Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 09-28 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 7 p.m. 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 by the City Council and will be enacted by 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. September 14, 1992 - Regular Session *b. September 15, 1992 - Special Session 8. Presentation: a. Emergency Plan 9. Public Hearing: (7:30 p.m.) a. Initial Applications for Private Kennel License at 516 - 62nd Avenue North and 3300 Quarles Road 10. Planning Commission Items: (8 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 92013 is a request for Planned Unit Development approval to rezone the R7 district at the intersection of Summit Drive and the east leg of Earle Brown Drive to PUD -MIXED and to receive site and building plan approval to construct 90 units of assisted housing (residential care) in three buildings on the vacant parcel adjacent to the Earle Brown Commons. -This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its September 17, 1992, meeting and approval was recommended. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 1. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Relating to General Standards for Planned Unit Developments 2. Resolution Regarding Recommended Disposition of Application No. 92013 Submitted by Evergreen Development Group CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- September 28, 1992 3. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Zoning Designation of Certain Land 11. Discussion Items: a. Senior Center b. 1% Sales Tax Informational Brochure C. Parking Ordinance d. Update on Neighborhood Street Improvement Program 12. Resolutions: *a. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. DST 09/28/92) *b. Supporting the Development of a Community Celebration Honoring Law Enforcement Personnel *c. Amending the 1992 Budget for Fees Related to Management Salary Study *d. Accepting Proposal for Partial Hot Water Replacement of Piping in Civic Center System *e. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of LeRoy Christenson *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Sefltember 2a, I942 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 - REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 - SPECIAL SESSION DEPT. APPROVAL: , 0j.P'xC""v Patti A. Page, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: ^' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE t; ITY QV 13KUUKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson. at 7 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 Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Personnel Coordinator Ocralyn Barone, and Council Secretary Nancy Berg, OPENING CEREMONIES Jim Roberts suffered the invocation. OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had received no requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Paulson Announced a Special City Council Meeting to Canvass the September 15, 1992, Municipal Primary Election Returns, He stated the meeting will take place in the council h ou G chambers rs at $ P .m. thereafter or as soon h r eafter as the Council can be assembled. Mayor Paulson also announced the names of the four recycling winners for the month of August. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda, Councilmember Pedlar requested agenda item 8c be rcmovcd and Councilmembcr Rosene requested items 15b and 15c be removed. 9/14/92 _ 1 _ APPRQVAL OF MINUTES AUGUST 24 1992 - REGULAR E I N There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and sccundcd by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of August 24, 1992, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously, PROCLAMATIONS DECLARING SEPTEMBER 19-21,1992 AS POW/MIA_RECOGNITION WEEK There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilme Pedlar to adopt a Proclamation Declaring September 19-27,1992, as POW /MIA Recognition Week. The motion passed unanimously, DECLARING SEPTEMBER 17-23,1992, AS CONSTITUTION WEEK There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to adopt a Proclamation Declaring September 17- 23,1992, as Constitution Week. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO, 92 -21� Member Davc Roscnc introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT PROJEUE NO. 1992 -17, AND ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFORE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -216 Member Da Ro,=c in troduced the fQllowing resolution a nd moved its adoption: RESOLUTI DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NU, DST 09/14/92) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE There was a motion by Councilme mbcr Rosene and SGeonded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the performance guarantee release to Marquette Bank Brookdale. The motion passed unanimously. 9/14/92 - 2 - LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLES Browning Ferris Industries of MN 9813 Flying Could Drive RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial; Robert H. Levine Shingle Creek Apts. Jay Nelson Battenberg 5235 Drew Ave. N. Lenard Braun 625 -27 -29 Willow Lane Renewal: James Ferrara 6031 Brooklyn Blvd. Paul EngC 474$ 'Twin Lakc Avc. N. Victor and Jean Huang 3813 72nd Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. PROCLAMATIONS (Continued) DECLARING OCTOBER 12. 1992 AS COLUMBUS OUINCENTE VIAL DAY IN BROQKLYN CENTER Councilmember Pedlar introduced three members of the Knights of Columbus and thanked them for their excellent work. After review of the proclamation, there was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adopt a Proclamation Declaring October 12, 1992, as Columbus Quincentennial Day in Brooklyn Center. The motion passed unanimously. CHIEF OF POLICE APPOINTMENT The City Manager introduced a Resolution Finalizing the, City Manager's Appointment of Trcvor Hampton as the new Chief of Police effective September 28, 1992, and Amending the 1992 Pay Plan. Councilmember Rosene stated the City is extremely fortunate to have had three qualified candidates, and he expressed some heaviness of heart in the decision not to select Polic;c Captain, Joel Downer. Councilmember Pedlar agreed is was a very difficult decision for staff to make. He recognized Joel Downer as an excellent candidate and expressed concerti the City will lesc him down the road. 9/14/92 - 3 - Councilmember Cohen stated he was glad it was the City Manager's decision as it was a very difficult one. He further stated while interviewing tho candidates he asked them if they thought the selection process was fair and everyone said it was extremely fair. Councilmember Scott stated she appreciated the fact the Council was able to sit down with the candidates, and she welcomed Mr. Hampton as the new chief of police. Chief Finey, of the St. Paul Police Department, came forward to echo the fine comments about Trevor Hampton. He stated Mr. Hampton is a fine police exucutiva and complimented the City Manager and City Council in choosing Trevor Hampton. Mayor Paulson agreed the City will have an excellent police chief and called on the community to unite and support the new police chief. RESOLUTION NO 92 -217 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION FINALIZING THE CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF A CHIEF OF POLICE AND AMENDING THE 1992 PAY PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. QRDINANC.ES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 91 -16 Regarding Council Salaries. He explained this ordinance was offered for first reading on August 24 1992, published in the City's official newspaper on September 2, 1992, and is offered this evening for second reading. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 91 -16 Regarding Council Salaries at 7:18 p.m. He inyuircd if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he entertained a motion to close the . ublic hearing. g There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing at 7;15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 92-15 Mombcr Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0, 91 -16 REGARDING COUNCIL SALARIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 9/14/92 -4- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 27 -124 OF THE BRO KLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, PROHIBITING PARKING ON CITY STREUFS b1fl EEN IHE .LIQURS OF 2 A.M. AND 6 A.M. The City Manager stated as part of the budgetary process to develop the 1993 budget for the police department, a Departmcnt Strategies Committee was created. He further explained the committee looked at ways to cut costs, raise funds and also improve efficiency. The committee suggested an amendment to the City's parking ordinance to prohibit parking on City streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m, Councilmember Pedlar asked staff if a citizen has extenuating circumstances, such as their driveway being resurfaced, would they be excused from this ordinance. The City Manager replied citizens do call and make special arrangements with the police department. Councilmember Rosene expressed concern with selective enforcement and stated if the City is going to_makc exceptions, those exceptions should be listed in the ordinance:. Mayor Paulson asked for a review of this ordinance in six months including a cost analysis and citizen reaction. Rex Newman, 3107 61st Avenue North, addressed the Council stating he could not move his car into his driveway one time last year due to a heavy snowfall and asked that exceptions be made in such cases. Councilmember Rosene stated there is a sufficient number of concerns to be addressed, but he does approve of the idea. Councilmember Cohen stated he was willing to move forward with this and make any adjustments at the time of the second reading. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Section 27 -124 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances, Prohibiting Parking on City Streets Between the Hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m., requesting staff to submit a report regarding other possible changes to this ordinance for consideration by the Council at the time of a second reading and setting a public hearing date of October 13, 1992, at 7;15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS ONE PERCENT SALES TAX ON LIQUOR AND FOOD SALES The City Manager stated he had received notice from the Office of the Secretary of State regarding special laws enacted in the 1991 and 1992 sessions. He further stated Chapter 511, Article 8, Section 30, Brooklyn Center; Local Liquor and Restaurant Tax, requires City Council approval in order to become law. 9/14/92 - 5 - The Assistant EDA Coordinator showed the Council slides of some of the 80 homes within the City that should be acquired and demolished with the funds raised by the one perccmt sales tax, The City Manager informed Council staff has met with restaurant owners several times and some of the owners are present tonight, Councilmember Rosene stated he was concerned about the effect of the tax on banquets. He explained one percent on a single meal will not be noticeable, but one percent on a 200 - person banquet will make a difference. The EDA Coordinator stated the banquet industry is extremely competitive and one percent could be a problem. lie further stated a compromise has been talked about where the City could make an exception in the ordinance. Councilmember Rosene asked if the Council adopts this resolution, will it free up some C BG funds for low income housing. The EDA Coordinator responded no, the CDBG funds have their own requirements, Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on one percent sales tax on liquor and food sales at 7:50 p.m, He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Karl Gaardsmoe, President of the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce, thanked the City Manager, the EDA Coordinator, and Councilmembers Pedlar and Cohen for attending a mccting of the Chamber stating it was a great help. He also read to the Council a statement prepared by the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce including the statement ". . . the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce oppQses a referendum which seeks additional taxation as the primary solution." Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Gaardsmoe what the Chamber would support. Mr. Gaardsmoe stated he was unable to answer the question right now and will work with the City to come up with some alternatives. Councilmember Cohen stated the City tried to obtain an HRA levy increase two years ago and also tried at various times to implement a one percent sales tax and the legislature has refused. He further stated Representative Carruthers proposed this tax and moved it through the Tax Conference Committee and the Council should support his efforts. Councilmember Cohen pointed out the hotel/motel industry does have its own three percent tourism tax which it would not want removed. He further stated he disapproves of the following statement made in the letter from the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce: 9/14/92 -6- "The Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce opposes a tax referendum for which the use of revenues is strictly legislated to only provide for low- income housing projects," Councilmember Pedlar stated he disagreed with Subd. 2, paragraph 2, which states: "Use of revenues received under the section must have incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median family income." He expressed concern a family with income at or below the 80 percent of the median family income would be unable financially to redevelop, He explained the City must continue to redevelop and, if it does not, businesses will be affected negatively. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing at 8 p.m, `rhe motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Scott stated the people in the City who need help are the low to middle income families. She further stated there is a necd to go back to the legislature to alter the bill to conform with the original intent to provide housing for low income people. Councilmember Cohen stated the legislature has not been providing dollars for housing without restrictions, He further explained to pbtain special legislation that does not have restrictions would be very difficult. He suggested the matter be put on the November ballot for the citizens to decide. Councilmember Pedlar agreed the matter should be p ut on the ballot. He expressed concern in the ability of Council to communicate to the citizens exactly what they would be voting on. The City Manager explained a basically factual information flyer describing some of the restrictions could be mailed out to the citizens, Mayor Paulson thanked the legislature for bringing this to the City. He stated the concept of going to a referendum is how the Cit should decide revenue policy In the future. 'Mr, Council needs to give the citizens the opportunity to decide the merits of the program one way or another, Mayor Paulson expressed appreciation for the work of the Chamber. He also suggested the matter be given to the Financial Commission for their recommendations. He stated no matter how anyone feels about the tax, in the interest of democracy it should be put to the citizens to decide, 9/14/92 - 7 - RESOLUTION NO. 92 -218 Momber Philip Coltcn introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHAPTER NO. 511 (H.F. NO. 2940), ARTICLE 8, SECTION 30, BROOKLYN CENTER; LOCAL LIQUOR AND RESTAURANT TAX The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member nave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Scott asked staff what the difference was between the two resolutions, The City Attorney explained the first resolution is to approve a special law, and the sccund resolution is calling for a special election, RESOLUTION NO, 92 -219 Membcr Dave Rosene introducod tho following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY COUNCIL TO LEVY A ONE PERCENT TAX ON OR.OSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF LIQUOR AND FROM THE SALE OF FOOD AT RESTAURANTS TO FUND APPROVED HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE CITY AND FIXING FORM OF BALLOTS, NOVEMBER 3, 1992 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS The City Manager presented the special assessments for diseased shade tree removal costs. He explained the City Council adopted resolution No. 92 -175 providing for a public hearing regarding proposed assessments for tree removal costs and the purpose of this resolution is to certify these assessments to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. The City Manager suggested the Council hold the public hearing now, but defer action on the resolution until the Council acts on agenda item 14b. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding special assessments for diseased shade tree removal costs at 8:25 p.m. He inyuircd if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. 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 Rosene to close the public hearing at 8;25 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 9/14/92 -8- SPECIAL, ASSESSMENTS FOR—DELINQUENT PUBLIC JITILITY REPAIR ACCOUNTS The City Manager presented the special Assessments for delinquent public utility repair accounts. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding special assessments for delinquent public utility repair accounts at 8:26 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. 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 Rosene to close the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -220 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS The City Manager presented the special assessments for dc;linqucrit public; utility Service accounts~ Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding special assessments for delinquent public utility service accounts at 8;28 p,m, He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and he r entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to close the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, RESQLUTION NO. 92 -221 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROL s The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. 9/14/92 -9- RESOLUTION NO, 92 -222 Member Celia Scott introduced the following rosolvtion and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DELETING ONE ASSESSMENT FROM PROPOSED LEVY #12533 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously, SPECIAL AS�ESSMFNTS FOR WEED REMOVAL COSTS The City .Manager presented special assessments for weed removal costs. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding special assessments for weed removal costs at 8:30 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. 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 Rosene to close the public hearing at 5:30 p,m, The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NCB, 92 -223 Member Dave Ronlic liitrodu"d t he rollo rGtiUlutiull alld lilUVGd ltb udupLiun RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 'WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. S PECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -1$ The City Manager presented the special assessments for 'West River Road Improvement Project No. 1988 -18. The Director of Public Works explained the background information on the West River Road improvement project and answered questions of Council. The City Attorney explained there was a similar situation with the Lyons property and the City went to court and the City's position was sustained. He recommended the City proceed with the. assessment, Councilmember Cohen expressed concern it the assessment is lowered, will this allow others to appeal their assessments. The City Attorney stated that all other assessments for the project are final because no appeals wcrc tiled within the time limit specified by law for appeals, 9/14/92 - 10 - Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding special assessments for West River Road improvement Project Nn. *19$$ - at 8:41 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Harold Swanson, owner of the property at 7230, 7240 and 7250 West River Road, stated he objects to this assessment as it has no benefit at all to the property. He further stated if the City is going to do something for the general good of the City, the money then should come out of general revenue funds, not special assessments. Councilmember Rosene stated the crux of the problem is that there is certain information that the City needs from Mr. Swanson. Mr. Swanson replied he, will provide the City with the information it has asked for. Councilmember Rosene further stated it seems we have a simple misunderstanding. He thought it would be wise to continue the public hearing to a specified date using Option One as follows: If, during the public hearing, Mr. Swanson agrees to allow the private appraiser access to all information needed by the appraiser to complete an appraisal of the benefits which have accrued to the properties as a result of the improvements, the City Council could again continue the public hearing to a specified date (recommending October 26, 1992) with the intent that the Council then again consider the assessment based on the findings of the appraiser, The City Attorney stated the City needs to obtain information from Mr. Swanson regarding rental incomes, etc, in order to complete an appraisal of the benefits resulting from this improvement. He noted the City Assessor has received this information relating to a tax appeal by Mr. Swanson. However, that is privileged information which the independent appraiser, hired by the City, cannot have access to without the consent of Mr. Swanson. Councilmember Rosene stated he believes the City as a whole benefits more than just Mr. Swanson, and he suggested the adoption of a transportation utility tax to evenly bear the cost of the improvements. The Director of Public Works stated all special assessments levied against property owners on the West River Road project total less than 5%o of the total project costs. He also noted the City Attorney's office has requested Mr. Swanson to allow the independent appraiser hired by the City to use the information which the City Assessor has previously obtained from Mr. Swanson, and has not received that approval. Mr. Swanson stated he is willing allow the independent appraiser to use the information which he has previously furnished to the City Assessor. 9/14/92 The City Attorney stated Mr. Swanson's verbal statement is adequate to allow the City to have the indcpcndcnt appraiser proceed with his evaluation of benefits to Mr. Swanson's 0 properties, using the information which the City Assessor has. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to continue the public hearing until October 26, 1992. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 5:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM The City Manager presented Planning Commission Application No, 92012 - Omni Tool, The Director of Planning and Inspection explained Application No. 92012, submitted by Omni Tool, is a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 15,958 sq. ft. addition to the industrial building at 3500 48th Avenue North. He reviewed the proposal including the location of the building addition, access and traffic circulation, landscaping and parking provisions. He further stated the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the application subject to 16 conditions which he reviewed for the Council. Councilmember Cohen addressed the building owner saying he appreciated his faith in the community to plan an addition which is bigger than the original building, There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 92012 submitted by Omni Tool 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 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. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFFA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 9/14/92 -12. 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 isslianec of permits, 11. The applicant shall sign the truck access drive to prohibit parking of any vehicles in the driveway in front of the building. 12. With the consent of the owner of the property to the north, the applicant shall relocate the water and sanitary sewer lines presently running through the property to the west of the proposed ,wilding and dedicate a new drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of permits for the building, 13, The applicant shall apply for and receive approval of the vacation of the existing utility easement prior to the issuance of permits for the building. 14. The property owner shall enter into a restrictive covenant to be filed with the title to the property requiring that on -site storm sewer be installed and connected to City storm sewer in 48th Ave. N. within one year of when it becomes available. 15. The applicant shall obtain the consent of the neighboring property to the east to modify the common drainage way serving these two properties. If such consent is not forthcoming, the applicant shall revise the grading plan, subject to the approval of the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. tY g P P 16. Plan approval acknowledges a waiver of the 50' separation requirement between driveways in lieu of the limited use of the easterly truer access drive, The motion passed unanimously. i 9/14/92 - 13 - DISCUSSION ITEMS REVIEW OF POLICIES RELATIN G T O DISEASED TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM The City Manager explained Mr. Kenneth Hirte, 4113 - 61st Avenue North spoke to the City Council during open fonim on August 24 7 1992 objecting to the City's Policy which provides that one -half of the costs for removal of boulevard trees are to be charged to the property owner. He further explained this report is in response to the City Council's request for a staff report regarding this matter. Councilmember Cohen asked what the total annual cost of the tree removal program is. The Director of Public Works answered the total annual cost for removal of boulevard trees is $29,000, with $14,500 of that being assessed to the property owners, Councilmember Rosene suggested the property owner's share of the tree removal program he paid by property taxes not by the individual property owner. He further stated the argument that this is the way it haws always been done is not good enough for him. Councilmember Scott stated she disagreed with Councilmember Rosene in that special assessments were created for exactly this sort of thing. There are a lot of trees marked in the City to be removed. Councilmember Cohen stated the issue goes beyond philosophy, it becomes dollars and cents. He further stated he is reluctant to change the policy although he concurred there is an argument there. He stated the City must look at what the total effect of changing spocial assessments would ho and what the total ramifications would lie. Councilmember Scott expressed concern if special assessments are taken away, other projects, such as the reforestation program would be cut to make up the difference. She stated the Council owes it to the children to make sure there are trees for future generations. She further stated she would like to see the Council increase the reforestation program, not take away from it. Councilmember Rosene stated he would not like to be billed for $145 for tree removal and $.60 a year for each property owner would be better. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Cohen that until total review of assessment policy of the City, the present policy on the disease tree removal be retained. Councilmember Rosene asked Councilmember Scott if she meant to put the matter on the agenda as a discussion item. Councilmember Scott answered yGs, at a workshop session. 9/14/92 - 14 0 Councilmember Cohen stated he was concerned if the City parts from special assessments on this, what is the next item that should go from special assessments to general fund. He suggested the Financial Commission take a look at this question as well as the Council. Councilmember Pedlar stated he disagreed with sending this matter to the Financial Commission. He explained the Council would then be asking the Financial Commission to review policy and this is the responsibility of the Council. He further stated the City has a problem with diseased trees, does the City want to absorb those costs in the future. He suggested the Council look at this matter once it gets into the budget process. He asked if property without trees has a lower market value. The Director of Public Works stated regardless of what the value of the tree was or was not, the current action is removal of a diseased tree, and the removal of the diseased tree is a benefit in that you get rid of an eye sore. Mr. Hirte asked to clarify a statement on Page 2 of the report: "While Mr. Hirte stated that he believes the trQQ which was removed from his boulevard was never an asset to his property, , , ." He stated he has planted numerous trees, shrubs, and flowers and the boulevard trcr, was not an asset due to an easement which moved it hack And up a hill. Because of this, the trcc was not growing straight. Councilmember Rosene clarified it is not righting a wrong as he does not consider it a wrong. He explained the $14,500 must be paid either by the property owners or by spreading it out to all the residents. Councilmember Cohen asked what the timeline on this matter is. The Director of Public Works answered Mr. Hirte's tree will be removed in 1992. He explained if Mr. Hirte elects to be billed later by special assessment, it will not be levied until one year from now, His first installment would have to be paid in 1994. He further explained earlier tonight the Council tabled action on the special assessment for trees which were removed in 1991. Councilmember Cohen suggested the Council act on the assessments that were tabled and then as part of the budget process conduct discussion on special assessments. Councilmember Pedlar asked if the special assessments are discontinued, how far back would the City go. The City Manager answered as a practical matter, no furthcr back than 1991. Councilmember Pedlar stated he had no objection to discussion of the matter in the budget process as the Council is not in a position to address this tonight. He explained the Council must identify and project what the costs will be -- rescarch needs to be done. Mr. Hirte asked if the Council was saying he pay now or take his chances that the special assessment for diseased tree removal will be changed, The Director of Public Works explained Mr, Hirte will be billed for the tree removal, and he will then have the choice to pay immediately or pay through his taxes with additional costs to levy special assessments. 9/14/92 - 15 - Councilmember Pedlar asked what the costs are associated with the special levy. Diane Spector, Council Works Coordinator, answered there is a $25 flat fee and an additional $30 0 fee after 60 days. Councilmember Cohen reiterated the Council should act on the motion and maintain the policy at this time and review it during the budget process. He further stated staff should be directed to bring this issue back for discussion as part of the budget process. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to amend the motion to include direction to staff to bring this issue hack for discussion as part of the budget process, The motion as amended passed unanimously, RESOLUTION NO, 92 -224 Member Celia Scott introduced the following rmulutiuri and inoyed its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. DISQQS5ION ITEMS (ContinueM STAFF REPORT REGARDING DATA PROCESSING IMPROVEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT The Director of Public Works presented a staff re - pnrt regarding data processing improvement for the public utilities department and answered questions of the Council. Councilmember Scott stated the City had budgeted $$4,000 for this project, however because the City can use some of the existing equipment it will cost only $10,000. RE5QWTION NO, 92 -225 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT'' NO. 1992 -15, DATA PROCESSING ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE WATER UTILITY SC:ADA SYSI'1=M AND FOR THE SANITARY SEWER UTILITY INTRAC SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 9/14/92 - 16 - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REC,XARDING SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS The City Manager presented an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Side Yard Setbacks in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. The motion passed unanimously, PROPOSED COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE The City Manager presented the proposed Council Meeting Schedule. Councilmember Rosene informed Council on October 13, 1992 he has parent/teacher conferences, and he asked to be excused from the Council meeting, He also stated Septcmbcr 29 is good, and he also has parent /teacher conferences on October 1 and October S, Councilmember Scott stated she cannot attend the September 29 meeting. Councilmember Cohen stated he will advise the City Manager of his schedule. The City Manager agreed to call all Councilmembers in regard to the October 13 Council meeting date, There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adopt the Council Meeting Schedule, and the motion passed unanimously. ADDITION OF APARTMENTS TO TRESPASS ORDINANCE The City Manager presented the addition of apartments to the trespass ordinance. He reviewed the memorandum from James Lindsay, Chief of Police, in support of this addition. Councilmember Scott agreed this addition will be a great help to apartment owners as well as tenants, Councilmember Pedlar stated this would be a good change to the ordinance, and it would be nice to communicate with apartment owners about this question, The Director of Planning and Inspection stated there is an apartment managers$ meeting once a month and this idea came from one of these meetings. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to directing staff to prepare an ordinance for first reading, and the motion passed unanimously. Is 9/14/92 - 17 - RE SOI.C.I't�NS (Continued 0 The City Manager introduced Reso lu t ion c in ty g a A cc ept in g g Bid and Awarding Contract for Removal of House at 4104 - 51st Avenue North, Improvement Project No. 1992 -12, Contract 1992 - J, Councilmember Rosene stated he had been by the house and it seemed rather nice. He fur d h I Cher State a w no sure t a nd h t he house should be demolished a e q ue stioned why the bid to move was so high. The City Manager explained it is a two -story house and to move it electrical lines would have to be moved thus causing the high estimate, RESOLUTION NO. 92 -226 Mcmbcr Philip Colion introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL OF HOUSE AT 4100 -51ST AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT FROJEUF NU, 199"2- 12, CONTRACT 1992 -J The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Quotes for Repair of Tennis Courts at K.ylawn and Northport Parks. Councilmember Rosene asked what exactly is being done. The Director of Public Works answered the tennis courts are being seal-coated with the holes patched. RESOLUTION NO, 92 -227 Member Davc• Rvwrm introduced the following resolution and moved itS adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES FOR REPAIR OF TENNIS COUR'T'S AT KYLAWN AND NORTHPORT PARKS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scot nd the motion pa ss ed unanimo tta s ua 1 s P Y . The City Manager introduced a Resolution Authorizing Execution of Agreement with the State of Minnesota for the Purpose of Conducting the First Stage of a Four -City Business Retention and Local Market Expansion Pilot Project. Mayor Paulson stated he had a number of concerns with this. 9/14/92 -18- Councilmember Pedlar stated there is a need to get these monies into the City coffers and bring the matter back for discussion, Councilmember Cohen stated he had checked with the City Attorney and was told he does not have a conflict of interest in this matter, RESOLUTION NO. 92 -228 Mcmbur Cclia Suvtt intruduced the fvlluwiiig m5vlutiuu wid iiiuvW its adoption; RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING THE FIRST STAGE OF A FOUR -CITY BUSINESS RETENTION AND LOCAL MARKET EXPANSION PILOT PROJECT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar. Pate on the motion: four ayes, one nay, The motion passed. Mayor Paulson voted nay. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar, and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:55 p,m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Nancy Burg Northern Counties Secretarial Services 9/14/92 -19 - MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session as an election canvass board and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 9:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, Jerry Pedlar, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter and Administration Secretary /Deputy City Clerk Sharon Knutson. CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS The Brooklyn Center City Council proceeded to canvass the City election returns from the various City precincts, reporting ballots cast in the City of Brooklyn Center contests as follows: Office of City Council Member Ulyssess Boyd 256 Bob Hock 156 Barb Kalligher 1,976 Denis W. Kelly 735 Kristen Mann 898 Donald Olek 403 Jerry Pedlar 1,485 Dan Reiva 1,026 Joseph W. Tanner 282 John R. Yelich 109 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -229 Upon completing the election canvass, member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING CANVASS OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1992, PRIMARY ELECTION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Philip Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Jerry Pedlar to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/28/92 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING Initial Applications for Private Kennel License at 516 - 62nd Avenue North and 3300 Quarles Road DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAEVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNDIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) Chapter 1 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances requires the licensing of all private kennels, defined as any premise zoned or used for R1 and R2 purposes, as defined in the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances, on which three or more dogs or four or more cats six months old or older, are kept or harbored as pets and not for selling, boarding, showing, treating, grooming or other commercial purposes. Section 1- 105.5b requires the city manager to approve or deny the application based on the Public Health Sanitarian's report and written comments by the applicant and any other affected persons, and Section 1- 105.5c outlines the standards for approval. Section 1- 105.5b reads, "within fourteen (14) days after the notice of the city manager's decision is mailed to area property owners, the owner or any other affected person then may request a hearing before the city council to show cause why the city manager's decision should be changed ". The city manager has denied the applications for private kennel license from Richard M. Strong and Dale Thompson; consequently, both applicants have requested a hearing before the city council to show cause why the decision should be changed. Following is a calendar of events from receipt of application to request for public hearing: RICHARD M. STRONG, 516 - 62ND AVENUE NORTH June 1, 1992 • Received application for private kennel license from Richard M Strong, 516 - 62nd Avenue North. • Sent letter to Mr. Strong requesting hi r o g s signature on the application and proof of current City dog license for each animal. June 1, 1992 • Sent memorandum to Chief of Police Jim Lindsay requesting a records check to verify any complaints on these dogs (report attached). • Sent memorandum to Sanitarian Pam Foster requesting an inspection be completed and a recommendation be submitted. Attached memorandum from Health Sanitarian Sue Hibberd recommends approval of kennel application. June 8, 1992 • Received documentation from Mr. Strong for proof of current rabies vaccination for each animal. • Mailed notice of receipt of application for private kennel license to owners of property within 150 feet of the applicant's property as required by Section 1- 105.5a. June 10 through June 24, 1992 • Received written responses from area property owners requesting the private kennel license not be issued. August 10, 1992 • City manager sent letter to Mr. Strong denying application for a private kennel license. • Mailed notice of denial of application for private kennel license to owners of property within 150 feet of the applicant's property as required by Section 1- 105.5b. August 17, 1992 • • Received letter from Mr. Strong requesting a public hearing before the city council as allowed by Section 1- 105.5b. August 21, 1992 • Mailed notice of public hearing to owners of property within 150 feet of the applicant's property. DALE THOMPSON 3300 Q UARLES ROAD June 22, 1992 • Received application for private kennel license from Dale Thompson, 3300 Quarles Road. • Sent memorandum to Chief of Police Jim Lindsay requesting a records check to verify any complaints on these dogs (report attached). • Sent memorandum to Sanitarian Pam Foster requesting an inspection be completed and a recommendation be submitted. Attached memorandum from Public Health Sanitarian Mary Fandrey indicates there was a large amount of animal waste in one end of the kennel and a strong odor was present and recommends denial of kennel application. July 9, 1992 • Mailed notice of receipt of application for private kennel license to owners of property within 150 feet of the applicant's property as required by Section 1- 105.5a. • July 11 through Jul 25 1992 g Y , • Received several written responses from area property owners requesting the private kennel license not be issued. August 10, 1992 • City manager sent letter to Mr. Thompson denying application for a private kennel license • Mailed notice of denial of application for private kennel license to owners of property within 150 feet of the applicant's property as required by Section 1- 105.5b. August 12, 1992 • Received letter from Mr. Thompson requesting a public hearing before the city council as allowed by Section 1- 105.5b. August 21, 1992 • Mailed notice of public hearing to owners of property within 150 feet of the applicant's property. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION RICHARD M. STRONG, 516 - 62ND AVENUE NORTH Render a final decision reversing, affirming, or amending the decision of the city manager to deny a private kennel license application. If the City Council chooses to affirm the decision of the city manager to deny a private kennel license, the Council should allow a maximum of six months to come into compliance with City Ordinances which require no more than two dogs on the premises. DALE THOMPSON, 3300 QUARLES ROAD Render a final decision reversing, affirming, or amending the decision of the city manager • to deny a private kennel license application. If the City Council chooses to affirm the decision of the city manager to deny a private kennel license, the Council should allow a maximum of three months to come into compliance with City Ordinances which require no more than two dogs on the premises. �.. APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Date: ,Tune 1st, 1-�q? 1. Applicant's Name and Telephone Number strong, Richard McDonald 561-2504 (Last, First, Middle) (Telephone Number) 2. Applicant's Address 516 6 Ave- .– N,— gipeek� en#p:r- ;4i ig4g (Number, Street, City, State, Zip Code) 3. Address or Legal Description of Proposed Kennel 516 62nd Ave. N. Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430 4. Attach a sketch or drawing with this application describing the construction and operation of the proposed kennel, or, if the animals are to be confined within the family dwelling unit, indicate this on the application. 48 6' height chain link fence with a24 holding c within the 48'x48' area. Also,the enclosed area ; a 8'x12' doghouse. 5. Indicate number of animals to be confined within the proposed kennel, together with their age breed and sex, 3 1 year old Rt. Rernard Mal 1� year old ;t RPrn rd M l —__ year old St. R rnard Female 6. PLEASE NOTE: Proof of current rabies vaccination and City dog license for each animal and the license fee e ount o ,30.00 'st accompany this application. Signalire of App t PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED APPLICATION AND LICENSE FEE TO: Ci y Clerk, City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE New License V Renewal License License Period _ th rough License Fee Received 'JUN 0 1 19W � -I [� 76 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY - TELEPHONE 561 - 5440 +� HENNEPIN COUNTY N o 3445 DOG LICENSE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT PHONE NUMBER S� oZ S Oc� ADDRE � • I HAS REGISTERED IN THE 91TY OFFICE, A DOG NAMED sa-8 I v COLOR BREED HAS PAID LICENSE FOR SAID DOG. LICENSE EXPIRES 191T RABIES CE TIFICATE NO. TE DVM. r f $5.00 ❑Male $3.00 ❑Neutered Male $5.00 emale $3.00 ❑Spayed Female BY DATE. x ?o CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY - TELEPHONE 561 - 5440 HENNEPIN COUNTY N 3446 DOG LICENSE - n THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT r `' �A PHONE NUMBER �•�W -" °� SOIL � ADDRESS s� l�� V CL CLI-1— r`� HAS REGISTERED IN THE CITY OFFICE A DOG NAMED COLOR BREED HAS PAID LICENSE FOR SAID DOG. LICENSE EXPIRES 3 19 RABIES CE TIFICATE NO TE ' DVM 1 . ' $5.00 ale , : - _ •. $3.00 ❑Neutered Male KF. BY $5.00 ❑Female $3.00 ❑Spayed Female DATE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY — TELEPHONE 561 -5440 HENNEPIN COUNTY N '3447 , DOG LICENSE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ��-�` / PHONE NUMBER ADDRESS (Oa V\& HAS REGISTERED IN TH CITY OFFICE." A DOG NAMED COLOR BREED HAS PAID LICENSE FOR SAID DOG. LICENSE EXPIRES 19 RABIES CERTIFICATE NO ATE $5.00 $3.00 ❑Neutered Male $5.00 Female �, B DATE — � ! ❑ $. 00 ❑Spayed Female c" 0 � Brooklyn Park Pet Hospital 5815 80th Ave North Brooklyn Park, PAN 55443 0 (612)566 -6000 Date : 03/27/92 Time 10:38am Client : Strong, Richard *4873 Patient Sadie Address : 516 62nd Avenue North Species Canine City, Zip : Brooklyn Center MN'55430 Breed Saint Bernard Home Phone : 561 -2504 Work : 000 -0000 Color Black, Brown, l Order No /Time: 29863 / 10:38am Sex Female Register No : 5 Birthdate : 11/26/91 Doctor : Dr. Thomas Diffell Invoice No : 27759 Trans. Type : Invoice Patient No : 7478 Order Page : 1 Invoice Page: 1 Date Printed : 03/27/92 Time Printed: 10:38am --------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- CHARGES - -- Prod. Code Description Date Quantity Price 26.17 -2 -1 Fecal Analysis - - - - -- - -- 03/27/92 -- - - - - 1 — $9.50 HEALTH MAINTENANCE STATUS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Expiration Expiration Date Date Distemper— Hepatitis —Lep 03/20/93 Rabies Vaccination 03/20/93 (Heartworm Examination 03/01/93 Bordetella 03/02/93 Corona Vaccination 03/02/93 Lyme Vaccination 00/00/00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please Check The Above Data For Accuracy. Brooklyn Park Pot Hospital 5815 80th Ave North Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 (6I2)556-6000 Date a p ; 03/27/92 Time : 10;38am Client : Strong, Richard 14873 Patient : Oliver Address : 516 62nd Avenue North Species ; Canino City, Zip ; Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Breed : Saint Bernard Home Phone ; 561-2504 Work : 000-0000 Color ; Black, Brown / Order No/Time: 29852 / 10:37am Sex : Male ^ Register No ; S 8irthdato ; 12/23/90 � Doctor ; Dr, Thomas Diffell Invoice No : 27759 � Trans, Type ; Invoice Patient No : 6487 Order Page : 1 Invoice Page: 2 Date Printed ; 03/27/92 Time Printed: 10:38am ______________________________________________________________________________ --- CHARGES --- Prod, Code Description Date Quantity Price 26.17-2-1 Fecal Analysis 03/27/92 1 $9.50 � HEALTH MAINTENANCE STATUS � __—____—__________—___—__—_______—___—__--____—____—_—_—__________________—_— | . Expiration Expiration | | ' . Date Date | � |Oistemper—Hepatitis—Lnp 03/02/93 Rabies Vaccination 03/01/94 ' |Heartworm Examination 03/01/93 Bordetello 00/00/00 / lCorona Vaccination 03/01/03 Lyme Vaccination 00/00/00 ' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please Check The Above Data For Accuracy. 1 Brooklyn Park Pet Hospital 5815 80th Ave North Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 (612)566 -6000 Date : 03/27/92 Time : 10:38am Client : Strong, Richard #4873 Patient : Stanley Address : 516 62nd Avenue North Species : Canine City, Zip : Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Breed : Saint Bernard Home Phone : 561 -2504 Work 000 -0000 Color : Black, Brown, f Order No /Time: 29861 / 10 :37am Sex : Male Register No 5 Birthdate : 12/23/90 Doctor : Dr. Thomas Diffell Invoice No : 27759 Trans. Type : Invoice Patient No : 6486 Order Page : 1 Invoice Page: 3 Date Printed 03/27/92 Time Printed: 10:38am -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- CHARGES - -- Prod. Code Description Date Quantity Price 26.17 -2 -1 Fecal Analysis - - - - -- 03/27/92 — -- — 1 — '—== = $9.50 HEALTH MAINTENANCE STATUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Expiration Expiration Date Date Distemper— Hepatitis —Lep 03f02/93 Rabies Vaccination 03f01/94 1 JHeartworm Examination 03/01/93 Bordetella 00/00/00 Corona Vaccination 03/01/93 Lyme Vaccination 00/00/00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please Check The Above Data For Accuracy. ---------------------------- - - - - -- SUMMARY ---------------------------------- Patient Patient Order Sales Amount Name Number Number Tax Due - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- Sadie 7478 29863 0.00 9.50 Oliver 6487 29862 0.00 9.50 Stanley 6486 29861 0.00 9.50 Payment Method Cash 28.50 Prev Balance: 0.00 Check : 0.00 Total 28.50 B /Card: 0.00 Amount Paid 28.50 C /Card: 0.00 Amount Due 0.00 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police FROM: Sharon Knutson, Administration Secretary/Deputy Cit Clerk Y DATE: June 2, 1992 SUBJECT: Private Kennel License Application for 516 62nd Avenue North On June 1, 1992, I received an application for a private kennel license from Richard M. Strong, 516 62nd Avenue North, to keep three dogs. According to City Manager Jerry Splinter, a records check must be completed to verify any complaints on these dogs. Please check your records for complaints and send the report to me by June 12, 1992. Thank you for your cooperation. MOT JUN 8, 1992, 9:07 AM BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT - 516 62ND AVE. NO. - 1983 - 06107/92 TIME - RECEIVED CALL - LOCATION CALL - CODE -DESCR REPORTING - -- COMMENT -TEXT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 84/07/22 17:00:01 516 62ND HOME ACC -FAL STRONG, MRS 0001 /C 84010803 0001 /RPT N 0001 /HUSBAND FELL DOWN BASEMENT STAIRS - FREDERICK ARTHUR STRONG 0001 /AGE 76 TO NORTH 84/08/19 01:03:01 516 62ND AV VANDALISM HALL, THOMAS 0001 /C 84012290 0001 /RPT Y 0001 /PEOPLES FENCE AND GARDEN POSTS ARE LAYING IN THEIR YARD 84/12/22 01:11:01 516 62ND AV NO SICK CARED STRONG, ISAB 0001 /C 84018881 0001 /RPT N 0001 /THINKS SHE MIGHT BE HAVING A HEART ATTACK - ISABEL KNAPP STR 0001 /ONG 9/16/08 TO NORTH 87/01/10 04:59:01 516 62ND AV NO SICK CARED MRS STRONG 0001 /C 87000562 0001 /RPT N 0001 /SAYS SHE FEELS LIKE SHE'S PASSING OUT - STRONG, ISABEL, 0001/79 YRS - TO NORTH 90/06/11 15:41:01 516 62 DOG TAGS SCHOLL, MRS 0001 /C 90009369 0001 /RPT N 0001 /MR STRONGS DOG IS LOSSE / DOG HOME, NOTE LEFT FOR OWNER 90/07/25 20:50:01 516 62 RES. CHECKS STRONG, A 0001 /C 90012338 0001 /RPT N 0001 /CHECK WELFARE OF HER FATHER IN LAW, FRED IS FINE, ADVISED 0001 /GOA 90/07/27 19:56:01 516 62 SICK CARED STRONG, DAVE 0001 /C 90012464 0001 /RPT N 0001 /FRED LIGHT OF HEAD, NORTH CANCELLED 91/02/19 15:18:00 516 62 FIRE -ALL 0TH BAERTSCHY, M 1525/ CASE NUMBER = CR -91- 00002265 1520 /X -ST = CAMDEN COMMON -NAME _ 1520 /GARAGE FIRE - DETACHED 1650 /CLOSED DISPO REFERRED - NO REPORT 91/04/20 21:04:09 516 62 SICK CARED STRONG, FRED 2104/ CASE NUMBER = CR - 91- 00005247 2104 /X -ST = CAMDEN COMMON -NAME _ 2104 /FELL EARLIER IN THE DAY - POSSIBLE HIP DISLOCATION 2106 /NORTH ORDERED 2128 /CLOSED DISPO : REFERRED - NO REPORT 2128/TO NORTH VIA NORTH FRED ARTHUR STRONG 5 -3 -08 2128 /FOLLOWUP WITH TAP PROGRAM 91/04/30 22:08:00 516 62 SICK CARED STRONG, FRED 2226/ CASE NUMBER = CR -91- 00005741 2210 /SEVERE BACK PAIN 2226 /CLOSED DISPO : REFERRED - NO REPORT 2226 /FRED STRONG AGE 84 TO NORTH 91/06/25 17:37:37 516 62 SICK CARED STRONG, FR 1737/ CASE NUMBER = CR -91- 00008820 1737 /X -ST = CAMDEN COMMON -NAME _ MOT, JUN 8, 1992, 9:07 AM BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT - 516 62ND AVE. NO. - 1983 - 06/07/92 E- RECEIVED CALL - LOCATION CALL - CODE -DESCR REPORTING -PE -- OMMENT -TEXT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91/06/25 17:37:37 516 62 SICK CARED STRONG, FRED 1737 /DIZZY AND HAS FALLEN 1738 /STARTED NORTH ON THE RED 1759/TO NORTH VIA NORTH - FRED STRONG, AGE 80 1759 /CLOSED DISPO REFERRED - NO REPORT 91/06/26 01:52:28 516 62 SICK CARED STRONG, FRED 0152/ CASE NUMBER = CR -91- 00008856 0152 /X -ST = CAMDEN COMMON -NAME _ 0152 /SHORTNESS OF BREATH 0152 /NORTH ORDERED 0214 /FRED STRONG, 84, TO NORTH 0214 /CLOSED DISPO REFERRED - NO REPORT 91/07/01 09:06:20 516 62 MISC PUBLIC RICHARD STRO 0906/ CASE NUMBER = CR- 91- 00009154 0906 /X -ST = CAMDEN COMMON -NAME _ 0906 /FATHER - FRED STRONG - BEEN MISSING THREE DAYS 0926 /CLOSED DISPO AID /ASSIST - NO RPT 92/02/18 16:37:20 516 62 DOG TAGS REFUSED 1637/ CASE NUMBER = CR -92- 00002337 1637/TWO ST BERNARD DOGS RESIDING AT THIS ADDRESS ARE ALLOWED TO RUN LOOSE 1930 /CLOSED DISPO : AID /ASSIST - NO RPT MEMORANDUM TO: Pam Foster, Sanitarian FROM: Sharon Knutson, Administration Secretary /Deputy City Clerk DATE: June 2, 1992 SUBJECT: Private Kennel License Application for 516 62nd Avenue North On June 1, 1992, I received an application for a private kennel license from Richard M. Strong, 516 62nd Avenue North, to keep three dogs. According to City Manager Jerry Splinter, an inspection by the public health sanitarian must be completed and a recommendation must be submitted to him. Please schedule an inspection of this property and submit your recommendation to me by June 16, 1992. Thank you for your cooperation. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 9, 1992 TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sue Hibberd, Health sanitarian SUBJECT: Kennel Application at 516 - 62nd Avenue North An unannounced inspection of the kennel at 516 - 62nd Avenue North was conducted today. There are three St. Bernards, vaccinated and currently licensed kept in a 48' x 48' kennel. Waste is removed from the kennel every 2 - 3 days. The kennel was very clean today. The dogs were quiet during my visit and appeared to be healthy and well cared for. Their food is kept in a shed inside the kennel. I recommended storage of the food in a rodent -proof container. I would also recommend that bedding (straw) be provided and changed on a frequent basis. The owner indicated he watered the animals at least twice daily in a very large container (approximately 15 gallons). The dogs were being watered as I arrived. I would recommend approval of the license application with the condition that the above recommendations be complied with. SJH:jt CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE June 2, 1992 911 Mr. Richard M. Strong 516 62nd Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Strong: This is to inform you that your application and fee have been received for a private kennel license. In order to process your application for private kennel license, please sign the application and submit proof of current City dog license for each animal. Once these items are received, the process will begin by notifying area residents within 150' of your home of' your application for private kennel license. Within the next fourteen (14) days, the health department will be visiting your home to complete an inspection. Should ou have ave any questions relevant to our private kennel license a li Y P pp ,cation, P lease call me at 569 -3306. Sincerely, Sharon Knutson Administration Secretary/Deputy City Clerk CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER enc. cc: City Manager Gerald G. Splinter Sanitarian Pam Foster ^' roe6ut,u�captt CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 CENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE ' June 8, 1992 911 Mr. Richard M. Strong 516 62nd Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Strong: Your application for a private kennel license, license fee, and proof of current rabies vaccination and City dog license for each animal have been received by the City of Brooklyn Center. Please be advised that the enclosed notice has been mailed to area property owners within 150 feet of your home. The city manager will consider your application for a private kennel license and either approve or deny it based on the public health sanitarian's report and any written comments from you or affected ersons. You will be notified of the city manager's decision. P tY g Should you have any questions relevant to your private kennel license application, please call me at 569 -3306. Sincerely, Sharon Knutson Administration Secretary/Deputy City Clerk CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER enc. cc: City Manager Gerald G. Splinter 916 LL,IJEIi('.ACR!f 9 June 8, 1992 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that the city clerk of the City of Brooklyn y Center is in receipt of an application for private kennel license to keep three dogs. APPLICANT: RICHARD M. STRONG 516 62ND AVENUE NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA City Ordinance Section 1- 105.5a requires the city clerk to mail notice of the license application to the owners of property within 150 feet of the proposed kennel location. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this notice, the city manager will approve or deny the license application based on the public health sanitarian's report and WRITTEN comments by the applicant or any affected person. Direct written comments to City Clerk, City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 55430. Notice of approval or denial will be mailed to owners of property within 150 feet of the proposed kennel location. Questions or concerns regarding the private kennel license application should be directed to Deputy City Clerk Sharon Knutson at 569 -3306. PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE AREA RESIDENTS WITHIN 150' OF 516 62ND AVENUE NORTH Michael and Janice Baertschy Ronald and Renee Jaroscak Joseph and Sherry Schreck 520 62nd Avenue North 6200 Camden Avenue North 6128 Camden Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 I Curtis and Cheryl Hawkins Clair and Margaret Mattson Thomas and Sandra Hall 521 62nd Avenue North 515 62nd Avenue North 509 62nd Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Bradley and Laura Pohlman Leslie and Gertrude Moore Leonard and Marguerite Cison 6139 Lyndale Avenue North 6133 Lyndale Avenue North 6218 Camden Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 George and Eleanor Llewellyn 6220 Camden Court Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 9EGfltl[O JUN 12 isnz �- • • - - 1'.1��.,� C�.�. >-✓- 772.._..:, S .s - u3o P Y >z p e��,� � „ t�v�,z%C�2�✓ /-Z-� 2V CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 CENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE August 10, 1992 911 Mr. Richard M. Strong 516 62nd Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Strong: I have received your application for a kennel license dated June 1, 1992. In accordance with Brooklyn Center City Ordinances, notices of the license application were mailed to property owners within 150 feet of the proposed kennel. I have also instructed the public health sanitarian to review the application and I have now received her report. After considering the report from the sanitarian and public comments received, please be informed that I am denying your request for a private kennel license to house three or more dogs on your residential premises. You will be allowed until October 12, 1992, to come into compliance with City Ordinances which require no more than two dogs on your premises. I find that the issuance of this license would have an adverse affect on the health, safety, welfare, or property values of persons residing, living, or owning property within the immediate area. I base this finding on a review of the public health sanitarian's report, information from the police department regarding dogs running at large, and written public comments received. You should also be aware there are other City Ordinances which require Brooklyn Center residents to control barking and other nuisances generated by the keeping of Mr. Richard M. Strong -2- August 10, 199 pets, such as dogs, on their property. We expect all citizens will be in compliance with these requirements. Dog owners are particularly responsible for barking of their dogs and causing a nuisance to their neighbors. Under Brookl n Center City the Cit Mana er's decision in these matters is appealable to the City Council To institute this appeal process you must submit to !y office within 14 da s of recei t of this notice a written re uest for a hearin before theCity Council Should you choose the appeal option, the City Council will hold a public hearing on our appeal after mailed notice to adjoining propert y owners Should you have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 569 -3300. Sincerely, Gerald G. Splinter City Manager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER GGS:sk cc: Sharon Knutson August 10, 1992 NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that the city manager of the City of Brooklyn Center has denied an application for private kennel license for Richard M. Strong, 516 - 62nd Avenue North. The city manager based his decision on the public health sanitarian's report and written comments received by affected persons. City Ordinance Section 1- 105.5b requires the city clerk to mail notice of the city manager's decision to approve or deny the applicant's private kennel license application to the owners of property within 150 feet of the proposed kennel location. The owner or any other affected person may request a hearing before the city council to show cause why the decision should be changed. A WRITTEN request for the hearing must be received by the city manager within fourteen (14) days of the date of this notice. Direct written requests to City Clerk, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 55430. If a written request for a public hearing before the city council is received, notice of the date and time of the public hearing will be mailed to owners of property within 150 feet of the proposed kennel location. Following the public hearing, the city council shall render a final decision reversing, affirming, or amending the decision of the city manager. Questions or concerns regarding the private kennel license application denial should be directed to Deputy City Clerk Sharon Knutson at 569 -3306. iugust 17, 13�� Richard M. Strong 516 62nd Ave. X. , Brooklyn Center, 1•�Tinn. 55430 Gerald G. Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter, In regards to my application for a kennel license and subsequent denial I would very much like to appeal this decision before the city counsel at their convience. Thankyou. Sinc r yo ichard Stron • ZO r APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Date: 1. Applicant's Name and Telephone Number (Last, First, Middle) (Telephone Number) 2. Applicant's Address - - 3-3 0C ()Z %�� ti 4,e N/N j55% 9 (Number, Street, City, State, Zip Code) 3. Address or Legal Description of Proposed Kennel 4. Attach a sketch or drawing with this application describing the construction and operation of the proposed kennel, or, if the animals are to be confined within the family dwelling unit, indicate this on the application. - elk - I ( t)jte x Me r4 a �i s {�CrYo aLL o dlic hcw�-i 41c( Pa(/ hlo� -4 /I CT( r°7t�r2O�4 r y � ' c f 5. Indicate number of animals to be confined within the proposed kennel, together with their aee breed and sex. G� S �b / e Pe ro b (Q JT 9 n� RrA - Ectj 1 5 mo o 3 rnn 6. PLEASE NOTE: Proof of current rabies vaccination and City dog license for each animal and the license fee in the amount of $30.00 must accompany this application. p .4. ��� Signature of Applicant PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED APPLICATION AND LICENSE FEE TO: City Clerk, City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE R ECEIVED JUN 2 s 1992 New License 0- 9 ol Oq Renewal License License Period through License Fee Received L 4� AOL P � uk �oDoj FQnc� Owner Df — Date 1 21 .!'�" / , E � �iaemper Address 0 C�_ �o S� Phone �' ! mpenMeasles • O A'J -2i Hepatitis o C 8 I I PP���ii y �� t CERTIFICATE OF VACCINATION �� ntiuenza r �rvo Jirus F3gtd This is to certify that on this date I have vaccinated /E ronawrus the described below against: aa bies It y Other Name ��` Sex 1� C FELINE • = Panleukopenia Color & Markings Ci (Y Rhinotracneitis Calici Virus Breed Ag'rYeight Rabies Leukemia Vaccination �51�� Vaccine 31 Chlamydia Tag No. 11 �� Serial No. `+� y other D r ©5'U r�" I " , G Veterinarian 5B v Next Appointment I�� j G SmithKline Beecham CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE L CREEK PARKWAY _ TELEPHONE 561.5440 HENNEPIN COUNTY DOG LICENSE ND 35?4 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT -'C1 /P — � : rf�: (�11 PHONE NUMBER �- ADDRESS -� ! -`�� r IL % r� + t� t N HAS REGISTERED IN THE CITY OFFICE, A DOG NAMED —0 (' (-)R COLOR 1� BREED HAS PAID LICENSE FOR SAID DOG. LICENSE EXPIRE , 19_L__? RABIES CERTIFICATE NO. & DATE -^ ` DVM. .ID J S5.00 ❑Male S3.00 Neutered Male � / S5.00 ❑Female $3.00 ❑Spayed Female BY / �� �� / �� DATE Owner 1�1�L�- L.�c'_ Date1 ' cyuNE U Distemper Addres O d0 �Phone c empedMeasles V -2) Hepatitis to C 8 1 mlluenza CERTiFICA OF VACCINATION ParvoVirus This is to certify that on this date I have vaccinated C3 Bordetella or avirus the described below against: r a ies 1 c Other Name �Q— Sex L c FELINE ❑ Panleukopenia ' Color &Markin S ❑ Rhinotracheitis 9 /� 13 Calici Virus Breed Age Wei ht c Rabies 8 9 C] Leukemia Vaccination Vaccine a Chlamydia Tag No yz Serial No. 2 X� C3 Other _ Vet rinarian 59 u SmithKline Beecham Next Appointment Pc0 3 Animal Heaith CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY — TELEPHONE 561 -5440 HENNEPIN COUNTY DOG LICENSE N? 3526 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT 2 1 � PHONE NUMBER ADDRESS _�. ) ( ��. - HAS REGISTERED IN THE CITY OFFICE. A DOG NAMED �t� b� � ` COLOR }r -Z, � - BREED _ —c CvC't HAS PAID LICENSE FOR SAID DOG. LICENSE EXPIRES — � 19 ? RABIES CERTIFICATE NO & DATE DVM. 01 Q( LV1rNAV IIJ S5.00 ❑Male S3.00 ❑Neutered Male B Y �� ✓� n t. 55.00 ❑Female 33.00 Spayed Female DATE" yyliJj i r j Owner CIr Y�.lYr'� ~' "Iv Date' I ^ \ .7�',.- •eANwE � � t• .'Distemper Address � ' Disiempe Measbs r � / �;o (CAV 2)Hepatitis ­�_� toc &I arainfluenza CERTIFICATE`dF VACCINATION ';.- rvoVirus _ Bo detella This is to certify that on this date 1 have vaccinated j?2� navirus the described below against: ; Rabies i r n Other El FELINE Name C ` 1� ; r)\ C Sex 1i Panleukopenia Color & Marki L7 `1" Rhinotracheitis B = CaliciVirus Breed ggeL Y le ght Rabies _ Leukemia Vaccination Vaccine (.� r G Chlamytlia Tag No. Serial No. " J I I �I�rJ Other Veterinarian Next Appointment SrnrthKhrie Beecham CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY - TELEPHONE 561 - 5440 HENNEPIN COUNTY DOG L ICE NSE N9 3�?� THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT art '•i f ^, -- AC/ ""`D VT 1PHONE NUMBER �- • ADDRESS 7�Cf, (_�.�(G iP I`�C'fr�� �' C. HAS REGISTERED IN THE CITY OFFICE. A DOG NAMED a �f ( ?lU COLOR C?ICc /�•1 r��� "rn� BREED ( P f IC 1 HAS PAID LICENSE FOR SAID DOG. LICENSE EXPIRES 19 RABIES CERTIFICATE NO. & DATE DVM. 0 1"A "v\ Eti1( 1A,' S5.00 ❑Male S3.00 ❑Neutered Male I S5.00 Female 53.00 ❑Spayed Female BY If,. DATE " f� it • _" M �� F MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police FROM: Sharon Knutson, Administration Secretary /Deputy City Clerk DATE: June 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Private Kennel License Application for 3300 Quarles Road On June 25, 1992, 1 received an application for a private kennel license from Dale Allen Thompson, 3300 Quarles Road, to keep four dogs. According to City Manager Jerry Splinter, a records check must be completed to verify any complaints on these dogs. Please check your records for complaints and send the report to me by July 10, 1992. Thank you for your cooperation. 3300 QUA* ROAD - 1983- 06/29/92 TUE, JUN 30, 199 , 4:25 PM page *f 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/05/90 16:24:01 LOCATION: 3300 QUARLES RD CALL TYPE: MISC PUBLIC REPT PERSON: THOMPSON RESIDENCE REPT PERS ADDR: SAME 0001 /C 90018990 0001 /RPT N 0001 /HAS FEMALE INTRUDER THERE NOW - ADVISED ON CIVIL MATTER 06/04/92 19:26:51 LOCATION: 3300 QUARLES RD CALL TYPE: RULES & REGS REPT PERSON: PAYNE,SCOTT REPT PERS ADDR: BCPD 1926/ CASE NUMBER = CR -92- 00007747 1926 /X -ST = BEARD COMMON -NAME _ 1926 /KENNELS REGULATIONS 1950 /CLOSED DISPO : AID /ASSIST - REPORT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT Case No. 92 -07747 Outside Offense: Yes _ No _ Nature of Offense: DOG COMPLAINT #9806 Location of Offense: 3300 Quarles Road Date Reported: 06 -04 -92 Time: 1930 Date Committed: 06 -04 -92 Time: 1930 Total Value of Loss: none Name of Complainant: Anonymous Address of Complainant: City & State: Res. Phone: Bus. Phone: Disposition: Unfounded _ Clyd by Arrest _ Exc Clyd _ Inactive _ Other X Arrests: Adult — Juvenile _ Both _ None X Officer Assigned to Case: PAYNE Transferred to: Supervisor Approving: Date and Time Report Made: 06 -04 -92 1945 On 06 -04 -92 at 1930 hours C.E.O. PAYNE arrived at 3300 Quarles Road on a complaint that the homeowner at that address owns four dogs. Upon arrival C.E.O. PAYNE spoke with the homeowner, Dale THOMPSON, phone 560 -6890, who stated that he did have four dogs and that he had picked up an application from the City of Brooklyn Center along with a copy of the City Ordinances. Mr. THOMPSON explained to PAYNE that he owned a total of four dogs, two of the dogs being eight months old and one dog at five months old and another at eight weeks. Mr. THO14PSON then stated that he was aware of the City Ordinance and that when his dog at five months became six months old he would then submit his application for a private kennel license. PAYNE also explained to Mr. THOMPSON that there would be a follow up done on this incident and that Mr. THOMPSON was given until 07 -04 -92 to submit an application with the City of Brooklyn Center for a private kennel license. PAYNE also explained to Mr. THOMPSON that on 07- 04 -92, that this officer or another officer would be checking to make sure that each dog had a Brooklyn Center dog license. PAYNE then informed Mr. THOMPSON that if he did not comply with the City Ordinances 1 -108, keeping of dogs is limited and City Ordinance 19- 105.5a, failure to apply for an application for a private kennel license and City Ordinance 1 -105, failure to acquire dog licenses, that he would then be issued citations for these offenses. jg Page 2 Case #92 -07747 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No further information at the time of this report. PAYNE j 4 N EMORANDUM TO: Pam Foster, Sanitarian FROM: Sharon Knutsonministration Secretary/Deputy Cit Clerk Y DATE: June 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Private Kennel License Application for 3300 Quarles Road On June 25, 1992, I received an application for a private kennel license from Dale Allen Thompson, 3300 Quarles Road, to keep four dogs. According to City Manager Jerry Splinter, an inspection by the public health sanitarian must be completed and a recommendation must be submitted to him. Please schedule an inspection of this property and submit your recommendation to me by July 10, 1992. Thank you for your cooperation. JGy�4 j4 rUUl�uUi f Post -It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #Ofpages ► '`` TO Fr m S O Co. CO. F. t. 3 0 0 F"X DATE: July 10, 1992 TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Mary Fandrey, public Health Sanitarian SUBJECT private Kennel Application for 3300 Quarles Road On July 8, 1992, I performed an unannounced private kennel inspection at 3300 Quarles Road, home of Dale A. Thompson. The applicant has four puppies - a male doberman and three rottweilers, two female and one male. According to the owner, all four dogs are under one year of age. All are currently vaccinated and licensed_ The owner states the animals are kept indoors and are outdoors only when the family is at home. The kennel is a large fenced area (at least forty feet in length and fifteen feet wide) with . a dirt floor. There was a•large amount of animal waste in one end of the kennel (at least 25 piles) and a strop odor w present. g s a 1 told Mr. Thompson that the kennel needed to be picked up more frequently than it had been. He said it was done daily. The waste is removed from the premises weekly through regular trash pickup by Browning Ferris Industries. I also asked him about the possibility of installing a concrete floor in the kennel and he said, no, that it was not financially possible at this time. I would recommend against approval of the private kennel license since the kennel is not easily cleanable due to the dirt floor, and the fact that the kennel was not maintained on the day of inspection. MEF: j t CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY :BYROOKLYN OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 CENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE July 9 1992 911 Mr. Dale Allen Thompson 3300 Quarles Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Dear Mr. Thompson: Your application for a private kennel license, license fee, and proof of current rabies vaccination and i C ty dog license for each animal have been received by the City of Brooklyn Center. Please be advised that the enclosed notice has been mailed to area property owners within 150 feet of your home. The city manager will consider your application for a private kennel license and either approve or deny it based on the public health sanitarian's report and any written comments from you or affected persons. You will be notified of the city manager's decision. Should you have any questions relevant to your private kennel license application, please call me at 569 -3306. Sincerely, Sharon Knutson Administration Secretary/Deputy City Clerk CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER enc. cc: City Manager Gerald G. Splinter h 19N ALL+ *JKA CR4 00' July 9, 1992 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that the city clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center is in receipt of an application for private kennel license to keep four dogs. APPLICANT: DALE ALLEN THOMPSON 3300 QUARLES ROAD BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA City Ordinance Section 1- 105.5a requires the city clerk to mail notice of the license application to the owners of property within 150 feet of the proposed kennel location. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this notice, the city manager will approve or deny the license application based on the public health sanitarian's report and p BEN comments by the applicant or any affected person. Direct written comments to City Clerk, City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 55430. All information provided in the written comments becomes public information; however, if you wish to remain anonymous, you may do so and the city manager will take that into consideration. Notice of approval or denial will be mailed to owners of property within 150 feet of the ro p posed kennel location. Questions or concerns regarding the private kennel license application should be directed to Deputy City Clerk Sharon Knutson at 569 -3306. PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE AREA RESIDENTS WITHIN 150' OF 3300 QUARLES ROAD Ema Lindsay Guilford and Sally Parsons Joseph and Alice LaHaye 3218 Quarles Road 3212 Quarles Road 3206 Quarles Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 William and Arlene Clark Adrian and Anastasia Filipiak Nicholas and Kathy Ann Turk 3306 Quarles Road 3312 Quarles Road 3318 Quarles Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Edwin and Geraldine Nygaard Lloyd and Mary Bach Daniel and Beverly Anonen 3301 Quarles Road 3219 Quarles Road 3213 Quarles Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 David and Michele Holzknecht Ambrose Lewandowski Lacy and Mary Gaster 3307 Quarles Road 3313 Quarles Road 3319 Quarles Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Richard and Helen Baker Robert and Judith Wetley Gary and Carol Callisto 3301 66th Avenue North 3213 66th Avenue North 3207 66th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Dolores Bultman Resident /Tenant Reolita Paray 3201 66th Avenue North 3307 66th Avenue North 26656 Summerdale Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Southfield, MI 48034 Allan and Diane Lunderby Michael and Sharlyn O'Connor 3313 66th Avenue North 3319 66th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 � � � � ,� � � �� � � � h � �� ,, � � � � �� � �� � � � NIN Y July 15,1992 City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle CReek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 As a neighbor of Dale Thompson at 3300 Quarles Road, I am writing to express my concern for issuing him a kennel license for 4 dogs. He does have 4 dogs at this time and the barking and crying are quite annoying. It appears a couple of the dogs are biting at the other one and he is just crying over there. We are a couple houses away from them so the smell doesn't bother us but I have been over to the Clarks back yard and the smell is terrible. The kennel he built is right up to their fenced in back yard where their patio is located. Needless to say, they could never enjoy sitting out on their patio. We have 2 dogs located on the other side of our house and the smell is terrible from there even if they don't have a kennel so the feces are distributed throughout the whole yard. It is terrible when you try to sit out on the deck and the smell from one direction and yelping from the other direction. He has mentioned to someone that he intends to breed dogs. He has put up a high wooden fence so no one would be able to see what he is doing. My request is for denial of his license! I prefer to remain anonymous. KwAjk - Lic NSA' /�7N, - - C/7/ C L AX - -- — LO duo --- - - - - -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - July 12,1992 Dear City Clerk: I have received your letter of Inquiry regarding application for a private kennel license to keep four (4) dogs by Dale Allen Thompson at 3300 Quarles Road. I oppose this application ! Dogs presently kept at this location are a frequent source of Public disturbance, as city records will probably show. The applicant presently uses my fence to contain his dogs. This fence has 5 inch wide vertical openings and poses a serious danger to my visiting grandchildern. 'ciinT t c ition 'or >)ri kennel license hale 1llen Thomason, 3300 Quarles ,oad. LIe both like Dale Phomnson, but we dont want a bunc'z of dogs across thP, street. lJe both ,�believp that i F' you want to raise dogs, You should live in the country. 'his way the barkin and the smell wont irritate your nei,7hbors. s July 16, 1992 CITY CLERK: This is in regards to the letter we recently received on the private kennel license application for Dale Thompson, 3300 Quarles Rd., Brooklyn Center. We are not in favor of this family owning ands caring for four dogs. In the past years, they have owned various dogs and their barking has been annoying to us, especially on nights when our bedroom windows are open. We believe kennels belong in the country, not within our city limits. We have lived in Brooklyn Center for almost 20 years, and we like to think of our area as a quiet, family- oriented city. Having a neighbor raising a large yard full of dogs just doesn't seem right for the neighborhood. We do also worry about any odors that may begin, as we like to enjoy our backyard, especially during our evening meals. Finally, our last concern is that we feel this dog kennel could be a harmful effect in the future as to the resale of our home or other properties around us. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. f -- - -- f U - - -�� Gam- -- �!'�'- � - -- - - -°�� � -G �'' ✓�i� 'I ----- - - - - -- —ham -- - - �l -- `� / ' i R EC E 1 V F n auc o s 1992 1 1 July 10, 1992 City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Sir: We received today the Notice of Receipt of Application for Private Kennel License Re: Dale Allen Thompson. We live next door west of Thompsons at 3306 Quarles Road, and we are very much opposed to them being granted a kennel license. The southwest corner of their metal pen and recently installed privacy board fence, is only fourteen (14) feet from our family room, and only eight (8) feet away from our patio slab where we grill and have our picnic table and umbrella. For 15 years, in the spirit of being a good neighbor, we have endured the barking and stench of dog manure from their two previous dogs (both now deceased). Now, they want to double that number to four dogs which will double the barking and manure. Their new fence does not shut out the barking noise or the smell. In our opinion, giving them a kennel license would devaluate our propertyvalue, as I surely would not buy a house right next door to a dog kennel. We vote NO LICENSE and this is in every way a public answer because also in our opinion, a good neighbor would not even apply for a kennel license at a location like this. I will also add that all of the family is gone much of the time during the day. t ,v ♦ c"K it �r a �Y" ►Qr t x {k i , S, {{t o j l �+ � 7 Y+j +Ji11� 1 � i, � 1 f �':�, , �1 '�1 � t , \ , \\ ��•{ ° \> � 1 -,�ts;t� '� '� `��'.• �`� ` � X � e \ xt', \, •, , ,. . • .. t RS� � jet r �: .. tt��aY 'fr i 'P t 'F' 4 y p l�xryy i' 1 x d 1 t y �' M3"^ �e F � `'F LS'_� �y�+� \ 1 • 4 ��' f` `. � . f� � 11 z �r y��."r�•L..s !�' r$�?'i 1+ .f !`� tr r f �' � ,, � VP wl FAX r v rrt•.+ 7 ! .M�.s.. ' y J �•` 1 Y)a S I ,. � F if � R M -W �¢yL�"•�� � 1� � � � - 6. S' — .air+ IS 1 M ' •sra �.. ;VS1 L� t Y i ;�; ; � Y '4 t .,�.. G.' �+ � < r � • �.. �, + � ` . ,y� t r + ; ., '> e i 1 � ��:' t F1 .. L Y 1 _ .f X06 '`� { �'i ♦ i .. ,lwi_�.. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 August 10, 1992 Mr. Dale Allen Thompson 3300 Quarles Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Dear Mr. Thompson: I have received your application for a kennel license dated June 22, 1992. In accordance with Brooklyn Center City Ordinances, notices of the license application were mailed to property owners within 150 feet of the proposed kennel. I have also instructed the public health sanitarian to review the application and I have now received her report. After considering the report from the sanitarian and public comments received, please be informed that I am denying your request for a private kennel license to house three or more dogs on your residential premises. You will be allowed until October 12, 1992, to come into compliance with City Ordinances which require no more than two dogs on your premises. I find that the issuance of this license would have an adverse affect on the health, safety, welfare, or property values of persons residing, living, or owning property within the immediate area. I base this finding on a review of the public health sanitarian's report, information from the police department regarding dogs running at large, and written public comments received. You should also be aware there are other City Ordinances which require Brooklyn Center residents to control barking and other nuisances generated by the keeping of �� 19MALLAku OTT s Mr. Dale A. Thompson -2- August 10, 1992 pets, such as dogs, on their property. We expect all citizens will be in compliance with these requirements. Dog owners are particularly responsible for barking of their dogs and causing a nuisance to their neighbors. Under Brooklyn Center City Ordinances, the City Manager's decision in these matters is appealable to the City Council To institute this appeal process, you must submit to my office, within 14 days of receipt of this notice, a written request for a hearing before the City Council Should you choose the appeal option, the City Council will hold a public hearing on , our appeal after mailed notice to adjoining property owners Should you have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 569 -3300. Sincerely, Gerald G. Splinter City Manager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER GGS:sk cc: Sharon Knutson August 10, 1992 NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that the city manager of the City of Brooklyn Center has denied an application for private kennel license for Dale Allen Thompson, 3300 Quarles Road. The city manager based his decision on h ' report and written tY g the public health sanitarian 's re P P comments received by affected persons. City Ordinance Section 1- 105.5b requires the city clerk to mail notice of the city manager's decision to approve or deny the applicant's private kennel license application to the owners of property within 150 feet of the proposed kennel location. The owner or any other affected person may request a hearing before the city council to show cause why the decision should be changed. A WRITTEN request for the hearing must be received by the city manager within fourteen (14) days of the date of this notice. Direct written requests to City Clerk, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 55430. If a written request for q o a public hearing before the city council is received, notice of the date and time of the public hearing will be mailed to owners of property within 150 feet of the proposed kennel location. Following the public hearing, the city council shall render a final decision reversing, affirming, or amending the decision of the city manager. Questions or concerns regarding the private kennel license application denial should be directed to Deputy City Clerk Sharon Knutson at 569 -3306. August 12,1992 To Whom It May Concern, This letter is in reference to the notice we have received stating that our kennel liscense was denied. I am appealing this decision, and would like the opportunity to meet with the City Council to state why I feel this is an unfair decision. Accord - ing to the notice one of the reasons was that our dogs have ran at large. This is an unfair statement, as we either have our dogs kenneled, or on leashes when we walk them. Please be aware that we are willing to do anything we can to help in this matter, but we are not going to let this decision stand without the opportunity to have our say in this matter. Please inform us as to when we can meet with the City Council. Thank You Sincerely, Dale & Kathleen Thompson CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/28/92 Agenda Item Number /,:� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 92013 — Evergreen Development Group ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) Planning Commission Application No. 92013 is a request for Planned Unit Development approval to rezone the R7 district at the intersection of Summit Drive and the east leg of Earle Brown Drive to PUD /MIXED and to grant site and building plan approval to construct 90 units of assisted housing (residential care) in three buildings on the vacant parcel adjacent to the Earle Brown Commons. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its September 17, 1992 meeting. Attached for the Council's review are the minutes and an information sheet from that meeting; a copy of the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines (Section 35- 208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance) ; submittals from the applicants including their arguments in support of the PUD rezoning and a description and information relating to the owners' operation of the proposed Evergreens at Earle Brown Farm; a map showing the location of the proposal; and various drawings including a site plan, landscape plan, grading, drainage and utility plan, floor plan and building elevations for the proposed facility; and a copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 92 -2 recommending approval of this application. There are three separate actions that are being recommended for the City Council's consideration as a means of approving this proposal. • SUMMARY EXPLANATION Page 2 September 28, 1992 First of all, it is recommended that the City Council consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to change the General Standards in the Planned Unit Development portion of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 35 -355, Subdivision 4c) to delete the statement in the ordinance that a PUD may be located only in an area designated for redevelopment in the City's Comprehensive Plan and replace it with a statement indicating the PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposal before the City Council is not really redevelopment, but the use of the PUD provisions gives the Council the flexibility to appropriately address the particular use and setback issues posed by this application by considering it a part of planned development that is consistent and complimentary to the surrounding Earle Brown Commons development and the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Action on this ordinance amendment should precede approval of the actual application. The second consideration is the application itself. The Planning Commission, through Planning Commission Resolution No. 92 -2, has recommended approval of the PUD /MIXED rezoning and the development plans submitted for the Evergreens at Earle Brown Farm assisted residential care facility based on certain considerations and conditions listed in said resolution. A resolution is offered for the Council's consideration which would approve this application. Typically, City Council approvals of rezonings, Comprehensive Plan amendments and PUD's have been through Council resolution rather than by a motion listing conditions, which is common with other applications. The third consideration is an ordinance amendment which would describe the property being rezoned by deleting reference to it in the R7 zoning district and adding the description to the PUD district. This is a housekeeping, although essential, matter. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council, following review and public hearing, take action to approve this application along the lines of the Planning Commission recommendation. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1992, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relatdfg to Planned Unit Deve4opments.` 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 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING GENERAL STANDARDS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subdivision 4. General Standards. C. A PUD may [be located only in an area designated for redevelopment in the] only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1992. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION �2EGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 92013 SUBMITTED BY EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP 7 WHEREAS, Application No. 92013 submitted by Evergreen Development Group proposes rezoning from R7 (Multiple Family) to Planned Unit Development /MIXED the two R7 parcels totalling 7.135 acres at the intersection of Summit Drive and the east leg of Earle Brown Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on September 17, 1992 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plans were received; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the rezoning and site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and in light of the provisions of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance contained in Section 35 -355, and in light of the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 92013, submitted by Evergreen Development Group, be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The proposed residential care facility will meet a need in an aging community for less mobile, but ambulatory older residents to have the option of assisted living housing in the community. 2. The proposed zoning and use are compatible with surrounding land use classifications and existing development. 3. The proposed residential care facility will meet the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district. The existing Earle Brown Commons will be brought into compliance with the Building Code relative to its substandard setback from the side interior property line. 4. The proposed zoning is consistent with the recommenda- tions of the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Use Development in this area. RESOLUTION NO. 5. The proposed residential care use is consistent, both functionally and visually with the adjacent elderly housing deve}opment and with the Ea Brown Heritage Center. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that approval of Application No. 92013 be 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 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 improve- ments. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and •� Storm Draina" Systems, prior to the irssuance of permits. 11. The owner of the Earle Brown Commons shall enter intio a restrictive covenant covering that property to stipulate that additional ramp and /or surface parking shall be provided up to two stalls per unit upon a finding by the City that all required parking is necessary for the proper functioning of the site. A separate restrictive covenant covering the Earle Brown Commons shall be executed requiring the elimination of all unprotected openings on the south and west sides of the congregate dining area in accordance with the provisions of the State Building Code. These restrictive covenants shall be executed and filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits for the residential care facility. 12. The owner of the vacant parcel shall enter into a development agreement with the City stipulating the type of facility to be constructed, aesthetics, timing, and assessments, prior to the issuance of permits. 13. The storm drainage system shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 14. Ponding areas required as part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by an approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of permits. 15. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's current standard specifications and details. 16. The development plans shall be modified prior to the issuance of permits to indicate: a) One additional 6 diameter shade tree. b) Proper separation of the inlets and outlet of the holding pond as approved by the City Engineer. RESOLUTION NO. Date Chairperson y� r ATTEST: Secretary 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 Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1992, at p.m. at the City � Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification of certain .`.° ,-land. 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 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1160. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R7). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R7) Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification: [Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1380] [Tract I, R.L.S. No. 1594] [All of the southeasterly half of vacated Earle Brown Drive, as platted in Twin Cities Interchange Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, adjoining said Tract A.] [The westerly 40 feet of Tract H, R.L.S. No. 1380, south of the easterly extension of the north line of Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1380.] Section 35 -1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development District zoning classification: 2. The following properties are designated as PUD /MIXED (Planned Unit Development /Mixed Use): Tracts A and B, R.L.S. No. 1603 and the westerly 10 feet of Tract H, R.L.S. No. 1380, south of the easterly extension of the north line of Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1603. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of 1992. �9 Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) 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 SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Wallace Bernards at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Wallace Bernards, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Mark Holmes and Barbara Kalligher. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Bernards noted that Commissioners Sander and Johnson had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 27 1992 Motion by Commissioner Kalligher seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the August 27, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Holmes, and Kalligher. Voting against: none. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS (DECEMBER MEETING SCHEDULE) The Secretary informed the Commission that there was a need to cancel the December 10 Planning Commission meeting since the City Council would also be meeting that night in the Council Chambers. He stated that the City Council would meet that month on the 14th and the 28th. He recommended that the Planning Commission schedule meetings for December 3 and December 17 with the possibility that one or both of these meetings could be cancelled if there were no business items: Chairperson Bernards stated that he would be unable to make the December 3 meeting because he would be out of town. Following a brief discussion, the Commission agreed to schedule meetings for December 3 and December 17. APPLICATION NO. 92013 (Evergreen Development Group) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for Planned Unit Development approval to rezone the R7 district at the intersection of Summit Drive and the east leg of Earle Brown Drive to PUD -Mixed and to receive site and building plan approval to construct 90 units of assisted housing in three buildings on the vacant parcel adjacent to the Earle Brown Commons. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 92013, attached) . The Secretary explained that the Planned Unit Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are intended to give the City flexibility in approving unique development arrangements that are not comprehended under standard 9 -17 -92 1 zoning. He stated that it is similar to contract zoning and that it is limited to a specific use. He stated that there can be PUD - R1 or PUD -C1 or other types of PUD districts. He stated that under these designations the zoning district regulations still guide the development of the property, but there is flexibility to make tradeoffs between various requirements in order to achieve the best possible development. The Secretary referred the Commission's attention to an ordinance amendment regarding Planned Unit Developments. He noted that the present ordinance requires that PUD's only be allowed in redevelopment districts. He noted that the present location is not really a redevelopment district. He stated that the amendment would require consistency with the Comprehensive Plan which is the case with this application and should be the case in others as well. Commissioner Kalligher asked what happened with the other proposed phase of the Earle Brown Commons. The Secretary answered that it was his understanding that there was simply a lack of demand for elderly housing in this area. Chairperson Bernards asked whether the State came up with the PUD designation. The Secretary answered that he was not sure if the State created enabling legislation for Planned Unit Developments, but that they are an allowable instrument under State zoning enabling legislation and that they are not limited to Minnesota, but are common throughout the United States. Chairperson Bernards asked whether the Secretary felt this proposal might abuse the PUD provisions. The Secretary answered that he did not think so. He stated that in the past, special use permits were used to give cities some control and flexibility in regulating different types of development, but that court cases have ruled that cities are often arbitrary in applying special use permit provisions. He stated that if Planned Unit Developments were abused, the courts may rule similarly about those regulations. Chairperson Bernards agreed and noted that tax increment financing was abused and that is why it is now restricted. In response to another question from Chairperson Bernards regarding consistency with the Plan, the Secretary stated that the City may have to amend the Plan in some cases in order to approve a PUD. Chairperson Bernards asked if this parcel was in a tax increment financing district. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairperson Holmes asked what a tax increment district is. The Secretary explained that tax increment districts freeze the property tax dispersal to local governments and school districts and use the increment created by new development to pay off the public improvement bonds that are sold to pay for public improvements in the district. Commissioner Holmes asked if the City was pushing �� „ Y P g the limit of "spot zoning". n The Secretary answered that g y at he did not believe that the City as spot zoning, t Y P he proposal was consistent 't g, p p i nt wi h the Comprehensive Plan designation for the area. 9 -17 -92 2 The Secretary resumed his review of the staff report regarding the site and building plans. He explained the parking situation with the Earle Brown Commons and the need for a covenant to require additional parking upon a finding by the City that such parking is needed if the Earle Brown Commons changes from an elderly complex to something else. The�,Secretary also noted tY there will be 30 N rooms in each building, not 15, as the report indicates. The Secretary also reviewed the resolution recommending approval of ?the application and the draft ordinance amendment on Planned Unit Developments. Chairperson Bernards asked whether the reference to ramp and surface parking in Condition No. 11 should be ramp and /or surface parking. The Secretary answered that and /or would probably be better. Chairperson Bernards inquired as to the need for Watershed District approval. The Secretary answered that the proposed plan reduces the impervious area and that the previous pond was adequate for the previously planned development. He stated that the new pond should be adequate to accommodate site drainage and that Watershed District approval is likely. Commissioner Holmes asked whether staff have met with the owners of the Commons to see whether they are in agreement with this proposal. The Secretary answered that staff have not met personally with the owner of the Commons, but that they will have to execute the agreements referred to in the approval if they want to sell the property to Evergreen Development Group. Chairperson Bernards expressed concern about shutting off the windows in the Earle Brown Commons building. The Secretary answered that glass blocks would be used and that it would only be in the congregate dining area that this would be done. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 92013) Chairperson Bernards then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Bernards then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Janis Blumentals, the architect for the project, introduced Mr. Bob Hopman of Evergreen Development Group. Chairperson Bernards stated that there was a concern when the Heritage Center was renovated about preserving site lines in this area. He asked whether this proposed development would be better for preserving these site lines. Mr. Blumentals answered in the affirmative. Mr. Blumentals stated that with the exterior treatment of the Evergreens complex, the Farm concept would wrap around the Earle Brown Commons building. Chairperson Bernards asked what would happen to the gardens that are used by residents 9 -17 -92 3 of the Earle Brown Commons. Mr. Hopman stated that he had spoken with Al Beisner about this and that it was his understanding they would probably try to relocate the gardens. The applicants then showed the Planning Commission a video of the ' Evergreens facility in Fargo, North Dakota. The video reviewed various user friendly design elements of the facility and also the range of services provided to the residents. Following the video, Mr. Blumentals stated that there would be two differences from the facility shown in the film. He stated that two 15 unit buildings would be combined into a 30 unit building and that there would be three of these on the complex. He also stated that there would be a red color to the building to match the Farm rather than the gray in the film. He added that the Evergreens facility would have steel siding as opposed to wood siding. He also pointed out that the new pond would be somewhat smaller than the existing pond because of the smaller parking lot. Chairperson Bernards asked whether residents will not, or cannot have a car. Mr. Hopman answered that, typically residents have stopped driving by the time they come to live in the residential care facility. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the residents would be capable of getting around. Mr. Hopman answered in the affirmative, stating that this is not a nursing home. He stated that the facility would provide help with cooking, dressing, etc., but that people are helped to be as self reliant as possible. He added that people of the age that live in the facility need a sense of dignity for their health. Commissioner Holmes asked what age group is served by the Earle Brown Commons. Mr. Blumentals stated that congregate dining is also available at the Commons, but that each unit has a kitchen and that they are separate apartments. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes regarding the connection of the Evergreens to the Heritage Center, Mr. Hopman stated that the facility will continue the white board fence that surrounds the Heritage Center. He added that there would be volunteers that would walk with the residents. Commissioner Mann asked whether there would be some medical personnel on staff. Mr. Hopman stated that there would be a licensed practical nurse on staff in each building. In response to a question from Commissioner Kalligher, Mr. Hopman stated that there are some couples that live in the complex, but that most of the residents are single adults. Commissioner Holmes asked what the average rent was. Mr. Hopman stated that the average in the North Dakota facility is about $1350 per month, but that it may be slightly higher in Minnesota. Mr. Blumentals pointed out that nursing homes cost about $3,000 per month. He noted that the Evergreens residential care facility would also be providing room and board just as a nursing home 9 -17 -92 4 would. The Secretary noted that the facility would be different from the Earle Brown Commons and also from Brookwood, both of which provide types of elderly housing. Commissioner Holmes expressed concern about the appearance of the parking ramp for the Commons. Mr. Hopman responded that Mr. Beisner has consented to let the Evergreens plant some ivy on the side of the ramp facing their property. Chairperson Bernards asked the Commission what their pleasure was regarding the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Mann stated that she felt the proposed change in wording was appropriate to deal with development as well as redevelopment in the community. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO GENERAL STANDARDS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Kalligher to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment relating to general standards for Planned Unit Developments. Voting in favor. . Chairperson Bernards, Commissioners Mann, Holmes and Kalligher. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the Earle Brown Commons was aware of the rezoning proposal. The Secretary answered in the affirmative and stated that they do not object to the proposed zoning designation. Mr. Blumentals stated that he has discussed the matter of closing the windows with the owners of the Commons. The Secretary added that the words "and /or" could be substituted in point number 11 of the resolution regarding ramp or surface parking. Mr. Blumentals stated that their desire is to start construction in October so that the first building can open in early spring. ACTION ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO.92 -2 REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 92013 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -2 Commissioner Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO 92013 SUBMITTED BY EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Mark Holmes and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Wallace Bernards, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Mark Holmes and Barbara Kalligher. Voting against: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Chairperson Bernards wished the applicants well in their proposed development. 9 -17 -92 5 There was a brief discussion of outstanding business that had been through the Planning Commission in the past six months and of upcoming business. There was also a brief discussion of on- street parking. Chairperson Bernards expressed congratulations to Commissioners Mann and Kalligher for succeeding in the primary and wished them well in the general election for the City Council. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Kalligher seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9;42 p.m. Chairperson 9 -17 -92 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No.92013 Applicant: Evergreen Development Group Location: Earle Brown Drive (east leg) and Summit Drive ' Request: Rezoning Site and Building Plan - PUD /Mixed Use The applicant requests rezoning and site and building plan approval for a mixed use planned unit development on the two R7 zoned parcels of land at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Summit Drive and the east leg of Earle Brown Drive. One of these parcels contains the Earle Brown Commons apartment building. The other parcel is presently vacant and is the subject of an assisted living senior housing facility to be contained in three one story buildings or "houses ", each containing approximately 30 residents. The property is bounded on the north by the Earle Brown Heritage Center, on the east and south by Earle Brown Drive, on the southwest by Summit Drive, and on the west by Brookdale Corporate Center III office building. The applicant's representative, Mr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted arguments relating to the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings and development plans for the three building complex. In addition, the owner /operators of The Evergreens at Earle Brown Farm have submitted a three page description of their operation and the facility. (These written materials are attached for the Commission's review.) We will proceed first with a review of the rezoning issue. Rezoning A Planned Unit Development/ Mixed Use zoning designation of the property constitutes a rezoning of the property from its present R7 designation. As such, it is subject to the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (attached). A review of those guidelines, the applicant's arguments, and staff response follow: a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicant: "The proposed use for this site is a Residential Care Facility. The best building type for this use is one story smaller buildings that do not require any stairs or elevators and at the same time give that intimate, residential surroundings for the tenants. As one story buildings are not permitted in R -7 zone this rezoning is required. "There is a public need for such a residential care because this delays or eliminates the need for expensive nursing home care in many cases." Staff: The R7 zoning district allows two and one -half through five story apartments as a permitted use, provided they are part of an integral development with high rise buildings permitted in the R7 zone. This one story development of assisted housing is not September 17, 1992 1 J comprehended. We would agree that such a facility will meet a public need and will nicely complement the elderly housing available in the Earle Brown Commons high rise. b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible ' with surrounding land use classifications? Applicant: "As we are talking about rezoning to PUD, we have to talk about the proposed use and not about the proposed zoning. "This part of the City is a mixed use area: The site is located next to senior housing and beyond this housing is Earle Brown Heritage Center. Across the streets are office buildings, child care, medical clinic and retail. With the senior housing, medical clinic and Earle Brown Farm, this site is very compatible for residential care use." Staff: The land use of an assisted living facility for elderly residents in addition to the existing high rise elderly housing at the Earle Brown Commons is compatible, both visually and in terms of activity levels, with the Heritage Center, high and low rise office buildings, and retail centers nearby. This is an area of mixed land uses, not of "consistent" uses. The residential uses might be more consistent with the park west of Shingle Creek Parkway, but it can probably survive here. Visually, the Evergreens building treatments will be very consistent with the Earle Brown Heritage Center to the north. c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicant: "As the proposed zone is PUD, the basis for rezoning to PUD in this case will be only one specific use - residential care." Staff: It may be appropriate to point out at this time that Planned Unit Developments are only to be approved in areas designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment. That is not the case in this instance. The proposed use is not a redevelopment and, now that the Farm has been renovated, there is little prospect for redevelopment in this area. We have discussed with the City Attorney whether the existing ordinance provision is mandatory or whether it can be amended. He has indicated that the limitation to an area designated for redevelopment is not mandatory, but may have been intended to limit the applicability of PUDs. He has advised that a provision requiring planned unit developments to simply be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan may be as effective in controlling the application of the PUD option, without limiting it to areas of redevelopment. We would recommend consideration of an ordinance amendment to this effect, concurrent with consideration of this PUD proposal. September 17, 1992 2 d) Has there been substantial physical or 'zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Applicant: "There has not been any physical or zoning changes and this proposed use should be considered as a complementary use that will complete the Earle Brown Farm homestead." Staff: Two changes have occurred. The Earle Brown Farm has been renovated into the Heritage Center and the area containing mostly high rise office buildings south of the freeway has been rezoned from I -1 to C -1A. Neither of these changes has so changed the area as to make elderly housing or a residential care facility less compatible than before. e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicant: "Not applicable." Staff: Not applicable. f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Applicant: "The purpose of PUD district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. "The proposed use together with the proposed site development fulfills the purpose of PUD district as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and quoted above." Staff: An ordinance compliance issue presented by the proposed PUD is the resulting setback of the one story congregate dining wing of the Earle Brown Commons. The building is presently on the south property line and 4' from the west property line. These substandard setbacks (20' is the minimum side yard setback in the R7 zoning district) reflect the fact that when the Earle Brown Commons was proposed, it was intended to be a two phase development with the second phase to be another high rise building, attached to the phase one building at the property line. With the proposal of the Evergreens residential care facility, phase two of the Earle Brown Commons is being abandoned. One of the elements of the Planned Unit Development e the agreement is to acknowledge P g 9 substandard setback of the Earle Brown Commons building and, thus, that property is included in the rezoning proposal. Under the Building Code, no openings may be allowed in the Commons building less than 3' from the property line and no windows may be allowed less than 20' from the property line. The development agreement September 17, 1992 3 with the Commons will, therefore, have to be amended to require building modifications to close the existing windows on the south and west walls of the congregate dining area in the Commons building before issuance of permits for the Evergreens project. g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Applicant: "This site is suited for any multi residential use but R -7 zone restricts the use and eliminates the use of one story buildings. This proposed rezoning will just expand the use of this site by allowing one story buildings." Staff: A master plan for this area was approved when the property was originally rezoned to R -7. Completion of the master plan would be an acceptable alternative for the vacant parcel. However, that is unlikely to occur in the near future. The present proposal fits the area, functionally and aesthetically, but is not contemplated in the R -7 district. Thus, the requested PUD designation to allow for a mixture of uses. h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 2) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning P P P g district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Applicant: " 1. This change in zoning from R -7 to PUD will not change the comprehensive plan in any way but will just expand the residential use as described in previous items. 11 2. Not applicable. 11 3. It is in the best interest to the community to have a residential care facility - see next item." Staff: The Comprehensive Plan recommends for this and the surrounding area: "Mixed Use Development (Including High- Density, High -Rise Residential, Service /Office and General Commerce)." Although the specific type of residential care facility proposed is not explicitly listed as one of the "mixed" uses, the general direction to allow mixed uses is clear. The proposed residential care use, in proximity to the high rise elderly housing of the Earle Brown Commons, is an appropriate mix of uses generally envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. We agree that a residential care facility is in the best interests of the community. Brooklyn Center's population, like that of many first ring suburbs, is growing older and there is an increasing need for this type of assisted housing. i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? September 17, 1992 4 Applicant: " 1. It is in the best interest of the City and the public in general to have a residential care facility because there is a need for such a residential care. This type of residential care will reduce the need for high cost medical care in a nursing j home or at an individual's home by means of expensive home care. ' 1r . 2. The design of the proposed development will complement the 'design of the Earle Brown Heritage Center and will complete ? the Earle Brown Farm Development." Staff: We agree. Insofar as the proposal is in the best interests of the community, it demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the property owner. As noted above, we believe the residential care facility will meet a. need for assisted living housing for this community and the surrounding area. In general, we believe that the proposed development is in keeping with its surroundings and that the requested zoning designation is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. A review of the proposed development plans follows. Site and Building Plan Proposal Access /Parking The proposed plan calls for three accesses to the site, two off Earle Brown Drive and one off a shared access drive serving the Earle Brown Commons, the Heritage Center, and Brookdale Corporate Center III. All three driveways are 24' wide. There is a driveway which traverses the site from the common access drive to Earle Brown Drive with parking off it. Total parking provided comes to 59 stalls. Residents will not have cars. Therefore, parking is basically for staff and visitors. The closest applicable formula, we feel, is the nursing home formula of one space per four beds and one space per two employees on _the maximum shift. This formula results in a parking requirement of 22.5 stalls for the beds and 7.5 stalls for staff for a total of 30. The plan, therefore, is in compliance. The major parking issue presented by the plan is the loss of proof - of- parking spaces for Earle Brown Commons which were located on the phase two parcel. The Earle Brown Commons is required to have (or to have land for) 280 parking stalls at two per dwelling unit. That site presently has approximately 173 spaces, including 140 in a two level ramp. The proposed plan documents a proof -of- parking of 25 additional stalls. Thus, the total parking available to the Commons is approximately 198 stalls, 82 short of what is required for the complex. If another level were built on the ramp, approximately 70 stalls could be added. If the ramp were also enlarged, perhaps the 82 additional stalls could be provided. Approval of the PUD, should be subject to a condition that the owner of the Commons amend the development agreement with the City to require the installation of the required additional stalls at September 17, 1992 5 such time as it ceases to be an elderly housing complex. Landscaping The landscape plan provides for a mixture of trees and shrubs with j a point value of 336.5 landscape points. The point requirement is ' 320.5 points for a 3.83 acre site. Plantings include 26 shade trees (7 existing), 17 Spruce trees, 11 ornamental trees, and 136 shrubs of various types. The plan also notes a number of existfing boulevard trees along both Earle Brown Drive and Summit Drive and along the common access drive. Shade trees include Sapporo Autumn Gold Elm (2) , River Birch (2) , Sugar Maple (3) , Pin Oak (4) , Greenspire Linden(7), and Niobe Weeping Willow(1). The landscape plan calls for six 6 diameter shade trees. Section 35 -411 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one six inch diameter tree per 14 beds in nursing homes. That works out to 6.5 such trees. We recommend that the plan be revised to add one additional 6 diameter tree. All nonpaved areas shall be sodded and underground irrigation will be provided to the street curb. Grading /Drainage /Utilities The drainage plan calls for the existing holding pond on the site to be relocated southward into an area between Houses One and Two, near Summit Drive. Beyond the normal limits of the pond will be a much larger depressed area that will accommodate drainage during a flood event. Two storm sewer lines will feed into the pond. An outlet will convey overflow to City storm sewer in Summit Drive. There will always be water in the holding pond. One flaw in the plan is the proximity of the outlet and one of the inlets to the pond. The City Engineer has indicated that the Watershed District probably will not accept such an arrangement since it will not provide for adequate water treatment in the pond. House Three will be placed over the present location of two utility lines. An active storm sewer line will be rerouted around the south side of the building. An abandoned sanitary sewer line will be removed beneath the building pad. An 8 water line will loop between a line in the common access drive and a main in Earle Brown Drive, with 6 combined fire and domestic lines to each of the three buildings. Two hydrants are to be installed. A manhole must be provided for each sanitary sewer service. Buildings Each building will be identical with 15 rooms for residents' quarters, two central lounge- dining rooms with atriums, a kitchen, laundry, beauty shop and tub room. Proceeding from the entry foyer, residents will proceed through a mirrored gallery to a central rotunda. From there, they can go either left or right into one of the lounge /dining rooms. Off these central rooms, short hallways with skylights lead to the individual rooms. The exterior of the buildings will be prefinished steel siding, red in color to match the treatment on the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The trim will be white, also matching the treatment at the Heritage Center. September 17, 1992 6 The roof structure will be a mixture, of hip design around the outside and flat with a parapet wall around the center. The buildings will all be fire sprinklered. The plan provides sidewalk access from parking areas to each of the buildings and a sidewalk j between Houses One and Two leading to a wood bridge and overlook at " the pond. Lighting/Trash The site plan calls for 11 decorative traditional pole lights, 10' high, similar to the existing low pole lights for the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Each building will have a separate trash enclosure off the parking lot, approximately 8' x 8' in size. Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that the proposal has merit and that the plans are generally in order. A draft resolution recommending approval is attached for the Commission's consideration. Generally, rezonings are referred to a neighborhood advisory group. In this case, the Planning Commission is the advisory group for the central commercial /industrial area of town. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Submitted by, Gary Shal Planner Approved by, Ronald Warren Director of Planning and Inspections September 17, 1992 7 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92 -2 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 92013 SUBMITTED BY EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP WHEREAS, Application No. 92013 submitted by Evergreen Development Group proposes rezoning from R7 (Multiple Family) to Planned Unit Development /MIXED the two R7 parcels totalling 7.135 acres at the intersection of Summit Drive and the east leg of Earle Brown Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on September 17, 1992 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plans were received; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the rezoning and site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and in light of the provisions of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance contained in Section 35 -355, and in light of the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 92013, submitted by Evergreen Development Group, be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The proposed residential care facility will meet a need in an aging community for less mobile, but ambulatory older residents to have the option of assisted living housing in the community. 2. The proposed zoning and use are compatible with surrounding land use classifications and existing development. 3. The proposed residential care facility will meet the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district. The existing Earle Brown Commons will be brought into compliance with the Building Code relative to its substandard setback from the side interior property line. 4. The proposed zoning is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Use Development in this area. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92 -2 5. The proposed residential care use is consistent, both functionally and visually with the adjacent elderly housing development and with the Earle Brown Heritage Center. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that approval of Application No. 92013 be 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 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 improve- ments. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92 -2 10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainas� Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The owner of the Earle Brown Commons shall enter into a restrictive covenant covering that property to stipulate that additional ramp and /or surface parking shall be provided up to two stalls per unit upon a finding by the City that all required parking is necessary for the proper functioning of the site. A separate restrictive covenant covering the Earle Brown Commons shall be executed requiring the elimination of all unprotected openings on the south and west sides of the congregate dining area in accordance with the provisions of the State Building Code. These restrictive covenants shall be executed and filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits for the residential care facility. 12. The owner of the vacant parcel shall enter into a development agreement with the City stipulating the type of facility to be constructed, aesthetics, timing, and assessments, prior to the issuance of permits. 13. The storm drainage system shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 14. Ponding areas required as part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by an approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of p ermits. 15. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's current standard specifications and details. 16. The development plans shall be modified prior to the issuance of permits to indicate: a) One additional 6 diameter shade tree. b) Proper separation of the inlets and outlet of the holding pond as approved by the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92 -2 September 17, 1992 Date Chairperson r ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Mark Holmes and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairperson Wallace Bernards, Commissioners Kristen Mann, Mark Holmes and Barbara Kalligher and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution 9 No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. _J 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the. case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, topography or location? (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district,' warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? BlumentalsJ 6205 Earle Brown Drive • Suite 120 • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2150 (612)561 -5757 August 27, 1992 REZONING EVALUATION IN SUPPORT OF REZONING APPLICATION FOR THE EVERGREENS AT EARLE BROWN FARM BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA PROPOSED REZONING FROM R -7 TO PUD A. IS THERE A CLEAR AND PUBLIC NEED OR BENEFIT? The proposed use for t h i s s i t e Is a R e s i d e n t i a l Care Facility. The best building type for this use is one story smaller buildings that do not require any stairs or elevators and at the same time give that Intimate, residential surroundings for the tenants. As one story buildings are not permitted in R -7 zone this rezoning is required. There Is a public need for such a residential care because this delays or eliminates the need for expensive nursing home care in many cases. B. IS THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSISTENT WITH AND COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS? As we are talking about r e z o n i n g to PUD, we h a v e to t a l k about the proposed use and not about the proposed zoning. This part of the City is a mixed use area: The s i t e is located next to s e n i o r h o u s i n g a n d beyond t h i s housing is Earle Brown Heritage Center. Across the streets are office buildings, child care, medical clinic and retail. With the senior housing, medical clinic and Earle Brown Farm, this site is very compatible for residential care use. C. CAN ALL PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BE CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? As the proposed zone is PUD, the basis for rezoning to PUD in this case will be only one specific use - residential care. D. HAS THERE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL OR ZONING CLASSIFICATION CHANGES IN THE AREA SINCE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ZONED? There h a s not been any p h y s i ca I or z o n i n g changes a n d t h i s proposed use should be considered as a complimentary use that will complete the Earle Brown Farm homestead. E. iN THE CASE OF CITY - INITIATED REZONING PROPOSALS, IS THERE A BROAD PUBLIC PURPOSE EVIDENT? Not applicable. F. WILL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEAR FULLY THE ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS? The purpose of PUD district is to promote flexibility In land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. The proposed use together with the proposed site development fulfills the purpose of PUD district as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and quoted above. G. iS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY GENERALLY UNSUITED FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT, WITH RESPECT TO SIZE, CONFIGURATION, TOPOGRAPHY OR LOCATION? This site is suited for any multi residential use but R -7 zone restricts the use and el iminates the use of one story buildings. This proposed rezoning will Just expand the use of this site by allowing one story buildings. 2 H. WILL THE REZONING RESULT IN THE EXPANSION OF A ZONING DISTRICT, WARRANTED BY: 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING; 2. THE LACK OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IN THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT; 3. THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY? 1. Th i s change in zoning from R -7 to PUD w i l l not change the comprehensive plan in any way but will just expand the residential use as described in previous items. 2. Not applicable. 3. It i s In the best interest to the community to have a residential care facility - see next item. i. DOES THE PROPOSAL DEMONSTRATE MERIT BEYOND THE INTERESTS OF AN OWNER OR OWNERS OF AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL? 1.' It is in the best interest of the City and the pubs Ic In general to have a residential care facility because there is a need for such a residential care. This type of residential care will reduce the need for high cost med i ca I care In a nursing home o at an individual r i dividual s home by means of expensive home care. 2. The design of the proposed development will compliment the design of the Earle Brown Heritage Center and will complete the Earle Brown Farm Development. 3 The Evergreens THE EVERGREENS AT EARLE BROWN FARM BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA THE OWNER /OPERATORS The Evergreens assisted living concept was developed by Evergreen_ Development Group, a partnership consisting of Ed and Beverly Fish of Edina, Minnesota and Bob and Jackie Hopman of Fargo, North Dakota, whose intent it is to provide a completely non - institutionalized setting for our residents. The Evergreens concept is to build and operate small service - orientated centers which promote and enhance the functional and mental independence of each resident while meeting their differing needs for personal care assistance. The underlying motivation of The Evergreens facility is to provide an environment that promotes emotional, physical, social and spiritual health, while respecting each resident's dignity, privacy and sense of independence. To maintain the health status and functioning ability f g y o our residents, the principals which guide and direct the organization are: 1. The resident should be an active participant in his or her health care plan. 2. The staff should assist the residents in setting realistic and obtainable goals relating to their own care'and well- being. 3. Caregiving type activity should be done with the resident rather than for the resident. 4. The Evergreens will protect and preserve the residents' personal identity and individuality. Applying The Evergreens philosophy to our homes promotes a sense of family. The Evergreens is a place where each resident experiences on a daily basis feelings of love, acceptance, and self- worth. Demographics strongly support the theory that until at least the year 2010 the American population over the age 65 will continue to increase. Seniors today are placing a higher priority on being treated with dignity in their choice of a living environment. When assistance is needed, the preference is a home -like setting rather than being placed into a large institutional care center. 1401 West Gateway Circle / Fargo, ND 58103 / (701) 239 -4524 THE FACILITY The Evergreens assisted living facilities present the community in which they are located a distinctly residential, social setting for those seniors living in the area who need some supervision and assistance with the activities of daily living. The key to the success of The Evergreens concept is our small size. This "small is better" approach allows us to provide the resident with a quality of life -style that best represents their ideal standard of living. The Evergreens at Earle Brown Farm will provide living space for 3 P g p 0 residents in each of the three one-story buildings located Y on the site. The n g undulating walls and roof line of the buildings, project a definite residential appearance. Each building is a fully functional community that can comfortably attend to the varying needs of the entire resident population. The interior decorating package provides period furniture specifically designed for this age group. The Evergreens at The Earle Brown Farm will provide the following conveniences and services: - Central Air conditioning in all common areas - Individual resident controlled heat - Sprinkler system and smoke detector P - Call light by the bed and in the bathroom - Beautiful large windows with decorator blinds and laminated window seats for plants and pictures - Modern bathroom designed with many safety features - Cable T. V. and telephone outlets - Spacious closets - Pianos and recreational spaces - A complete kitchen provides 3 meals daily for the residents in that building - Landscaped grounds, wood decks and walking paths - Fireside lounge - Plant atrium TV and movie lounge Beauty /Barber salon Family dining room where guests are always welcome Planned social activities, Bible studies and local events Sunday worship services Complimentary transportation for scheduled sightseeing, shopping trips and doctor appointments - State -of- the -art fire protection system Total building security , The Architects site plan, floor plan, and elevations of the project submitted along with this presentation will provide additional detail and good overview of the project. 11 ®Iii SOME i �♦� + " �� ME WE ON ME ME ME 1�■ 111111 \�� _ : �� ' ♦♦ , �` � 4 ; ����� ,� JI1111 � 1 11111:■ �■ � i ���I♦ � !� � , � �. 11111111 �I,j � � • ���� � � ' � 11111 1111 111111 a mill 11�� ■ �, 11 11■ x`+11 1 1 ■1 111 ■ IIIif_1� �11 El111111■ 111 it �1 - 1111111 - 111111 - ■ �� � 111111111 1111111 - 1111111 111111 X11 1111 ■ 1111■ 1111 - 111 111 11111 111111 1111111 ®����� ■■■ ■ 11 11 1111 11 1 1 �I ©111 ■1111 ®111 ■ 1111 1 • I ®.:• . 111111111 11 ■ ■■ �11� ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ I 1111 11 -- •r��.. -_-- �� 11en■tr� ■ ., ;. ��� 1/ 1 ■■ :. , ��� 11 1111,. ►��� ♦�� 1111111 11111111111 � ■ 1111 ■■ 1111 ■i 111 ■1■ ���`�`♦ 1111 ��� 1111 I - ■ ������� ' 11 I IIIII IE`� ■1 111111■ ■111■ • 11 , ��; � • •. 11. 11 , 111 11111111 111 11 11111 11111 ■ ■111 1 1111 111 �� ♦ 1111111 �����♦ ' • IIIIIIIiII 1 1■ ■■ ■ ■1 111 111 11111 � ���� , 1 ■ " � 1 11111 ������� flllfll 111111 iflififlll 1 � ■ ■ ■_ �7 ■■ 11 11 111111 11 1 1 1111 ■1 �� ► 11 ' ' ������� • 111 11111111 - ■■■i ■��� ■i ■11 1 11 mill 1 ■111 ■r11 1 • ►��♦ II IIIIIIIIIII 111 ■11111■ ■111 11 `� 111 111 ■ 11 :1 111 = 111111 11111 ► 11 111 _����!� I IUIIIIIIIIII 11■ 1 ■1 111■11 1 111 i1"'�� .•+ I •r. 1111 � 11111 1111 1 ■ �, 1 11 111 ■ 1 1 111 11111 1 111111 111 1 11�� 11 .• . _,� ■ 11111 �7■ 1111 11 11111 _ 1111111 11 II • 1 �, 1� 1111111 1�i 1 ■. �1■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ 11111 �1' ;� 1111 l 1 1 � ■� ■ ■i�■ (� . 111 111 ■■ ■ 11111 I >• 11111 ■11111 11111 11 i . :, . � ,� „ , �, ,.. ■■■i 11111 ■1 111111 1111; 0 ZONING DATA .... ......... ...... . .......... ----------- ........ .... ...... ------- ..................................... .............. ........... . ... . . ...... . —SEE sT.n mss? t.T.L ..... ----------------------------- ---- - -- - ------ — - -- -- -------- - ------ --- ..... . IS;— I ......... xr SITE PLAN NOTES 41 lnnla / ' /� y ,[i ,• f y_�a�\ \ \\ �.1 \\ \\ \ \[/V1L t `EU.' "' TfYTTMa 'o.c.... IT ..... I ILL \ 0"� .E. —E, .11 C­ I. IS I c I I .I . ""C'"ll I'll I 11"C"ll Cll* .1. .. I CIE. — S-1 1— .1-10 REgUlAk—TI. .... . ...... I � \ 'r� -�� \• / \ / \\ \\ � \ .cc[ssl.L[ [u I.eE °ee �, - �� `I �E[xEI I „ �.aE:', ".LL[a ..e ELL 11-Cl I.— xx I—L ­11 IA. IT ...... ... HOUSE THREE Ot4f_ "Ous IT. I IT. f FE.CE I IT. .. ... ST..' SITE LIGIT­ IS. I . 1* IT. 111, X/ ------------ ---------- --- ----- ------- - - ---- ------ ---------- -- ------- -------- ------- ------_---­---- .................. Blumentalsf SUMMIT DRIVE 592. -AA5 9L tj THE EVERGREENS at EARLE BROWN FARM — BROOKLYN . CENTER, MN SITE PLAN SITE PLAN Co. i i � LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE wj, �anir is n3 M E' LE 1. ........... ....... ........ ---- ............... --------------- ---------------------------------- -- — --- – ------- ------- a. I� I: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ___may_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - I - - - - - - I, : Ll=E- 11 1 at. I:= of IS, !94 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS �_ • y i r • �,�( j 3.r � �/ � P '..0 _ � 1 5 Wl � :fYw..GNr.`[r i 2 .r '. nt. vi LANDSCAPE NOTES 1-- SITE I.— at $0101. 11111T —1.1 1—. 1 9 1 ' T ' for S6,E I — ------ --------------------------- .. .. Im ..... 1. — — \ 11]. — \ - -� \ it - La m ^J - ' EF3. F +IF,o »F Sr3rFx F [ - zrF --------------------------- EIII. SEI— Z� Blumentalsz/ 4 i THE EVERGREENS at EARLE BROWN FARM BROOKLYN CENTER, MN LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN Co. � l" --- -- ���. n� lD l _ = a � _ j 3 I I �, �\ � �. � ,. � �.... /�� ' � i i I I ! � � ' • ,..^ '� .�\ �. �\ I 1 9 _ 11 T N A M CONSULTANTS Wwa1N P.n. uN 36.a �\ T � 3l (�. + '�'e� _, -- /, / — _ , � � �(�:\ { "'! PA noraumm,m wau•ssm 31 ` \ � ^� � /i :// ti 4 `� _ i � � i143 Ea,i• d,o.n O,r. � BlUmentalsd 1 �� \ \ \\ � � ..�i yf �. _-�—"' � ..•.v.� — ___ .-.J (A'.;'.s;w"�,ldS. CiC 1'IOCS' a.00.a s .. �\: _ _ � L _ •• .� y azne, -szsz E•.wusa, -zn,. \\ t1 1 \ \ \%- — ___•_ - -_ U RI MIT OVE -- •,..a ,a. te a•-- i o..•, e � o.. THE EVERGREENS at EARLE BROWN FARM I BROOKLYN CENTER MN GRADING, DRAINAGE, / AND UTILJTIES PLAN FOR REVIEW ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. {� i ez+ BUILDING CODE DATA 1 "4. • COOEI 'I plwp i 109.0a � OccO /Mott, 1 15o0xxf r4 r[ eu110 0w[s c [ O Slx�l/.x [ ei OC3n I Tt[( Of COwf feuCTlox, I /wuxslxc x T I � - 11 4 - � ,�— rl f�cRr R[x l l0lxc(el[, f,loo Sp. Tr. I Olfi(ncl a Slr4R4r10xr i 41x. 01 sT(4cF a0 } fl0(3 /IJS I4u[a3[ 1_SY 10 / i 1 ,O I SUTOw( Ts T[n f, f0 i. 1 x .1 Ii (/xci e. eoo T. ' I V ] ] I II OT4l i6. ae0 sp. IT. i I 4 � - � - I aullp lwc x[laxr /(cruu ow[ sror i I _ � / Ruroxxrlc fvx lxal[e srs r[nr r.Gf IG[o - - -- �I 1 :1[hL7N I xnlW I i ! I, i j 'a(Yt , ] �I / I i II - -- GWIJ[Y BI U 11 a dale s2p3 Earl( Brawn Or,�. ,. J ��n�fi����1,ry SrOOxIYn Cxnter, u T � � _ -- 1 � 1 161}1331 -5]3> a1613136i ]9r. 1 I r an. „ i, ` Sit t I w. -met j 6L7 -wt THE EVERGREENS 'I y at EARLE BROWN FARM BROOKLYN CENTER MN FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN °" Y FRONT ELEVATION �. �t NlMVpw 51Mlabnf k I w SIDE ELEVATION Blurn ntalJO 1305 Earii i�e.n u��.. t]o i rw �Mltl��il'Q iruearyn C.ni.�. w n.veia n 55. 10 i 101213!1 -5]S] Fa.181213i1 -]9�. � Mal.ct rq. Ur..n iv 'av• I I I { THE EVERGREENS at EARLE BROWN FARM BROOKLYN CENTER MN ELEVATIONS I V� a k A` i�I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date September 28, 1992 Agenda Item Number / /a REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: SENIOR CENTER DEPT. APPROVAL: Gerald G. Splinter, ty Manager MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: su lemental sheets attached � PP ) At a previous meeting the City Council requested that staff place on the agenda the discussion of a Senior Center for Brooklyn Center. • I have enclosed for your information a copy of a portion of two documents staff had on file regarding this subject. The first of these is a portion of the Capital Improvements Plan under Facilities and Equipment in Government Buildings. This document lists a number of improvement projects and included in this listing for consideration by the Council is an addition to the Community Center with emphasis on providing space for senior activities (the Senior Center). The estimated cost of such an addition would be approximately $1,000,000. I have also included portions of the Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Project which was one of the initial marketing studies done by the Earle Brown Farm Committee to review the feasibility of turning the Farm into a Senior Activity Center. I have enclosed just portions of a very large study, one section regarding interviews with people currently providing services to seniors and the second section summarizing possible services needed by seniors in the Brooklyn Center area. As a result of this study the Earle Brown Farm Ad Hoc Advisory Committee recommended the City Council give serious consideration to the establishment of a Senior Center. The Committee recommended that a more serviceable site would be the Civic Center property. Their rationale for this recommendation was that the Community Center already offers some of the exercise and active activities which are of interest to the younger senior population and it made sense to them that they should be coordinated n 0 one site. RECOMMENDED CO ED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review /discuss the subject of a Senior Citizens Center and give direction to staff for further action. � � I w Z ., June, 1991 C. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 1. Government Buildings Proposed major improvements include: • f the Community Center, n traction of a water slide in the pool area o , to Cos p Y increase revenues while improving the level of recreational programs • An addition to the City Hall building with the emphasis on providing additional space for the Police Department �- • An addition to the Community Center with the emphasis on providing space for senior activities • Construction of a vehicle storage building to provide increased protection for the City's fleet of vehicles • Construction of additions to both of the City's fire stations to provide improved training facilities and increased vehicle storage space e Construction of the water slide will be funded from the capital projects fund. Major capital o g outlay projects are proposed to be funded 50% from the capital projects and 50% with general , obligation bonds authorized by referendum approval. The CIP shows these bonds as being authorized in 1992. Previously issued bonds for park improvements will be retired in 1992, and the timing for the proposed new issue was chosen to avoid sharp fluctuations in the debt service tax levy. T _ L� L3 P RELIMIHA[h kS% ** TABLE F — Capital Improvement Program — Detail of Capital Outlays Public Building Improvements Indicates in progress or complete !talks indicates moved to 1993 13 —Au —9 1991 1992 1993 1994 ` 1995: 1996 -2000 EXPENDITURES: CITY HALL Qty Office Improvements 1,500,000 0 1 /s GO Bonds, Yz Capital Projects Fund COMMUNITY CENTER Senior Center/Elevator 1,000,000 0 1 /3 GO Bonds, , / 2 Capital Projects Fund Water Slide < ? 2CQlt 0 Capital Projects Fund Public Works Storage Building 450,000 1 /. Water, Y. Sewer Utilities, 1 /z Capital Projects FIRE STATIONS East Station 610,000 0 '/a GO Bonds, Yz Capital West Station 330,000 0 Projects Fund TOTAL EXPENDITURES $o $200,000 1 $3,440,0001 $o $01 $ 450,000 FUND SOURCES: Capital Projects 0 200,000 1,720,000 0 0 225,000 Water Utility 0 0 0 0 0 112,500 Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0 0 0 0 112,500 GO Bonds 0 0 1,720,000 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 $o $200,000 1 $3,440,0001 $0 $0 $450,000 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pro l e zv - Uality , DeCIcS1O11c5 II1C. The City of Brooklyn Center Final Report Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 C. THE INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS Interview respondents were selected by the Task Force for several reasons: o general expertise in dealing with issues related to seniors o local expertise in delivering services to seniors in the target geographic area o expertise in advising on the future needs of area seniors due to frequent contact with this target market Each of the interview respondents also provided a brief amount of background information on their agency and its services. That background is also included in this section of the report. Below are listed the persons who were interviewed and contributed to the answers for The Key Respondent Interviews, which follow in the next part of this section of the report. Each person's name and agency is listed as well as a brief description of the type of services offered by that agency. KEY RESPORiDEhiT S AITERV X 1 W EES 1. Myrna Scott, Senior Citizens Coordinator City of Brooklyn Park Services: Planned recreation Transportation Professional health screening services Educational services 2. Judy Corrow, Senior Program Coordinator City of Robbinsdale Services: Planned recreation Transportation Information and referral Fitness and exercise for seniors Civic celebrations Senior citizen commission 3. Jeanne Fackler, Senior Planner City of Crystal Services: Planned recreation Transportation Meals for mature adults Educational services Information and referral Fitness and exercise for seniors Crafts and hobby rooms Intergenerational programming Trips Section III - 7 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pr , E�uality De crosio s II1C. The City of Brooklyn Center Final Report Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 4. Tony Lorbeski, Senior Center Manager City of Fridley Services: Chore service Planned recreation Transportation Meals for mature adults Educational services Information and referral Support groups Fitness and exercise Crafts and hobby rooms Intergenerational activities 5. Susan Taylor, Aging Services Division Health Central, Brooklyn Center Services: Home delivered health care Housing for mature adults Transportation Meals for mature adults Professional health services Educational services Support groups and counseling Community meeting rooms Nursing home care 6. Ed Eide, Director, CEAP Brooklyn Park Services: Chore service Transportation Meals Information and referral Financial, clothing food shelf 7. Ben Withart, Suburban Community Services Hopkins Services: Senior center management Low income highrise clubs Counseling /case management Employment program S. Sandra Pranschke, Director, "Share -a- Home" Program Lutheran Social Services,_ Minneapolis Services: Brokering service to shared home situations Counseling in conjunction with home sharing Section III - 8 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pro �Uality Decisi 1110. The City of Brooklyn Center , Final Report Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 9. Raye Kreevoy, Director, Jewish Family and Children's Services Golden Valley Services: Home delivered health Chore service /home cleaner Home making Planned recreation Vocational workshop Case management Transportation Meals assessment and care management Co- sponsor clinic at Mt. Sinai Educational services Information and referral through case management Co- sponsor day care at Sholom Home Intergenerational activities 10. Melinda Ludwiczak, Senior Services Department School District 281, Robbinsdale Services: Chore service Educational services Information and referral Support groups and counseling Fitness and exercise Community meeting rooms Crafts and hobby rooms Offices for professionals Intergenerational activities Volunteer opportunities Senior discount cards Grocery delivery Help with paperwork 11. Cyndi Polich, Interstudy, Minnetonka Services: Research 12. Robyn Foy, Patient Education Coordinator North Memorial Medical Center, Robbinsdale Services: Home delivered health care Home companion Chore service Transportation Meals for mature adults Professional health services Educational services Information and referral Support.groups and counseling • Community meeting rooms Intergenerational activities Emergicall Telefriend Section III - 9 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pro . ct uah y Deci(Biows I11c. The City of Brooklyn Center , Final Report suite 340, 15612 fthway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 D. KEY RESPONDENT INTERVIEW SUMMARY The complete, detailed findings from the key respondent interviews are in the last part of this section of the report. It is not our intent to duplicate these detailed findings here, but rather to provide a short synopsis of each question and its answers for the interested reader. Each question is listed in a summary fashion. To see how the question was asked, review the interview guide in B. of this section (Pages III -2 through III -6). The answers to each question are then briefly summarized. Please note that we begin with Question 3 since Questions 1 -2 were used to obtain background on each agency. QUESTION 3: RANGE OF AGES FOR SENIORS SERVED BY THIS ORGANIZATION Some of the agences served seniors as young as 50 years of age. Depending on the program type, some had seniors of a very young average age (fitness - 62 -65 years old) and some served seniors of an advanced average age (80 -85 years old). It appeared that most of the services offered by this group of respondent organizations were targeted to the "older" senior., QUESTION 4: SENIOR AGE GROUP YOU HAVE TARGETED Only two of the respondent agencies felt that they focused their services on seniors under the age of 65. Another three of the respondents stated that they didn't target any specific age group but rather tried to serve all ages as a part of ,their mission. The remainder of the respondents stated that the target age group was over the age of 65 and in most cases, significantly older. QUESTION 5: HOW HAS CLIENT PROFILE CHANGED DURING PAST FIVE YEARS Of the 13 respondents to this question, (some of the key- respondents did not directly serve clients so the question was not applicable to their. pituation), four responded that the client profile had not changed. The other nine mentioned several changes: o Four of the agencies mentioned that clients were much older o Two of the agencies stated clients were younger o Several mentioned sheer numerical growth . in the numbers of seniors served o Several mentioned the growing attendance by men of their programs o Some commented on the trend for seniors to be leas willing to sit and a trend toward activism and community involvement Section III - 11 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pr , Quality DeclC�lol�eS, Inc The City of Brooklyn Center Final Report Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612)933 -2665 QUESTION 6: ORGANIZATION EXPANDING NUMBER /TYPE OF SENIORS SERVE* Five of the fifteen respondents to this question do not see an expansion to seniors in their future. Some mentioned budget limitations. Others mentioned that their agency had other priorities as well and new services needed to planned for several target age groups. The other ten agencies do see some type of expansion in the future. Some see adding new services but not significantly affecting the numbers of seniors they serve. Others admit to targeting specific age groups. The group desired by two of the agencies was the younger senior, who is used as a key volunteer, and enables the agency to offer other services to others. QUESTION 7: DIFFERENCES IN SENIOR CLIENTELE FROM OTHER AGENCIES Differences again seemed to exist which related to the type of agency and the services it offered to seniors. Four of the fifteen respondents saw nothing particularly unique about their target - markets. Of the other fifteen, . three mentioned that their seniors tended to be on the low end of the income scale; another three cited the frailty of their populations; and three mentioned how independent and mobile their seniors were. The other remarks were mixed. The impression of the Task Ford members was that more agencies have specific charges an ,are focusing on " niches" in the senior marketplace. QUESTION 8: PROGRAM WHICH ATTRACTS GREATEST AGE DIVERSITY Recreational programs were most often the examples given in response to this question. Trips, especially, seemed to be a good way to attract seniors of all ages. Even a travel program which used a slide show was mentioned: twice Social events were also mentioned, especially.; those with food attached to the event such as special events at the senior center.: Other meal- related activities were the distribution of meals to people's', homes. and the distribution of food commodities in communities. For.- health, care organizations, programs. targeted to long -term chronic illnesses such as diabetes or cancer were mentioned. Task Force members mentioned' that the Earle Brown Farm or Heritage Center needed some "Center of Excellence" or some aspect of the total program that would stand out as uniquely contributive. QUESTION 9: PROGRAM APPEALING THE MOST TO 50 -65 YEAR OLD Trips were mentioned as being very popular with younger. seniors., Employment was mentioned once. Opportunities to volunteer was also mentioned once. In general, the responses seemed to correspond much more closely to the agency mission and patterns were harder to see. Section III - 12 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pro ct Ualit Decisio s, Inc. The City of Brooklyn Center Final Report Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 QUESTION 10: SERVICE MOST CRITICAL TO ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS The services listed by each agency helped reveal its mission and goals. Some of the agencies attempt to maintain the independence of their clients. Their key services were home- delivered or related to employment and counseling. The seniors centers viewed their role as a educational /recreational planning agency and consequently saw their recreational services as most important. The health- related programs referred to their specialty programs as key contributors to their excellence. A couple of the agencies mentioned moving more into referral roles within the community. Task Force members agreed that the Heritage Center should establish a clear mission and develop a core of services important to the success of its mission. They also remarked that seniors have a great diversity of services available to them. QUESTION 11: LARGEST GAP IN CURRENT SENIOR PROGRAMMING Two of the organizations mentioned the lack of services for the younger senior. This seems to be a consistent area of underservice and yet of growth. Another two referred to transportation as a major issue. The budget restrictions and limited program appear to be the issues here. Four agencies spoke of the need for health support and health- related services such as respite care. The problem apparently is related to a lack of reimbursement for the service. Two of the organizations mentioned issues related to service coordination. QUESTION 12: UNIQUE TRAITS OF SENIORS IN THIS AREA A variety of themes were identified by the respondents. In general, it was noted that the seniors in the Northern suburbs are very loyal to their home communities. The population. was described as blue collar with moderate incomes. Mention was made of the growing number of seniors, with particular stress on the "young old ". These seniors remain in their own homes as long as possible and there are differing opinions regarding the number of seniors who find apartment living appealing. The seniors are further described as proud, active and a talented resource. The challenge of the next decade will be to create the volunteer and part -time employment options that will utilize this valuable resource. QUESTION 1a: CHANGES OVER THE PAST 5 -10 YEARS IN SENIORS Today's Senior is more vocal about obtaining needed services. The number of seniors is seen to be increasing and the acceptability of housing options is also growing. Seniors are viewed as being more affluent, "younger ", more active and healthier than their predecessors. Section III - 13 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pr , �a11t y Dec 1�51ot1�5 Inc The City of Brooklyn Center , Final Report Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 QUESTION 14 AND 15: SERVICES NEEDED /COULD FIT SERVICE CENTER This question utilized a checklist format. Respondents were asked to designate services for two age groups: o the 50 -64 year old o the 65 and over group Respondents indicated that the services needed the most by the younger seniors were support groups and counseling, fitness and exercise, information and referral, part -time employment and educational services. All of these were seen as a possible fit for the service center; however, the counseling and support group concept was less heavily supported for inclusion in the center because the respondents felt these options were better accepted if they were available in the local community. Services need by the older seniors were transportation, housing, chore service and information and referral services. The transportation was seen as a service which could be coordinated at the Center, but would obviously need to be available locally. Housing also was not a good fit for the Center. The chore service could be - housed at the Center as could the Information and Referral service. QUESTION 16: WHICH INCOME CATEGORY NEEDS MOST SERVICES The majority of the respondents (12 out of 20) named the lower income group.as the neediest group. The inability of the lower income group to pay for needed services was the usual rationale. QUESTION 17: WHICH AREA BUSINESSES TO INCLUDE IN THE CENTER CEAP was mentioned by several of. the respondents as the .type of agency that.should be located at the Center. One of the respondents disagreed, stating that some volunteers would be lost if CEAP moved. Other types of services seemed to target the more active adult as compared to the leers active, frail senior. Educational services were mentioned along.with a variety of assistive services. Some of the services were -home- delivered and .some appeared to be consultative in nature. QUESTION 18: ADVANTAGES/ DISADVANTAGES OF MATURE ADULT CENTER The major advantages seen in providing a service_ center concept was the ability of the consumer to do "one- atop" shopping for support needs. Other advantages included the networking and improved cross - referral between agencies that could occur. The identification of one place that offered a variety of support services was also seen as very positive. Section III - 14 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pro � DC�CIcSIOI1c� II1C The City of Brooklyn Center , Final Report Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 QUESTION 18: ADVANTAGES /DISADVANTAGES OF MATURE ADULT CENTER (CONTINUED) Disadvantages related to service duplication, centralization of service and some of the political problems of getting dissimilar agencies with dissimilar funding to act in a cooperative manner. Some of the agencies feared that relocating out of their neighborhood would reduce their service to local residents, especially since transportation was viewed as being very poor to and from the northern suburbs. It was noted by the Task Force members that there could also be some conflict between the welfare "market" and the more affluent senior whose service needs might be different and whose ability to pay was obviously different. QUESTION 19: WHICH SERVICES SHOULD GOVERNMENT SPONSOR The majority of the respondents wanted to limit the role of government to essential services. Some further related that government should serve the indigent and the vulnerable. The basic needs cited the most were transportation, housing, food and health care. Some felt that government should assure that. these types of services were delivered, but that government should not be a provider, but rather contract with providers to buy services for the needy or subsidize services as necessary. QUESTION 20: HOW TO INVOLVE THE POORER, OLDER ADULT Several key ideas emerged. Pricing should assure that all incomes can use the service Some strategies are to use fund - raisers to underwrite, other _events, have a sliding scale and offer a least several free things annually. Other ideas related to letting the seniors plan their activities and give them the chance to have input so that no event becomes prohibitive in cost. The use of "free" groups such as churches and planned peer groups was mentioned as well. A real barrier to participation, mentioned by three respondents, is lack of adequate and inexpensive transportation. This problem needs to be addressed so that people can come to events. QUESTION 21: LOW INCOME SENIORS INCREASING OR DECREASING The majority of the respondents felt that the number of low income seniors was increasing, especially for the older senior. On the other hand, a- small but strong minority stated that the number of low income seniors. was decreasing especially for the younger seniors. This points out the fact that there may by several diverse subpopulations in the senior market that have differing needs. Section III - 15 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pro: . �UaIIty De CI�IOi1�5, I The City of Brooklyn Center Final Report Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 QUESTION 22: OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OFFERING SENIOR SERVICES Most of the respondents were able to list at least two or three other services offered in the area. On the whole, respondents were not familiar with services outside of their city and it was clear to see that there is no northern focal point for northwestern suburban service coordination. The types of organizations mentioned by the respondents included school districts, churches, non- profit agencies, health care organizations, senior membership organizations and city /county sponsored services. QUESTION 23: OTHER ORGANIZATIONS PLANNING TO ENTER AREA Respondents mentioned only 7 organizations. Most of these organizations were mentioned in the previous question as being a current service provider. The two new additions were Darrell Farr for a housing project in Robbinsdale and Ebenezer for the addition of home- delivered meals to the area. QUESTION 24: OTHER PERSONS, STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS A variety of public and private studies, plans and resource groups were listed. Greater detail can be see in the next part of this section. I Section III - 16 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pr '�u�11�� Decl�lot�� Inc. City of Brooklyn Center , Final Report Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 IX. PROPOSED SERVICES A. BACKGROUND A very important part of the study was the determination of service mix in the building. Four sources of data served to contribute to these findings: o during the KEY RESPONDENT INTERVIEWS, a service need worksheet was used for to elicit agency opinions regarding the service needs both for the mature adult age group as well as for the senior adult age group. o in the surveys mailed out to 2500 mature adults and 2500 seniors, several of the questions pertained to service needs. o in -depth interviews were conducted with 25 mature adults and 25 seniors. A mayor focus of these interviews was the emphasis on refining service needs including food service at the site and transportation. o three focus groups were conducted. Two were with the mature adult age group and one was with the senior adult age group. Exercises were focused almost exclusively on clarifying the service needs of each group. This section of the report summarizes the services that seemed to be needed the most. This is done by age category. There are three parts to this section. These parts are: o background o service needs of mature adults o service needs of senior adults B. SERVICE NEEDS OF MATURE ADULTS 1. Findings from Key .Respondent Interviews Section III -14 discusses the findings from the key respondent interviews. In addition, the detailed findings are available on page III -43. Respondents indicated that the services needed the most by the younger seniors were support groups and counseling, fitness and exercise, information and referral, part -time employment and educational services. All of these were seen as a possible fit for the service center; however, the counseling and support group concept was less heavily supported for inclusion in the center because the Section IX - 1 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pr: � D�C1�510t�cS Itz The City of Brooklyn Center C, Final Report May, 1986 Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 respondents felt these options were better accepted A they were available in the local community. 2. Findings from the Surveys Several questions with multiple sub -parts were used to ask the respondent and p ent about needed services Respondents were shown a list of services and asked to select their top priorities from the list. In each case, the respondents were permitted to choose several from the lists. Home delivered services formed one of the lists and the top choices of the respondents were, in order of priority, home health, home repair or chore service and transportation. Another list offered a variety of social and retail services to the respondents. Top choices varied between the two age groups. The responses of the mature adults are listed below. Only those responses that received a vote from more the 30% of the respondents in this age category are listed. Part -time employment (56.7x) Fitness and exercise (47.8%) Information and referral(4O.8x) Legal /financial counseling(40.8%) Professional health services(38.3%) Crafts and hobby rooms (37.8x) For the most part, respondents have chosen services that are outside of the usual health and social service offerings. The part -time employment service is obviously the first choice for this population but will also be seen on the senior adult list. The types of services selected speak to an active adult population with a desire to remain involved in their community but independent financially. They value their health and are will to devote some time to fitness. They have intellectual skills and want to use them on their own behalf. The are growing They g o ing consumers of information and support pport new information related services. 3. Findings from the Interviews Respondents were asked to review a list of 17 possible services which could be located at the Earle Brown Farm site. They were instructed to select the three they thought they would use the most and the three they thought they would use the least. The 50 -64 year old ranked the following three services at the top Section IX - 2 I The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pro: �uallt y Dec1a1o1�s, I IlC. The City of Brooklyn Center Final Report May, 1986 Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 grocery /drug store (40x); craft /hobby room (32x) and a Fixit Shop (which tied with Part -time Employment Service) at 28%. Three others were ranked as least likely to be used: these were a Bank Branch, a Gift Shop and Legal /Financial Services all at 32%. For the most part, reasons given for the least desired services indicated that either the service was not a high priority for the respondent or else they had already located that type of service and felt a commitment to that service provider or had the service in a more convenient location. Other suggestions from the younger group included a counseling program for parents and children, a trail system, an Earle Brown Museum, specialty shops, chapel services for various denominations, seniors teaching school age children and so on. 4. Focus Group Findings . Generally, the opinions of the younger and older groups differed when asked to identify the services they would be most and least likely to use at the service center. In one instance, however, there was strong agreement. Both groups selected a bank branch office as the one service which was the least likely to be used. This represented 55% of the younger group. Both groups indicated that they had the service closer to home and had been using a specific bank for a number of years, with no intentions of switching. From that point, the selections differ. The younger group then went to select tax preparation as the next service they would be least likely to use (31x` of respondents). Respondents either did their own, or had a resource which they were not willing to change. Services most likely to be used by the younger group included exercise classes specifically designed for mature adults (62x), crafts /hobbies room (34x), and part -time placement (34x). The younger group was a bit more diverse than the older group in selecting the additional services they would like to see at the Center with 17x discussing athletic facilities, 17% desiring special types of educational activities, and 1O% indicating leisure /social activities particularly referring to a place where mature adults could meet in a modified pub atmosphere including a game room, etc. Other suggestions from the younger group included a year -round greenhouse, bookstore with Section IX - 3 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pro I C Uuahty DeCIcs1on(5, 1110. The City of Brooklyn Center Final Report Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, 1986 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 world -wide newspapers, magazines, etc., a medical center for mature adults, and a good bakery. One respondent sent Quality Decisions his suggestions for resources the center would need in order to be successful. C. SERVICE NEEDS OF SENIOR ADULTS 1. Findings from the Key Respondent Interviews Services need by P the senior adults were transportation, housing, chore service and information and referral services. In asking the respondents which of the needed services they say as a good fit for the center, some appeared to work better than others. Transportation was seen as a service which could be coordinated at the Center, but would obviously need to be available locally. Housing also was not a good fit for the Center. The chore service could be housed at the Center as could the Information and Referral service. 2. Findings from the Survey Several questions with multiple sub -parts were used to ask the respondent about needed services. Respondents were shown a list of services and asked to select their top priorities from the list. In each case, the respondents were permitted to choose several from the lists. Home delivered services formed one of the lists and the top choices of the respondents were, in order of priority, home health, home repair or chore service and transportation. Another list offered a variety of social and retail services to the respondents. Top choices varied between the two age groups. The responses of the senior adults are listed below. Only those responses that received a vote from more the 30x of the respondents in this age category are listed. Restaurant Professional health services Fitness and exercise Crafts and hobby rooms Information and referral Part -time employment Legal /financial counseling For the most part, respondents have chosen services that are outside of the usual health and social service offerings. The part -time employment service is an 0 interest ing for this population s o ulation and is also be seen on the mature adult list. Section IX - 4 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pro The City of Brooklyn Center TNa y Deciesio s, 111C. Final Report Ma 1986 Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 May, Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 The types of services selected speak to an active senior population with a desire to remain involved in their community but independent financially. They value their health and are will to devote some time to fitness. They have intellectual skills and want to use them on their own behalf. They are growing consumers of information and support new information- related services. 3. Findings from the Interviews Respondents were asked to review a list of 17 possible services which could be located at the Earle Brown Farm site. They were instructed to select the three they thought they would use the most and the three they thought they would use the least. The services ranked as most likely to be used by the 65 and older group were: On -site dining (60x), Grocery /drug (32x) and a Bank branch (28x). The services ranked as least likely to be used by the 65 and older group were: a Bank branch (36x), a Fixit shop (28x) and a Beauty /barber shop (28x). For the most part, reasons given for the least desired • services indicated that either the service was not a high priority for the respondent or else they had already located that type of service and felt a commitment to that service provider or had the service in a more convenient location. Additional Services Wanted: The older group reported several suggestions for additional services. Most of the suggestions centered around recreational activities. For example, four of the over 65 group asked that a small movie theater and additional social activities be added to the service listing. 4. Focus Group Findings Service Preferences: Generally, the opinions of the younger and older groups differed when asked to identify the services they would be most and least likely to use at the service center. In one instance, however, there was strong agreement. Both groups selected a bank branch office as the one service which was the least likely to be used. This represented 55% of the younger group and 47% of the older group. Both groups indicated that they had the service closer to home and had been using a specific bank for a number of years, with no intentions of switching. From that point, the selections differ. Section IX - 5 The Earle Brown Farm Senior Service Pr The City of Brooklyn Center 7uaht Deci6iows, Inc. Final Report May, 1986 Suite 340, 15612 Highway 7 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 933 -2665 Older respondents considered their next least likely service to use to be a gift shop (32x). Comments indicated that respondents preferred to go to Brookdale when they needed this service. Services most likely to be used by the older group included on -site dining (58x), fix -it shop (37x), and grocery /drug store (32x). Additional Services Wanted: The older group reported 4 mayor areas for additional services. These included transportation (58x), leisure /social activities (42x), meeting/ social rooms (26x), and improved communication vehicles (21X). C. COMPETITION Although Quality Decisions, Inc. included a competitive analysis in its proposal to the City, the City chose not to investigate any of the services offered to seniors in terms of doing a competitive analysis. Briefly, we can comment that the type of services desired by mature adults are in short supply or non- existent. There is no agency which targets the needs of this group. In addition, there are no service centers for seniors in this part of the City. Although adjacent communities do offer a variety of services to seniors, none focuses on • the mature adult nor do many have a dedicated space which enables them to offer a variety of activities which require fixed, committed space. D. SUMMARY The needs of the mature adult and the senior adult differ, but also overlap. Mature adults are more likely to desire information services, services which enable them to remain active and healthy and services which keep them occupied. Senior adults are more likely to request recreational or social services, including meals or other activities which emphasize group activities. There are very few agencies which emphasize the needs of the mature adults, in spite of a growing recognition that this population is getting larger and that the retired adult may now be persona in their fifties rather than past the age of 65. Section IX - 6 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9 � Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************##********##******#*#*#************* * * * * * * * * * * # * # # # # # * * * * * * * * * * * # ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1% SALES TAX INFORMATIONAL BROCHURE **#***##************#####****###****#*##########***#**#* * * * * * # * * # # # # * # # * * * * * # # # # # # * * * *# DEPT. APPROV �L Brad Hoffman, EDA Coordinator' - MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEWENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached *#****##****#****##***##***####**#######***********#*#** * * # # # # # # # # # * * * * * * * * # # # # * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached is a proof of the informational brochure which has been prepared for the 1% sales tax ballot question. Please note I have penciled in one change. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discussion of proposed informational brochure EP-7 1 FF'Lif'1 WHLKE%' EITERF'RIEP -3 TO 569 -3494 P.02 Residents Asked To Approve 1% Tax On Sale Of Food, Beverages At Restaurants ugsday, November 3, Brooklyn Center re dents will be asked to approve a special issue on the ballot authorizing the City Council to levy a I% tax on gross receipts from the sale of food and beverages at restaurants. This tax does not apply to food and beverages in grocery stores. Revenues Will Be Used To Preserve Existing Neighborhoods nn The wording on the ballot Is as Revenues generated from this tax will be used to ' 1 follows: improve specific Dousing problems in Brooklyn ` Q SHALL THE BROOKLYN CEN- Center with the intent of strengthening and ` TER CITY COUNCIL BE AUTHO preserving existing neighborhoods. RIZED TO LEVY A TAX OF ONE -�' PERCENT OF GROSS RECEIPTS The revenues will be used primarily for the acqui FROM THE SALE OF LIQUOR and demolition of blighted and deteriorated AND FROM THE SALE OF FOOD single family properties, and possibly some multi- AT RESTAURANTSTO FUND AP - family dwellings. PROVED HOUSING PROJECTS The City expects to generate approximately IN THE CITY? o 0,000 in annual income for this purpose. And YES NO rn, the City will be able to offer these lots for new housing to persons of low income. Low income will be defined by the Brooklyn Center City Council for all housing projects. Typically, low income is defined as 80% of the median income in the metro area which is cur - rently $88,600 for a family of four. Comparatively, the median family Y income in Brooklyn Center (based on the 1990 census) is $38,818. Prinfed on 100:6 Recycled Paper The cost of homes to be constructed under this program will be approximately $95,000. Cur- rently, the median price of an existing home in Brooklyn Center is approximately $77,000. For additional information, please contact the City Manager's office, 6301 Shingle Creek P kway, at 569 -3300. = `r - 1 �:- _ • + t't'C LiriL t ".0 CI `I i C` -.rM 1 =ACC I U :AD J._,gyq f . UJ 0 POLLING PLACES* PRECINCT 1 Lutheran Church of the Triune God, 5827 Humboldt Avenue North. PRECINCT 2 Earle Brown School, 5900 Humboldt Avenue North. PRECINCT 3 Evergreen Park School, 7020 Dupont Avenue North. PRECINCT 4 Willow Lane School, 7020 Perry Avenue North. PRECINCT 5 Orchard lane School, 6201 Noble Avenue North. PRECINCT 6 Garden City School, 6400 Brooklyn Boulevard. PRECINCT 7 Cross of Glory Church, 5929 Brooklyn Boulevard. PRECINCT 8 Northport School, 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard. *Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. ei hbor 00d Revitalization Referendum Photos - -- Before & After Please Vote On Tuesday, November 3 TFIT4 R. fl-, • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetina Date 09/29/92 o Agenda Itcm Number // G REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM: UPDATE ON NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, ibijkctor o Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attj ed • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes As requested by the City Council on August 24, 1992, City staff members met with the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee ( EBNAC) and their "extended committee" members on September 17 at the Earle Brown Elementary School. Approximately 35 people attended that meeting. Attached hereto, for the Council's information and consideration are: (1) copies of the outline materials used by City staff for an audio - visual presentation to the Committee; and (2) copies of notes covering questions and comments raised by members of the committee, and staff responses. Another meeting of the EBNAC will be held on Thursday, October 1. Staff will be prepared to discuss this matter at the September 28 Council meeting. 0 OBJECTIVES 1. Lowest lon g term costs to keep streets in an acceptable condition • 2.. Neighborhood Enhancements which im rove property values Outline materials used by City staff for i presentation of the Neighborhood Street Improvement Program concept to the Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee on September 17, 1992 NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT DISCUSSION OUTLINE FOR MEETING OF THE EARLE BROWN NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COMMITTEE 9/17/92 1. Slides - of streets in 53rd -57th Avenue Area - of streets in Brooklyn Center with curbs and gutters - of Osseo streets (1991 -92 program) 2. Neighborhood Map 3. Feasibility Study Components 4. Preliminary Cost Estimates and Cost Distribution for a 2- • Mile Program 5. Special Assessments for Street Improvements 6. Special Assessment Deferral Policy 7. Proposed Assessment Stabilization Program 8. Impact on Property Taxes 9. Tentative Calendar of Events 10. Suggested Recommendations for Consideration by EBNAC .� -- -- _..: a ::::_ WE ON MM Mw INA FAWN Ill Iflllllffllt�� ■.► �• mow. • a� �f� _�■ ■_/ _oil_ _��_ :�!!�'R�.a 11==_ �• rte: C - WNW . -ice = -= ,= != ��f��7�!!, ■� HE �Wm 111111 Fix oriegin Iva C MW Mom NINE 1 711 E FEASIBILITY STUDY COMPONENTS (i.e. - What additional information is needed to fully evaluate any possible program ?) Watermains ) Need to inspect & evaluate Sanitary Sewers ) need for repairs, and Storm Sewers ) upgrades Street Improvements ) Need for detailed condition Including Curb & ) evaluations and survey of Gutter ) street, driveway, yard and garage elevations Sidewalks ) Need to evaluate condition and Trails ) of existing walks and the need for additional sidewalks or trails Cost estimates, ) Based on evaluation of Funding Sources ) needs, benefits and and Evaluation of ) available funding sources Funding Policies -3- i PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES AND COST DISTRIBUTION FOR A 2 -MILE PROGRAM Preliminary Cost Distribution Cost Estimates (based on current policies) Watermains ) ? All costs will be Sanitary Sewers ) paid from Public Storm Sewers ) Utility funds Str. Improvements) ■ Range = $200,000 to 500,000 /mi. ) ■ At $300,000 /mile, 1/3 Sp. Assess. a 2 -mile program = $200,000 would cost $600,000 2/3 G.O. Bonds _ $400,000 ■ Note The cost for curbs and gutters is approximately $117,500 per mile. This is included in the above estimates. Sidewalks & ) ? All costs will be paid Trails ) from Municipal State Aid Street fund -4- PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS Based on the current policy (i.e. 1/3 special assessments, 2/3 city), the estimated special assessment rate for street improvements constructed in 1993 is approximately 1523 per single - family home. If an assessment of $1523 is levied, with a 10 -year installment period, and with an 8% interest rate, the following payments would be required: Annual Monthly Year Payment Payment 1 $274 $23 2 $262 $22 3 $250 $21 4 $238 $20 5 $ 225 $19 6 $213 $18 7 $201 $17 8 $189 $16 9 $177 $15 10 $164 14 Totals $2193 $185 -5- . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL POLICY (UNDER EXISTING STATE LAW) ■ Available only to senior citizens and permanently disabled persons with a maximum income = $21,650 ■ Homeowner's maximum annual payment for special assessments is 1-1/2% of income Example: Income = $15,000 1-1/2% of income = $ 225 If special assessment installment is $274, owner pays $225, defers $49 until property is sold. -6- PROPOSED ASSESSMENT STABILIZATION PROGRAM EXAMPLES OF ASSESSMENT "BUY - DOWNS" Concept: Owners pay a portion of special assessment, on a sliding scale, based on income. City "buys down" the remainder. The following options have been suggested: OPT /ON A: City pays a prorated amount for all households with incomes less than the moderate limit ($30,400 for two person household in 199 1) OPT /ON B: City pays 100% for all households less than low limit ($19,200 for two person household in 1991) and a prorated amount for households with incomes within the moderate income range ($19,200 to $30,400) EXAMPLE FOR TWO PERSON HOUSEHOLDS: OPTION A OPTION B HOUSEHOLD PROPERTY* CITY* PROPERTY* CITY* INCOME OWNER SHARE OWNER SHARE $10,000 $501 $1,022 $0 $1,523 $15 $751 $772 $0 $1,523 $20,000 $1 $521 $109 $1,414 $25,000 $ 1,252 $271 $789 $734 $30 $1,503 $20 $1,469 $54 $35,000 $1,523 $0 $1,523 $0 * The PROPERTY OWNER SHARE is the amount the property owner would pay. The CITY SHARE is the amount the city would buy down on each property. -7A- PROPOSED ASSESSMENT STABILIZATION PROGRAM EXAMPLES OF ASSESSMENT "BUY- DOWNS" $2,000 OPTION A c�S $1,500 $1,503 - $1,523 - $1,252 rn rn $1,000 - $1,002 rn -$751 O $500 -$501 c� V) $0 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 35,000 Income F'Z Owner Share 0 City Share NOTE: BASED ON A TOTAL ASSESSMENT OF $1,523 $2,000 OPTION B ct P.4 $1,500 - $1,469 - $1,523 � N $1,000 -$789 O $500 cti -$109 $0 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 Income 7,� Owner Share 0 City Share NOTE: BASED ON A TOTAL ASSESSMENT OF $1,523 -7B- PROPOSED ASSESSMENT STABILIZATION POLICY (Con't.) i NOTE: 1991 HUD Income Limits for Various -Sized Households Low Moderate Household Income Income Size Limit Limit 1 Person $16,800 $26,600 2 Person $19,200 $30,400 3 Person $21,600 $34,200 4 Person $24,000 $38,000 5 Person $25,900 $41,050 6 Person $27,850 $44,100 7 Person $29,750 $47,100 8 Person $31,700 $50,150 Estimated City cost to "buy down" assessments for a 2 -mile improvement program (estimated total project cost of $ 600,000) Under Option A = $26,600 Under Option B = $50,500 Potential sources of funding to cover City's share of an Assessment Stabilization program: • Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds • Proposed food and beverage sales tax • Interest earnings from EDA Housing Endowment 40 fund -7C- IMPACT ON PROPERTY TAXES • for a $600,000 improvement, the $400,000 "City Share" can be financed with the sale of a bond issue. • for a $400,000 bond issue, payable in 10 years, the annual cost for principal and interest would be about $55,000 per year. • an additional levy of $55,000 Y er year will increase the p City portion of the property taxes you pay by 1.13 %. • because the City receives less than 17% of the property taxes you pay, the increase in your total property tax payments resulting from a $400,000 bond issue would be less than two /tenths of one percent (0 19 %) If your total property then, the additional tax pay - tax payment now is ment would be increased by $ 300 /year $0.57 /year 400 0.76 500 0.95 600 1.14 700 1.33 800 1.52 900 1.71 1000 1.90 1 100 2.09 1200 2.28 1300 2.47 1400 2.66 1500 2.85 TENTATIVE CALENDAR OF EVENTS (If an improvement program is to be started in 1993) September 17, 1992 - (Tonight's meeting) September 28, 1992 - Council authorize staff to prepare feasibility study October- November 1992 - Inspection of utilities, surveys, and preparation of first draft of feasibility study December '92 - January '93 - Meetings with EBNAC and informational meetings with all citizens in selected neighborhoods to review and discuss preliminary findings and study reports February -March 1993 - Council consideration and public hearings April -May 1993 - Preparation of plans and specifications June - September 1993 - Open bids, award contracts, construction _g SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY EBNAC 1 . Define neighborhood areas to be considered. (Staff suggests two of the six areas 6 though 1 1) 2. Recommend that City Council authorize staff to proceed with a feasibility study, including: • inspection and evaluation of watermains, sanitary sewers and storm sewers • detailed pavement condition evaluations, soil borings, and surveys of street, driveway, yard and garage elevations • review of sidewalks and trail system needs • detailed cost estimates, funding sources and evaluation of funding policies 3. Recommend that City hire an independent appraiser to evaluate the benefits received from a street improvement program. 4. Recommend that City Council formalize the Assessment Stabilization Program. -10- EARLE BROWN NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING WITH "EXTENDED" COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 SUMMARY OF "QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR "...AND RESPONSES BY CITY STAFF (FOLLOWING THE STAFF PRESENTATION) 1. Question: Will this be a situation where a project is rammed down our throats regardless of what we say? Response: The City Council created the Earle Brown Committee to help assure better communication ... that Committee has requested participation by the members of the extended committee... Information /discussion meetings will be held with all property owners in areas where serious consideration is given to a street improvement program. Before any serious consideration can be given, we need to develop a feasibility study and report. We intend to provide many opportunities for public participation. 2. Question: Would concrete curb and gutter be included with any street improvement? Response: Yes, City staff recommends that curb and gutter be included with any street improvement program because curb and gutter improves the neighborhood appearance and reduces long -term costs of street maintenance. 3. Question: Would corner lots have larger special assessments... and would larger lots have larger assessments? Response: The City's current policy provides that all single- family residential properties be specially assessed equally. That estimated cost for street improvements in 1993, based on current policies is $1523 per single family lot. 4. Question: Why would special assessments for street improvements be lower than the assessments which were levied for alley improvements made in 1989? Response: Reasons include: (1) the alley improvements required total reconstruction, whereas with street improvements we expect to be able to use some of the existing structure; (2) those alleys were paved with -1- a concrete, the street improvements would be blacktop with concrete curb and gutter; (3) alley improvements are done in very confined spaces, while streets allow the contractors more elbow room"; and (4) the estimated assessments for street improvements cover only 1/3 of the total cost of the improvements, while the assessments for alley improvements covered the entire costs. 5. Question: What does the City now spend for patching and sealcoating? What is my share of the patching and sealcoating program? Response: The City's annual expenditures for pavement maintenance (not including sweeping, snowplowing, etc.) is about $600,000. Of that, about $250,000 is spent for patching streets in advance of sealcoating, and for contract sealcoating. Sealcoating is scheduled on about a 7- year cycle. We don't have the figures readily available on "your share" of the patching and sealcoating program. Note Since the meeting staff has calculated that: • the impact of h p the $600,000 per year pavement maintenance program on a home which now pays $1000 /year in property taxes is about $20 per year. • if the costs of the annual "patch and sealcoat program" ($250,000) were charged directly to only the property owners within the area covered by that year's program, the average cost to property owners in that area would be about $50. 6. Question: Any comparison of the benefits of street improvements including curb and gutter in Osseo does not apply to Brooklyn Center. Since we're right next to North Minneapolis, our benefits need to be compared to Minneapolis. Response: That's a valid point. We do know that Osseo is assessing the entire costs of their street improvements, and that Minneapolis assesses a part of their costs. That's why staff recommends hiring an independent appraiser to evaluate the benefits which a street improvement would have on properties in Brooklyn Center. 7. Question: Would sidewalks also be installed with a street improvement program? -2- Response: No new sidewalks would be installed unless a need is demonstrated. At this time we're not aware of any need for additional sidewalks between 53rd and 57th Avenues. However, staff believes that if existing sidewalks need repairs, those repairs, should be made at the same time that street improvements are made. Sidewalk costs are not assessed to the property owners. 8. Question: If street improvements are made, will private utility companies (NSP, Minnegasco, CATV, etc.) also upgrade their facilities? Response: Whenever an improvement program is considered, City staff makes contact these companies to request them to review their systems and to program any repairs, upgrades, etc. which may be necessary - to try to avoid digging up of new streets. In most cases these companies are very cooperative. 9. Question: During the past few years several residents in the area west of Morgan Avenue have experienced collapses of their sewer service lines... these lines were installed with Orangeburg pipe. What could be done to deal with this issue? Response: We don't think it's possible to get a look at these service lines when we're televising the City's sewers. However, we will attempt to identify those areas where this condition might exist, then develop some options on how to deal with it. Probably the best source of information for this issue is the homeowners. 10. Question: Are the City's sewers in this area made of the same material as the pipe which collapsed in the Garden City area last year? Response: No - that was corrugated metal pipe. So far as we know there isn't any of that in the southeast area of the City. However, we do know that some of our sewers in this neighborhood were built with clay drain tile. Those need to be replaced. Staff believes it's very important to televise all sewers before doing street improvements, so that defective or deteriorating pipes can be repaired or replaced. 11. Question: What is the life expectancy for water mains and sewers? Response: In general, their life expectancy is about 50 years. However, this can vary greatly. Some develop serious problems within 20 -30 years. -3- Others may be in good condition when they're 100 years old. That's why it's important to inspect each block of sewer individually. With sanitary sewers and storm sewers, this can be done with television inspection. Water mains - need to be dug up for spot inspections. 12. Question: (In general) - wish to express concern regarding young families on limited income. Response: The suggested assessment stabilization program is intended to include low and moderate income families of all ages and is based on HUD's definition of low - income and moderate income households. It would be difficult for the City to justify setting different limits. 13. Question: Regarding those blocks where property owners are now paying assessments for alley improvements installed in 1989 ... the additional assessments for street improvements would create hardships for all property owners, and especially for young families. Response: This can be considered in selecting areas for a pilot project. 14. Question: If street improvements are made, would property owners who have driveway access to the alley receive a lower assessment than those whose driveways access to the streets (noting that assessments for alley improvements were higher for those whose driveways accessed the alleys)? Response: That's something that needs to be reviewed. It's a valid question. 15. Question: If improvements are made, and special assessments are levied, why won't the City accept partial payments on the basis of what individual owners can afford to make? Response: We don't think that state laws allow cities to do this. Could consider requesting legislation to allow this to be done. 16. Question: (Not relating to street improvements, but...) what will be the impact of the B.C. School District's bond vote? Response: (by Jody Brandvold): The estimated cost for a $70,000 home is about $4.00 per month. 17. Question: I'm concerned that if street improvements are made, water could be trapped on my driveway. -4- r Response: That's why it's important to do detailed surveys so we know the elevations of every street, yard, house and driveway... so that we can avoid creating those problems. 18. Question: If it's going to be necessary to do street improvements some time, would work done now be wasted if improvements were delayed for a year or more? Response: No - any information developed now would be usable at any time. 19. Question: Why couldn't the City complete more than 4 miles of street reconstruction per year? When you look at highway construction projects, they do much more than that in a year. Response: There's no question that contractors could easily complete much more than 4 miles per year. The reasons we have suggested 4 miles per year is that: (1) at that rate, all streets in the City could be improved within a 20 -year period; and (2) we think that existing Engineering staff could provide the engineering for that size of an annual program... if a bigger program is desired, it can be done, but the City would probably have to hire consultants to provide engineering support. 20. Question: What is the cost of doing a feasibility study? Response: For a 2 -mile program, the costs for surveying and preliminary engineering could be in the range of $15,000 to $25,000. This could be done with the City's engineering staff, so that's covered by the existing budget. The major special costs would be (1) for televising the sewers (costs would be charged to the Public Utility funds); and (2) for soil borings and geotechnical design services ... both of which need to be obtained from consulting firms who specialize in these areas. 21. Question: What happens next? Response: The Earle Brown Neighborhood Advisory Committee ( EBNAC) will meet again within 2 weeks. Members of the extended committee will again be invited to attend ... and that meeting is also open to the public. If EBNAC at that time recommends proceeding with a feasibility report, Engineering staff will start surveying streets, yards, driveways and garages - to try to get this information before the snowballs fly. Before survey crews start, we would send notices to all property owners in the area where surveys would be conducted, giving them -5- i information about what's being done, why it's being done, and advising them of the process which will be followed. City Council approval would be needed to hire companies to televise sewers and to do soil borings and geotechnical design. As additional information becomes available through the feasibility study process, more meetings will be held with EBNAC, with the extended EBNAC, and with all property owners in those areas where serious consideration is given for actual improvements. Under state law, the only meeting requirement is for a formal public hearing. However, under the process which Brooklyn Center has used and which we intend to use in this program, that formal public hearing is the culmination of a process which allows maximum opportunities for citizen participation. -6- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/28/92 Agenda Item number /a 4- 1 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dir ctor of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for Council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 09/28/92 ) WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Diseased Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove diseased trees on the owners' property; and WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these diseased trees by declaring them a public nuisance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The diseased trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance: TREE PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS NUMBER ROBERT WESTBURY 5030 BROOKLYN BLVD 279 ROBERT WESTBURY 5030 BROOKLYN BLVD 280 BLANCHE RADII, 4948 ZENITH AVE N 281 BIORN & BARBARA CARSON 6425 BEARD AVE N 282 GARY BRUMMER 607 70TH AVE N 283 RICHARD /BARBARA EVANGELIST 5339 4TH ST N 284 RONALD & RUTH SHODEEN 5448 DUPONT AVE N 285 ARLENE ANTOLAK 5615 DUPONT AVE N 286 SHOHREMAZ MAEI 5524 EMERSON AVE N 287 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 288 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 289 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 290 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 291 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 292 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 293 CITY OF B.G. WILLOW LANE PARK 294 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 295 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 296 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 297 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 298 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 299 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 300 DAVID /CATHERINE HAURILICK 3213 64TH AVE N 301 BRIGHTON II LTD. PARTNERS 6305 CAMDEN AVE N 302 EDWARD KNUDSON 5547 LYNDALE AVE N 303 EDWARD KNUDSON 5547 LYNDALE AVE N 304 BUILDER'S SQUARE 3600 63RD AVE N 305 JAMES & JUDITH JANSEN 6357 BROOKLYN BLVD 306 MICHAEL & SANDRA JOHNSON 6025 COLFAX AVE N 307 RESOLUTION NO. 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City 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 Coamcil Meeting Date 3ento 28 1992 Agenda Item Numbcr , a h REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNITY CELEBRATION HONORING LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL DEPT. APPROVAL: n Brad Hoffman, EDA Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOM WENDATION: • No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached SUAMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )Les Monday evening Bob Jackson (see attached) and I will be available to discuss the resolution with the Council. The Council is being asked to support this project which is being sponsored by the Tourism Bureau. It is scheduled to take place June 17 through June 20, 1993. Note that the City is not being asked to spend tax monies on this event. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve resolution. 0 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNITY CELEBRATION HONORING LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHEREAS, the North Metro Bureau of Conventions and Tourism has elected to sponsor a local event honoring law enforcement personnel; and WHEREAS, the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Fridley and Maple Grove wish to jointly host the event; and WHEREAS, the celebration's intent is to bring together law enforcers and law abiders with events to promote a fun, festive atmosphere honoring law enforcement personnel; and WHEREAS, the first annual event is scheduled to be hosted by the City of Brooklyn Center from June 17 through June 20, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brooklyn Center to roclaim its support " Days". rt for Law and Order Da P PP Y BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the intent of the City of Brooklyn Center to participate in the development of the event with the cities of Brooklyn Park, Fridley and Maple Grove. 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 9/28/92 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FEES RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT SALARY STUDY ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: R & � Gera yn R. arone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONBIENDATION: :y No comments to supplement this report Comments below PP attached P below/ attached EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • At its May 26, 1992, meeting, the city council directed staff to conduct an in -house management salary study with the results to be sent to Labor Relations Associates (LRA) for an audit of the results. The study was completed, audited, and presented to the council at its August 24, 1992, meeting. However, because the budget was never officially amended to allocate the funds to pay for LRA's audit, it is now necessary for the council to do so in order to release payment to LRA. Attached are excerpts from the May 26 minutes and a memo included in that meeting's agenda packet which outlines LRA's fee. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve a Resolution Amending the 1992 General Fund Budget for Fees Related to the Management Salary Study i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: April 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Executive Salary Study Attached is a sample survey form developed in -house that could be used for conducting an executive salary study. A form would be tailored to each of our executive positions. The following positions would be included in the study: City Manager Director of Planning & Inspection Director of Public Works Fire Chief Director of Finance City Assessor Chief of Police Liquor Stores Manager Director of Recreation The cities included in the 1977 management compensation study conducted by Loren L. Law and Associates could be surveyed, with the addition of Maple Grove, Minnetonka, and Blaine. These cities are: Bloomington St. Louis Park Edina Richfield Roseville Brooklyn Park Coon Rapids Fridley Crystal Golden Valley Plymouth New Hope Robbinsdale The cities with liquor operations comparable to Brooklyn Center include Edina, Richfield, Apple Valley, Lakeville, Columbia Heights, and Anoka. Those cities with a volunteer fire department and a full -time fire chief are Brooklyn Park, Plymouth, Minnetonka, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, Maple Grove, White Bear Lake, and Anoka. As we discussed, we would conduct the survey ourselves. Labor Relations Associates is available to audit our results for around $2,000. If you need additional information, please let me know. Attachment �5pg oti Councilmember Cohen stated his motion contains both options. Vote on the motion as amended: Three ayes, two nays. The motion passed. Councilmember Rosene and Mayor Paulson voted nay. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9 p.m. and reconvened at 9:12 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) ADVISORY COMMISSIONS' ENABLING RESOLUTIONS - OPTION 3 Mayor Paulson reviewed Option 3, Representation Requirements. He pointed out that the Council still has a full agenda with important topics to discuss and suggested this matter be discussed at another meeting. Councilmember Cohen indicated he prefers to deal with the entire package tonight and would be willing to table it until the end of the meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to move agenda item 9a to 10f. The motion passed unanimously. MANAGEMENT SALARIES The City Manager indicated earlier this year the Council approved a Request for Proposal for a compensation study of executive positions. Since the responses were rather expensive ($12,350 to $19,110), staff is suggesting an alternative to conduct an in -house studv with an audit of the study results being conducted by Labor Relations Associates (LRA) for a minimal fee. Councilmember Scott stated the largest amount of the survey is accumulation of data, and due to tight budget constraints and the high cost of the study, she supports staff's alternative to have them collect the data and have it evaluated by LRA. Councilmember Pedlar commented on a management level compensation report he received from another community. He pointed out at previous meetings he had expressed concern with longevity and population, and it appears this report addresses those issues. Also, with recruiting a Police Chief he felt the Council needed to address this issue so they can move forward with the selection process. The Personnel Coordinator noted staff will be able to get more precise information on the number of employees, exact functions of responsibility, number of employees they supervise (both full time and part time), etc. Don Roberts, 818 Woodbine Lane, stated he has reviewed a composite of wages paid to City employees and finds it extravagant. He felt it would be unjust to look towards what other 5/26/92 - 14- r communities are paying and sug the Council consider population, tax level, value of homes in the community, etc. He preferred to see a more innovative way to cut taxes and help families who are trying to make their dollar stretch. Mr. Roberts stated he prefers less government and would rather see the Mayor and Council making decisions since they can be held accountable. Councilmember Rosene stated he is also not in favor of inflationary budgets but felt the City staff was highly qualified and worked very hard for their salary. Mr. Roberts stated he also works hard and the Council should only appoint someone to the position if they have it in their heart to do their best work. He pointed out there are people in federal office and congressional representatives who have increased taxes and their own salary and not provided better leadership, so paying high salaries does not bring the best quality of service. Mr. Roberts felt too high of a salary can sometimes result in complacency. Mayor Paulson indicated the role of the Council is to set salaries, and last time this was discussed it was decided to maintain salaries of department directors until a study is completed. Now staff is asking that the study not be done. Mayor Paulson stated he is comfortable with that recommendation as long as the Council stays with the main part of their direction - to maintain salaries at their current level. He agreed public service should come into the equation at some point, and the Council needs to find ways to get more for their money along with better results. Councilmember Cohen disagreed and pointed out staff's recommendation is not to delegate setting salaries but to gather information that an outside consultant would have been hired to do. He felt staff was coming up with innovative ideas. Councilmember Cohen pointed out the City has state and federal laws that govern salary, and he felt continuing this avenue of discussion would encourage management to unionize. He pointed out executive salaries are 4.42% of the total budget and the 2.9% increase under consideration equals .13% of the total budget. Councilmember Cohen noted the Council agreed to get a quote for an outside independent study and staffs recommendation would still provide an outside review. Councilmember Pedlar indicated he appreciates Mr. Roberts' comments, but the City has certain guidelines they are obligated to follow regarding pay equity. He then reviewed the process and need to hire a qualified Police Chief who possesses the skill level that is in the best interest of the community. Councilmember Pedlar supported addressing salaries according to community standards and equitable pay for a job well done. He agreed employees want a raise every year because it tells them they have done a good job. He also felt the merit system was important, but felt the Council was not in a position to debate whether municipality salaries are over paid. Mr. Roberts felt he should be able to provide some input since he is a tax payer and, therefore, pays staff salaries. He disagreed with paying high wages and did not think they could be justified to the community. 5/26/92 - 15 - r Councilmember Rosene indicated he appreciates Mr. Roberts' input, but he felt pp p t staff was r doing a good job and they work hard for what they earn. Councilmember Scott agreed and indicated she would not support spending $20,000 for a 't survey since staff can provide the data needed. She asked staff to provide Mr. Roberts with the survey information regarding Brooklyn Center wages as compared to 18 other communities, which also includes population data. Councilmember Scott pointed out the City is in a competitive market with other communities, which is especially true of hiring a Police Chief at this time. Mayor Paulson stated he felt every job or government agency needs to take an objective look at what they are doing. He felt it was the Council's responsibility to establish a professional review policy. Mayor Paulson stated the City has not had a salary comparison study since 1978, but he does not feel salaries should be driven by other communities and the Council needs to consider other areas as well. Mayor Paulson then reviewed action taken at MTC regarding their union contract and the option of linking productivity to salary increases. Councilmember Pedlar stated he is not comfortable with spending $20,000 for a study due to shortfalls the City is facing this year and unknowns about next year's budget. He pointed out the data provided includes information from 14 communities and includes population, number of employees, households per employee, but Council still needs information regarding full time and part time employees and budget responsibilities in order to determine fair comparisons. Councilmember Pedlar indicated he is comfortable with approving staff's recommendation to gather data. He pointed out another issue is entry levels for a position and if responsibilities are decreased the Council should address lowering the salary range. This has not been done in the past because previous councils felt they should follow market standards. The Personnel Coordinator suggested staff prepare the additional information pursuant to Council's discussion and bring it back for consideration at the second meeting in June. Councilmember Cohen preferred to resolve this matter as soon as possible so it can be decided before budget discussions are started. The Personnel Coordinator felt LRA could make their recommendation to Council by the end of July. Mayor Paulson stated he also prefers to resolve it now but does not know if anyone will change their minds by reviewing the study. He felt the study would probably recommend salary increases and suggested other communities such as White Bear Lake, Shoreview, Woodbury and other agencies also be included in the data. Councilmember Scott pointed out the City has not had the management compensation report updated for quite some time, and she does not feel comfortable in making a judgement on salaries until she knows what communities of comparable size and budget are paying. 5/26/92 - 16- There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve staffs recommendation and direct them to conduct an in -house management salary study with the results being sent to Labor Relations Associates for an audit to be considered by Council the end of July. Vote: four ayes, one nay. The motion passed. Mayor Paulson voted nay. i TREATMENT OF ALGAE IN TWIN LAKES The City Manager indicated the Park and Recreation Commission recommended the Council contact the cities of Robbinsdale and Crystal to see if they will help pay for algae treatment on the Twin Lakes. This matter was also discussed at the Twin Lake Task Force meeting, but they felt their job was to work on the trail system so they took no action on the matter. Previously staff contacted these communities and they rejected the idea of contributing towards algae treatment. At that time, the Council approved treatment of the northern most lake. Councilmember Scott suggested a committee be formed of one Council member and Park Commission member from each community to discuss the matter and find an equitable solution. She felt the City of Crystal has created a major portion of the problem due to their large storm sewer trunk which empties into upper Twin Lake. Also, Robbinsdale has been receiving complaints from residents about algae and it may be a good time to re- approach them. Councilmember Scott indicated the city wants residents to be able to continue their enjoyment of the lake, but she does not feel Brooklyn Center should bear the total responsi'oility. She indicated she is willing to represent Brooklyn Center on a committee of this type - In response to Councilmember Cohen's question, the City Manager explained the DNR issues a permit for treatment but no funding. Councilmember Cohen indicated support of Councilmember Scott's suggestion that she and the City Manager meet with representatives from the other two communities. He also supported working on legislation to deal with this issue since the lakes serve as a resource for future generations. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene accept Councilmember Scott's offer to serve on a joint committee with representatives from Robbinsdale and Crystal to determine and recommend an equitable solution to algae treatment of the Twin Lakes, and to direct staff to contact these communities regarding this issue. Kristin Mann, _ 5 415 East Twin Lake Boulevard, pointed out there has been a lot of rain which makes the upper lake even more green than the other two lakes. She requested the treatment of the upper lake be approved and funded from the Storm Water Utility Fund (three treatments estimated at 52,000). She added she will also bring this matter before the Task Force at their meeting next month. Ms. Mann felt Brooklyn Center was in a better position than the Lake Association because they would have to circulate petitions. She asked Council to take this action now since trying to get all three communities involved will take too long to make the treatment effective. 5/26/92 - 17, /ac Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FEES RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT SALARY STUDY WHEREAS, on May 26, 1992, the Brooklyn Center City Council directed City staff to conduct an in -house management salary study with the results being sent to Labor Relations Associates (IRA) for an audit in the amount of $2,000; and WHEREAS, the management study has been audited by LRA and reviewed by the City Council at its August 24, 1992, meeting; and WHEREAS, funding of the audit has not been officially designated in the City's General Fund Budget; and WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City harter of the City of Y Y Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation ma be Y y transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council. 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, Professional Services $2,000.00 Decrease the appropriation for the following line item: Object 180, Unallocated Department Expense Object No. 4995, Contingency $2,000.00 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 09/28/92 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PARTIAL HOT WATER REPLACEMENT OF PIPING IN CIVIC CENTER SYSTEM DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, it for of Pu is Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attWhed • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes During the past month a number of problems have occurred in the system which provides hot water for use in the Community Center and City Hall. After extensive review and testing it has become apparent that a major portion of those problems have resulted from the fact that portions of the "return" piping in this system are plugged or seriously restricted by mineral buildups (primarily manganese and calcium). Because of that buildup the system operates poorly and inefficiently - especially during times of low use. The most serious problem occurs in the locker rooms at the Community Center, i.e. - swimmers don't like to take cold (very) showers. For the short term we have been able to maintain "barely acceptable" conditions by letting two hot water spigots run continuously. However, this is obviously costly and wastes energy. Several options have been tried and more have been considered. Our conclusion is that the only effective way to correct this problem is to replace those portions of the return piping system which we know have been obstructed. Proposals have been solicited from 3 contractors. It is recommended that the lowest cost proposal submitted by All- American Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of $5,200.00 be accepted. Note We believe that the extent of the work covered by these proposals will • bring the system back to an acceptable level. However, this cannot be guaranteed because there may be more problems in the remaining system which we cannot locate • until this work is completed. If more work is needed, we will advise the Council of that need. It is recommended that costs for this work be charged as maintenance expenditures to the Government Buildings operating budget. No additional appropriation is recommended at this time because it appears that this work can be done within the limits of the 1992 budget. If an additional appropriation is needed, this can best be covered by annual year -end transfers. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PARTIAL HOT WATER REPLACEMENT OF PIPING IN CIVIC CENTER SYSTEM WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has advised the City Council that portions of the return pipes in the heating system which serves the Civic Center need to be replaced because of a mineral buildup in those existing pipes; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has received the following proposals for the required work: Contractor Amount All - American Mechanical, Inc. $5,200.00 Le Vahn Bros., Inc. $7,220.00 NewMech Companies, Inc. $9,275.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The lowest cost proposal submitted by All - American Mechanical, Inc.is hereby accepted. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute a contract with said firm in that amount. 2. Costs for this work will be charged to the 1992 operating budget for Government Buildings Division 119 of the General 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. HOT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM SCHEMATIC INDIVIDUAL LINES TO ALL FIXTURES (SHOWERS, SINKS. ETC.) PUMP MAIN SUPPLY LINE WATER HEATER MAIN RETURN LINE COLD WATER SUPPLY PORTION OF PIPING SYSTEM TO BE REPLACED AT THIS TIME NOTE: To assure that hot water is always available at all fixtures, water is pumped through the system continuously. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9 'Z / �Zj Agenda Item Number �a JE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION OF THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF LEROY CHRISTENSON DEPT. APPROVAL: pcw 0� Patricia A. Page, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SU1 EMLRY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend approval of the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF LEROY CHRISTENSON WHEREAS, LeRoy Christenson has served the City of Brooklyn Center as a patrol officer since January 2, 1963 and will retire from City employment on September 30, 1992; and WHEREAS, over the years he has seen the institution of such community programs as Crime Prevention Fund, Telephone Assurance Program, D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), Juvenile Diversionary Program, Domestic Abuse Intervention Program and most recently C.O.P. (Community Oriented Policing); and WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, that the dedicated public service of LeRoy Christenson is recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center and that the City wishes him a long and happy retirement. 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 9128192 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: J 1. 1�1J'U�Ufl"� Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S RE VIEW/RECOMI��NDATION: 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. /3 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on September 28, 1992: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Archibald Candy Corporation Fanny a d / b / Y Farmer Candy 236 Brookdale Center �• a �� -- Y Sho P Sanitarian aC ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Lioness 5552 Aldrich Drive N. Earle Brown Ele a em to School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. Sanitarian RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Robert and Marilyn Cashman 5430 Humboldt Ave. N. Renewal: Town's Edge Properties Brookhaven Apartments Eugene J. Sullivan 5329 -33 Brooklyn Blvd. James Just /Welcome Home, Inc. 6451 Brooklyn Blvd. Don McGillivray /Dion Properties, Inc. 5740 Dupont Ave. N. Jerry and Randall Tyson 5137 -39 France Ave. N. Timothy and Karen Pfingsten 6706 Grimes Ave. N. Daniel and Georgette Kitchin 5601 Logan Ave. N. Kenneth W. Kunz 5601 Lyndale Ave. N. Michael Shapiro 5115 East Twin Lake Blvd. Q Richard R. Dawson 3955 69th Ave. N. ` • a • �Q_ Director of Planning Ak- and Inspections GENERAL APPROVAL: P. Page, D ty Clerk