Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 05-23 CCM Regular Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF TIT, CITY COUNCIL OF TIC CITY OF BROOKT.YN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MILITSOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 23, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER fih Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at •m �Y q 7'00 Y P ROLL CALK Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Mayor Nyquist. OPEN FORUT I Ilayor ilyquist noted he had received several requests to use the Open Forum session this evening, and suggested that since they pertained to a Planning Commission item they would be addressed later in the agenda. CONSLEIT AGT -I�DA layor Nyquist inquired whether any of the Council members requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. No one requested any items removed and the Consent Agenda remained as proposed. APPROVAL OF NI=S - TRAY 9, 1983 l�hr ..re k�s a motion by Counc lme Eer Ihotka and seconded by Council-member Scott to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of T'iay 9, 1983 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PERFO1U1ANCE BOND RELEASE - BUDGETEL MOTEL, 6415 JAMES CIRCLE There was a motion by Council-member Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the release of the performance guarantee for the Budgetel Inn, 6415 Jaynes Circle in the amount of $5,000. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS I1a 83 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1983 -F The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia, Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 5 -23 -83 -1- i NO 83-82 1T ern'ber�ne Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CLOSING PROJECT COSTS ADD APPROFRIATIOPS IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83-83 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING BROOIrMYN Ma TER CITY COUNCIL INTENT TO VACATE STREET RIGHT - OF -WAY UNDER BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE 83 -7 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly: passed and adopted. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Arthur Treachers 6100 Brooklyn Blvd. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. Michael Boylen 6809 Humboldt Ave. Brooks Superette 6809 Humboldt Ave. Dukes Standard 6501 Humboldt Ave. Grecian Health Spas 2920 County Rd. Marc's Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Blvd. Pizza Factory 6816 Humboldt Ave. Pontillo's Pizza 5937 Summit Ave. Uncle Bob's Quik 6 6600 W. River Rd. GAMBLING LICENSE - Class B St. Alphonsus Men's Club 7025 Halifax Ave. ITINER FOOD ESTABLISTMENT Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE O'Keefe Mechanical 7188 Shady Oak Rd. 5 -23 -83 -2- RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Randall B. Cook 5347 Brooklyn Blvd. James K.& Wanda K. Storie 5339 Emerson Ave. N. Donald & Cora Noonan 3800 France P1. Thomas & LaDonna Pfingsten 6706 Grimes Ave. N. John W. Schroeder 5312 Oliver Ave. N. Glen Marsh 910 55th Ave. N. Riley Hirschberger 2809 67th Lane Roger Williams 2318 67th Lane L. A. & Jean Beisner 2837 67th Lane Lawrence R. Florian 857 -861 70th Ave. N. Robert W. Rode 869 70th Ave. N. S. Richard Si.lverness 873 -877 70th Ave. N. James R. Hokanson 881- 885 70th Ave. N. Renewal: Norman Chazin Brookdale Manor Apts. Norman Chazin Four Courts Apts. Norman Chazin Northbrook Terrace Apts. Norman Chazin Northlyn Apts. Midwest Investment Co. Willow Lane Apts. Norman Chazin 6037 Brooklyn Blvd. John S. Tschohl 5412 Colfax Ave. N. Jon Lindman 1600 .Irving Lane Marcus Corporation 6415 James Circle Virgil L. Hillstrom 5907, 09 June Ave. N. Renewal: Roland Scherber 5820,Logan Ave. N. Ramond A. Rice 6907 Morgan Ave. N. G & B Enterprises 3501 47th Ave. N. SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Grecian Health Spa 2920 County Rd. 10 Voting in favor: Mayor hlyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) he itU Eanaper introduced a Resolution Approving Agreement with Orr— Schelen- Mayeron &. Associates, Inc . to Provide Professional Engineering Services Relating to Alarm Telemetry and Standby Power Provisions for Sewage Lift Stations. 5 -23 -83 -3- i Councilmember Theis inquired how the alarm system came into being. The Director of Public Works explained that the program was initiated five years ago and focused on a concern over potential power failures at the various lift stations- He stated that the telemetry system sends an alarm to the police department when any fa-i lure in the system occurs - He added that he believes.that the system should also have standby power for any extended power failure and that is why on -site generators were originally recommended for lift stations Nos. 1 and 2. He noted that a standby generator has been installed at lift station No. 2, located at I and 55th Avenue North, and that the staff is recommending a portable generator rather than an on -site generator be installed at lift station No. 1. Councilmember Theis inquired what the cost difference would be between the portable and on -site generators. The Director of Public Works replied that the cost of an on -site generator for lift station No. 1 would be 3 to 5 times greater than a portable generator. Councilmember Theis then expressed a concern over the fact that a large power outage in the area may deplete the .rental market of portable generators. RESOLUTION NO. 83-84 Member elia�`coT - the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREFI`MT WITH ORR- SCHFLEN- TJAYER0N x ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO ALARM TELEMETRY AND STANDBY POWER PROVISIONS FOR SE LIFT STATIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PLArfI CGT TiISSION ITT31 PLAT hING COREISSIM APTIICATION NO 83019 SUBMITTED BY CHARLES BROOKS (Q PETROLEUM) FOR T''Is�Li �ifT TO SP ECIAL 9TH i Li Si PPH'IT T ALLOW SALE GF PROPANE AT THE Q PETR LEUM STAT ION AT 1505 V1ETE i� RU TH. _ e� The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 1 and 2 of the May 12, 1983 Planning Commission minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83019, He explained the request was for the addition of a 1 , 000 gallon propane tank at the Q Petroleum store located at 1505 69th Avenue North. He proceeded to review the location of the subject parcel and the zoning in the area. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that the sales of fuel is a special use in the C2 zone. The Director of Planning& Inspection reviewed the letter submitted by the applicant requesting the special use, and also reviewed the applicant's-site plan for installation and screening of the tank. He also reviewed the location of the proposed tank at the northeast portion of the site, and also the construction material proposed for the tank and the screening devices. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Application To. 83019 at its Tia 12, 1983 meeting. He g PP reported Y g p that no one spoke against the application at the public hearing and that the applicant was present at this evening's meeting. He then noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to six conditions which he reviewed for Council members. In summary, the Planning Director stated that a 5 -23 -83 -4- public hearing on Application No. 83019 was required and that the proper notices of the hearing had been sent to the appropriate property owners. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why the particular location for the tank was chosen. The Director of Planning explained that the applicant chose the particular location for the ease of viewing by the store employees. The Council discussed the application briefly and Mayor Nyquist then opened the public hearing on Planning Application No. 83019. Mayor Plyquist recognized Mr. Charles Brooks, the applicant, who stated that ahedge had been planted in front of the proposed location for the tank for screening purposes and that it should cover most'of the screening from the street side. He added that all store personnel will go through training to operate the propane tank. Mayor h?yquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83019. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Application No. 83019 subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. The provision ventilation around the tank as well as safety procedures to be taken shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of permits. 5. The enclosure is for the purpose of screening the fuel tank and shall not have any signs affixed to it other than directional or warning signs specifically approved by the Building Official. -6. The propane fuel tank shall be adequately protected by concrete filled posts around the screening device. Councilmember Lhotka then made a motion to amend the conditions of approval for Planning Commission Application No. 83019 by including a requirement that a 5' screen be placed completely around the and pumping station. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Theis. 5 -23 -83 =5- Upon a vote being taken on the motion to amend the conditions of approval for Planning Commission Application No. 83019 the following voted in favors Pnayor Nyquist, Councilmembe.rs Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Upon a vote being taken on the motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83019, as amended, the following voted in favor: P?ayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COh'RISSION APPLICATION NO. 83020 SUBMITTED BY U D CONTRACTING FOR APMED A ED rsU1 iffli± r PLAI`d APPROVAL TOBUILD ONE STORY 12 Ohl HO SES IN 72�tD CIRCLE NORTH P SAT 5 , 31 � T hT 3L SP IT T T N THE GIN P I ATICT1 79031. M 7 rector of Planning & inspection presented and reviewed, for Council members pages 2 through '5 of the Play 12, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83020. The Planning Director proceeded to review the location of the subject parcel pointing out that it was phase 5 of the Island Ponds Townhouse Development. He also reviewed the zoning of the subject parcel and pointed out that no site or grading changes are anticipated by the application. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the dimensions of the proposed new townhouse units, and explained that the reason for the applicant's request is that more persons can qualify for the new units and the project could be completed sooner than could be anticipated with the original application. The Planning Director next reviewed the building elevations of the units. The. Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that the applicant has contacted the Ponds Homeowners' i o omeowners Association and has informed them that phase 5 will be a separate association. He noted that the Ponds Townhouse Association has submitted a letter approving the U D proposal with the message that the project be completed as soon as possible. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that the Planning Commission reviewed the application at its P'ay 12, 1983 meeting and recommended approval- subject to three conditions, which he reviewed for Council members. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83020 subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to appl=icable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The new building plan is limited to lots abutting 72nd Circle. 3. Plan approval is subject to all conditions pertaining - to the original plan approval for Plat 5 under Application T,'o. 79031 Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Cc ncilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. j 5- 23-83 - -6- PLANNING COMMIS APPLICATION E0. 83021 SUB11ITTED BY DIANE' WRIGHT FOR A SPECIAL U7 7 P TEFIT TO OPJ:Ri %,T_,?, AA �T. ' t d'i T171U AL ''Y I'M TT -`dl =T I =1 `l' 7 tJIh PL11 - 72 4 _ 4T ) � 6 � i 1 A =1 � iETI . The Director of Planning r Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members page: 3 througr� 11 of the 1 12, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83021. He proceeded to review the location of the subject parcel for Council members and also and and care noted that the zoning f the parcel was R4 He explained that board g P p facilities are special uses in R4 zones. The Planning Director reviewed the applicant's letter requesting the special use permit and pointed out that the proposal comprehends 18 residents in the facility. He then reviewed the proposed remodeling plan for the four –plex. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the target population of the facility as described by the applicant and also the screening process used for the residents. He then reported that the applicant had listed the qualifications of various staff members, and that they all meet or exceed the requirements set forth by the Department of Public Welfare. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that a lengthy public hearing was held at the May 12, 1983 Planning Commission meeting and that numerous people spoke both for and against the application. He added that the City has three other similar facilities and that none have received complaints once they had been in operation. He pointed out, however, that none of the existing facilities in the City are for mentally ill patients as proposed in this application. In review of the public hearing held at the Planning Commission meeting, he noted that comments were received from the existing tenants in the building. The Planning Director reviewed the ordinance criteria for the issuance of special use permits and noted that the Planning Commission had found that the applicant had met the criteria for a special use permit. He also reviewed the lot size of the subject parcel and explained that it is a small lot, approximately the size of a single family lot. He noted that the Planning Commission discussed a possible lack of parking space and subsequently recommended that, if the application were approved, parking for client vehicles should be limited to two spaces on the premises. He added that the staff reviewed the modifications to the site proposed by the applicant, and as a result, estimated that these modifications may limit the number of residents to 16 or 17. Again, he pointed out, that at the public hearing held at the Planning Commission meeting several people spoke against and in favor of the application, and that a petition was submitted to the Planning Commission opposing the special use permit. He noted that one of the residents at 4408 69th Avenue North cautioned the Planning Commission to go slow in its consideration of the application. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that the Planning Commission at its May 12, 1983 meeting recommended approval of Application No. 83021 subject to ten conditions which he reviewed for Council members. The Director of Planning also pointed out that the vote of the Planning Commission was four to two in favor of the application. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that a public hearing had been scheduled for the application this evening, and that the proper notices had been sent. 5 -23 -83 —7— Mayor Eyquist commented that he was in favor of the concept of the facility but expressed a concern that the application had come up rather rapidly and had net had appropriate time to be considered by the neighborhood. He also expressed a. concern that there is an existing state statute which might limit - the number of residents in a group home of this type. In response to Mayor Nyquist's concern, the City Attorney commented that, with regard to the use of single family homes for group homes, the number of residents would be limited to 6. He also commented that if homes for handicapped individuals are not addressed in local ordinances the state statute says that a group home is a permitted use in the zone, although, the Council can place conditions on the use. Discussion continued regarding the state statute limiting the number of mentally handicapped individuals in a group setting to •16. Discussion also ensued regarding the statutes reference to mentally retarded individuals and the City Attorney requested the applicant to comment on the difference between mentally retarded individuals and persons with mental illness. In response to the City Attorney's question Mrs. Wright stated that persons are considered retarded if their I.0:'s are 70 or less but that the problems of persons who are mentally ill are with regard to their thinking processes and not with their mental capacities. The City Attorney then asked Pairs. Wright whether she considers the two types of disabilities the same for purposes of the state statute. Mrs Wright replied that she does not consider them the same for the purposes of the statute. The City Attorney then asked Mrs. Wright what the factors were which led her to a number of 18 residents. Mrs. Wright explained that one of the considerations was budgetary and noted that the cost of care increases if there are less than 18 and that another consideration was that a square foot analysis of the site did meet the criteria for 18 residents. The City Attorney commented that the Brooklyn Center ordinance, with regard to a board and care facility, does not deal with a definition of mental retardation or physical handicap but that the state statute seems to limit the number of individuals in a facility to 16. Mrs. Wright stated that if the number of residents in the facility were reduced to 16 she would have to go back to the county to renegotiate her contract which may mean a reduction in staff. The City Attorney inquired of the Planning Director what the definition of a family was under the City ordinance The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that five unrelated persons in each unit would be permitted under the ordinance. In light of the Planning Director's comments, the City Attorney stated that this could mean that 20 individuals could be permitted in a four -plex or the site could be looked at as similar to a home for mentally retarded persons and limited_ to 16. He stated that his view favored a more conservative approach s�:nich would be to limit the number of individuals in the facility, as per the state statute, which wou d mean 16 residents allowed in the facility. Councilmember Theis then commented that the state statute appears to address mentally handicapped individuals, and inquired what the difference between mentally retarded and mentally ill individuals would mean. The City Attorney stated that it would be very difficult to give it a definitive answer to this question. He pointed out that mentally retarded persons, according to the applicant, require more care than mentally ill persons, and therefore, it would seem that mentally ill persons would require less services from the community. He pointed out that a strict reading of the statute, according to the applicant, would not address the mentally ill individual. 5 -23 -83 -8- Mayor Nyquist opened the:neeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83021. Mayor Nyquist requested that, since the Planning Commission public hearing resulted in a very lengthy detail of public comment he requested persons speaking at the public hearing to limit their remarks to items that were not already contained in the Planning Commission minutes since the City Council has already reviewed those comments. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Don Lowry, 6914 Lee Avenue North. Mr. Lowry stated that he preferred to address the Council after Mr. Grosshans spoke. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Grosshans who read a letter submitted to the City Council regarding the concerns of the adjoining neighborhood over the proposed special use. Mr. Grosshans proceeded to read the letter and expressed the sentiment that the residents are opposed to the facility, and that he believed the applicant does not meet the standards for a special use under the ordinance. He added that he believes the risk to the public health, safety, and comfort of the neighborhood from the proposed application is real and genuine. He added that he believes the use of the property as proposed by the application would reduce the property value in the area. He explained that he also had questions of the Council, including, who will own the facility, how it will be taxed, and how it would affect tax revenues. In summary, Mr. Grosshans contended that the site is not desirable for the proposed use, and that Council should be aware that the residents are•considering legal action if the Council. approves the application, but added that the Council should not view this as any type of threat. Mr. Grosshans then submitted his letter to the Clerk to be included with the official meeting record. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether any information was available with regard to the effects of similar facilities on- adjoining neighborhoods. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Narge Wherley from the Hennepin County Human Services Division. She explained that the Planning Commission in Minneapolis did a comprehensive survey on such facilities, and found that people who lived next to such licensed facilities viewed the facilities as good neighbors. She added that the Minneapolis Planning Commission did a national literature search on the subject, and that no evidence was found to show any decrease in property values in adjoining neighborhoods unless there were five such facilities per block. Ms. Wherley added that, often, fears expressed at hearings of this type are those that many people have about mental � llness, but she added that at the point of a one year review of such facilities she has not seen any complaints expressed by residents with regard to the facilities. Councilmember Hawes reviewed a history of the assessed value and sales of homes located next to similar facilities in Brooklyn Center for mentally retarded persons, and noted that no reduction in property values had been shown. Mayor Nyquist commented that, in response to a previous question posed by Mr. Grosshans, the owner of the facility would be Mrs. Diane Wright. The City Manager responded to the second and third parts of Mr. Grosshans question - noting that the facility would be taxed as a multi— residential property, and that he did not think the tax revenue for the City would increase or decrease if the facility were established. The City Nanager commented that the Residential Alternatives facility existing in Brooklyn Center was approved in 1978 and occupied in 1979. He proceeded to review the sales of homes adjoining the Residential Alternatives facility. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Clifford Houde, 4416 69th Avenue North, who stated that 5 -23 -83 =9- he has lived at his present address for 30 years, and expressed fear over the establishment of the proposed facility. The next speaker at the public hearing was Mr. Don Lowry, 6914 Lee Avenue North. Mr. Lowry recounted past zoning proposals for the site and explained that the original rezoning proposal was for a commercial use Which was later changed to the current four —plea usage. He pointed out that he brought in a petition of 23 people opposed to the facility and presented it at the Planning Commission meeting. He also stated that the people speaking in favor of the facility are not local residents. Mayor Nyquist recognized Dr. Duane Orn, who stated he was a family doctor at the Northport Medical Center. Dr. Orn stated that he was in favor of the -issue* and reviewed the history of how mentally ill people have been treated in the past. He explained that society did not take very good care of mentally ill people and centuries ago they were beaten and killed. He pointed out that because of this treatment mentally ill persons were sequestered in institutions. He further explained that mental health care outside an institution is the highest quality care that car_ be given, and that his opinion is that the proposed facility provides a good alternative for the care of mentally ill persons. Dr. Orn concluded his comments by stating that he would recommend that the Council consider the application favorably. Mayor Nyquist recognized the next, speaker at the public hearing, Mrs. Martha Lovejoy, 6331 Bryant Avenue North, who stated that she was the Director of Project Overcome, a project designated to fight off people's fears of the.mentally ill. She explained that she has been mentally ill for many years and that the most help she got was in a half —way house located in St. Paul . Mrs. Lovejoy spoke favorably for the application. Mayor Nyquist stated that he had received a telephone call from Mr. George Olson, who expressed support for the application, but could not be here this evening to personally address the issue. The next speaker at the public hearing was Mr. Vernel Rystad, of Brooklyn Center, who discussed his son, Bruce, who became mentally ill in 1978, and committed .himself to the Anoka State Hospital. He explained a social worker recommended a half —way house for his son's treatment. He stated that Mr. Wright's program is what the community needs and it would allow people released from institutions to recover and find employment. He reiterated his statement regarding the need for residential treatment for mentally ill persons in the northwest area, and added that he could sympathize with the residents in the area but wondered how the request could be denied considering how many people will be helped by the program. Mayor Nyquist recognized rls. Eileen Moran, Executive Director of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, who explained that she submitted testimony at the last planning Commission meeting concerning the need for support services for mentally ill in Hennepin County. She explained she has worked with service providers in the area for the last four years and also with the family and :friends of mentally ill persons. She observed that communities have been slow - to assist mentally ill people, and that this has been an added burden for the individuals and their families to experience the fear and anger of the residents regarding programs such as rrs. Wrights. She noted that there are approximately 350 persons in Brooklyn Center who are or have been mentally ill and that only a smell number are getting appropriate care. Mayor Nyquist inquired of r1s. Moran how the figure of 350 5 -23 -83 -10- i persons was obtained. Pis. Noran responded by explaining that the number 350 was arrived at by taping a percentage of the City's population which could be expected to be suffering from mental illness, according to Hennepin. County's information. The next speaker at the public hearing, Mr. Todd Humphrey, 4408 69th Avenue North, Apt. 2, who questioned what would happen one year from now if the facility does not work out. He added that he does not think it is an appropriate place for the proposed facility. Mayor Nyquist again recognized Mr. Don Lowry, 6914 Lee Avenue North, who stated that he does not think a facility of this type should be put in an area where a special use permit is required. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant, l• "rs. Diane Wright, who informed the Council that she was the Director of the group facility called Park Manor Residence in Minneapolis, and that the facility she is proposing in the application would be a continuation of that program. She pointed out the owners of the building in Minneapolis cancelled the contract and that in order to retain the Rule 36 money allocated to Hennepin County for the program, she must find a new facility for the program by June 1. Mayor Nyquist next recognized a representative-from Y.E.S. and N.E.O.N., who submitted a letter for the Council record, and explained that the purpose of the letter is to clarify Y.E.S.' and N.E.O.N. Is position on the proposed facility in light of comments made by certain staff members of Y.E.S. and N.E.O.N. at the last Planning Commission meeting. She added she would like to apologize for the views expressed by their staff members at the Planning Commission meeting and expressed support for the application. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one else appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. e There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83021. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and. Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:14 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. CONTINUATION OF PLANNING C0121ISSION NO. 83021 Mayor Nyquist expressed a concern with the application regarding the limits on the number of residents as set by statute. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of the City Attorney-whether the statute addressed the number of staff required on the premises in such a facility. The City Attorney stated that the statute is silent on the issue of the number of staff but that the statute provides for 16 residents. Mrs. Wright explained that the staff make up will include 2 112 program staff, along with one part -time cook and one part -time secretary. She explained the cook would arrive at work when the secretary is leaving work. She noted the secretary's hours would be from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and the cook's hours would be from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Councilmember Theis inquired whether the van for the residents would be at the residence at all times. Mrs. Wright responded in the affirmative to Councilmember 5 -23 -83 -11- ; Theis question. Councilmember Theis stated it appears that 8 parking stalls would be needed for all the vehicles and expressed a concern that this may be a problem. The Director of Planning & Inspection reminded Council members of the minimum requirement for a. 15 ' greenst.rip in front of the building and noted that there maybe room for one parking stall in the front. Councilmember Theis then inquired whether any type of condition could be placed on the approval of the permit, whereby, if a resident committed a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, the permit would be revoked. The City Attorney commented that he could not think of what statute or ordinance might address this situation, and that generally, this type of approach does not sound applicable to the facility being proposed. He further stated that, if the Council is trying to regulate the conduct of the .residents, the City Council could set up rules as long as they are related to the safety of residents in the area. He added that the regulations should be based on a course of conduct ratter than focusing on a single incident. He explained that it would be difficult to condition a permit on a single act of violence and that this approach would not seem to be related to the people in the facility anymore than any other resident in a similar setting, such as a townhouse or apartment. The City Manager noted that once a permit is granted it becomes quite difficult to revoke because the burden of proof is then placed on the City, with regard to the revocation, rather than the issuance of a permit, where the burden is on the applicant. Councilmember Scott inquired whether Mrs . Wright was counting herself as a member of the staff in her previous comments. Pars. Wright explained that she would be in addition to the staff referred to earlier. Councilmember Scott then inquired whether any medication monitoring would be undertaken at the facility. Pirs . Wright explained that a physician must. sign a statement that a person can self medicate and that the staff would assist the patient in refilling prescriptions and monitoring their use. Councilmember Scott inquired how, with only 2 1/2 staff persons, could adequate counseling be provided. Mrs. Wright stated that the people in the facility are not considered in treatment 24 hours per day, and noted that the night staff does not provide counseling but would be available to talk if a client needs it . Councilmember Scott then addressed the issue of the eligibility of clients for the facility with regard to any history of violence within the past six months. Mrs. Wright explained that in order to qualify for the facility there would have to be no past history of violence in the client's background. She added that the six month time limit referred - to only suicidal incidents on the part of the client. Councilmember Scott inquired of Mrs. Wright what would happen to the program if Hennepin County's funding were cut. Mrs. Wright explained that the program would be discontinued and the building would be converted back to an apartment building. Councilmember Scott concluded her comments by expressing a concern that a. request for additional patients might be made in the future. Pars. Wright stated that the building would not support more than 18 persons and that this number was the maximum according to state licensure. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if the patients were reduced to 16 would the staff be reduced accordingly. sirs. Wright explained that the day staff would probably be cut by one but this would have to be negotiated with Hennepin County. Councilmember Theis asked if the funding from Hennepin County were cut could the facility be supported by private means or insurance. Mrs. Wright explained that 75% of the funding for the facility comes from the state and that the facility would receive no medicaid or medicare. Councilmember Theis then asked whether Mrs. 5-23-83 -12- Wright could envision any situation where an application for admission into the facility could be submitted to staff for review to see if the individual met the conditions. Firs. Wright explained that she believes this procedure would violate the Data Privacy Act. She added that to disclose a client's record would be a violation and that any history of violence would be indicated in the client's history. Mayor 1 inquired how the City could be assured that the client's record is accurate. Pars. Wright replied that the only means'would be through her evaluation and the client's record.. The City Attorney commented that the submission of a statement by a psychiatrist, regarding the particular clients history, and a statement that the person has not committed any violent acts would probably have to be relied on. He added that the City would have to rely on a statement or affidavit submitted by an appropriate authority. Councilmember Theis commented on the physical layout of the neighborhood and expressed a concern that no sidewalk access is provided on 69th leading to Brooklyn Boulevard. Councilmember Hawes suggested that the issue could be submitted to mediation and that the applicant, and the neighborhood could mediate out a solution which may result in an acceptable answer for both parties. Councilmember I,hotka stated that he would favor the mediation concept but expressed a concern over the short notice of the application as a result of the funding deadlines. Councilmember Theis stated that the timing on the application has been short and the neighborhood has not had sufficient time to understand the proposal completely. Mrs. Wright commented that, the problem is, that if the Council is not affirmative with regard to the project, there would be no time to relocate. She added that she had also met for three hours with the members of the neighborhood on Thursday night and explained that her evaluation is that the neighborhood is not accepting of the proposal. Mr. Grosshans added that he does not think that submitting the issue to mediation would resolve anything. Councilmember Hawes stated that he believes mediation would be worth a try and that there would be nothing to lose considering there is a win no —win situation at this point. Mrs. Wright stated that the deadline the state has given her for the facility is June 1 , and that if she does not have a special use permit by May 31 she would lose the building as per the purchase agreement. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes to table consideration of the application and submit the application to mediation if both parties would submit to mediation within a reasonable time prior to June 1, 1983. Councilmember Ihotka seconded Councilmember Hawes' motion for the purpose of discussion. He added that he understands the residents concern, particularly with regard to the short notice given on the application, but he also expressed disappointment that the residents did not take advantage of mediation. Mayor Nyquist commented that one of the things that could possibly come out of a mediation could be a Neighborhood Advisory Board. Mrs. Wright explained that DPW Rule 36 requires a Neighborhood Advisory Board for the facility. 5 -23 -83 -13- Councilmember Lhotka requested a. show of hands from the neighborhood residents present who would accept mediation. Two persons in the audience raised their hands concerning Councilmember Lhotka's request. Councilmember Lhotka then expressed disappointment in the neighborhood for' not taking advantage of a mediation situation. Upon a vote being taken on the motion on the table the following voted in favor: Councilmember Hawes. Voting against: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers 1hotka, Scott, and Theis. The motion failed. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis to authorize the staff to prepare a resolution for denial of Planning Commission Application No. 83021 due to the short notice given to neighborhood residents with regard to the proposed application, and also because of the various site and physical plant problems with the application, including the parking problems presented by the number of staff vehicles, the difficulty in enforcing condition No. 4 of the recommended Planning Commission condition; with regard to requirements of the past history of residents in the facility, and also with regard to the number of individuals proposed for the facility in light of the state statute concerning the limitation on residents in such a facility. Upon a vote being taken on the motion, the following voted in favor: `:ayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANITIM C01 APPLICATION NOS. 83010 AIM 8301 7 MBMITTFT, BY ROD BMILT FOR SITE G.fU R.F I"= PLAT APPROVE TO COYS-1 RUT :71 ADDITIONAL 1' ,T- i_M 7ET T 57F S I 'ARN T ta,1ti'H Uti> F � , gm -T A7T1_T F N R`i'H aI1D Y kk _ Z' The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 12 and 13 of the Iiay 12, 19 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for the applications. He reviewed the applicant's request and the location of the subject parcel. He then discussed Application No. 83017, the preliminary plat request, and pointed out that the request is for a resubdivision of the original plat to create 21 lots. The Director of Planning 8, Inspection pointed out another issue related to the project, that being, discussions of the proposed realignment of Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th held with Sheehy Properties, the owner of the property. He continued to review the proposed replatting and the size of the lots which would be created. He noted that discussions have arisen with regard to whom the City should be negotiating with for the acquisition of right -of -way for the proposed roadway project. He explained that the City Attorney had submitted a letter stating that, according to the existing association documents, the eight existing members of the association should be included in discussions for the right -of -way acquisition'. Regarding the preliminary plat, he explained the staff has discussed the question over the City Is right to approve a replat of the Earle Brown Farm Townhouses briefly with the City �t 'and that he has assured the staff that the City may approve a replat of the common area and two existing vacant lots, and he also acknowledges that a privately pursued lawsuit by the eittht existing townhouse owners may prevent the filing of such a plat, however, he advised the staff that the Planning Comm i ssion and City Council should not intervene in this civil dispute but should process the replat as though there were no dispute based solely on the requirements of City. ordinances. The Planning Director continued to discuss the application and reviewed the 5 -23 -83 -14- proposed roadway realignment and its affect on building alignment in the proposed application. He pointed out that the roadway realignment would not create a; problem with regard to the plan proposed by the applicant. He then reviewed the site configuration, including, access screening, building style, building dimensions, and landscaping. The Planning Director stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat at its May 12, 1983 meeting, and that the Planning Commission recommended approval of both applications subject to conditions which he reviewed for Council members. The Director of Planning stated. that the notices of this evening's public hearing had been sent.and that the applicant is present this evening. Councilmember I,hotka expressed a concern over the density proposed by the application. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the entire site is included when the density figures are calculated. Councilmember Lhotka commented that the eight homes in the existing devel- opment are essentially on one -half of the property on the site, and that with the application, 21 homes will be built on the remainder. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired whether the City should act on the application even though there is a legal dispute with regard to the existing owners and the applicant. The City Attorney stated that the application before the Council is to approve a preliminary plat and that the applicant has met the ordinance requirements. He added that the City has responsibility to approve or disapprove a preliminary plat based on ordinance requirements. Mayor Nyguist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 83017. He recognized Ms. Betty Anderson, 6828 York Place, who stated that she purchased her townhouse in 1973 and at that time the'project plat showed seven four- plexes . She stated that she thinks the eight existing owners are upset with regard to the change in density proposed by the new project, that she did not believe it was fair to the owners and that it would devalue their property. The next speaker was the resident at 6837 York Place who stated that the lots proposed by the new project would lower the value of existing units in the development by creating a higher density. He stated he believed the change was unfair to the owners. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr- Lawrence Ellis, 6831'York Place, who stated that he felt there were two issues with regard to the project, one being the decrease in the lot size and one being the realignment of Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated he sees a problem with the density of the proposed project and that the existing units were well thought out but that he thinks the new proposal with row houses would contribute to urban decay. He added that he is concerned that the character of the area will not,be maintained. The next speaker was Ms. T".a.rion Sanders who introduced herself as the newest owner in the Earle Brown Farm Townhouses. She stated that she paid $81 ,000 for her unit and that she wasn't impressed with the many available townhouses in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park because of the cheap construction and high density. She added that she believes the row houses will devalue the existing units. The next speaker at the public hearing was Ms. Irene Meier, .6839 York Place, who stated that she has lived for six years in the Earle Brown Farm Townhouse Project and that she is concerned over the promise she was made when she bought the unit and what is occurring now. She added that she is concerned over the devaluation of her unit. 5 -23 -83 �15- I i Mrs. Dilley, the next speaker at the public hearing and a resident of the Earle Brown Farm Townhouses, asked the City Attorney whether he recommended approval of the application. The City Attorney stated that the City Council has a responsibility to approve a preliminary plat if the developer meets the code. Mrs. Dilley then stated that she believes the City Council has a responsibility to the owners to assure that - the project is developed according to the original plan. She also asked why the association was not notified of the right —of —way acquisition. Mayor I%Iyquist recognized Mr. Al Seran who introduced himself as the attorney representing the members of the Earle Brown Farm Townhouse Association. Mr. Seran reviewed the building plans proposed by the applicant and referred to them as garages with apartments on top. He added that no showing has been made that the original plat could not be sold and marketed at a profit. He stated that he believes Mr. Sheehy should be present to request the change in the plat. Mr. Seran also stated that he believes the replatti.ng can only be done by the courts and referred to Minnesota statute 505.14, which he stated, requires the vacation_ of an existing plat by the courts. - He stated he does not believe the City Council has authority to approve a replat and that he believes the original plat should stand. He also stated that the association documents for the Earle Brown Farm Townhouses requires a 3/4 vote to transfer land to a public agency and that Mr. Sheehy is one vote short for the transfer of land. He noted that, although the Planning Commission recommended approval of.the application, he would ask that the City Council deny the application and require Mr. Sheehy to develop the project according to the original plat. " The City Attorney commented that the City has no authority to force a developer to build a project. e Mayor Pgyquist recognized the applicant Mr. Rod Bernu who stated that he has a purchase agreement with Mr. Sheehy contingent on the approval of the plat. He stated that the original concept in 1973 resulted in a loss to the developer of $10,000 per unit. He added that the concept was a good one for the buyer but not for the developer. He explained that Mr . Sheehy had asked him to buy the property and replat it and emphasized that the 1973 concept for the townhouse project did not sell. Mr. Seran asked the applicant what the price range of the proposed units would be. Mr. Bernu replied that the price range was in the mid 60's. Councilmember Theis inquired of the City Attorney whether any regulation exists - to require the same density in the replat as in the original plat. The City Attorney stated that the zoning ordinance determines the density and that.under the new proposal the developer would be at the maximum density for the parcel. He added that he does not believe any legal standard exists to require that the density be the same as for the original plat. He stated that it is his view that the portion of the property proposed for the replat and owned by Mir. Sheehy, along with lot To. 2Q which is owned by the association, results in a situation where both the association members and Mir. Sheehy must sign the plat to file it with the County. He also pointed out that if any land is to be conveyed to the City it must be signed by the 21 owners and that he believes there are problems for T9r. Sheehy and t'Ir.. Bernu that must. be resolved by negotiation between Mr. Sheehy, T1r. Bernu, and the Homeowners' Association. 5 -23 -83 -].6- CORRECTION Mayor 1yquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared- to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83017. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting ' against: none. The.motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Ihotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to deny Application No. 83017 due to the fact that the intense density on 51% of the property could not be justified by using the entire property for the density calculation. The City Attorney advised the Council if the plat meets the code requirements the City Council would have no discretion not to approve the plat. Mr. Seran stated that he does not believe the City Attorney's comments apply to this replat. Upon vote being taken on the motion, the following voted in favor: Councilmembers Ihotka, and Hawes. Voting against: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Theis. The motion failed. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Application No. 83017 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 final plat shall be filed at the County prior to the - issuance of building permits. - 4. Homeowners' Association documents, declarations, articles, and bylaws shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 5. All of the property contained in the original plat of the Earle Brown Townhouses shall be served by a single Homeowners' Association. Voting in favor: Mayor hTyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Theis. Voting against: Councilmembers Lhotka, and Hawes. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Application No. 83010 subject to 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 5 -23 -83 -17- &uarantee (in arr amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improve - ments in the area of new construction. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. •5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is --- subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided-around all parking and driving areas. 7• The building plans shall be certified by a registered Minnesota architect prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide landscape screening to the west of the guest parking stalls, north of the five unit building. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist; Councilmembers Scott, and Theis. Voting against: Councilmembers Lhotka, and Hawes. The motion passed. GAMBLING LICENSE APPLICATION FROM' ST. ALPHONSUS TAT' S CLUB There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the class B gambling license for St. Alphonsus Men's Club. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond for the class B gambling license for St. Alphonsus Men's Club. Voting in favor: P1a7yor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNNI ENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Gouncilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City. Council adjourned at 11:45 p.m• lerk fayor 5 -23 -83 -18 -,