be built into certain new structures. Thus, the effectiveness of the Brooklyn Center volunteer fire department is enhanced and extended at a lower cost to the citizenry, life safety is allocated a priority at least as great as property protection, and the owner cost of built -in fire protection is partially or wholly repaid in savings on initial construction costs and annual fire insurance premiums. -13- Section 5 -302. FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS REQUIRED. Every story, basement cellar in every building hereafter erected in the I -1 (Industrial Park), I -2 (Gen Industry), Cl (Service Office), ClA (Service /Office), and C2 (Commerce) zoning districts shall have installed and be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system which system shall comply with provisions of the Sprinkler Standard, N.F.P.A. No. 13. Every story, basement, or cellar in every building exceeding three stories in height hereafter erected in any residential (R1 through R7) district shall have installed and be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system which system shall comply with provisions of the Sprinkler Standard, N.F.P.A. No. 13. The fire extinguishing system shall be connected to a central station system approved and listed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. and shall remain so connected and maintained during the life of the building. Exception: Buildings having a gross floor area less than 2,000 square feet shall not be required to install a fire extinguishing system, provided each story of the building has at least 20 square feet of opening above grade in each segment of the 50 lineal feet of exterior wall on at least one side of the building. Section 5 -303. VARIANCES (ADJUSTMENTS). The procedure for obtaining a variance from the requirements of this ordinance shall be the same as set out in Section 35 -240 of the ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. The board of adjustments and appeals may recommend and the city council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration. The provisions of this ordinanc considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances related to property or uses thereof must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstanc caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the city council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 1. A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally, to other property or uses thereof within the same zoning classification. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Section 5 -304. PENALTY. Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding seven hundred dollars ($700) or imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. -14- EMPOWERING THE CHIEF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH FIRE LANES AND PRESCRIBING A PENALTY Section 5 -401. ORDERS ESTABLISHING FIRE LANES. The bureau of fire prevention is hereby authorized to order the establishment of fire lanes on public or private property as may be necessary in order that the travel of fire equipment may not be interfered with, and that access to fire hydrants or buildings may not be blocked off. When a fire lane has been ordered to be established, it shall be marked by a sign bearing the words "No Parking - -Fire Lane" or a similar message. When the fire lane is on a public property or a public right -of -way, the sign or signs shall be erected by the City, and when on private property, they shall be erected by the owner at his own expense within 30 days after he has been notified of the order. Thereafter, no person shall leave a vehicle unattended or otherwise occupy or obstruct the fire lane. Section 5 -402. PENALTY. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance or any order made pursuant thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both, with costs of prosecution in either case to be added. Each day's violation after notice thereof shall constitute a separate offense. Section 5 -501. INSPECTIONS OF VENTILATION SYSTEMS. Cleaning. Any persons, firms, or corporations performing ventilation system cleaning in the City of Brooklyn Center shall, prior to ventilation system cleaning, at least five days in advance obtain a permit from the Bureau of Fire Prevention for each job and pay a permit fee as established by resolution by the city council of Brooklyn Center. Upon completion of each job, said persons, companies, or corporations shall notify the Bureau of Fire Prevention of the completion of the job and prior to leaving the job site, allow for inspection of work by a member of the Bureau of Fire Prevention. Section 5 -502. PROHIBITED VEHICLES. It shall be illegal to park, store, or leave unattended on any street, highway, avenue, alley or parking lot within the limits of the City of Brooklyn Center any vehicle carrying flammable or combustible liquids including, but not limited to, LP or propane, or containing explosives or blasting agents, or containing hazardous material or poisonous gases. This shall not prevent a driver from transferring the product to or from the vehicle or a necessary absence from the vehicle in connection with the driver's normal duties, nor shall it prevent stops for meals. Vehicles that have become disabled due to mechanical failure must be removed within three hours. -15- , DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY o FIRE MARSHAL DIVISION FIRE SAFETY CHAPTER 7510.3100 - 7510.3280 Extract from Minnesota Rules 1989, including Amendments adopted through September 25, 1989 & Miscellaneous Statutes Printed 11 / 89 Month Year o _ . 0 7510.3120 RULES AND STANDARDS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE. The Uniform Fire Code, as promulgated by the International Conference of Building Officials, and the Western Fire Chiefs Association (Whittier, California, 1988) is Incorporated by reference and made a part of Minnesota Rules pursuant to statutory authority, subject to the alterations and amendments in parts 7510.3100 to 7510.3280. The Uniform Fire Code is not subject to frequent charge and is a•rallable at the State Law Librar_:, 117 University Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. STAT AUT11: MS s 299F.011 BIST: 13 SR 817 .o i 7510.3130 ARTICLE 1 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Sec. 1.1:1 cf the '1 r.:fcrm =ire Code is amended to read: Sec. 1.101. 'his cede stall be known as the 111r.neseta Uniform Fire Ccde, may to cited as such, and wil_ ce referred to herein as "this code." STAT AUTH: MS s 299F.011 HIST: la SR 817 7510.3140 ARTICLE 2 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 2.102. Sec. 2.102 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 2.102. (a) Local Government Amendments to Article 2. Any jurisdiction which adopts this code is authorized to make amendments, by ordinance or regulation, to Article 2 hereof to provide for a system of enforcement and administraticn within the jurisdiction. These amendments shall be equal to, in i addition to, or more stringent than this code. None of the existing provisions of Article 2 shall be changed nor shall any amendment be made which interferes with the intent of the existing provisions nor the state fire marshal's duties and powers thereunder. (b) Local Government Rules. Any jurisdiction which adopts this code is authorized to adopt, by ordinance or regulation, rules for the preventicn and control of fires and fire hazards as may be necessary frcm time to time, to carry out the intent of this code, and which may to more restrictive than this code when the rules are necessary to protect life or property in the community. The covern'ng body may adopt this code by ordinance. One certified copy of the ordinance containing the rules shall be filed with the clerk of the jurisdiction and shall be in effect immediately thereafter, and additional copies shall to kept in the office cf the fire department fcr x distribution to the putlic. (c) Chief Defined. Wherever the term "chief" appears in Articles 2 to 87 or in the Appendix of this code, it shall mean state fire marshal, except that it shall also include the chief of any jurisdiction adopting this code. , Subp. 2. Sec. 2.103. Sec. 2.103 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 2.103. A fire prevention bureau may be established within the fire department under the direction of the fire chief, which shall consist cf such fire department personnel as may be assigned thereto by the fire chief. The function of this i bureau shall be to assist the fire chief in the administration and enforcement of the fire prevention provisions of this cede. Subp. 3. Sec. 2.202. Sec. 2.202 of the Uniform Fire Code Is amended to read: Sec. 2.202. (a) Investigation. The fire department of any jurisdiction adopting this code shall investigate prcr.ptly the cause, origin, and circumstances of each and every fire )0 I I occurring in the municipality involving '.oss of Life or injury to person or destruc_ion or damage to property, and if it app-acs to the members of the Eire department making the 0 in :estigation that such Eire is of susp:cicus origin, they shall then take immediate charge of all physical evidence relating to i the cause of Eire, shall notify the proper authorities designated by law to pursue the investigation of such matters, and shall cooperate with the authorities in the collection of evidence and in the prosecution of the case. The chief shall make a report in writing to the state Eire marshal of all facts and findings relative to each investigation. (b) Police Department Assistance. The police department may assist the Eire department in its investigation whenever requested to do so. Subp. 4. Sec. 2.205. Sec. 2.205 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 2.205. Any order or notice authorized or required by this code shall be given or served upon the owner, operator, occupant, or other person responsible for the condition or violation either by oral notification, personal service, or by delivering the same to and leaving it with some person of suitable age and discretion upon the premises; or, if no such person is found on the premises, by affixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous place on the door to the entrance of said premises and by mailing a copy thereof to such person by mail to the person's last known address. Orders or notices given orally shall be confirmed by service in writing as herein provided. Subp. 5. Sec. 2.303. Sec. 2.3C3 of the Uniform Fire Code is deleted. i Subo. 6. Sec. 2.304(b). The first paragraph of Sec. } 2.304(b) of the Uniform Fire Cade is deleted and replaced with the Eollowin7: Sec. 2.304. (b) Recognized Standards. The following standards are intended for use as a guide in the design, Eabricaticn, testing, and use of equipment regulated by this i code: Subp. 7• Sec. 2.304(c). Sec. 2.304 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended adding e b� a subsection to read: y g i Sec. 2.304. (c) Standard 101 Incorporated. Whenever the Uniform Fire Code, as amended by parts 7513.3100 to 7510.3280, is silent on any subject, for any reason, in any situation., the p rovision of protection shall be in accordance with National � Fire Codes, 1988, Standard Number 101, iss,ed by the National Fire Protection Association (Quincy, Massachusetts, 1988) which is adopted by reference as part of this code as though set forth herein in its entirety. Standard Number 101 is not subject to frequent change and is available at the State Law Library, 117 University Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. j STAT AUTU: MS s 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 847 j ) )) i 1 • i 7510.3150 ARTICLE 4 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 4.103. Se_. 4.lr3 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 4.103. All appl:caticns for a permit required ty this code shall to made to the chief in such form and detail as required cv the chief. Applications for permits shall be accompanies by such plans as required by the chief. Subp. 2. Sec. 4.108. The first sentence of Sec. 4.1u8 cf the Uniform Fire Ccde is amended to read: When required chief, a Sec. 4.108. hen requr e by the permit shall be p obtained prior to en,caoing in the following activities, operations, practices, or functions: STAT AUT'H: MS s 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 647 7510.3160 ARTICLE 9 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 9.103; adult day -care center defined. Sec. 9.103 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a definition to read: Sec. 9.103. ADULT DAY -CARE CENTER shall mean a facility, licensed by the Department of Human Services under Minnesota Rules, parts 9555.9600 to 9555.9730, which provides a program of services to adults for periods of less than 24 hours per day. Subp. 2. Sec. 9.103; authority having jurisdiction defined. Sec. 9.103 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a definition to read: . Sec. 9.103. AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION shall mean any municipal fire code official or the state fire marshal or any of their authorized representatives. Subp. 3. Sec. 9.104; Building Code definition amended. The definition of Building Code in Sec. 9.104 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 9.104. BUILDING CODE shall mean the Minnesota State Building Code. Subp. 4. Sec. 9.108; family day -care home defined. Sec. 9.108 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a definition to read: Sec. 9.108. FAMILY DAY -CARE HOME shall mean a residence, licensed by the Department of Human Services under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445, in which no more than ten children receive care, maintenance, and supervision by other than their relatives or legal guardians for less than 24 hours i per day. y Subp. 5. Sec. 9.109; group day -care home defined. Sec. 9.109 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a definition to read: Sec. 9.109. GROUP DAY -CARE HOME shall mean a residence, licensed by the Department of Human Services under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445, in which at least 11 but not more than. 14 children receive care, maintenance, and 12 I ;,ipervision by other than their relatives or legal guardians for less than 24 hours per day. S:bp. 6. Sec. 9.109; guest room defined. Sec. 9.109 of the uniform - i.e Code is amended by adding a definition to read: Sec. 9.109.. GUEST ROOM shall rean a room used exclusively for living cr sleeping purposes excluding storage rooms, laundry corms, Eurna_e rooms, and similar common areas. Every 100 sq.are feet of superficial floor area in a dormitory shall be considered to be a guest room. Scbp. 7. 'Sec. 9.115; mechanical code definition amended. The definition of mechanical code in Sec. 9.115 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 9.115. MECHA7IgICAL CODE shall mean the Minnesota Heating, Ven ilati7n, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Code, in Minnesota Rules, chapter 1345. Subp. 8. Sec. 9.115; municipality defined. Sec. 9.115 of the Uniform =ire Code is amended by adding a definition to read: Sec. 9.115. 4ONICIPALITY shall mean any statutory or home rule charter city, county, or town meeting the requirements of >tianesota S.itutes, section 368.01, subdivision 1, the University of Minnesota, or the state for public buildings. Subp. 9. Sec. 9.117; Group E Occupancies definition amended. Tha definition of Group E Occupancies in Sec. 9.117 of the :;niform lire Code is amended to read: Sec. 9.117. Group E Occupancies: Division 1. Any building used for educational purposes through the 12th grade by 50 or more persons for more than 12 hours per vee•x or four hours in any one day. Division 2. Any building used for educational purposes th the 12th grade by less than 50 persons for more than 12 hours per weak or four hours in any one dal. Division 3. Any building used for child day -care purposes Eer more than ten children, or for adult day -care centers i serving four or more ambulatory and mobile persons who are capable of taking appropriate action for self- preservation under emergency c:nditions as determined by program licensure provisions. Subp. 10. Sec. 9.117; Group I Occupancies definition amended. T!:_ definition of Group I Occupancies in Sec. 9.117 of the Uniform :ire Code is amended to read: Sec. 9.117. Group I Occupancies: Division 1. Nurseries for the full -time care of children under the a.e of six, each accommodating more than four persons; anal, hospitals, sanitariums, nursing homes, and similar buildings, each a= ommcdating more than Ecur persons. Division 2. oetoxiEicaticn, centers; homes for children six years of age or over; Class D supervised living facilities for the mentall: retarded, mentally ill, or the physically handicapped, defined in Sec. 9.121; and, adult day-care centers serving ambulatory, nonambulatory, mobile, or nenmobile persons I 13 who are not mentally or physically capac_e taking appropriate action fer self- p.ese::ation un:ar e�ercer.c }• ccnj;t.cns as detercined by program :icens- rrcvis;cr. , eacn acct :nmC datin3 me :e tnan four ;erscns. EXCEPTION: Adult day -care centers 7eet:ng tKe following criteria may oe class.fred as Group E, Division 3 Occupancies: 1. not more than 50 percent of tte center's licensed capacity stall be made ::p cf pa:tic:pants who are r,ct capable of taking appropriate action for self - preservation under emergency ccnditicns; 2. the center shall be located on a floor level with all exits directly to grade without intervening stairs: 3. the center shall be protected with a complete automatic fire detection system consisting of: (i) automatic smoke detectors in all corridors and at the tcp of all stairways; (ii) automatic detectors in boiler and furnace rooms, kitchens, storage rooms, janitor closets, laundries, and other hazardous areas; and (iii) in buildings equipped with manual fire alarm systems, the manual fire alarm and automatic detection systems shall be electrically interconnected; and 4. the center shall demonstrate the ability to evacuate the entire center population within three minutes. Division 3. Nental hospitals, mental sanitariums, ;ails, priscr.s, reformatories, and buildings where personal liberties of inmates are similarly restrained. EXCEPTION: Group I Occupancies shall not include buildings used only for private residential purposes c: for a family group. Sutp. 11. Sec. 9.117; Group R Occupancies definition amended. The definition of Group R Occupancies in Sec. 9.117 of the Unifcrm Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 9.117. Group R Occupancies: Division 1. Hotels and apartment houses. Convents and monasteries, each accommodating more than ten persons; and Class A -2 s',;pervised living facilities, defined in Sec. 9.121, for the mentally retarded, mentally ill, chemically dependent, and physically handicapped, each accommodating more than four persons. Physically handicapped persons shall be housed at street level in supervised living facilities. EXCEPTION: Class A -2 supervised living facilities, defined in Sec. 9.121, having more than six but not more than 15 ambulatory or mobile disabled persons, duly licensed before April 11, 1983, and complying with the requirements for lodging and rooming houses as set forth in Standard 1C1 in the National Fire 14 Codes, L973, issued by the National Fire Protection Associatlon (Boston, Massachusetts, 1373), are classified as (,coup R, Division 3 Occupancies. Division 2. Not used. Division 3. D lodging houses, and Class A -1 supervised living facilities defined in Sec. 9.121. Subp. 12. Sec. 9.120; required by chief defined. Sec. 9.120 o! the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a definition to read: Sec. 9.120. REQUIRED BY TILE CHIEF shall mean determined by the chief to be directly related to the safeguarding of life and prcpecty from the hazards of fire and uniform for each class or kind of building, structure, or property covered. Subp. 13. Sec. 9.121; state fire marshal defined. Sec. 9.121 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a definition to read: Sec. 9.121. STATE FIRE MARSHAL shall mean the Minnesota state fire marshal or the state fire marshal's authorized representatives. Subp. 14. Sec. 9.121; supervised living facility defined. Sec. ).L21 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a definition to read: Sec. 9.121. SUPERVISED LIVING FACILITY means a facility In which supervision, lodging, meals, and in accordance with the rules of the Department of Human Services and the Department of Health, ccunseling and developmental habilitative or rehabilitative services are provided to five or rore persons who ace mentally retarded, chemically dependent, adult mentally ill, or physically handicapped. Class A supervised living facility shall mean a supervised living facility for ambulatory and mobile persons who are capable of taking appropriate action for self- preservation under emergency conditions as determined by program licensure provisions. Class A -1 supervised living facilities shall include homes providing boarding and lodging for six or fewer ambulatory or mobile disabled persons. Class A -2 supervised living facilities shall include homes providing boarding and lodging for more than six ambulatory or mobile disabled persons. Class B supervised living facility shall mean a supervised livio-g facility for ambulatory or nonambulatory, mobile or r.onmobile persons who are not mentally or pnysically capable of taking appropriate action for self- preservation under emergency conditions as determined by program licensure provisions. STAT AUTH: MS s 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 847 IS 7510.3170 ARTICLE 10 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Sutnart '_. Sec. 10.207(m). Sec. 19.207 of the Uniform Fire Cede is amended t; adding a subsection to read: Sec. 10.207. (m) Marking Fire Lanes. %e narkine of fire lanes cn private and putlic property snail be designated and approved by the chief. Sutp. 2. Sec. 10.207(n). Sec. 10.207 cf the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a subsection to read: Sec. 10.207. (n) Obstruction of Fire Lanes. parKing of motor vehicles in, or otherwise obstructing, fire lanes shall be prohibited at all times. Subp. 3. Sec. 10.301(f). Sec. 10.301(f) of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 10.301. (f) Approval and Testing. All fire alarm systems, fire hydrant systems, fire- extinguishing systems (including automatic sprinklers), wet and dry standpipes, basement inlet pipes, and other fire - protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall meet the approval of the chief as to installation and location and shall be subject to periodic tests required by the chief. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to the chief for review and approval before installation. Sutp. 4. Sec. 10.309(b). Sec. 10.309(b) of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 10.309. (b) Where Required. Standpipe systems shall be provided as set forth in Table No. 10.309 and shall have a constant water supply and pressure. EXCEPTION: Dry standpipes may be installed with prior approval cf the chief. Sutp. 5. Table No. 10.309. Table No. 10.329, item No. 2, "Occupancy" column, of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: TABLE NO. 10.309. Item 2, "Occupancy" column: Occupancies 3 stories or more but less than 150 feet in height, except Group R, Division 3. Class II standpipes are not required in Group E or Group R -1 Occupancies. STAT AUTB: MS s 299F.011 GIST: 14 SR 847 i 7510.3180 ARTICLE 11 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 11.117. Article 11 of the Uni'_crm Fire Code is amended by adding a section to read: Fires or Barbecues on Balconies or Patios Sec. 11.117. (a) Open Flame Prohibited. when required by ' the chief, in any structure containing three or more dwelling units, no person shall kindle, maintain, or cause any fire or open flame on any balcony above ground level, or on any ground floor patio within 15 feet of the structure. (b) Fuel Storage Prohibited. No person shall store or use any fuel, barbecue, torch, or other similar heating or lighting chemical or device in the locations designated in subsection (a). 16 EXCEPTION: Listed electric or gas -:iced bartecue grills that are permanently mounted, wired, or plu -'red to the building's gas supply or electrical system and that maintain a minimum clearance of 19 inches on all sides, unless listed for lesser clearances, maybe instaLled on balconies and patios when approved by the chief. Subp. 2. Sec. 11.204. Sec. 11.205 of the Uniform Fire C d is amended by adding an Exception to read: Sec. 11.204. Exception. For requirements relating to Christmas trees, see Sec. 11.210. Subp, 3. Sec. 11.210. Article 11 of the Uniform Fire Code 17ar.dPd by adding a section to read: Christmas Trees Sec. 11.210. (a) Group I Occupancies. The use or display cE natural or resin - bearing trees or decorations in Group I Cccupancies is prohibited. (b) Public Buildings. The use, display, or storage of natural or resin - bearing trees without open flames or electric _ight decorations is permitted in schools, churches, hotels, and tusiness ar.d mercantile occupancies. See Sec. 11.203(c). (c) Flame- retardant Artificial Trees. The use or display CE flame - retardant artificial trees decorated with U.L. listed electric lighting systems is acceptable in all occupancies. (d) R -1 Occupancies. Natural or resin- bearing trees shall not be stored on balconies or grounds of R -1 Occupancies. See Sec. 11.203(c). Subp. 4. Sec. 11.302(e). Sec. 11.302 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a subsection to read: Sec. 11.302. (e) Misdemeanor. Whoever intentionally gives a false alarm of fire, or unlawfully tampers or interferes with any station or signal box of any Eire alarm system or any auxiliary Eire appliance, or unlawfully breaks, injures, defaces, or removes any such box or station, or unlawfuLly breaks, insures, destroys, or disturbs any of the wires, poles, i or other scppocts and appliances connected with or Eorming a part of any fire alarm system or any auxiliary fire appliance is guilty of a misdemeanor. STAT AQTII: MS s 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 847 7510.3190 ARTICLE 12 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 12.101. Sec. 12.101 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a paragraph to read: Sec. 12.101. Egress requirements in f-amily and group day -care homes located in a single family d located on a residential lot in which the day -care provider provides the services referred to in Minnesota Statutes, yection 245A.02, subdivisior. 10, to one or more persons, shall not exceed the egress requirements that apply to the home as a single family 17 dwelling. Subp. 2. Sec. 12.106(a). -Sec. 12.106(a) of the ','niform Fire Code is amended tc read: Sec. 12.106. (a) General. Stairways shall conform to the provisions of the Building Ccde. EXCEPTION: Stairs or ladders used only to attend equipment are exerpt from the requirements of this section when properly maintained. STAT AUTH: MS s 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 847 7510.3200 ARTICLE 14 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Sec. 14.104(b). Sec. 14.104(b) of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 14.104. (b) Type of System. A manual or automatic fire alarm system or both shall be installed in occupancies in accordance with the following: 1. A manual fire alarm system shall be installed in: A. Group A, Divisions 1, 2, and 2.1 Occupancies 3. Group 4 Occupancies used for the manufacture of organic coatings C. Group :i, Divisicn 6 Occupancies as set forth in Article 51 2. An autoratic fire alarm system shall be Installed in: A. Group 3, Division 2 Occupancies as set forth in Chapter 33 of the Building Code B. As set forth in Article 81 of this code 3. A manual and automatic fire alarm system shall be installed in: A. Group E Occupancies having more than 50 occupants and as set forth in Chapter 33 of the Building Code, and in Group E, Divisicn 3 Occupancies having more than 29 occupants. In every Group E Occupancy with an automatic sprinkler or detection system, the operation of the system must automatically activate the building fire alarm system. In Group E Occupancies, an approved fire alarm system shall mean a complete, noncoced, continuously sounding until manually reset, electronically supervised fire alarm system consisting of the following: (i) Sounding stations on 100 -foot to 150 -foot spacing: (1) in corridors, (2) in areas of high noise levels, such as band rooms, shops, and boiler rooms, and (3) on a weatherproof station on the exterior of the building facing residential areas. (ii) Automatic sending stations (detectors) in boiler rooms, kitchens, shops, painting areas, lounges, laundries, janitor's closets, storerooms, unsupervised 18 I and unoccupied spaces, and critical or hazardous areas. (iii) Unobstructed, readily accessible T.anual sending stations at visible locations in the natural path of escape from fire, near each exit from an area on each floor. B. Group I Occupancies C. Group R, Division 1 Occupancies specified in subsection (c). STAT AUTH: MS s 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 817 7510.3210 ARTICLE 26 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Title. The title of Article 26 of the Uniform Fire Code is deleted and replaced with the following: RESURFACING AND REFINISEIING Subp. 2. Sec. 26.101. Sec. 26.101 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 26.101. Bowling alleys, roller skating rinks, and ether public assembly occupancies shall conform to all other applicable requirements of this code, as well as the following provisions. Subp: 3. Sec. 26.102. Sec. 26.102 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 26.102. No person shall conduct bowling pin refinishing and bowling alley or floor resurfacing and refinishing operations involving the use and application of flammable liquids or materials without a local permit. Subp. 4. Sec. 26.103. The subtitle of Sec. 26.103 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Resurfacing and Refinishing Subp. 5. Sec. 26.104. The subtitle of Sec. 26.104 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Refinishing STAT AUTH: MS s 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 837 7510.3220 ARTICLE 61 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Sec. 61.105 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 61.105. The grade of fuel oil used in a burner shall be that for which the burner is approved and as stipulated by the manufacturer. The installation and use of waste oil burners shall conform to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 299F.015. STAT AUTH: MS s 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 847 7510.3230 ARTICLE 77 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 77.104. Sec. 77.104 of the Uniform Fire Code is deleted. Subp. 2. Sec. 77.105. Sec. 77.105 of the Uniform Fire Code is deleted. 19 STAT AUTH: MS 5 299F.011 HIST: la SR 647 7510.3240 ARTICLE 79 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 79,101(a). Sec. 79.101(a), ExcEpti_n 1 of the Uniform Fire Code :s amendEd to read: Sec. 79.101. (a) General. EXCEPTIONS: 1. The transportation of flammable and combustible liquids when in conformit? with the United States Department of Transportation regulations on file with and approved by the United States Department of Transportation. Subp. 2. Sec. 79.101(d). Sec. 79.101 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended b adding 1 a subsection Y g to read: Sec. 79.101. (d) Review of Plans. Requirements for the review of plans, as covered in the following items 1 to 7, are herein incorporated as part of this code, to read: 1. Before any construction or new or additional installation for the storage, handling, or use of flammable liquids is undertaken in bulk plants, service stations, chemical plants, refineries, and processing plants, drawings or blueprints of them made to scale shall be submitted to the state fire marshal with an application, all in duplicate, for revie:. Within a reasonable tine, usually ten days after recei p: of t'.e application with dra+,•_ngs or blueprints, the state fire marshal shall examine them. Cn finding that they conform to the applicable requirements 0f this code, the state fire marshal shall so signify either by endorsement on them or by attachment to them, retain one file copy, and :eturn to the applicant the other copy plus any additional copies submitted by the applicant. If the drawings or blueprints do not ccnfor -; to t`.e applicable requirements of this code, the state fire marshal shall notify the applicant in writing within the time allowed for the examination of the application. 2. Drawings shall show the name of the person, firm, or corporation proposing the installation, its location, and the adjacent streets or high ways and surface .raters of the IS state. 3. In the case of bulk plants, the drawings shall show, in addition to any applicable features required under items 5 and 6, the plot of ground to be utilized and its immediate surroundings on all sides; complete layout of t buildings, tanks, and loading and unloading docks; type of construction of each building and the type and location of heating devices for each building, if any. 4. In the case of service stations, the drawings, in addition to any applicable features required under items 5 and 6, shall show the plot of ground to be utilized; the complete layout of buildings, drives, dispensing equipment, and 20 t g :easing or " snir.g stalls; anal the type and location of apy heating devices. 5. In -he case of abo :•egr3u:7! stcrjae, the d_aw:ngs shall sncw the '_ecaticn and capacity of each tank; d_.-ensions of each tank t :.at his a capacity esceedin•g 50,000 132 Lions: the class of 1ir,Uids be stored in each tank; the of tank s�_ioports; the clew -ante as co;eced In sections 7S . and 79.503; the type of venting and pressure relief reified upon a. ^.d the combined capacity of ail venting and pressure relief :al:es cn each t3^ : <, as c:)vered in Sec. 73.503; tr.e tank control valves as covered in Sec. 79.509(c); the location of the pu ps and other Eacilities by which li is filled into a::d wittdra :n from the tanks; and diking provided, if any. 6. In the case of underground storage, the drawings shall show the locations of fill gauge and vent pipes and openings, the location and capacity of each tan: <, and the class of liquid to to stored in each tank, along with the c_earance and cequirements as covered in sections 79.601 to 79.605. 7. In the case of an installation for storage, handling, or use of flammable liquids within buildings or enclosures at any establishment or occupancy covered in this section, the drawings shall be in such detail as will show whether applicable requirements are to be met. S�.hp. 3. Sec. 79.902(e). Sec. 73.902(e) of the UniEo:m Five Code is amended by adding an exception to read: Sec. 79.902. (e) Dispensing. EXCEPTION: When approved by the chief, the dispensing of Class I and Class II liquids from a fuel dispensing system supplied by exterior aboveground tanks may be permitted under the Eollo•wing conditions: 1. Not more than three aboveground storage tanks shall be used for dispensing. Tanks shall not exceed 6,000 gallons individual capacity. 2. The tank system shall be listed or approved for such aboveground use. 3. Fuel delivery from aboveground tanks shall be from the top of the tank with the dispensing line equipped with an approved antisyphon system, or by a remote submersible pump system located in a tank of not over 6) gallons capacity attached to the main storage tank, provided the line between the main tank and the remote Pump is equipped with a normally closed solenoid valve and fire valve at the tank opening. 4. Dispensing lines between the diked area and the dispense. shall be located underground. These lines shall be equipped with approved leak detection devices connected to an audible and visual alarm as required by the chief. These lines shall also be equipped with 21 acprc• :ed excess f -a'.+ va' ves and a n:rr3_ly c_esed scIeno_d valve at each cISper. =_e: 1Geatej telc: :he impact valve. 5. :he tank shall be ecuipped =ith overfi'- protection and the fill pipe tet tte opening and the diked area shall be underground. In adds— cn ;o tte nc:mal val:ir.g requirements :f the code, *.tore shall be a nanually cpe :aced, nect.a.n.ical shut -c`_f valve on the fill line inside t`.e diked area *:t:ch is operated from a Iccaticn outside the dike. 6. Dispensing lines and fill piping shall not penetrate the dike. 7. The tanks and piping shall to safeguarded against collision, spillage, and overfill as required by the chief. 8. The tanks shall corply with requirements for emergency relief venting, and the tanks and dispensing system shall meet the electrical classification requirements of the code. 9. Tanks, piping, valves and fittings, and diking shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with Article 79. 10. Tanks shall be provided with lightning protection as specified in National Fire Protection Association Standard 78, Lightning Protection Code, by the National Fire Protection. Association (Quincy, Massachusetts, 1986). Standard 78 is incorporated by reference, is not subject to frequent chance, and is i available at the State Law Library, 117 University Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. 11. Tank location and distance shall be two times that specified in sections 79.503 and 79.599, but ns t less than 30 feet from the nearest side of any public way cr from the nearest building and dispersing units on the same property. 12. Where more than one tank is used, all aboveground tanks shall be protected by an approved fire protection system - :hen required by the chief. 13. variances shall not be cranted from any of the provisions contained in iter..s 2 to 12. Subp. 9. Sec. 79.903(a). The first paragraph of Sec. 2i 79.903(a) of the Unifcrm Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 79.903. (a) Design and Construction. Except as otherwise provided in Sec. 79.902(e), Class I and Class II liquids shall be transferred from underground tanks by means of fixed pumps so designed and equipped as to allow control of the flow and to prevent leakage or acc ?dental discharge. Supplemental means shall be provided outside of the dispensing device so that the source cf power nay be readily disconnected in the event of fire or other accident. Dispensing devices for 22 C[i;s r, 11, or III -A liq shall be of approved type. See Sec. 2.7- )](b). Clews [, II, or III -A liquids shall be dispensed by .ipprovcJ pumps taking section through the tap of the cpntain9r. Class I, I[, or III-A liquids shall not be dispensed by a device that operates through pressure within a storage tank cr co •tairer unless the tank or cortainer has been approved as a pressure vessel for the use to which it is subjected. In no case sr.aLI air or oxygen pressure be used for dispensing flammable Class I, II, or IIi -A liquids. This section does not prohicit use permitted by Sec. 7).901. Subp. 5. Sec. 79.903(g). Sec. 7).903 of tte Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a subsection to read: Sec. 79.903. (g) Age Requirement. Flammable and coxcustibLe liquids shall be dispensed only by persons 16 years of 3; o. older. Prcminent signs shall be posted at self - service stations prohibiting flammable liq'aids from being dispensed by anyone under age 16. STAT A= : MS s 299F.011 BIST: 14 SR 847 7510.3250 ARTICLE 80 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Sec. 90.104(e) of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 80.104. (e) IDENTIFICATION. Visible tazard identification signs as specified in Uniform Fire Code Standards, Standard too. 79 -3, Identification of the Health, FlammabiLity, and Reactivity of Hazardous Materials, published by the International CcnEerence of Building Officials and the Western :ire Chiefs Associaticn, 1998, (Whittier, California), shall be placed at entrances to locations where hazardous materials are stored, dispensed, used, or handled in quantities requiring a permit. The chief shall designate the specific entrances where signs are required. The chief may wai this requirement in special cases when consistent with safety, it t`e facility owner or operator, in conjunction with the chief, develops an approved preemecgency plan consistent with the hazardous materials Management Plan (HlU� P) in Appendix II -E. The owner or operato: shall make copies of this plan available to other emergency response agencies on request. In a'_dition, when required by the chief, hazard identification signs mounted on a building shall include a sign indicating the hazard type and range value for the average daily y amount of hazardous materials present, as required on the Tier 1 hazardous che. -iical inventory Eorm under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthoci_atien Act of L995, Public Law Nurbec 99 -399, section 312, subsection (d)(1) "Tier I Information," which is incorporated by reference. The placard symbols for hazard type and range value are as follows: L. HAZARD TYPE: Physical Hazards 23 Fire - T e ?- letter placard abbreviation is: F,R Sadden Release c. P:essire Toe 3- letter placard atbrEviaticn is: Spp Reactivity - T.`.e 3- letter placard, abtreviaticn is: REA Eealtt hazards :mmediate (acute) - The 3- letter placa :d ant :e• :iaticn is: Uzi e:ayed (chronic) - The 3- letter placard accreviaticn is: HHD 2. RANGE VALUE: D:eicht Range in Pounds Placard Acoreviat :on F :cm To -- Ncne Present C0 0 99 O1 100 999 02 1,000 9 03 10,000 99,999 04 100,000 999,999 05 1,000,000 91999,999 06 10,000,000 49,999,999 07 50,000,000 99,999,999 08 1C01000 499,999,999 09 500,000,000 999,999,999 10 1 billion or greater STAT AUTH: MS s 299F.C11 HIST: 14 SR 847 7510.3260 ARTICLE 82 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Article 82. Article 82 of the Uniform Fire Code is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the follcwir.c: Sec. 82.101. LP Gas Storage and Handling. The storage, handling, transportation, and use of liquified petroleum gas and the instailaticn cf all eguiprr.ent pertinent to systems for suc. uses shall ce designed, c:nstr.cted, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the provisions of U.F.C. Standard No. 82-1. Sec. 82.102. LP Gas Systems at Utility Gas Plants. The desicn, construction, location, installation, and operation of refrigerated and ncr.refrlgerated liquified petroleum gas systems at utility gas plants shall be in accordance with the provisions of U.F.C. Standard No. 82 -2. Sec. 82.103. Submittal of Plans. Where an underground container is permitted, plans of its installation, regardless of capacity, shall be sutmitted for review to the state fire marshal before construction. For any ir.stallaticn utilizing aboveground storage containers cf over 2,0;0 gallons water capacity, or - when aggregate mater capacity of all aboveground containers exceeds 4,000 gallons, plans shill be submitted to the state fire marshal before construction. 24 Sutp. 2. Uniform Fire Code Standard No. 82-1. Part I of (1. Fire Cade St d v;. °_2 -1 is deleted in its entirety. STAT AUT11: 4S s 293F.011 H[ST: 13 SR 8J7 7510.3270 ARTICLE 85 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Sec. 85.109 of the UnIEDcm Fire Code is a.m. .ended to read: Sec. 85.109. Electrical appliances or fixtures shall not be used unless they are of an approved type. STAT AUT11:'. s 299F.011 HIST: La SR 847 7510.3280 AMENDMENTS TO APPENDIXES OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Adoption. Appendixes I -A, I -C, II -A, 1I -8, II -C, IV -A, and VI -D of the Uniform Fire Code, as mended by this part, shall be deemed a part of this cede and shall be enforced as such. Sutp. 2. Appendix I -A, Sec. 1(b). Appendix I -A, Sec. 1(b), is deleted in its entirety. Subp. ]. Appendix I -A, Sec. 2(a). The first paragraph and the accompanying exception in Appendix I -A, Sec. 2(a), are amended to read: Sec. 2. EXITS (a) Number of Exits. Every basenent and every floor above the first story used for hu;r3n occupancy shall have access to at least t.o separate exits, one of - .hick nay be an exterior fire escape ccmplying .with subsecticn (d) o`_ this section. Subject to the approval of the chief, an apprc ladder device ray be used in lieu of a Eire escape xhen the construction feature or location of the buildina on tte property maces the installation of a fire escape impractical. EXCEPTIONS: 1. In all occuoancies, base -ents and second stories •.with an „ccupant Load of ten or 'less may have one exit. 2. When the third floor ithin an individual dwelling unit does not exceed 510 square feet, only one exit need be provided Erom that floor. 3. Floors and basements used exclusively for service of the building may have one exit. For the purposes of this exception, stcr3ce moms, laundry rooms, maintenance offices and similar uses shall not be considered as providing service to the building. 4. Storage ..,v ^s, laundry rooms, and m3in.ten.ance offices not exceeding 3:0 square feet in floor area may be provided - with only cr.e exit. Subp. 4. Appendix I -A, Sec. 2(c). Appendix I -A, Sec. 2(c), is amended to read: Sec. 2. EXITS (c) Corridors. Corridcr> =__:ving a Group P, Division 1 or Grccp I Occupancy having an ccccpant Load of ten or more and 25 corridors serving other occupancies having an occurant load cf 30 or more shall have wails and ceilings of not less than one -hour fire- :esistive ccnstructien as required b*, the Building Cede. Pxisting -al'_s s.:rfaced with .ccd lath and rlaster in good ccnditicn or 1/1 -inch gypsum wallboard cr openings w:th fixed :iced glass set in steel frames are permitted fcr ccrridor j walls and ceilings and occupancy separations when approved. 1 Doors c_er.inq into ScCh corridors shall to protected by 20-minute fire assemblies cr solid .lord dcers not less than 1 -3/4 inches thick. Where the existing frame will not - accommcdate the 1 -3/4 inches thick dccr, a 1 -3/8 inches thick solid tonged wood core door cr equivalent insulated steel dccr shall to permitted. Doors shall be self - closing or automatic - closing by smoke detection. Transoms and openings other than doors from corridors to rocros shall comply -ith Section 3305(h) of the Building Code or shall be ccvered with a minimum of 3/4 -inch plywood or 111 -inch g;psum wallboard or equivalent material on the room side. EXCEPTION: Existing corridor walls, ceilings, and opening protection not in compliance with the above may be continued when such buildings are protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout. Such sprinkler system may be supplied from the domestic water system if it is of adequate volume and pressure. Subp. 5. Appendix I -A, Sec: 5. Appendix I -A, Sec. 5, is amended to read: Sec. 5. STANDPIPES When required by the chief, any building three stories or more in height shall be provided with an approved Class I or Class III standpipe system. STAT AOTH: F..S s 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 847 r t 26 BYLAWS THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Article I Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Article II Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Article III Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Article IV Drills /Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Article V Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Article VI Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 (Bracket [] items to be deleted, and underline indicates added material.) BYLAWS THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Article I ORGANIZATION Section I. This organization shall be known as the Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department. Section II. Its objectives shall be: 1.0 Preservation and protection of life and property 2.0 Fire Prevention 3.0 Firefighting Section III. All Activities and operations of the Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department shall be carried out in conformance with the Brooklyn Center City Charter and City Ordinance Chapter 5. Article II PERSONNEL Section I. Probationary Members - Notice of an opening for a probationary firefighter shall be given per the City Ordinance.' The Chief shall submit to the chairman of the examining /recruiting committee all applications. The examining committee then shall review all applications, conduct oral interviews and other investigations as they deem appropriate into the job related qualifications of the applicants. The committee shall also require other tests, including medical examinations, physical fitness tests and other such tests as may be appropriate. The committee shall then prepare a report to the Chief giving its recommendations per the City Ordinance. Section II. The Fire Chief shall appoint probationary members per the City Ordinance. Section III. After having served a probationary period of at least six months, completed the required basic training and served in a satisfactory manner, the probationary member may be appointed by the Fire Chief as a regular member of the Volunteer Fire Department per the applicable ordinance. -1- Section IV. Any regular member in good standing who resigns or requests a leave of absence in writing from the Chief, when granted, shall become a social member in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department. Section V. Personnel Records - Adequate personnel records shall be maintained in a single central location. Personnel files shall be maintained and secured by the Chief. A personnel report is required for some appointments per the City Ordinance. The personnel report shall consist of the application to the Fire Department and supplementary information, medical and physical agility test results and all training records. A supplemental personnel report is also required for some appointments. A supplemental personnel report shall consist of a review of the personnel report for accuracy and a statement thereof and any additional information on training, skills, etc. Section VI. Fire Officers - Fire Department fire officers shall consist of a Fire Chief, an Assistant Fire Chief, two or more District Chiefs, and four or more Captains, all of whom shall be regular firefighters. The Fire Chief shall select officers from among the eligible regular firefighters in accordance with Fire Department rules and regulations. The Fire Chief shall select the Assistant Fire Chief [and Fire Marshal] in accordance with the City Ordinance. The Fire Chief shall be selected by the City Manager in accordance with the City Ordinance. Section VII. Staff positions - Fire Department staff positions shall consist of a [Fire Marshal] Safety Officer Fire Inspectors, Training [Positions] Officer Secretary and Treasurer, all of whom shall be regular firefighters. [The Fire Chief shall select a Fire Marshal in accordance with the City Ordinance.] The Fire Chief shall select the Inspectors.[ &] Training Officers and Safety Officer The Secretary and Treasurer of the Relief Association shall serve as Secretary and Treasurer of the Fire Department. Article III DISCIPLINE Section I. All regular and probationary members are subject to discipline by the Fire Chief in the form of oral and written reprimands for just cause connected with the fire service. All regular and probationary members are subject to discharge, demotion and suspension by the Fire Chief in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Fire Department on the basis of merit and fitness connected with the fire service, with prior approval of the City Manager. Any regular and probationary members disciplined by a suspension may appeal said suspension to the Grievance Committee in accordance with Article V, Section III of -2- these Bylaws. Further appeals shall be in accordance with City Ordinance Chapter 5. Section 5 -110. Article IV DRILLS /MEETINGS Section I. Regular meetings and drills of the Department shall be held on Mondays of each month at the regular appointed meeting place. Section II. Special meetings may be called by the order of the Chief or upon the written request of five (5) regular members of the Department. The request shall state the subject to be considered at the meeting. The Chief shall then provide notice of the meeting to the membership. Article V COMMITTEES Section I. There shall be [an Auditing] a Financial Planning and Audit Committee, a Grievance Committee, an Examining /Recruiting Committee, a Performance Review Board, a Selection Committee, and a Fund Raiser Committee. The Chief shall appoint, from the regular members, such other committees as he deems necessary. The secretary shall post at all fire stations a current and accurate account of all standing committees. Section II. [Auditing] Financial Planning and Audit Committee A. It shall be the duty of the Financial Planning and Audit Committee to examine the accounts that may be referred to it by the Department; to examine the accounts of the Treasurer at least once a year and make a report at the next regular meeting following the examination. Section III. Grievance Committee A. It shall be the duty of the Grievance Committee to examine complaints and appeals as may be referred to it by regular members of the Department, and to report on them at the next regular or special meeting. It shall also be their duty to consider grievances in order to promote good fellowship and harmony in the Department. -3- Section IV. Examining /Recruiting Committee A. It shall be the duty of the Examining /Recruiting Committee to investigate the job related qualifications of any person making application for the fire service. They shall administer all oral interviews and such other job related tests as appropriate, and report its findings to the Chief per the Fire Department Ordinance. Section V. Performance Review Board A. It shall be the duty of the Performance Review Board to continually review regular members'[,] performance and attendance at meetings, drills, fire calls, and other departmental duties. Section VI. Selection Committee A. It shall be the duty of the Selection Committee to conduct fire officer selections, determine the qualifications of the candidates, tally and certify results, and interpret and decide any rules concerning the selection process not clearly stated in these Bylaws or other rules and regulations of the Department. Section VII. Fund Raising Committee A. It shall be the duty of the Fund Raising Committee to seek fund raising activities beneficial to the Fire Department. Article VI CHANGES Section I. Amendments shall be made to these Bylaws when proposed at a regular meeting. Such amendments shall be referred to a special committee appointed by the Chief, who shall report at the next regular or special meeting, and then only upon written notice of a meeting to be held, stating the proposed amendments, mailed to the last known address of each regular member at least thirty (30) days before said meeting. Any such proposed amendments may be adopted only by an affirmative vote of two - thirds (2/3) of the regular membership, reviewed and approved by the City Manager and the City Council. -4- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date February 10, 1992 Agenda Item Number j 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CULTURAL DIVERSITY PROCESS DEPT. APPROVAL: Gerald G. Splinter City Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEWENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNBLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • For approximately the last six months the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council in conjunction with a number of cities and school districts in the northwest area has been discussing a joint effort in the area of training and creating awareness concerning cultural diversity issues. I have attached for your information a copy of a November 27, 1991, memorandum and attached materials from Patti Wilder of the Northwest Hennepin Human Service Council. I have also provided project summary materials titled "Project at a Glance" which describe the process for creating public vision and cultural diversity awareness for northwest suburbs. At this point in time communities and school districts in the area are being asked to pass a resolution similar to the enclosed resolution from the City of Brooklyn Park which endorses the proposed cultural diversity training program described therein. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review the enclosed materials and direct staff to prepare a resolution endorsing the proposed program or directing the staff in some other manner. November 27, 1991 Dear Cultural Diversity Committee Member: Government Training Services, inter -Race, Hennepin County Prevention Center and Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council have met to discuss the evaluation component of our cultural diversity efforts in Northwest Hennepin County. We have also continued to work on expanding the planning committee's composition and have recruited some new representatives. Please be reminded that each city is to appoint a policy maker /council member. If you could contact the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council with the name of the person you have appointed so that the list can be submitted to Government Training Services to include in the grant materials. Attached is a letter responding to another group's efforts with whom we are trying to coordinate. We want to assure that their efforts do not impede, but rather complement our own. We will contact your offices next week to follow -up on member appointments if we have not heard from you. S c - i y Patricia S. Wilder, Executive Director Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL November 25, 1991 Marcy Shapiro West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board 4100 Vernon Avenue South St. Louis Park, MN. 55416 Dear Marcy, On Friday you supplied Kim Aasland and me with a draft of the West Hennepin. Human Services Planning Board survey regarding diversity and human rights. You have requested that we review this document and supply comments by early this week so that you can mail the survey out to West Hennepin cities as well as Northwest and South Hennepin communities. We appreciate your efforts to include us in a present effort of yours, but given the timing of your project and our present efforts we can not meet vour nimeline and consequently will need to work on these projects separately. We will gladly keep you informed on our efforts at information-sharing meetings. There are several difficulties we would have in terms of this immediate project. First, we have reviewed the document and feel that the survey needs some editing. For example, the first question: "1) Given the variety of experiences of suburban municipalities in regards to changes in population diversity, what do you feel is the current experience of demographic change in your municipality ?" This question is far too wordy and thus confusing to the reader. Further, depending on who is asked this question, we supply all of our cities with current data on demographic trends so they all know the diversity break -out. in addition, the question begs the answer by suggesting that there have been changes, and finally, there is no timeline given by which to assess the change. Similar comments could be given for each of these questions. The additional concern is how to incorporate this document into the work we are already doing with our fifteen cities. This work includes attitudinal and informational base -line data gathering regarding cultural diversity, focus groups, surveying and training with follow -up evaluation on the charges in attitudes BROOKLYN CENTER CORCORAN GOLDEN VALLEY MAPLE GROVE PLYMOUTH BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL HANOVER NEW HOPE ROBBINSDALE CHAMPLIN DAYTON HASSAN OSSEO ROGERS 7601 Kentucky Avenue N. • Brooklvn Parl <, MN 55428 (612) QU 2802 and perspectives. A portion of the information from this survey can be incorporated Into our present efforts, but to send several documents in a row out to the same people can frustrate as well as potentially bias the results of our efforts. We need to coordinate information gathering. Had we known about your efforts when you began in June, or at the beginning rather than the end of your intern's time, we might have been better able to coordinate these two efforts. In that we are now in the process of developing our base -line attitude and informational instrument with the intent to go through the various input processes during this month, we will be able to gather some information pertinent to your questionaire as well within the next few weeks. If you want to coordinate this effort, we can do so within this time period. If you feel that you must go ahead due to the timeline of your intern, I would suggest that you rework the questions before sending the survey out to your municipalities. Furthermore, we do not want your survey sent to our municipalities at this time. As we proceed with the charge given 0 us by our municipal members, we will be gathering information that can be shared data with your agency. Gathering significant data pertinent to our needs is more important to us than gathering information b a certain t' Whatever information g g y n lme Whate your intern gathers can still benefit your West Hennepin efforts. Our present work with our cultural diversity committee has been a collaborative effort among our member cities who have been involved with this effort together over time. Considering the extensive efforts we have been working on for the past year with our own communities, I see no benefit to West Hennepin staffing a suburban wide effort. Rather, we would be happy to share some of our findings as time progresses, ; ir mating our collaborative effort with your own. e r S. Wilder, Executive Director Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council CC. Jean Massey, Sharon Johnson, NW Cultural Diversity Committee City Managers, Mayors RESOLtiT� RESCL�TIC:I SAP CRTyNG CULTURAL DIVERSITY TF A 7 -\ 7 iG FRCG t'? WHEREAS, the C--' -- , 7 of Brooklyn Pari - is a greying city with a 1990 population of� 56,381; and WHEREAS, the Ci c� Brccklvn Park continues to experience change and diversity in its demcgraphic composition; and WHEREAS, the City o Brooklyn Park has a commitment to excellence in service to its service; and WHEREAS, understanding the needs c- a diverse community is an importa.-t component to providing excellent public service; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Diversity Training Program proposed by Government Training Service and INTER -RACE will provide necessary training for the employees of the City of Brooklyn Park; NOW, THER EFCRE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park hereby endorses the proposal by Government Training Service and INTER -RAC- related to a Cultuwaz Diversity Training Program. PROJECT AT A GLANCE "Diversity: Creating a Public Vision for the Northwest Suburbs" The Need and Cnzortunity As Minnesota's workforce and communities become more culturally and economically diverse, new opportunities and problems have arisen as cities attempt to respond to the challenge. Changing values and attitudes of employees as they serve a changing client base is a major issue facing cities and school districts. This is especially true in the first -ring suburbs, which are now encountering the challenges long associated with the core cities: poverty, housing disintegration, growing diversity in the population. Among the key diversity issues that cities face are the following: • customer service problems - -a workforce that isn't diverse is dealing with customers who are, • employees unskilled in relating to each other in a diverse workplace, • lack of direction; being reactive rather than proactive. Consequently, it is clear that four groups are central to any change: policy- makers, managers, employees and citizens. Further, it is also necessary that specific change strategies for all groups must be employed so that the effect of the values, beliefs and behaviors of each group are understood in shaping public opinion about the issue. Policymakers can make rapid progress by developing the "big picture" through value statements for their organizations and support for policy development. Managers and employees then operationalize the "big picture" and make diversity real throughout the area if committed to change. Cities have been trying to address these issues in their own jurisdictions, but now need to work across geographic and agency boundaries. What the Project Is A pro- active initiative designed to create a public vision about diversity in their communities. It is designed to be a comprehensive approach -- resulting (in the long -term) in the institutionalization of both the process and the support systems needed for positive attitudinal and behavioral change to happen. This joint effort is seen as the beginning of a long -term process. During the first year, a joint 5 -year action plan will be produced and several key implementation steps will be completed as delineated below. The collaborators recognize that major change takes time. The strength of this project is that it institutes a process and systems which can and will effect that individual and organizational change. Who's Involved The Cities of: Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale The School Districts of: Brooklyn Center Osseo Robbinsdale Northwest Hannepin Human Services Council (NWHHSC) Government Training Service (GTS) INTER -RACE Hennepin County Prevention Center (HCPC) Project Advisory Committee (Representing the above and the community at large) The Steps The project includes a sequence of important steps: • Data would be collected about the communities- - through statistics /written materials and through input from citizens in focus groups. [IN PROCESS] • Policymakers and top administrators from each jurisdiction and school district would participate in a joint planning retreat to conceptualize the "big picture," plus develop overall value statements and action plans. [APRIL 10 -11, 1992] • After individualizing these to each municipality, educational workshops for managers and employees would be developed and conducted. • Finally, a joint session for policymakers would be held to assess progress and plan for the next year's efforts. The impact of the project on the northwest suburbs will be greatly increased by its combination of joint and targeted activities. NORTHWEST SUBURBAN CULTURAL DIVERSITY PROJECT POLICYXARERS RETREAT Preliminary Schedule Day 1 2:00 p.m. What Elected Officials Need to Know about Diversity Assessing, Understanding and Managing Attitudes- - Your Own, Those of People Around You 5:15 Dinner Prominent Speaker or Skit 7:00 Working Effectively and Pro- actively Cross - Culturally within Communities Day 2 9:00 a.m. Diversity in the Ncrt: west Suburbs (What Your Community Is) • Demographics and other Statistical Data • Results of Focus Groups 10:00 Trends in the Workplace: Changes in the Nature of Work and Workers 11:00 Developing a Vision for Diversity in the Northwest Suburbs (What Policymakers Want Their Jurisdictions to Model) o Facilitated Work Session 12:00 p.m. Lunch 12:30 Developing a Vision (continued) 1:30 Translating the Vision into Joint Action Plan o Facilitated Work Session 2:45 Break 3:00 Individualizing the Joint Action Plan for Each Jurisdiction o Facilitated Work Groups by Jurisdiction 4:30 Wrap -Up /Next Steps ROLE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE • Initial Project Planning and Design • Project Oversight • Provide Input into Each Phase • Asking the vital questions of policy makers, managers and citizens (also youth): • What are the barriers to diversity? • What is accentuating the problem? • What can be done to make access easier for citizens? • Giving Residents, Stakeholders and Media information about the Project 1992 CULTURAL DIVERSITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Joel Brown Jackie Fredericks 161 83rd Avenue Northeast Robbinsdale School District Fridley, MN 55432 4148 Winnetka Avenue North 612/780 -0594 New Hope, MN 55427 Tom Bublitz Fran Hagen Assistant EDAC Acting City Manager City of Brooklyn Center City of Robbinsdale 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 4221 Lake Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Robbinsdale, MN 55422 612/569 -3300 612/537 -4534 Jerry Buckanaga Mike Holtz, City Council Member School District 279 3816 Terry Avenue North 11200 93rd Avenue North Robbinsdale, MN 55422 Maple Grove, MN 55369 612/537 -0935 612/425 -4131 Lou Howard Jean Bulau Community Affairs Department HCPC Northern States Power Company Human Services Building, Level 8 414 Nicollet Mall 525 Portland Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612/330 -5500 612/348 -9296 KimAnh Huynh Bill Dix 3325 Edenbrook Court Osseo School District #279 Brooklyn Park, MN 55433 11200 93rd Avenue North Unlisted Telephone Maple Grove, MN 55369 612/425 -4131 Vivian Jenkins Nelson Ih -Fin Tuan Dan Donahue INTER -RACE City Manager Augsburg College City of New Hope 600 21st Avenue South, Box 212 4401 Xylon Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55454 New Hope, MN 55428 612/339 -0820 612/531 -5100 John Moravec, City Council Member Jerry Dulgar 6801 35th Avenue North City Manager Crystal, MN 55427 City of Crystal 612/535-0165 / 5 4141 Douglas Drive North Crystal, MN 55422 Roosevelt Perkins 612/537 -8521 6220 78th Avenue North Suite 308 Joe Enge, City Council Member Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 c/o City Hall 612/560 -9400 City of Brooklyn Park 5200 85th Street Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 612/493 -5072 Craig Rapp City Manager City of Brooklyn Park 5200 85th Street Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 612/424 -8000 Doug Rossi Brooklyn Center School District #286 6500 Humboldt Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 612/561-2120 / 120 Jerry Splinter City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 612/569 -3300 Patty Wilder NWHHSC 7601 Kentucky Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 612/493 -2802 Helene Johnson, Executive Director Government Training Service 480 Cedar Street, Suite 401 St. Paul, MN 55101 612/222 -7409 Mary Sabatke, Program Planner Government Training Service 480 Cedar Street, Suite 401 St. Paul, MN 55101 612/222 -7409 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2/10/92 • Agenda Item Number /3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR WELL NO. 3 SAND REMOVAL, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -05, CONTRACT 1992 -A DEPT. APPROVAL: �- I :e2 Sy Knapp, Director Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW / RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached On January 13th of this year the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids for Well No. 3 Sand Removal, Improvement Project 1992 -05. This project involves pump removal, rehabilitation of the well cavity and subsequent sand removal. Bids for this work were received and opened on January 30, 1992. Of the six bids received (see attached Resolution) the lowest bid of $ 10,495.10 was submitted by Layne Minnesota Company. The Engineer's Estimate as reported at the January 13th meeting was $ 31,200. Layne Minnesota Company has extensive experience in municipal water well work in the Metro area and have satisfactorily completed projects for the City of Brooklyn Center. Accordingly, staff recommends award of the contract to Layne Minnesota Company. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting bid and awarding contract to Layne Minnesota Company is attached for consideration. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR WELL NO. 3 SAND REMOVAL, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -05, CONTRACT 1992 -A WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1992 -05, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the Deputy City Clerk and Engineer, on the 30th day of January, 1992. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Layne Minnesota Company $ 10,495.10 Mark J. Traut Wells $ 11,680.00 Keys Well Drilling $ 11,950.00 E.H. Renner & Sons $ 15,330.00 Bergerson- Caswell, Inc. $ 17,000.00 Thein Well Co. $ 23,600.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Layne Minnesota Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of $ 10,495.10, with Layne Minnesota Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1992 -05 according to the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the Deputy City Clerk. 2. The Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all the bidders the deposits made with their bids, , except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1992 -05 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: RESOLUTION N0. As Amended Per As Established Low Bid Contract $ 31,200 $ 10,495.10 Contingency $ 4,680 $ 1,574.90 Subtotal Construction $ 35,880 $ 12,070.00 Staff Engineering (8%) $ 2,870 $ 966.00 Admin. & Legal (2%) $ 720 $ 242.00 Total Est. Project Cost $ 39,470 $ 13,278.00 Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2 /10 /m Agenda Item \umber REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT UNDER I94/694, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -03, CONTRACT 1992 -D DEPT. APPROVAL: r K Sy Knapp, Director WPublic Works _ [,- . MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes As reported to the Council at its October 7, 1991 meeting, Public Works Department personnel have reviewed and analyzed the results obtained from last year's sewer televising project. At that meeting, Staff indicated that the trunk sewer line located under I- 94/694, was the same material (24" corrugated metal pipe) and similar condition as that which is has recently been replaced in the vicinity of Lift Station No. 1. From viewing the televised report, it is apparent that the existing sewer line under the freeway is settling and sagging, with severe corrosion evident on the walls of the pipe. The Capital Improvement Program had scheduled this pipe, along with the remainder of known 24" CMP, for replacement in 1995. However, given the benefit of the recent televised report, staff has recommended replacing sections of the CMP sewer that were in imminent danger of collapse, prior to 1995. For reference, a map of the known corrugated metal pipe sewer segments in Brooklyn Center and their status has been attached to this report. Because this particular segment of sewer lies under I- 94/694 and within Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) right -of -way, a sudden failure would have devastating effects. It is safe to assume that, in the case of an unexpected sewer collapse, MnDOT's priority would be the continuation of freeway traffic, and to avoid sewage backing up into residences the City would probably be required to pump sewage into the freeway ditches, which flow to Shingle Creek. • For that and other reasons, staff recommends replacement of this pipe in a non - emergency situation, if possible. The City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the replacement of the sewer and if approved, the project would occur yet this winter or early spring. Because the majority of work would be performed under the freeway, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has a substantial interest in the project, and must issue a utility crossing permit prior to any sewer construction. The terms of the permit dictate the construction methods and materials that must be used for the sewer replacement. For obvious reasons, MnDOT will not allow the sewer to be installed under the freeway by conventional open trench methods, and require the new sewer to be installed within a 42" diameter steel carrier conduit. This conduit must first be tunneled into place, and then the sewer pipe can be slid inside. Compared to normal open trenching, this is a very expensive construction technique, however, it is the only way MnDOT allows a utility crossing of an operating trunk highway. The total project costs, including all construction items, engineering, legal, etc. are estimated at this time as $210,220. Note: A videotape from the above - mentioned televised report, which covers this segment of sewer, will be available for viewing at the City Council meeting. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution establishing project, approving plans and specifications and directing advertisement for bids is provided for consideration by the City Council. r 13� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT UNDER I94/694, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1992 -03, CONTRACT 1992 -D WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that there exists a portion of the City's sewer system within the right -of -way of I94/694 which requires replacement; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvement is identified in the Capital Improvement Program for Brooklyn Center, adopted June 24, 1991; and WHEREAS, the required replacement is beyond the scope of usual maintenance performed by City forces. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1992 -03, Trunk Sewer Replacement Under I94/694, is hereby established. 2. Said plans and specifications as prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved. 3. The Deputy City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin'an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the Deputy City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Deputy City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 4. The estimated project costs are established as follows: Contract $ 166,180 Contingency (15 %) 24,930 Subtotal Construction $ 191,110 Staff Engineering (8%) $ 15,290 Admin. & Legal (2%) $ 3,820 Total Est. Project Cost $ 210,220 RESOLUTION NO. 5. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. TO BE REPLACED 1992 R °:R - 41 ` 1 (69TH AVE PROJECT - - 2 1990 -10 5522 � _ n 44.70 69 n T. { n! ozr -esr oz !� ?152 1 1� 4 2 - 69 ___Q ;.iQ_Q7,gs-13. o, - 6s _ _ •,� 9s ssoz ,40 34 `- ,� PL 01 ID B� -6a - . "S.CP 301 4 \ \ ., t m wi ,h' �.. bet X681 °�� 0S.CP -303 e 68 323 I4C1' iS,C.P -302 _ 6 as - _4.:_ a�cE - 34 68� p ui.Y� .. 86 -1522 68- �j` 3972 m 3T - � ba 311 F s .C.P -6 1321 P ROPOSED OJE n _s.. m 0 329 -8 X326 8 O s v - 0 033a-q O']TO .... m � D � ere 6T4 37.672 _ r t _ a IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - - _ - �- =6614 1 _ 44-66 41 66 A t_ ■ ��� �� 0 -�- o a62- :cm 9 8-- {S _ 3. IS 66•V277.p17 1 i O# 34 66 p66 -304 6a 4 2 � 66 41I d 41 -65{ }� Y ..,_.. _ .... ° P 653 m..'3a 66 m 3T m'76-66 ,0 33 66 66-]06 3 3b 66•:SOS 152 -653 �3. ,�? o } -- a ' _- • _ �Q.t3d_ -1 0 330 t�330-8 J 330-,6 129 �, Q' V "37 n $ 302 - \^ -L "I -L413 W L 412 W L 411 m'i N L` 0 34 - a x 66 30 O t 132- 632 >:� 65t. X33 -631 7}9 -9 OR Yi - 9 r _... i - `Ufi 651 p �152 65JE P r"'•ra n 45 -63 41 -65 s7 63 s2 65 r MR -� N A329..ab n 36 a 74-65 -3o 3 3 �" na.g, ,,.,..,.tip.R�,•` -p7 -.,.. ,^ f � • C! J ...>•`0' �3]2-12_O 152651 ��97 _ 2'ti �f6 ]ZL .0.324 d2.0 �'r9� 1 029312.0t7L1 .`Q65•iS23, p p 93 p' �'�]7.. 012fl..1 �.._303 $ 3a _ "�" "nom., y -- �•• O •I7. _ b 41 -6 Q <a 3q f 33`.65 0 3 '4 t29� s '6 Y 6 {2 v+i -.._ _ mn . -. S � ht a_...P. 65./322 O 3 t4.6 aY3 10 o 042 0{4-641 t 0 p46i41 }43 941 js 641 - - ,� � 152.66 EOW 24 0 302^ SB 65 -1321 .1 '} 64 3O! 252 -24 3 ti n 3 o $ 21 >a v zs7 m; X04. 633 oa_ - 132-634 O a f E`C72 1 yt� - { 6 a' 64 -809 s4 tiw 6UM -412 8 ,k "xj�� f_4i9o-ii oRl � ss JO� 349- - 0130 4 bs 0 17 =3 �O «1iD_ pia 64 `` .. n.D -. PR oR3 Q ST2 = &'p 166 fl_.Q'.25'a- 6 . O " DRI 6 00 1-N a l 3n hs 3 39 wM3 p 152-Ka -63 3 P,Q 0R2 361 - w ", ,r, 014�� _PP OR1 64 9 DR2 .�44an ._ a42bT _ f3 4r v.,_ , . n.n8! ...4,. o k .i n,. RS es, :r 6tr61 ro- _b3oS II4..Jr a.II_s1a v� OR.•e DR 37e= �•OR - `' -6 >' IDENTIFIED BY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REPORT 1 3 `. ES•GORI • "' .rat �`'' � g o }Op- �.... 330 339 -99 0 -0 0 uazz n - 242 JO _ __._ '....- - y ..- 3 O2 a ! p RE PLACED 622 5T4. - R {S 121 0144.91{ 943 .614 :0303 flaOTj Z 301 _.- Ip;_3t6T2 rt ,• �, _`�Nlawl 341- «�`• F ALL 1991 R sS Se4 42,9 ,w ,6>a++uaq. 276 6p y �a Sa 9 l't'3218 26r Q o iwa X0'391 3't =9°O o i Alk � KR N 5 'kRf ' NA' R -& i o ±I[R (1991 - 23) 0 • / d4467 ,341 231 ib Sg s......a2 4 -, 039 1 ! a..:t ♦'Y � p,. -_ -- d - m 6 z ' • ^ � � p07 'y� 2 621 3G �Q 339 9 0 730 � O 90 g Y� 1 � - 93 - " W ISt•62 34-62 39� xR 301 ;0 - Rr " a r+,_ - �u ee-3 °. � ue.62s aat,,t �t _ d 4�sai sul off �Q i eer2 � wv2 X3 JA "]93 NAND 7 SI 0 �32�. 413aa tK ! � •. 9G1 su _360 - _�� .n 3a �ee.ai�2�:8`OR` _ E�v 0q 0 o '�T" �p X24 tr.1 '-� 03. 0 10 61 371 152 cJj� p i•"-��"c -� T ssI ?3 e1- 6136 - . - yl, A ✓''pi22 4 sti �t 2} `[ � - � ✓ ° � 43sus!�4z•���tl`gtl o� S� 32� g bl�$�So- � ° � - - �� y e �� _ c P -iYD: A R 61 -391 $96{ Qh o .* 0.131 -601 p332 d - C 33 .�...�'}'3' '„jam ' -60 }' 30 -61 4 'FORCC 61 393p 61 PAIN 1 _ 3361 _32-61 31.61 10 e la REPLAC .iGP -4.YOt , ,. µ 34-01 6 N ` � fZ 10.391/22 R ]Ttnl 8 V 33 603 "b= Ol -, v JO 602629 6o � 58 W/22 p27x A �` Gd, sz -6 _ . 1 i �' o �c]�° g9 F�:'g9s bz4a g } ' 31 or 33 ea bot 3 601 So - , z �j - :. 10 iti 391,2 LY R.P-40, q A P CO C0 ] I?, � p� 'm EMERGENCY PROJE S AP A), oYS b o a o t9g m s9uzr ff % tee" AP /� S L - STI '47" O.A2i ,6 O Isz- A �.v o_ S6 ti iv, Yt MA 99 . - AL o a =M 1 ` AP �^ Y" esu . "'1- :.� >m or ,� --- Y, t9.nz� r?� � gal- b 1666 �za set - o \} 27 r ' 4a ALbA1694 �, 3 ... LYl♦ bsl_ >t t 591 y O.M -591 �.� s2•;rm/ M.P ;- sy ?c /,,.T 3p..e'4? �, , . a, L mo o, m; �y - 0: E.9,Ai OL'� j a . 402, ' L P .. ,"3 + ..g. -� Sa{ AA 315- o - -'� •ti r. 16h,1 Esa s 29 sa•'a "' Z9 39 �F: -r ,�'' " s.. -cn.gs �p� �cY'k S V O a lu 59 v �su f,vo SJi .a 03 2 14 09�� =1� }I pA�o yQ`o }z6 �o n _'`yf2 02'6NP -4o1 ALS .m A, tie f '- • O 40 M,P' '? 1 's'� f ` 152 -3a � E4•s9 .._ 33-69 32 398 31 -3a 30. - v .._. T159 'fl r Se s9 ' 1 0152 -3a2 „ r ° o j .,040.592 - Y}Pn AL3 361 3] 361?a %36361iY .: 'x, CO.IO S b I } 4 yy� y PDcAL2"' (dE AL P0. ' *' NWOR NW S., -CO 104 O 3 DR _ 1 u FT f b P0. Au q' • d a °-- i m 02878Q � 0 p S p �sc.i- co.102 4'S 3T335d12S RA b.591 X311 10 0� t 4p17 661 tO Sd -S91 �j 5132-391 ^,.• NIY.DRO2 ?f �r'" -Cn103 IQ I I 7'1rp25080 ^ v. ,�., 6.6 4 .261 ff J ^ 7 _.7,x,12 .59. -..-� x.759 5 � ,0 - .. °'--- `••,,.� NMf OR � q � / ?.�. . -' • ` �,Se- snso-4zzj m s.c.e.carar "" ^+� ..,C ....._, se Iszl calory c jm �3a -Aa.l - o1 ?�2j� b; a 3f4 , AA ...N ? 030. LOJ02 2 14'.'L7'�2QI_S ✓!�, 14 F -s7s, S r 3 36y O, O - 52.572 ' 0 ~ _.p W 571 O 94 .r .. ,OAU o y i 42.5 1 RP -574 fi? FP 3�n X. .. i�� ^r,.,, b�...,,� 13v cnlo �. 6,{ d '`� - 'sa -br; S sTZ s�, 401 31Z � NA O- : lsz -sn y, . • "1 f w � -4a -37 '� S ' I 7 '.�1 1 L r� VO ��// ,. .. r` • -+r •►.� ♦ FO -q, j', �_° .2. �A5, LR LDRA p o�3"3 -C 9 " .T 41 -661, ' REPORT IN PROGRESS r9nw2, °tK o9L 392 el p ,� \. 41 -561 p " g PROPOSED FOR 1992 ` � 3o -sss ik LA 36!02 _ L 30-552 ; i... =� �T,� � • tN. A • pq ec z.z a Qf99.trE - EC 4083 i . �� lUly I ��� ;�.... „4 �� i Ir lj •�`�'. �/ '.a �dAVa9icv�EAI r7j�.y_ �•. r+n 7 156 !R 9 „ _ n _ R� p[R�-9R1e [Ryw C A« o.c_rLa: 536 'ossn ,�,:I , a.. unaANn4 -$ s 1. r r d O a - - 221 cr�a 1C 36 ea $a -9e • sa ss �; ' t- 5 }69[ � 7omwy1003 Pr 6_1 i 4 p Q z4 2 � '.lj� O0.- 531'LI,U2•9l6•* ♦ v ,.i v M - c • 3i- t`r 1 y . 3f1- R1P71oar / .b •, -{1 nV'cui 2s 5f �..•. t} �1 , xT�� - ess GSOtll4:29tl6�7 60`sZyk•"� NP-011 ___. 1 R ,. o .. ;! "b...-_ �� s4.au °�y5 }3] orn p i s Q 7799 A.3 OOO y o sf a �s37 ; U -63PU 1.16.�4 • is2 -6v �O 3as -n --O Sao -1s 0360.16 O - {'� f "F CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date Pebruary 10, 1992 Agenda Itcm Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND FOR THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF A JOINT FACILITY FOR PETS UNDER POLICE SECURITY (P.U.P.S.) DEPT. APPROVAL: ' James Lindeay, Chief of Police MANAGERS REVIEW /RECOMME =N: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached kkkkkkkkkkk> kkkkkkkkkkk�kkkFkkkMkkkxxx> k�e�c�; e> k> k> kkMx> kx> k> k> K> kkxx! eM> k> k�> k; e> kk; ekkKkxx�eye�eye�e;ekxxxie�exk SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) In 1990 and 1991 the City Council passed resolutions authorizing Brooklyn Center's membership in a joint powers organization called Pets Under Police Security (P.U.P.S.). This organization was responsible for developing plans for a joint facility which was built in Maple Grove to house animals impounded by the police departments. The estimates previous submitted to the Council were that the City's share of the facility would cost approximately $75,000 to $85,000. At the time the Council indicated these funds should come from the Capital Improvements Fund. Construction of the facility has now been completed at a total cost of $681,570; of which the City's portion is $87,232. The facility has been completely operational since late November, 1991. Plans are currently underway for a open house at the facility to be held on Thursday, March 5, 1992 from 3:00 to 7:00 p. m. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council approve the resolution authorizing an appropriation from the Capital Improvements fund for the City's share of the cost of construction of a joint facility for Pets Under Police Security (P.U.P.S.). • (RESCAP) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND FOR THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF A JOINT FACILITY FOR PETS UNDER POLICE SECURITY ------------------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center passed Resolution 68 -246 which established a Capital Improvements Fund in order to provide for certain major, permanent facilities needed by the city; and WHEREAS, Resolutions 90 -190 and 91 -06 authorized membership in the Pets Under Police Security (PUPS) organization; and WHEREAS, estimates of the City's costs at that time were $75,000 to $85,000, which the City Council indicated should come from the Capital Improvements Fund; and WHEREAS, construction has now been completed at a total cost of $681,570 of which the City's portion is $87,232. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The work completed under the City share of the project is accepted and approved as follows: Estimated Final Amount City Share $85,000 $87,232 2. Costs of this project shall be charged to the Capital Improvements Fund. 3. The project is declared to be final and closed. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date F-bivary 10. 1992 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED POLICE VEHICLE DEPT. APPROVAL: James �iq�i Chie f of Po4ce KkkkkkKkkKkkkKkkk * MANAGER'S R E WIR COMMENDATION: V No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes The police department recently had a vehicle damaged. At its January 13, 1992 meeting the Council approved a resolution authorizing us to purchase a 1991 Chevrolet I-Llinlina EUrosport from Budget at t� 'D a price of $10,649, including 6-1/2% sales tax. Before Council action, the vehicle had been sold by Budget and we were unable to purchase the vehicle. The department then waited until after the Super Bowl as we were informed more cars would become available. We obtained the following quotes: 1991 Pontiac 6000 Brookdale Pontiac $10,645 1991 Pontiac Gran Prix Hansord Pontiac $11,178 1991 Pontiac Gran prix Hansord Pontiac $10,648 1991 Mercury Sable Prestige Lincoln Mercury $11,715 1991 Mercury Sable Prestige Lincoln Mercury $11,715 Z71 The department has inspected and viewed all vehicles, and at this time is requesting to purchase the Pontiac 6000 from Brookdale Pontiac. This vehicle is approximately the same price as the Lumina previously approved by the Council. As before, the amount is less than that received by the insurance company, so no funds would be needed from contingency. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council approve the resolution authorizing the replacement of a damaged police vehicle. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED POLICE VEHICLE WHEREAS, one of the police department marked squad vehicles was damaged in an accident; and WHEREAS, the vehicle in question was declared totaled by the City's insurance carrier; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to replace such vehicle; and WHEREAS, quotations were received as follows: 1991 Pontiac 6000 Brookdale Pontiac $10,645 1991 Pontiac Gran Prix Hansord Pontiac $11,178 1991 Pontiac Gran Prix Hansord Pontiac $10,648 1991 Mercury Sable Prestige Linc /Merc $11,715 1991 Mercury Sable Prestige Linc /Merc $11,715 WHEREAS, the City's insurance carrier has determined it will pay the City $12,230 for the totaled vehicle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of a 1991 Pontiac 6000 from Brookdale Pontiac in the amount of $10,645 is hereby, approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the cost of this vehicle will be funded by the funds received from the insurance company. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 2110/92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached is the list of licenses to be approved by the city council. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve licenses. • / Licenses to be approved by the City Council on February 10, 1992: BULK VENDOR D & G Vending, Inc. 4313 NE Washington Street �} Vendall Bulk Vending Co. 1820 East 38th Street (�C dCUY/t Sanitarian a. GASOLINE SERVICE STATION SuperAmerica JJ4160 6545 West River Road U.S. West 6540 Shingle Ck Pkwy City Clerk ,Q,k. LODGING ESTABLISHMENT P Brookdale Motel 6500 Lyndale Ave. N. Sanitarian &,/- MECHANICAL SYSTEMS P & D Mechanical Contracting Co. 4629 - 41st Ave. N. �LILB- Palen/Kimball Company 550 Vandalia Street Building Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES A.R.A. Services 2830 N. Fairview Avenue Northwestern National Life 6200 Shingle Ck Pkwy American Vending Company P. 0. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Bro- Midwest Vending Company 9110 Grand Avenue South Duoos Bros. American Legion 4307 - 70th Ave. N. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Pilgrim Cleaners 5748 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Service "76" 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Consumer Vending 2828 Lyndale Ave. S. Target Stores 6701 Parkway Circle Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Thomas M. Hogan 2732 Xylon Ave. N. General Litho Services, Inc. 6860 Shingle Ck Pkwy HUB Vending, Inc. 6123 Aldrich Ave. N. Johnson Controls 1801 67th Ave. N. N.S.I. /Griswold Corporation 8300 10th Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Drive Travelers North 6601 Shingle Ck Pkwy Northern States Power Co. 4501 68th Ave. N. Twin City Vending Company, Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 (� n Sears 1297 Brookdale Center N Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES A.R.A. Services 2830 N. Fairview Avenue Northwestern National Life 6200 Shingle Ck Pkwy American Vending Company P. 0. Box 511 Sears Automotive Brookdale Bro- Midwest Vending Company 9110 Grand Avenue South Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Consumer Vending 2714 East 33rd Street Target Stores 6701 Parkway Circle C.D. Flodstrom 5200 - 77th Ave. N. Firestone 5445 Xerxes Ave. N. N.S.I. /Griswold Corporation 8300 10th Ave. N. Travelers North 6601 Shingle Ck Pkwy Twin City Vending Company, Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 Sears 1297 Brookdale Center Sanitarian RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Sherry Ward 6915 Indiana Ave. N. Ivan and Hazel Vetterick 4010 - 65th Avenue N. Renewal: � Byron and Nancy Mach 4708 -12 Twin Lake Ave. "?.�1NaA�. Director of Planning and Inspection SIGN HANGER Topline Outdoor Advertising, Inc. 1471 - 92nd Lane NE Building Official SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Best Products Co., Inc. 5925 Earle Brown Drive Cole's Gift Shop 2200 Freeway Boulevard M & S Drug Emporium 5900 Shingle Ck Pkwy F & M Distributors 5951 Earle Brown Drive Fun Services 3615 50th Ave. N. Gift Shop, Too 1501 Freeway Blvd. Kay -Bee Toy & Hobby 1320 Brookdale Center Main Street Video 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. T.J. Maxx 5900 Shingle Ck Pkwy Total Petroleum, Inc. 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. Toys "R" Us 5425 Xerxes Ave. N. Sanitarian TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT Jerry's NewMarket Brookdale 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. — City Clerk GENERAL APPROVAL: �. P. Page, Defaty Clerk