Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 09-23 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Open Forum 5. Council Reports 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 9, 1991 - Regular Session 8. Planning Commission Items: (7:05 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 91015 submitted by Darrell Lynch requesting a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an approximate 16' front yard setback rather than the required 35' setback at 7042 Halifax Avenue North -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991, meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 91016 submitted by Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. requesting preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Linquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane -This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991, meeting. C. Planning Commission Application No. 91017 submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal requesting an appeal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone (6544 France Avenue North) is a nuisance as defined by Section 19 -103 of the City Ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit -This application was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991, meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- September 23, 1991 9. Ordinance: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Extending the Housing and Maintenance Occupancy Code to Include Commercial and Industrial Properties -This ordinance amendment was tabled by the City Council following public hearing on September 9, 1991, in order to give representatives of the Minnesota Multi- Housing Association the opportunity to review the proposed ordinance amendments and offer their comments. 10. Discussion Items: a. Use of Alternative Fuels for City Vehicles b. 1991 Residential Reforestation Program Report 11. Resolutions: a. Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids for Water Slide Improvement Project No. 1990 -24, Contract 1991 -R *b. Accepting Work Performed for Sidewalk and Miscellaneous Concrete Removal and Replacement on Brooklyn Boulevard, Improvement Project No. 1991 -04, Contract 1991 -E *c. Requesting Municipal State Aid Street Maintenance Allotment for 1992 *d. Accepting Work Performed for Humboldt Avenue /65th Avenue Landscaping, Improvement Project No. 1991 -03, Contract 1991 -D *e. Accepting Work Performed for 1991 Sealcoating, Improvement Project No. 1991 -05, Contract 1991 -F f. Opposing Certain Standards Included in the Proposed Lead Contamination Control Act Amendments of 1991 *g. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 09/23/91) 12. Performance Guarantee Release: *a. Olive Garden, 1601 James Circle *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Counciimembers 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, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, and Council Secretary Peggy McNabb. OPENING CEREMONIES Mr. Blaine Fluth offered the invocation. OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had received two requests to use the open forum this evening. MESSRS. BOB WILSON AND DENNIS CARDINAL Mayor Paulson invited Messrs. Bob Wilson and Dennis Cardinal to come before the Council regarding Planning Commission Application No. 91017. Mr. Wilson introduced himself to the Council as an attorney at law representing Dennis Cardinal, owner of Cardinal Towing. He came before the Council this evening to address an ordinance Brooklyn Center passed approximately two years ago which made it illegal to park commercial vehicles on residential streets. The ordinance has caused Mr. Cardinal a great deal of hardship and inconvenience in operating his 24 -hour tow trucking business. Having quick and easy access to his truck is extremely important in order to respond to emergency calls during the evening and night hours. Prior to the ordinance, he had been parking his tow truck overnight in his driveway. He has been unsuccessful in finding a commercial location on nearby Brooklyn Boulevard which he feels is safe to park his truck overnight, and he cannot justify hiring someone to be at the shop over the night hours for emergency calls. 919/91 - 1 - Mr. Cardinal advised the Council he checked with several other cities with this same type of ordinance and found that tow trucks and emergency vehicles were exempt from this ordinance because of the importance of the prompt response time. Mr. Wilson felt Mr. Cardinal should be exempt from the ordinance according to Chapter 19 -103, subdivision e; however, he felt the statutes do need some clarification. Mr. Wilson also felt there is a violation of constitutional rights in this ordinance. Member Pedlar recalled the Council's struggle with the decision to pass this ordinance three years ago. The ordinance was passed because of problems that existed in the community with large trucks violating neighbors' rights by creating a "commercial" activity in a residential area. The Director of. Planning and Inspection advised the Council that this issue will be before the Planning Commission on Thursday, September 12. Mayor Paulson thanked Messrs. Wilson and Cardinal for coming to open forum. The Council will continue to hear from staff as to any activity that occurs on the issue. Mr. Wilson advised the Council he will write to the City Attorney outlining Mr. Cardinal's position on this matter. BERNARD ACKERSON Mayor Paulson invited Bernard Ackerson to address the Council as part of open forum. Mr. Ackerson raised a discussion on the increased cost of waste management in general, and the frequency of curbside collection of recyclables. The City Manager responded to Mr. Ackerson's concerns, and invited Mr. Ackerson to attend a Hennepin Recycling Group (IIRG) Board meeting to raise his concern. and learn more about the management, long. term planning, and funding of municipal and county recycling programs. The Hennepin Recycling Group consists of the communities of Brooklyn Center, New Hope and Crystal. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Paulson advised the Council that he plans to visit each of the various commission meetings this fall to offer support and to become updated on current issues and activities facing the commissions, and invited the Council members to feel free to join him. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Council members requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. No requests were made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion b Councilmember Scott and seconded b e Coun '1 Y y ci member Rosene to approve the minutes of August 26, 1991, regular session as printed. The motion passed t unanimously. 9/9/91 -2- RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 91 -213 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ENDORSING MINNEGASCO AND DESIGNATED COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS' EFFORTS TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY ENERGY SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing esolution was duly seconded b member Dave g Y Y Rosene and them ' otlon assed . unanimousl P Y RESOLUTION NO. 91 -214 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF ONE (1) COMPACT CARGO VAN FOR LIQUOR STORES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -215 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO 69TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 1990-10, PHASE II CONSTRUCTION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -216 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH, BROOKLYN CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -217 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 9/9/91 -3- RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE C REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 09109191) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the following list of licenses: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Chi -Chi's Brooklyn Center 2101 Freeway Blvd. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Lions 6500 Humboldt Avenue N Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Avenue N Sons of Norway Brookdale Center RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Donald R. Harris, Dale F. Bistodeau, M. Katie McCarton Brookhaven Apts. Renewal: Thomas and Joanne Limond Humboldt Square Apts George Shimshock 5900 Colfax Avenue N George and Etheljean McMullen 2401 - 54th Avenue N The motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve Mayor Paulson's appointment of Bettilou Christopher, 6210 North Lilac Drive, Apt. 507, to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. The motion passed unanimously. NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL PRESENTATION Kim A. Aasland, Planner, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, presented background information and a slide show on the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. The Council likes to address the city councils once per year on accomplishments and current activities. The Council is presently working on developing housing plans, as well as cultural diversity training and policies, for the cities of Robbinsdale, Crystal, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, and New Hope. 9/9/91 -4- a The Council also regularly co- sponsors forums on various topics. A "Renters' Rights and Responsibilities" seminar is scheduled for September 26th at the Brooklyn Center Community Center. Ms. Aasland advised the Council that the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council is currently looking for temporary family placement homes if anyone is interested. Ms. Aasland introduced Jerry Eiserman, 500 - 67th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center's appointment to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. Mr. Eiserman thanked Mayor Paulson for his appointment to the Commission, and expressed eagerness to become actively involved. He currently serves on the Success By Six Subcommittee. He also works with health services and next week he will be attending the Transportation Committee meeting. He advised the Council he became involved with human services because of the great need for effective services. The Council members were provided a packet of background information and statistical data on the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. Councilmember Cohen expressed appreciation and gratitude to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council for its very successful programs and services and for the assistance it provides Brooklyn Center in serving its citizens. He further complimented the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council on the dignity with which these services are provided. Mayor Paulson acknowledged the assistance the Northwest Hennepin Human Services y g p u an Se ces Council has provided Brooklyn Center in many areas and thanked Ms. Aasland for coming to the meeting and providing the slide presentation and packets of information to the City Council. ORDINANCES ORDINANCE FIXING COUNCIL SALARIES The City Manager presented an ordinance fixing council salaries. The ordinance was offered for a first reading on August 12, 1991, published in the City's official newspaper on August 21, 1991, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Fixing Council Salaries at 7:43 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 7:45 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 9/9/91 -5- Councilmember Rosene expressed appreciation to the staff for including in the agenda packet a comparison of the Council's actual salaries to what they would have been had the consumer price index been applied each year since 1979. The comparison definitely indicates a fair and reasonable salary structure. Councilmember Scott noted also that in checking with other city councils in the northwest metropolitan area, Brooklyn Center is probably the only city council that has gone for 15 years without a salary increase. ORDINANCE NO. 91 -16 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE FIXING COUNCIL SALARIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Phil Cohen. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES EXTENDING THE HOUSING MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY CODE TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Extending the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Code to Include Commercial and Industrial Properties. This ordinance was offered for a first reading on August 12, 1991, published in the City's official newspaper on August 21, 1991, and is offered this evening for a second reading. The ordinance would extend the provisions of the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance to include commercial and industrial property. The amendment would also add a reinspection fee as part of the current rental dwelling licensing program and the adoption of various provisions requiring rental dwelling license holders to prevent disorderly activities on their premises. Councilmember Cohen advised the Council he had received a call from Jack Horner, legal counsel for the Minnesota Multi - Housing Association. Mr. Horner indicated the Minnesota Multi- Housing Association foresees a few problems with the ordinance as it is written and asked Councilmember Cohen if the Council would consider tabling any action after the public hearing this evening until September 23. Tabling any action on the ordinance would allow Mr. Horner to work with the City staff to further amend the ordinance to ensure that any legal action taken on behalf of the property owners in accordance with the ordinance will be enforced in the courts. Member Cohen indicated his past experiences with Mr. Horner have always been very favorable, and he felt certain Mr. Horner will work with the City staff to a mutual resolution of this issue. Councilmember Cohen offered Mr. Homer's request to the Council for consideration. 9/9!91 -6- Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Extending the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Code to Include Commercial and Industrial Properties at 7:47 p.m. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. Mr. Jerry Cowan, owner of Evergreen Park; Mr. Allen Glorvigen, President of Portfolio Advisors and manager of The Ponds; and an unidentified rental property owner came before the Council basically in support of the ordinance; however, emphasized the need for effective enforcement of the ordinance in the courts. All three have experienced a great deal of disappointment and lack of court cooperation in trying to enforce eviction proceedings. Mr. Glorvigen suggested the City work with the Minnesota Multi- Housing Association in amending the ordinance to ensure that property owners can in fact properly comply, and in turn get legal action taken when needed. Support and enforcement s are the major cement of eviction proceedings for concern of these property owners. The Council members raised a discussion on the types of screening processes currently g P Y by rental property owners. The City Manager indicated the Council has authorized the City to share certain police department information in accordance with the Data Privacy Act that would assist rental property owners in averting undesirable tenants. Councilmember Cohen noted the goals of the City and rental property owners are mutual, and suggested a joint effort be made to formulate certain types of information and make it available to rental property owners to be used in ro erl screening P P Y renter applicants g pp cants and in accordance with the Data Privacy a na Act. cY There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In response to Councilmember Rosene's request for clarification of Mr. Homer's request to the Council, member Cohen indicated the request is to table any action on the ordinance until September 23, 1991 to rovid e time for the Minnesota work with the City staff to carify the amendment to the o ordinance tonensure effective conviction procedure compliance by the property owners that will result in effective action by the courts. Councilmember Pedlar raised a discussion on the revocation of a rental property owner's license after three reported incidences. Councilmember Pedlar felt that rental property owners should be held responsible for unruly tenants and proper building maintenance, and further suggested that in order to be relicensed after revocation, the property owner should be required to come back before the Council. At that time, the entire property should require an inspection and recertification in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standards and Uniform Building Code. In addition, the property owner should be billed an hourly rate for the inspection and recertification proceedings. Councilmember Pedlar felt these requirements would provide a strong incentive for rental property owners to ensure desirable tenants and properly maintain their properties. 9/9/91 -7- There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to table An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Extending the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Code to Include Commercial and Industrial Properties until September 23, 1991, to allow for additional input from Mr. Horner and other members of the apartment community and to ascertain that the ordinance does not have to be republished. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED SPE IAL ASSESSMENTS FOR TREE REMOVAL COSTS The City Manager presented a resolution regarding proposed assessments for tree removal costs and certifying the proposed special assessments to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. The Public Works Coordinator presented the special assessment rolls noting there are two separate levies: No. 12192 -- $300 or less over a three -year period; and No. 12193 -- greater than $300 over a five -year period. The Public Works Coordinator stated any property owner objections and appeals to the special assessments were due in writing at the city hall either before or at the public hearing; none were received. She noted the only types of deferrals authorized by Minnesota Statutes are those for senior citizens and disabled persons. There is no provision for a deferral based strictly on income. The City Manager presented a deferral request letter from ro er owner P P tY a Sharon Santa Maria, 6906 Morgan Avenue North. The Council members were provided with a copy of the request. The Director of Public Works advised the Council the request clearly does not qualify under Minnesota Statutes. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding the proposed special assessments for tree removal costs at 8:15 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 8:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Pedlar raised a discussion on ways to respond to such situations wherein the property owner literally cannot afford to pay these assessments. The City Attorney advised the Council that once these special assessments become certified on the tax rolls, they become ad valorem taxes. The property owners are allowed a grace period beyond the due date. Penalties accrue during that period of time and eventually the property becomes tax - forfeit. He further added Minnesota Statutes clearly limit what city councils can do to defer special assessments. 9/9/91 -8- The Council and staff discussed alternatives to seeing these properties to go tax- forfeit. Agency assistance programs were discussed as well as the possibility of seeking special legislation and funding to assist residents. Councilmember Scott noted it is overall less costly to borrow the money from a bank for a shorter term rather than the long -term tax payment schedule that usually applies to special assessments. Councilmember Cohen added this issue needs to be further addressed, as it is likely to occur over and over again. He further recommended the City consider seeking special legislation and funding for this type of assistance. Another alternative may be to place a lien on the property which would provide for payment of the special assessments when the property is sold or transferred. Mayor Paulson recommended and the Council concurred that special legislation addressing special assessment deferment or assistance should be added to the City's list of legislative objectives. RESOLUTION NO 91 -218 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Phil Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELIN )UENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS The City Manager presented the special assessment roll for delinquent public utility charges and a resolution certifying the proposed special assessments for collection on the Hennepin County tax rolls. All affected property owners have been notified of both the delinquent status of their public utility account and the special assessment public hearing. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding the proposed special assessments for delinquent public utility accounts at 8:35 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 Pedlar to close the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NQ 91 -219 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 9/9191 _ � _ RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNT HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS S TO THE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b memo r Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. Y e Dave PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEED DESTRUCTI N The City Manager presented the special assessment roll for weed removal costs and a resolution certifying the proposed special assessments for collection on the Hennepin County tax rolls. All affected property owners have been notified of both their delinquent account status and the public hearing. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding the proposed special assessments for weed removal costs at 8:38 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. In response to Councilmember Scott's question about how payment is received if one of these properties would happen to be in receivership of a bank at this time, the City Manager indicated that the assessment becomes part of the receivership and can be collected. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to close the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -220 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING WEED DESTRUCTION CHARGES TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS - The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUP CHARGE The City Manager presented the special assessment rolls for the charges to hook up to City water and sanitary sewer system, and a resolution certifying the proposed special assessments for collection on the Hennepin County tax rolls. Property owners have executed agreements to be assessed a water and sanitary sewer hookup charge and have been notified of the special assessment hearing. Mayor Paulson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding the proposed special assessments for charges to hook up to City water and sanitary sewer system at 8:41 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. 9/9/91 -10- There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to close the public hearing at 8:43 P.M. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 91 -221 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUP CHARGES TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jer Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. ry RECEM The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:47 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS SISTER CITIES PROGRAM Mayor Paulson advised the Council that he and the City Manager had attended the Minnesota League of Cities Convention this past summer and had obtained some information on the Sister Cities Program wherein an American city becomes a sister city and forms a link with a community in another nation to exchange ideas and develop friendships. This exchange helps to further international understanding at all levels of the community on a continuing long -term basis. Sister cities and their citizens exchange people, ideas, and culture in a variety of educational, institutional, municipal, professional, technical and youth projects. The Sister Cities Program was established in 1956 and is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. Mayor Paulson noted the City of Brooklyn Center has already established itself as an All America City and felt that participation in the Sister Cities Program would provide a good opportunity to enhance that identity and establish global goodwill. Councilmember Cohen advised the Council that the City of Brooklyn Park had a Sister City in Australia earlier this year, and had mentioned to that City's officials that a neighboring City in Minnesota may want to participate in the Sister Cities Program. He further added that a forthcoming memo from Charlie Darth, Brooklyn ark, will haves specific information on the program, which he will provide to Mayor Paulson. p ormanon Councilmember Scott expressed enthusiasm in the program and suggested the possibility of making it a joint endeavor with the Brooklyn Center school children. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to refer the Sister Cities Program to staff to research and provide additional information to the Council. 9/9/91 AD HOC COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE The City Manager presented the Ad Hoc Communications Committee potential list and completed application forms /resumes to the Council. The first publication or members in June resulted in a minimal response; however, a recent publication generated several qualified applicants. The Committee consists of six members and a chair, and its function is to review the City's communications efforts and assist the City Council in formulating priorities related to communications. Mayor Paulson's goal is to appoint the committee members and gather them as a group prior to the Mini Conference Brooklyn Center is sponsoring in conjunction with the 97th National Conference on Governance beginning on September 18th. From the list of applicants, Mayor Paulson would like to appoint Janine Pfann from Post Publications and Pat Milton from Northwest News in an ex- officio capacity wherein they can participate in the meetings. The cable television representative could assist with the Committee's communication and publication needs. He would like Lowell Ainas and Kristen Mann to continue their service on the Planning Commission. He would like to appoint Dr. Fred Capshaw, President of North Hennepin Community College, as chair, and Joel Andrewjeski, Jody Brandvold, Patricia Keehr, Gale Tollin, Susan Warner, and Mike Miller as the six members. Mayor Paulson indicated he would like to serve as Council liaison to this committee, and invited the Council members to also serve in either a liaison or ex- officio capacity. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohn e and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Mayor Paulson's recommended appointments to the Ad Hoc Communications Committee as follows: Dr. Fred Capshaw as chair; Joel Andrewjeski, Jody Brandvold, Patricia Keehr, Gale Tollin, Susan Warner, and Mike Miller as members; and Janine Pfann and Pat Milton as ex- officio members. The motion passed unanimously. _ PROPOSED 1992 HRG B TDGET The City Manager presented and requested preliminary approval of the proposed 1992 Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) budget. The budget reflects an increase from the current household billing rate of $1.05 per household per month to $1.30 per household per month. The HRG Board recommended the increase to each of its member cities. This is the first billing increase since the program began in 1989. The 1992 Hennepin County Recycling Funding Policy may possibly be modified. Final figures will be available in November or December and will be brought before the Council for final approval at that time. Councilmember Scott recommended additional newspaper publicity of the yard waste transfer site in Maple Grove to relieve the heavy use of the Hennepin County Parks disposal site for disposing of yard waste. In anticipation of the fall leaf - raking and yard cleanup season, there is a timely need to promote the free -of- charge yard waste transfer site in Maple Grove. 9/9/91 - 12 - Councilmember Cohen suggested including in the publication a fine for improper disposal and /or accumulation of bagged yard waste in yards. In response to Mayor Paulson's question as to the need for preliminary approval of the budget, the City Manager indicated that preliminary approval from the Council is requested at this time for planning purposes. If there is no change in Hennepin County policy, the figures will remain the same. The Council and staff discussed various recyclable materials, recycling programs, costs and frequency of curbside collection, and the need to properly communicate with and educate residents. Recycling programs, markets, and technology are continually expanding and changing. Councilmember Pedlar noted, and the Council concurred, that the ongoing research, development and implementation of proper waste management is an obligation of our generation, and the real effects and results will be enjoyed by future generations. There was a motion made by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the preliminary proposed 1992 Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) Budget. The motion passed unanimously. 97TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GOVERNANCE Mayor Paulson presented a resolution amending the 1991 general fund budget to cover the cost of the minisessions which Brooklyn Center is sponsoring in conjunction with the 97th National Conference on Governance in mid - September. The schedule for Brooklyn Center's Mini Sessions and the 97th National Conference on Governance is as follows: Wednesday, September 18, 7 p.m., dinner in the Captain's Room at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Christopher Gates, Executive Vice President of the National Civic League will make a presentation on "Citizen Democracy and Public/Private Partnerships." Northwest Cable Company has been asked to cover this presentation. Thursday, September 19, 7:30 a.m., breakfast at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Cilla Bosnak, Community Commissions Coordinator, Dayton, Ohio, will present "Neighborhood �T a nd effective neighborhood and Grou s. The City Dayton has an elaborate a g Comm Y P tY committee system, portions of which could be very applicable to Brooklyn Center. Thursday, September 19, 7 p.m., no meal, City Hall Council Chambers. Deanne Butterfield, Councilmember from Boulder, Colorado, will conduct a workshop on citizen participation and involvement strategies designed specifically for Brooklyn Center. Ms. Butterfield is a consultant, and her strategies are very interesting. 9/9/91 -13- C Thursday, September 19, through Saturday, September 21, Hyatt Regency, Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis. The 97th National Conference on Governance -- "Civics and Politics in the '90s: Creating Community For Everyone." A detailed schedule of the conference was provided to the Council members in their agenda packets. Mayor Paulson noted the sponsorship of the Brooklyn Center Mini Sessions is a follow -up to the Council's communications commitment, and suggested that Council members who can find the time to attend, should be sure to do so. He further added the sessions will be taped and made available at City Hall following the conferences. Mayor Paulson advised the Council that invitations to the Brooklyn Center Mini Sessions will be mailed to all residents who currently serve on committees /commissions, and further suggested the schedule of presentations be published in the local newspapers. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -222 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Phil Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a resolution expressing the City Council's position regarding possible additional development at North Lyn Apartments. Councilmember Cohen recommended amending the resolution to include a quote from the Maxwell Study stating there is no need for additional office space for at least the next five years. He further asked staff to properly incorporate the information from pages 48 and 49 - of the Maxwell Study into the amended resolution for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -223 Member Phil Cohen introduced the following resolution, recommended that it be amended to include relative information from pages 48 and 49 from the Maxwell Study regarding no need for additional office space for at least the next five years, and moved its adoption as amended: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S POSITION REGARDING POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AT NORTH LYN APARTMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. 9/9/91 -14- The City Manager and Director of Public Works presented a resolution establishing improvement project no. 1991 -92, Contract 1991 -Q, replacement of defective sidewalks at various locations in the City, and accepting proposal and awarding the contract to Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors Co. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -224 Member Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -21, CONTRACT 1991 -Q, REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE SIDEWALKS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY, AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR WORK THEREON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager and Director of Public Works presented a resolution accepting bid, awarding contract and authorizing execution of change order no. 1 for trail improvement, improvement project no. 1991 -07 (replacement of a portion of trail in Central Park, and surfacing of trail on 53rd Avenue Extension South of Centerbrook Golf Course). RESOLUTION NO. 91 -225 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID, AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991-07 (REPLACEMENT OF A PORTION OF TRAIL IN CENTRAL PARK, AND SURFACING OF TRAIL ON 53RD AVENUE EXTENSION SOUTH OF CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager and Director of Public Works presented a resolution accepting bid and awarding contract for removal of houses on 69th Avenue North, Phase IV, Improvement Project No. 1991 -20. A letter from the Brooklyn Center Historical Society's President Pro Tem Vernon Ausen was distributed to the Council regarding a desire to salvage, move and rehabilitate the structure. The Historical Society has been unsuccessful in funding this project. Mr. Ausen advised the Council that prior to the destruction of the house, he would appreciate an opportunity to remove portions, such as doors, and frames, windows and frames, baseboards, lighting fixtures, etc., to hopefully be displayed at some point in time in an envisioned historical museum. Councilmember Rosene pointed out the current low bid reflects a savings of approximately $1,400 over the previous low bid brought before the Council. 9/9/91 i RESOLUTION NO. 91 -226 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution, and moved its adoption with the acknowledgement that city staff work with the contractor and Historical Society to honor the Historical Society's request to salvage portions of the structure: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL OF HOUSES ON 69TH AVENUE NORTH, PHASE IV, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -20 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Cohen introduced a resolution urging modification of the 1992 Metropolitan Council budget and work program to include a comprehensive study of resources needed to address neighborhood and community revitalization such as housing, education, health and human services. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -227 Member Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION URGING MODIFICATION OF 1992 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was dui Th p g g Y seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council - adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Peggy McNabb Northern Counties Secretarial Service 9/9191 -16- 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 12, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Sander had called to say she was unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the August 15, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91015 (Darrell Lynch) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an approximate 16' front yard setback rather than the required 35' at 7042 Halifax Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91015, attached). The Secretary also explained some of the background of the intersection improvement at 71st and Halifax Avenues North. He stated that most lots in the City have a 35' front yard setback with a 15' boulevard for a total setback of 50' from the street. He stated that there have been cases where a variance was granted when excess right -of -way exists. He noted the old Midwest Federal situation in the early 1980 He stated, however, that he did not believe a variance should be granted beyond what is the standard in the neighborhood. He also added that a neighbor had called and expressed some concern regarding her view as it would be impacted by the proposed garage addition. He stated that he would recommend that the adjacent property be allowed the same setback from the street as would be allowed to the Lynchs if the variance is granted. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the applicant agrees to the 19' addition rather than the 22' that was being sought. The Secretary answered that he was not sure. Commissioner Holmes asked whether a variance was really needed given the fact that it would still be 9 -12 -91 1 about 50' from the street. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, pointing out that setbacks are measured from the property line, not the street line. Chairperson Malecki asked whether a variance would be needed if the City vacated the excess right -of -way. The Secretary responded that a variance wouldn't be needed unless a lesser setback was sought. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the impact of the addition on the safety of the intersection. The Secretary stated that it should not be a problem since it would not intrude into the sight triangle at the northwest corner of the site. Chairperson Malecki asked what the hardship really s in this case. The Secretary P Y Y stated that there are other options for the applicant to build a garage, but that not being able to come as close to the street as others in the neighborhood would be considered a hardship. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Darrell Lynch, of 7042 Halifax Avenue North, stated that he would like a 22' expansion to the garage or at least a 20' expansion since that would save expense in the construction. Commissioner Bernards asked the applicant whether the workshop was for private use or for a home occupation. Mr. Lynch stated that it would only be for hobby use. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91015) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Lynch stated that he did not understand the neighbor to the south's objection to the variance. He stated that he had informed them that if they objected to the variance, he would not seek it. The Planner stated that the concern expressed by the neighbor was somewhat belated because she did not think the variance would be granted and also, that the impact on her view did not occur to her immediately. He added that the neighbor to the south is thinking of selling their home in the near future and that the garage addition might diminish the value of their property. Mr. Joe Eidenschink, of 4008 71st Avenue North, spoke in favor of the variance and gave some additional history on the background of the traffic circle that was put in a few years ago. He stated that the proposed addition would not come any closer to the street than the dwelling two houses south of the Lynchs' home. Mr. Lynch asked whether other houses on the block are 50' back from the street. The Secretary stated that he was not positive, but that it was very likely that they are. He again explained that the typical 50' setback from the street results from a 35' setback and a 15' boulevard. He stated that if there is a violation on the block, he would not recommend granting a variance to be consistent with that violation. Mr. Eidenschink asked how the garage wound up being 2.1' away from the south property line. The Secretary stated that it could have been a field error made at the time the garage was built. 9 -12 -91 2 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann asked what was the standard size of a two -car garage. The Planner stated that on average they are about 22' x 24 In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that the applicant could have a 19' garage addition if the variance were granted in accordance with the staff recommendation. He further stated that he did not believe a variance that would allow the garage to be built within 50' of the street could be justified. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91015 (Darrell Lynch Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of Application No. 91015 in light of the following considerations and conditions: 1) Imposing a 35' setback from the front property line in this case creates the hardship of an unnecessarily large setback from the street because of the change in street location. 2) The condition of excess right -of -way is relatively unique in the R1 zone and is grounds for mitigation from the required setback. 3) The hardship of unnecessary setback from the street has not been created by the property owner, but by the City. 4) There is no detriment to other properties in the neighborhood as long as a 50' setback from the street is maintained. 5) Variance approval acknowledges a setback of 50' from the street. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91016 (Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot, the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91016, attached). The Secretary also pointed out that the outlot and the island in the Mississippi are located in separate municipalities. 9 -12 -91 3 There were no questions of the Secretary following presentation of the staff report. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Mr. Nick Eoloff, representing the applicant, stated that he had nothing to add and requested approval of the application. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 91016) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Charles Stutz, of 7001 Willow Lane, asked whether any apartments would be, or could be, built on the property. The Secretary responded that the property is located in an R1 zone which is strictly a single family zoning district. Mr. Stutz also asked, if a garage is built on the outlot, what would be the setback from Willow Lane. The Secretary tate t y d that it would be at least 35' from the front property line. Mr. Stutz stated that there was a problem with transient traffic through these vacant lots to the river. He asked if a garage could be allowed on the outlot if it were attached to the island. The Secretary stated that that might be a possibility or if the outlot was attached to a neighboring lot in Brooklyn Center. He stated that an easement would then be required to cross the outlot to gain access to the island. In response to another question from Mr. Stutz, the Secretary explained the final plat process. Mr. Stutz noted the location of the 45' wide outlot and asked whether the access would definitely be on this lot or whether it could be shifted north or south. The Secretary stated that the outlot could not be shifted with the plat that has been submitted. He stated that a new plat would have to be submitted to accomplish that. Chairperson Malecki asked whether anyone else wished to speak regarding the matter. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes asked whether a replat of this property would come back to the Planning Commission. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bernards asked about the need for the easement for the shed that encroaches on the northerly lot. The Secretary stated that the dedication of that easement could be added as a condition of the approval. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91016 (Egan Field and Nowak, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 91016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The final plat is subject to review and approval by the � City Engineer. 9 -12 -91 4 2 ) The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3) Outlot A is considered an unbuildable parcel unless combined with or attached to an adjacent buildable lot • 4) The applicant shall grant an easement to the neighboring property owner to the north to allow for continuation of the encroaching shed. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91017 (Dennis and Gloria Cardinal) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for an appeal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone at 6544 France Avenue North is a nuisance as defined by Section 19 -103 of the City's ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91017, attached). The Secretary added that no public hearing is required for the application. He added, however, that letters have been submitted by some of the neighbors of the Cardinals supporting their desire to park the tow truck. Commissioner Mann asked whether a special use home occupation would be grandfathered at the time the ordinance was adopted. The Secretary provided some of the past history of the ordinance regulating the parking of commercial vehicles. He pointed out that no special use permit had ever been granted to the Cardinals and that one is not required for operating a home office. He stated that the City has a problem with the parking of a tow truck in a residential zone. He stated that that is now classified as a nuisance. Commissioner Mann asked whether it would still be a nuisance if it were stored in a garage. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the problem related to the fact that the tow truck was a commercial vehicle. He pointed out the example of a vehicle used in a home occupation with a sign on it. The Secretary stated that, if the vehicle is less than 9,000 lbs., less than 21 feet long, and less than 8 feet in height and is not a prohibited type of vehicle as described in Section 19 -103, then it is a vehicle which is allowed to be parked in a residential area. Commissioner Holmes concluded that different cities must regulate these vehicles differently. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and described what he knew of the Brooklyn Park ordinance. He stated that Brooklyn Center was formerly one of the more lenient communities with respect to these kinds of vehicles. Commissioner Holmes asked about the treatment of emergency vehicles and police cars. The Secretary stated that no exception was made for an emergency vehicle. He stated that the question before the Commission is whether this proposed activity 9 -12 -91 5 qualifies for a special use permit or not. He stated that he did not believe that it qualifies for a special use permit. He stated that ambulances are not parked at home, generally. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Robert Wilson, an attorney for the applicant, stated that the Cardinals have been parking their tow truck on their property for 21 years. He stated that Mr. Cardinal needs to respond to late night calls. He stated that it was not economically feasible to respond to these calls from his shop on 85th Avenue North in Brooklyn Park. He then asked the Commission for permission to submit a letter from a highway patrol officer regarding the need for emergency response to accidents on the freeways. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission could accept the letter if it chose to. He stated that if Mr. Wilson wants to argue the merits of the ordinance, he should do so before the City Council. Mr. Wilson stated that there is danger at accident sites and that towing is needed on a timely basis. He stated that there would be a public safety problem if the appeal were denied. The Secretary stated that he did not believe that argument related to the Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that there are other towing services which might be able to respond in a timely manner. Mr. Wilson asked the Secretary how the matter should proceed. The Secretary pointed out that the application before the Planning Commission is whether or not the parking of the tow truck is a special use. He stated that he believed the activity to be a nuisance, not a land use matter eligible for a special use permit. He stated that the City Council must ultimately decide that question. He added that if the activity is determined to be eligible for a special use permit, a special use permit application must be filed and then a determination made as to whether the Standards for Special Use Permits have been met. Mr. Wilson stated that under Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance "uses required for the public welfare" are classified as special uses. He stated that the City used to allow commercial vehicles, but that now they are classified as a nuisance. He stated that there is case law which indicates that cities cannot classify aesthetic differences as a nuisance. He cited the case of a city which sought to have nonconforming signs eliminated by classifying them as nuisances. He stated that the Cardinals are looking for a compromise with the City on this issue. He concluded by saying that the City has unconstitutionally taken away his client's livelihood by the adoption and application of their nuisance ordinance. He vowed to take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. He added that the neighbors do not object to the presence of the tow truck. Commissioner Bernards stated that the parking of a tow truck is not a land use and is not considered a special use. He stated that if 9 -12 -91 6 the ordinance needs changing, then the applicant should pursue a change in the ordinance to allow for emergency vehicles to be parked in residential zones. Commissioner Ainas stated that he sympathized with Mr. Cardinal, but that he saw no legal justification to uphold the appeal. He stated that it would be necessary to change the ordinance in order to remedy the situation. Commissioner Holmes agreed with the previous comments. Chairperson Malecki stated that no one was out to get the Cardinals. She stated that the remedy is to change the ordinance. She pointed out that there was a lot of publicity when the ordinance was adopted and that there was considerable discussion as to how it would affect people's livelihood. Mr. Wilson asked whether the Planning Commission would recommend a change in the ordinance. Commissioner Mann stated that the public hearings on the ordinance were long and difficult. She stated that she did not believe commercial vehicles should be allowed in a residential zone and added that she did not feel the appeal is justified. Mr. Wilson again asked if the Planning Commission would recommend a change in the ordinance. Chairperson Malecki stated that nuisance ordinances are not within the purview of the Planning Commission's responsibility. Mr. Wilson stated that he was not sure if this was properly a nuisance. He pointed out that commercial vehicles were formerly allowed in the Zoning Ordinance and he felt that it is a zoning matter. The Secretary stated that the regulation regarding commercial vehicles is not a land use regulation by the Zoning Ordinance, but a nuisance regulation covered by the Nuisance Ordinance. He stated that he did not believe it was a matter of whether Mr. Cardinal would stay in business. He stated that the question of the ordinance is a legislative decision to be resolved by the City Council. The Secretary recommended to the Commission that it not make a recommendation on an ordinance change without reviewing the record relating to the Council's study and adoption of the existing Nuisance Ordinance. Chairperson Malecki noted that there was no formal public hearing on the proposed application, but asked whether anyone present wished to add anything to the discussion. Mr. Dennis Cardinal, the applicant, asked about Minnegasco trucks and telephone company trucks and other trucks that are violating the ordinance. He stated that the City was picking on him because he had a tow truck. He stated that other vehicles are allowed, but that his truck is not. He stated that his truck does not look any worse than these other vehicles. The Secretary responded that there is a whole list of prohibited vehicles in the ordinance, not just tow trucks. He stated that he was not aware of any vehicles being parked in violation of the ordinance, but if Mr. Cardinal knew of any vehicles violating the ordinance, he could provide a list and enforcement of the ordinance would be pursued. 9 -12 -91 7 ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 91017 1 Dennis and Gloria Cardinal) Following further discussion on the appeal, there was a motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial of Application No. 91017 on the grounds that the parking of the tow truck is considered a nuisance activity and not a land use and is, therefore, not eligible for a special use permit. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:17 p.m. and resumed at 9:35 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 91018 (PDQ Food Stores Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request by PDQ Food Stores for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. gas station /convenience store /car wash at the parcel of land at the southeast quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91018, attached). The Secretary added that the staff have met with and discussed the plans with the applicant and their representatives. He stated that staff do not believe that it is necessary to have nine pump islands and that it is certainly possible to eliminate one access on the frontage road. He also reviewed with the Commission a cross section of the proposed development relative to homes along Willow Lane. Commissioner Mann noted that the property is located in the Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor and asked what would happen if a gasoline spill occurred on the site, drained into the storm sewer and drained directly into the Mississippi River above the Minneapolis water intake. The Secretary pointed out that all storm sewer lines drain into the Mississippi River and that normal procedures would be undertaken if there was a gasoline spill. Commissioner Mann asked whether the site was large enough to require a holding pond. The Secretary responded in the negative. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary showed the different routes into the gas station site, depending on the point of origin. Commissioner Holmes asked whether traffic was only one -way to the east of the traffic bubble in 66th Avenue North or whether it was two -way. The Secretary responded that it was two -way traffic. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding stacking for the car wash, the Secretary reviewed the circulation pattern on the site and explained that the car wash traffic would move in a clockwise direction. He recommended that the second bay for the future car wash be eliminated for the time being. He stated that if there was a desire to add on a second bay in the future, it could be brought in at that time. Chairperson Malecki asked about the capacity of the 9 -12 -91 8 water line. The Secretary stated that he was not certain, but that is something that would be worked out with the City Engineer. The Secretary stated that the staff had started its to review this plan based on the Fina plan which was approved last year. He stated that that plan met certain basic concerns of the staff in its design. He stated that the plan that has been proposed departs significantly from that plan. Commissioner Mann asked whether the area in question was within the commercial and industrial study area for redevelopment. The Secretary pointed out that a land use study of this area was done two years ago while the Fina application was still active. He noted that the recommended alternative that resulted from that study could not work with the plan that has been proposed. He added that he did not think that this necessarily meant the rejection of the plan. Regarding the replat of the property, the Secretary stated that this was the responsibility of the owner who had run into some problems filing the plat at Hennepin County. He stated that these problems should be resolved in the relatively near future and that the plat should be processed fairly routinely. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Jim Merila, an engineer representing PDQ, then addressed the Commission at considerable length. He introduced other representatives from PDQ and pointed out that PDQ is a locally operated, family owned business. He noted that there are about 30 stations in the Metro area. He explained that PDQ was originally a food store chain that has expanded into gasoline and car wash operations. He stated that the car wash is a minor part of the local operation, that only about 10% of the gas customers use the car wash. Mr. Merila noted that they had worked with the staff for some time to come up with a plan. He made comparison to the Fina plan, noting that the Fina plan had an attached car wash and the main building on the south side of the site. He stated that the applicants have looked at 10 different layouts, but that they keep coming back to the one that is proposed for visibility and convenience. Relative to the main building being high and towards 66th, Mr. Merila pointed out that the height of the proposed building is only 6 above that of the existing building. He stated that the elevation difference relative to 66th is too great to have an access to the joint driveway further north than proposed. Mr. Merila pointed out that the driveway location onto the frontage road is 75' from the property corner and that the Zoning Ordinance only requires a minimum of 40' from the property corner. He noted that the old Shell Oil Station had four driveways in this location. He also pointed out that Atkins Mechanical closed three of those accesses when it reoccupied the building. He stated that moving the access further to the south would result in conflicts with the parking in front of the building. He stated that the building 9 -12 -91 9 location proposed is needed to provide visibility and convenient access to the site. Mr. Merila stated that he had a traffic consultant look at the access arrangement to the site and that the consultant does not see a problem. He stated that this consultant is out of town and is unable to be at the meeting. He stated that the proposal with two driveways will allow cars to enter the site more quickly than if there was only a single driveway off the frontage road. He stated that he felt the cars would use the joint driveway and that directional signery could be added if necessary. Regarding the car wash circulation on the site, he stated that it was much easier from an internal traffic flow standpoint for the movement to be in a clockwise direction. He stated that the proposed use would not generate a large amount of traffic. He noted that the Short - Elliott Hendrickson Study of the proposed Fina site concluded that traffic impact would be minimal. He stated that the applicants had no problem with eliminating the future car wash. Mr. Merila went on to address the sidewalk in front of the building. He showed a floor plan of the building and stated that the owner would agree to keep storage of merchandise off of the front portion of the walk (west of the entrance doors on the north and south sides and along the west wall). He stated that he did want his client to have the ability to store merchandise on the remainder of the sidewalk because he did not feel this area would be used as a pedestrian way. Regarding lighting, Mr. Merila stated that the applicants would have no problem in complying with the ordinance limit on light intensity at the property line. He g y p p y asked for the same consideration as was given to Superamerica across Highway 252. He stated that he did not feel that glare from the lamps beneath the canopy would really be evident. Regarding the elimination of neon on the canopy, Mr. Merila referred to the Superamerica canopy across Highway 252 and stated that it is entirely lit up. He noted that a plan had been submitted with an office building location and that it was also superimposed on a cross section that had been provided. Mr. Merila noted on the cross section that the elevation of the grade at the pump islands was basically level with the eave of the houses across Willow Lane. He stated that the fence along the easterly property line would screen out any headlights from these homes. Regarding a masonry wall along the east property line, Mr. Merila stated that they have difficulty with that suggestion due to the cost associated with a masonry wall. He stated that they felt a wood fence would provide viable screening. Commissioner Holmes then asked Mr. Merila what the hours of operation would be for the station. Mr. Merila responded that it would be open 24 hours. Commissioner Holmes asked if the car wash would also be open 24 hours. A representative of PDQ responded in the affirmative. 9 -12 -91 10 PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91018 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Richard Cameron, of 6620 Willow Lane, pointed out that space between Highway 252 and Willow Lane is tight and that the houses are going to be close to whatever is built there. He pointed out that the Superamerica Station is further away since it is on the other side of Highway 252. He stated that he was not sure that the proposal meets the qualification for impact on the neighborhood as listed in point b of Section 35 -220.2 (Special Use Standards). He stated that he did not want to see another convenience store this close to his house. He added that he was afraid of the traffic at night because of police problems in the neighborhood. Mr. Philip Dahlen, of 6518 Willow Lane, noted that the site was formerly occupied by a Shell Station, that Fina tried to get approval and gave up on their proposal because of conditions. He pointed out that traffic moving northbound on Highway 252 is moving to the left (west) and that it is hard to turn right (east) onto 66th. He also pointed out that there are police problems at the Superamerica Station and that a night time operation in the proposed location would attract the same element that is bothering Superamerica. Mr. Rod Snyder, of 6408 Willow Lane reviewed the special use standards with the Planning Commission. He stated that there was a thin buffer between the proposed station and the residential area along Willow Lane. He stated that Atkins Mechanical was a good neighbor. He asked whether PDQ would be the same, or if different, in what way. He noted that the proposed use would be a 24 hour operation that would be lit up like a Christmas tree. He stated that, if the convenience store provided something that the neighborhood didn't have, that it would meet standard (a) of the special use standards. He observed, however, that the neighborhood already has the Superamerica Station. He stated that he did not feel that standard (b) is met at all because of the impact on the neighborhood. Regarding standard (c), he stated that he wanted to upgrade his property, but that he wouldn't be able to get his money back from the improvements. He stated that the existence of the PDQ Station would inhibit people further in improving their property. Mr. Rick Jewitt, of 6550 Willow Lane, related to the Commission a recent police chase through his property and the problems that exist at the Superamerica Station. Regarding the staff recommendation for a stone fence, Mr. Jewitt stated that there was a wood fence by the trail and that it was torn down and thrown in the river. He stated that a wood fence in this location would suffer a similar fate. He asked the applicants whether they would have a security guard on duty. He asked how many cars would be generated by the proposed service station. He stated that travel 9 -12 -91 11 on Highway 252 is difficult and that people would probably move through the neighborhood to get back onto Highway 252. Mr. Jewitt noted that there are a number of kids who wait at the bus stop at 66th and West River Road. He also pointed out that the traffic light at 66th and Highway 252 does not let enough cars go through. He pointed out that a lot of money was expended to modify the intersection, but that it did no good. Mr. Jewitt asked whether the car wash would affect water pressure in the area. He also stated that the Superamerica lights are bright right now and stated that similar lights closer to his house would adversely affect him. Mr. Chris Jacobson, of PDQ, noted that there is a perceived safety and security issue in the neighborhood. He pointed out that police often hang out at PDQ Food Stores. He stated that lighting on the site would be buffered by the landscaping. He also noted that there would be video cameras in the store to discourage shoplifting. Mr. Jacobson stated that the doors to the car wash would be closed when it was in operation. He added that PDQ could close down the car wash between midnight and 6:00 a.m. if there is a noise problem. Mr. Jacobson recommended moving the driveways onto the frontage road 15' to 20' further north in order to allow cars to move more directly into the path of the pump islands. He stated that he had a problem with the traffic movement into the site and asked that the accesses be moved further to the north. He stated that a masonry wall would be expensive. He stated that PDQ would build a wall if someone else would pay for it. Chairperson Malecki asked whether there would be any impact on water pressure as a result of the car wash. An unidentified representative of PDQ stated that there would be no impact. Mr. Jewitt again asked how many cars per day would be generated by the station. Mr. Jacobson answered that they had projected about 920 cars per day. Mr. Jerry Archer, also of PDQ, stated that the afternoon rush hour would be the peak time as opposed to the morning rush hour. He stated that he did not think the station would create that much of an impact on 66th Avenue North. Mr. Archer also stated that cars could exit out the front of the site onto the frontage road and turn right on 66th and go around the traffic bubble. He discussed traffic movements at some length with Mr. Jewitt. Mr. Jacobson stated that PDQ would build at their own expense an acceleration Zane onto Highway 252 from 66th Avenue North if that were necessary. It was pointed out that there is already an acceleration lane and that it is used by buses. Mr. Archer pointed out that the zoning of the site was the same as for Superamerica. He stated that he felt PDQ should be allowed. Mr. Pat Murphy, of 6524 Willow Lane, stated that cars would not easily use the joint driveway with the property to the east, but would circle the block. He also stated that there would be cars backed up onto 66th unable to get onto Highway 252. 9-12-91 12 Chairperson Malecki then briefly discussed the process with the Secretary. The Secretary stated that if the same design is submitted by PDQ, staff would recommend denial on the grounds that the standards for a special use permit are not met. He stated, however, that if the design were more similar to the Fina plan, the City would probably have to approve the use. Commissioner Holmes stated that he had problems with egress movements from the site. He also stated that Superamerica does have glare at night. He expressed concern regarding the 24 hour car wash and concern with the problems in the entire neighborhood. He added, however, that he was sympathetic to the option of having a detached car wash. Commissioner Holmes stated that he was in favor of a redesign of the plan and asked why the City Council had reversed the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the Fina plan. The Secretary stated that they could review the record on that. Commissioner Mann stated that she did not feel the special use standards were met and that the options for the applicant were either to work with the staff on a redesign or to be denied. Commissioner Bernards stated that he was not enamored with the idea of a service station at that site. He stated that he felt it is a mistake to pursue it and that he did not like the Fina proposal either. He stated that he sympathized with the neighbors. He pointed out that the Superamerica Station has buffers, but that this site does not. He also noted that the neighborhood demographics have changed. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Bernards if he would favor the development if it were redesigned. Commissioner Bernards responded in the negative. Chairperson Malecki acknowledged that the zoning of the property allows for a gas station, but that the service station is a special use and that the applicants seem to be bucking what the staff recommends. She stated that this proposal is different from Superamerica because it is closer to the R1 zone. She stated that she did generally favor an ordinance amendment to allow a detached car wash. The Secretary stated that if the Commission were disposed to deny the application, the staff would recommend tabling the matter so that a resolution can be prepared with specific findings. If the applicant is willing to redesign, he said, they should work with the points listed in the staff report. He also noted that the ordinance amendment on the car wash would apply to other locations as well. Chairperson Malecki then asked the Commission if they wished to amend the ordinance regarding car washes. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had no problem with that proposal. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING A DETACHED CAR WASH Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to direct the staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow a 9 -12 -91 13 detached car wash building with exterior treatment and quality of construction matching that of the primary building. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. Commissioner Ainas cited a possible conflict of interest as his reason for abstaining. Commissioner Mann stated that she could possibly support the proposal if it were redesigned. She stated that she felt the social problem was being worked on and that it would eventually go away. Commissioner Holmes stated that he agreed with Commissioner Bernards. He stated that it was a problem area and that a change was being proposed that would adversely affect that area. He stated that he would recommend tabling the application with direction to redesign. The Secretary, in referring to the points listed in the staff report, stated that if there is congestion resulting from the operation, it should be contained on site and not on the public street. Chairperson Malecki stated that she favored one access onto the frontage road. Commissioner Holmes suggested that the conditions that applied to Fina be considered in the redesign of this proposal. Mr. Jim Merila, representing PDQ, stated that PDQ would like the application to go on to the City Council with a denial if necessary. The Secretary stated that he would recommend that the denial be by resolution and that the matter be tabled so that such a resolution can be prepared. He asked Mr. Merila if PDQ was stating that it is unwilling to redesign the plans. Mr. Jacobson, with PDQ, stated that the points outlined in the staff report are ridiculous and too costly. He stated that they would make their case to the City Council. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Holmes to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91018 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Bernards to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial regarding Application No. 91018 on the grounds that the standards for a special use permit are not met, particularly standards a and b and also, in light of the fact that the applicant has stated their unwillingness to revise the plans. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. Commissioner Ainas cited a potential conflict of interest as his reason for abstaining from the vote. 9 -12 -91 14 I� ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of the upcoming study meeting, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Chairperson i 9 -12 -91 15 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91015 Applicant: Darrell Lynch Location: 7042 Halifax Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning PP q g Ordinance to allow an approximate 16' front yard setback rather than the required 35 The purpose of the variance is to allow a two car attached garage to be added in front of the existing attached garage and for the existing garage to become a workshop. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by 71st Avenue North on the north, by single - family homes on the east and south and by Halifax Avenue North on the west. Across Halifax Avenue is St. Alphonsus Church. Applicant's Submittal The applicant has submitted a certificate of survey of the property as -built and a brief letter (both attached) describing the request with a drawing to illustrate what is proposed. The letter explains that they cannot go to the rear with the workshop addition (the net effect is the addition of a workshop) because there is an attached three season porch behind the garage with a basement below. Also, the floor of the porch is 2' 3 higher than the garage floor. The letter goes on to explain that about four years ago, the City installed a traffic circle at the intersection of 71st and Halifax. As a result of this improvement, the Lynchs' gained 25' of front yard (boulevard) and driveway. Because of this, the letter states, they would have 47' from the new addition to the street. The letter concludes that the addition would blend in well with other houses on the street. The house two doors down, he states is 49' back from the street. Staff Response By way of explanation, the front property line of the lot in question is at an angle. Halifax jogs to the east at 71st Avenue North and the street south of 71st formerly was set at an angle, parallel to the lot line. This angled street extended at the same angle for the next lot to the south also. When the modification was made to the intersection some years ago, Halifax became a true north -south street in this area, intersecting with a traffic circle at 90 rather than angling toward the other leg of Halifax, north of 71st Avenue North. As a result of this modification, the street is now located further from the front of the house than normal on a residential street. The as -built survey indicates the house is now 69' from the edge of the street. We have also measured the house two doors down and found it to be 50' 4 from the street. We have asked for the surveyor to give an accurate measurement and his measurement is 50.7' for that house. We have also asked for a 9-12-91 1 Application No. 91015 continued reading on the side setback to verify that the garage addition can, in fact, be built along the same building line. The surveyor reports that the side setback is 2.1 feet which is just 70% of the minimum requirement. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the expansion can take place along the same building line since it is 70% of the required sideyard setback. Variance applications are subject to four standards contained in Section 35 -240 attached. We will review the variance request in light of these four standards. (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. The shape of the lot in question is no longer a reflection of the pathway of the street, the public space from which dwellings and accessory structures are to be set back. The owner probably has other options for building a different garage, such as a detached garage behind the house. But, it may be asked if any public purpose is really served by continuing to enforce the setback based on a property line which no longer reflects the street location. The City does not wish to vacate the right -of -way in front of this property because the utilities still run under the old location of the street. However, it is not common to require an extra setback from a utility easement. The purpose of a setback is for light, air and ventilation which relate more to the location of the street. In terms of the street location, there is clearly excess right -of -way in case. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The excess right -of -way in this case is fairly unique. Certainly, there are few instances where streets have been relocated away from their old alignment. In other cases of excess right -of -way adjacent to a major thoroughfare, some mitigation from the normally required setback is allowed. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. 9 -12 -91 2 Application No. 91015 continued If the hardship is an extraordinary setback from the public street, it has been created by an action of the City, not the applicant. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Since other houses along Halifax Avenue North are set back approximately 50' from the street, it does not appear that allowing a 50' setback from the street in this case will be detrimental. We do recommend, however, that the addition not extend closer than 50' from the street since that reflects the standard 35' setback plus 15' of boulevard. In this case, there will be more boulevard than front yard. This will allow for a 19' addition rather than 22' as requested. Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that the standards for a variance are met in this case. Variance approval is recommended in light of the following findings: 1) Imposing a 35' setback from the front property line in this case creates the hardship of an unnecessarily large setback from the street because of the change in street location. 0 2) The condition of excess right -of -way is relatively unique in the R1 zone and is grounds for mitigation from the required setback. 3) The hardship of unnecessary setback from the street has not been created by the property owner, but by the City. 4) There is no detriment to other properties in the neighborhood as long as a 50' setback from the street is maintained. 5) Variance approval acknowledges a setback of 50' from the street. Submitted by, C " Sl� Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9 -12 -91 3 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91016 Applicant: Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. Location: 7000 block of Willow Lane Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant has submitted a request for preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane. The land in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by a single - family home, on the east by the Mississippi River, on the south by a single - family home, and on the west by Willow Lane. There is presently an access through the southerly lot to an island in the river that is actually in Brooklyn Park, though it is proximate to this land in Brooklyn Center. One of the purposes of the subdivision is to create a different access to this island and allow for two buildable lots. The proposed plat, which is called Larry Addition, provides for two buildable lots (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2) separated by an outlot. The following dimensions describe the lots: Lot Width Depth Area Buildability Lot 1, Block 1 80.52' 244.24' 19,466 s.f. Buildable Outlot A 45.05' 239.99' 10,346 s.f. Unbuildable Lot 1, Block 2 78.43' 222.88' 16,866 s.f. Buildable Block 1 is on the north. Block 2 is on the south. The outlot is in the middle. The present access to the island which includes a gravel drive, wood steps to the water, and a wire cable over the water is located on Block 2. Mr. Lindquist intends to relocate the access to the outlot. No building can be built on the outlot unless it is attached to a buildable lot. There is a dwelling on the island, but it is our understanding that it is not occupied year round. It may be that the outlot could be combined with the island lot since both are located in Hennepin County. Given this kind of attachment, a garage could perhaps be built on the outlot. However, the outlot is not a buildable lot for a dwelling. It should also be noted that there is an approximate 3.3' encroachment on the northerly lot by a shed belonging to the neighboring lot to the north. Mr. Lindquist has apparently agreed to grant an easement to the adjacent property owner. Recommendation Altogether, the proposed plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions and considerations: 9 -12 -91 1 Application No. 91016 continued 1) The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2) The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3) Outlot A is considered an unbuildable parcel unless combined with or attached to an adjacent buildable lot. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9 -12 -91 2 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91017 Applicant: Dennis and Gloria Cardinal Location: 6544 France Avenue North Request: Appeal This application is an appeal by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone is a nuisance as defined by Section 19 -103 of the City Ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit. The applicant's live at 6544 France Avenue North which is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east and south by single - family homes, and on the west by France Avenue North. In 1989 Chapter 19 (Nuisances) of the City Ordinances was amended to declare the parking of most commercial vehicles in residential areas to be a public nuisance. (See Section 19- 103.12 attached). The ordinance specifically lists the parking of tow trucks in a residential zone as such a public nuisance. On May 23, 1991, Building Inspector David Fisher informed Mr. Cardinal by letter that the tow truck parked on his property was in violation and gave him 30 days to remove it from the property. Mr. James J. Tuzinski, an attorney representing the Cardinals, in a letter dated June 3, 1991 questioned whether there was indeed a violation of the City Ordinances. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded to the attorney's letter ointin out the P g proper interpretation of the ordinance and suggested that he advise his clients comply with Mr. Fisher's original 30 day compliance deadline or run the risk of being cited for a misdemeanor violation of City Ordinances (see attached correspondence). On June 24, 1991, Mr. Fisher requested that a tag be issued. On June 26, 1991, the Director of Planning and Inspection transmitted a request for a tag to the Chief of Police if the violation continued. A citation was issued soon thereafter. On August 6, 1991, Mr. Cardinal's attorney, Robert Wilson, submitted an application to the Planning and Inspection Department for a Special Use Permit to park tow trucks at the Cardinal residence noting that the Cardinals had been doing this for the last 21 years. On August 9, 1991, the Director of Planning and Inspection issued a letter to Robert Wilson, attorney for the Cardinals, advising him that a Special Use Permit application would not be accepted because the continuation of a nuisance violation is not a proper special use under the City's Zoning Ordinance. The letter also pointed out that granting a variance to allow the parking of the truck would be a use variance which is prohibited by the City's Zoning Ordinance and by state law. (Copies of all correspondence are attached for the Commission's review.) Applicant's Submittal On August 29, 1991, an appeal was filed by Mr. Robert Wilson representing the Cardinals. finals. A handwritten letter w p g r as submitted by the Cardinals stating that they believe that under Section 35 -220 9 -12 -91 1 Application No. 91017 continued of the City Zoning Ordinance on special uses, a special use permit application is appropriate for consideration. They refer to a letter submitted by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson's letter cites a portion of Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: "Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given district, but which are, in some respects, incompatible with permitted uses in the district." Mr. Wilson states that a speedy response time to accidents is required for the public welfare. He notes the staff's position that parking a tow truck in a residential area constitutes a nuisance, but argues that precisely because this use is "incompatible with the permitted uses," this use is eligible for Special Use consideration. The remainder of Mr. Wilson's letter addresses the standards for a special use permit, arguing that they are met in this case. Since this application is an appeal and not for special use permit approval, we will not review those arguments in depth at this time. Staff Response The purpose of this appeal application, as we see it, is to determine whether the parking of a tow truck at a residential property can be considered a special use under the City's Zoning Ordinance. Such an activity is classified by Section 19 -103 of the City Ordinances as a nuisance. We do not believe that a special use permit can be granted to carry on a nuisance violation in any zone. The parking of a vehicle is not a principle use in any residential district, certainly not in the R1 district. Parking is an accessory use which for zoning purposes is usually regulated through the control of physical improvements such as driveways and garages. Such physical improvements can be used for the parking of many kinds of vehicles. In this case, tow trucks are no longer a legal vehicle to be parked in the residential zones of the City except if they are actively engaged in providing a service at the time they are parked. The Zoning Ordinance allows one family dwellings and various accessory uses as permitted uses in the R1 zoning district. A number of special uses are also allowed in the R1 zone by special use permit. (See Section 35 -310 attached.) While all these uses involve the parking of vehicles, there is no explicit mention of tow trucks being allowed in the R1 zone as a special use. What must be understood about special uses is that they are specifically listed. Just because an activity is incompatible with the uses allowed in a district does not mean it qualifies as a special use in that district. It must be listed as a special use or be very similar to a listed special use to qualify for a special use permit. All special uses are somewhat incompatible, but not all incompatibilities are special uses. If every nuisance violation is eligible for a special use permit, there will be no end to the challenges to every code infraction in the City and code enforcement will suffer as will the efforts to keep the community a pleasant place to live and work. 9 -12 -91 2 Application No. 91017 continued A review of nuisance regulations will give one the understanding of the types of activity regulated through this body of regulations. In addition to the parking and /or storage of vehicles in residential areas, nuisance regulations also control among other things the following: disturbing the peace; disorderly conduct; the accumulation of junk, rubbish and debris; storing inoperable and /or unlicensed vehicles or vehicle parts; misdemeanor assault; indecent conduct; fighting and brawling; the sale and use of fireworks; possession, purchase and /or delivery of certain drugs; prostitution, nudity and related acts; the dissemination of pornography and related materials. Nuisances are unacceptable conduct or activity as determined by the City Council and are prohibited. It makes little sense to prohibit certain activity or conduct and then, somehow, grant a special use permit to allow the activity to be conducted. The activity is either prohibited or not prohibited as determined by the City Council through its legislative authority. Parkin a two truck Parking ru k is not a land use regulated b the Zoning 9 Y g Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance regulates land uses which involve a substantial investment in real property. Parking the tow truck is an activity. The single family home at 6544 France Avenue North was built as a residence and continues to function as a residence. It has never been a truck garage. The realization of the investment in the dwelling as a dwelling does not depend on the parking of a tow truck on the premises. The parking of a tow truck is, therefore, a nuisance activity and not a land use. We recommend that the appeal be denied and that the matter be prosecuted as a nuisance violation as long as the ordinance is in effect. Submitted by,/J C Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, e 0- - ' 0 ? Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9-12-91 3 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91018 Applicant: PDQ Food Stores, Inc. Location: Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. gas station /convenience store and a 945 sq. ft. detached car wash on the parcel of land at the southeast quadrant of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252. The property in question has been approved for C2 zoning (subject to filing of the replat of this property) and is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by vacant C1 zoned land (again, subject to filing of the plat) on the east, by the Brookdale Motel on the south, and by the West River Road frontage road on the west. Highway 252 lies further to the west. Gas stations and car washes are special uses in the C2 zoning district. The proposed station would have nine (9) pump islands, six to the north and three to the south of the building. The proposed detached car wash is not consistent with Section 35 -414.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that facilities for washing "must be enclosed within the principal building." The applicant requests that the City consider an ordinance amendment to allow separate facilities for car washes. This request will be reviewed at the end of the report. A review of the site and building plan follows. Access /Parking The proposed plan calls for three accesses to the site, two 30' wide driveways off the West River Road frontage road and one 30' wide access onto a driveway to be constructed on the parcel to the east which will access onto 66th Avenue North at the median opening. The driveway on the parcel to the east will become a joint access when that parcel is developed. The PDQ access to this joint driveway is proposed approximately 225' south of 66th Avenue North. Staff have recommended to the applicant that the access to this joint driveway be further north as was the case with the Fina plan that was approved last year. We have also taken the position that no access off the frontage road should be closer to 66th than the current access to Atkins Mechanical. The northerly proposed access is about 25' closer. It is our belief that the proposed access arrangement is not conducive to cars exiting the site via the joint driveway to the east; rather it appears that many drivers, especially those that use the car wash, will exit the site onto the frontage road and will travel north to 66th Avenue North where they will have to turn right and make a U -turn around the traffic bubble. This movement we believe will interfere with cars turning right off Highway 252 onto 66th Avenue North. Since Highway 252 is a major highway, traffic congestion at this critical point is unacceptable. Standard (d) from Section 35 -220 regarding 9 -12 -91 1 Application No. 91018 continued special uses requires that "adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets." Because of the potential for congestion at a critical location, we do not believe the proposed plan meets the standards for a special use permit. One of the things driving the design of the PDQ site is the desire on the part of the applicant to have the main building as high and as close to 66th as possible. This makes the grade differential between the gas pumps and 66th too steep for a workable access drive. We have suggested a redesign of the plan to put the building or more of the gas pumps further south and to eliminate one access onto the frontage road in order to make exiting onto the frontage road less likely. The building can also be somewhat lower. The guiding principal in the staff's position is that the site should be designed so that cars are led to exit onto 66th Avenue North rather than on the frontage road. The guiding principal of the applicant's plan appears to be: maximize visibility and facilitate traffic flow to the detached car wash. The applicant's original plan had no access onto 66th at all. This plan is only marginally better. As for parking, the total building area on the site requires 18 parking stalls. The addition of a future car wash bay would bring the total parking requirement to 24 stalls. The plan proposes 13 striped stalls and nine (9) additional stalls on the perimeter of the pump islands. There is room for stacking of at least six cars at the proposed car wash bay and at least four additional stacking spaces at the future car wash bay. It appears that, if the car wash building were ever converted to retail use, there would be adequate space on the site to provide the necessary additional parking stalls. The plan, therefore, does not appear to overbuild the site. It should be noted that circulation to and through the car wash will be in a clockwise rather than a counterclockwise fashion on the site. With the car wash exit close to the southerly access off the frontage road, it appears likely to us that car wash traffic will tend to exit onto the frontage road and that congestion at 66th and Highway 252 will become more likely. Otherwise, cars may go south around the block onto Willow Lane. This is also undesirable. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for 23 Profusion Crab trees in the perimeter greenstrips on the north, west, and south sides of the site. Planting beds with Dwarf Mugho Pine shrubs and Dragons Blood Sedum are to be placed at driveway openings and at the northeast and northwest corners of the parking lot. Some Techny Arborvitae shrubs are shown in the southerly greenstrip. In the green area bordering the Cl site to the east, the plan proposes seven Black 9 -12 -91 2 Application No. 91018 continued Hills Spruce, three Hackberry trees, a few shrubs and a 6' high wood screen fence. A 6' high screen fence would also be placed on the opposite side of the common drive to block headlights until a building is built on the C1 site. The approval of the Fina plan included a requirement for a 6' high masonry wall. The Commission should discuss whether a wood fence is acceptable in this location. The trees will be planted on the east side of the fence to provide visual relief. It will be necessary, however, as the Spruce trees grow, to trim them up to the top of the fence because they will be planted adjacent to it. The total point value of all plantings is approximately 155 points. The site is 1.025 acres in area and the landscape point system requires 82 points. The plan, therefore, complies. Sod is indicated in all perimeter green areas and in the boulevard. Underground irrigation is to be provided as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Grading /DrainagefUtilities The site will be highest at the floor of the main building and will drain to the perimeter. A catch basin in the frontage road, one in the parking area north of the car wash, and one at the southeast corner of the parking lot are connected by a 12" diameter storm sewer line that will flow east under the southerly portion of the C1 site to a City storm sewer line in Willow Lane. Another catch basin at the northeast corner of the site will be connected to the storm sewer in Willow Lane by a separate 12" line flowing eastward. The plan proposes a 4 watermain service for both the main building and the car wash coming off the main in 66th Avenue North. This may not be adequate to serve both domestic and fire protection purposes. A 6 sanitary sewer service will be connected to the main in 66th. Concrete curb and gutter (B612) is indicated around all parking and driving areas. The grading and utility plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Buildings /Canopy Both the main convenience store building and the car wash building are to have a brick exterior with a metalfascia and soffit to match the gasoline canopy. Both the car wash fascia and the canopy will have a neon accent band on the north, west and south elevations. This band may be considered to be signery and can be allowed on the car wash fascia, but not on the canopy since that would make the canopy a freestanding sign. The plans propose 400 watt super metal halide surface mounted light fixtures attached to the under side of the canopy. Staff have asked that the applicant recess these lights so as to minimize glare projecting off the property, but the applicant has ignored this request. Light glare at night is one of the factors cited in the preamble of Section 35 -414 as necessitating special requirements for service stations. The proposed canopy is to be one large structure that will extend 9 -12 -91 3 Application No. 91018 continued continuously over the northerly six pump islands, the building and the southerly three pump islands. The plan shows that the canopy is to be attached to the main building by steel support columns. Section 35 -414.3 requires that the building and the canopy be in scale with the surroundings. The principal building is to be only 10' 8" high. The canopy is to be 18' high with 15' clearance. With the high elevation of the site, the high canopy with protruding lights we believe will cause a glare problem. We would recommend that the plans be modified to indicate recessed lighting. The proposed car wash is to have one bay at present with an area paved for a potential second bay in the future. We would recommend that any excess land area be landscaped for the present in case no future car wash bay is built. The plans also call for only a 5' wide sidewalk in front of the building and less than 4' wide on the sides. This does not allow enough room for both pedestrians and merchandise display that is common at gas stations. We recommend that either the sidewalks be widened by at least 4' or that outside display be prohibited at this site. We would prefer the wider sidewalk. Lighting /Trash The plans call for nine 16' high light poles at various locations around the perimeter of the parking lot. While this is certainly an appropriate scale, no details have been provided on the appearance of the light fixtures or the wattage of the lamps. Trash is to be stored in an enclosure behind the northeast corner of the building. Ordinance Amendment on Detached Car Wash A detached car wash is not permitted under current ordinance. The applicant has requested in writing that the ordinance be amended (see letter attached) . The applicant cites three operational reasons why a detached car wash works best for them: " 1) The car wash is located a greater distance from the residential area. 2) The separate buildings provide for a better traffic flow pattern on the site. 3 ) An attached car wash will not allow for adequate stacking (blocks egress from gas island)." The applicant also notes that the present ordinance was written over 20 years ago when "traditional car wash facilities were in unattractive, quonset type buildings or no buildings at all." They point out, however, that in the last 10 years detached car wash facilities at service stations have become more popular as they 9 -12 -91 4 Application No. 91018 continued have become more attractive. They point out that construction materials and the detached design provide for noise attenuation, vacuum stations and stacking capacity. They conclude their letter by noting that detached car wash facilities are allowed in a number of communities, among them Blaine, Fridley, Edina, St. Louis Park, Maple Grove, and Eden Prairie. While we have not delved deeply into the original rationale for the current ordinance, we would agree that it probably derives from some of the concerns cited by the applicant. The architectural quality of the proposed car wash is and should be equal to that of the principal building. This is surely one of the key objectives of the current ordinance. We would also agree with the applicant that allowing for a detached car wash gives the greatest flexibility in designing the site for good traffic circulation and appropriate stacking. We do not agree with the site design that the applicant has submitted, but that does not necessarily mean that a better site design will automatically result if an attached car wash is required. We would recommend that the Commission discuss the question of an ordinance amendment and direct staff whether or not to prepare an ordinance amendment aiming at comparable architectural quality between car washes and principal buildings. Recommendation Because of the way we see the proposed site plan relating to the public streets, we cannot recommend approval of the application as proposed. We recommend that the Commission discuss the matters raised in this report and any other issues raised with the applicant. If the applicant is unwilling to alter the site design, we would recommend that the matter be tabled with direction to staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the application. If the applicant is willing to redesign, we would also recommend tabling with direction on what aspects need to be changed. The aspects we see a need to change are as follows: 1) No access off the frontage road closer than the existing access serving Atkins Mechanical. 2 ) A site design that clearly leads patrons to exit the site via the shared access drive leading to the median opening in 66th Avenue North. 3) Elimination of the paved area immediately north of the proposed car wash and installation of additional landscaping. 4 ) Widening of the sidewalk in front and to the sides of the building by at least 4 1 . 9 -12 -91 5 Application No. 91018 continued 5) Provision of lighting details and revision of the plans to indicate recessed lighting in the canopy. 6) Elimination of the neon band on the canopy. 7) Submittal of a site plan for the property to the east to verify viability of the site for future office development. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 0 9 -12 -91 6 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/23/9 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91015 - Darrell Lynch 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 Planning Commission Application No. 91015 is a request for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an approximate 16' front yard setback rather than the required 35' setback at 7042 Halifax Avenue North. Attached are minutes and information sheet from the September 12, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, applicant's description of the request, map of the area and a survey of the property for the City Council's review. Recommendation This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991 meeting subject to the five conditions listed on page 3 of the minutes from that meeting. 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 12, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Sander had called to say she was unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the August 15, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91015 (Darrell Lynch) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an approximate 16' front yard setback rather than the required 35' at 7042 Halifax Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91015, attached). The Secretary also explained some of the background of the intersection improvement at 71st and Halifax Avenues North. He stated that most lots in the City have a 35' front yard setback with a 15' boulevard for a total setback of 50' from the street. He stated that there have been cases where a variance was granted when excess right -of -way exists. He noted the old Midwest Federal situation in the early 1980 He stated, however, that he did not believe a variance should be granted beyond what is the standard in the neighborhood. He also added that a neighbor had called and expressed some concern regarding her view as it would be impacted by the proposed garage addition. He stated that he would recommend that the adjacent property be allowed the same setback from the street as would be allowed to the Lynchs if the variance is granted. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the applicant agrees to the 19' addition rather than the 22' that was being sought. The Secretary answered that he was not sure. Commissioner Holmes asked whether a variance was really needed given the fact that it would still be 9-12-91 1 about 50' from the street. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, pointing out that setbacks are measured from the property line, not the street line. Chairperson Malecki asked whether a variance would be needed if the City vacated the excess right -of -way. The Secretary responded that a variance wouldn't be needed unless a lesser setback was sought. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the impact of the addition on the safety of the intersection. The Secretary stated that it should not be a problem since it would not intrude into the sight triangle at the northwest corner of the site. Chairperson Malecki asked what the hardship really is in this case. The Secretary stated that there are other options for the applicant to build a garage, but that not being able to come as close to the street as others in the neighborhood would be considered a hardship. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Darrell Lynch, of 7042 Halifax Avenue North, stated that he would like a 22' expansion to the garage or at least a 20' expansion since that would save expense in the construction. Commissioner Bernards asked the applicant whether the workshop was for private use or for a home occupation. Mr. Lynch stated that it would only be for hobby use. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91015) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Lynch stated that he did not understand the neighbor to the south's objection to the variance. He stated that he had informed them that if they objected to the variance, he would not seek it. The Planner stated that the concern expressed by the neighbor was somewhat belated because she did not think the variance would be granted and also, that the impact on her view did not occur to her immediately. He added that the neighbor to the south is thinking of selling their home in the near future and that the garage addition might diminish the value of their property. Mr. Joe Eidenschink, of 4008 71st Avenue North, spoke in favor of the variance and gave some additional history on the background of the traffic circle that was put in a few years ago. He stated that the proposed addition would not come any closer to the street than the dwelling two houses south of the Lynchs' home. Mr. Lynch asked whether other houses on the block are 50' back from the street. The Secretary stated that he was not positive, but that it was very likely that they are. He again explained that the typical 50' setback from the street results from a 35' setback and a 15' boulevard. He stated that if there is a violation on the block, he would not recommend granting a variance to be consistent with that violation. Mr. Eidenschink asked how the garage wound up being 2.1' away from the south property line. The Secretary stated that it could have been a field error made at the time the garage was built. 9 -12 -91 2 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann asked what was the standard size of a two -car garage. The Planner stated that on average they are about 22' x 24 In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that the applicant could have a 19' garage addition if the variance were granted in accordance with the staff recommendation. He further stated that he did not believe a variance that would allow the garage to be built within 50' of the street could be justified. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91015 (Darrell Lynch Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of Application No. 91015 in light of the following considerations and conditions: 1) Imposing a 35' setback from the front property line in this case creates the hardship of an unnecessarily large setback from the street because of the change in street location. 2) The condition of excess right -of -way is relatively unique in the R1 zone and is grounds for mitigation from the required setback. 3) The hardship of unnecessary setback from the street has not been created by the property owner, but by the City. 4) There is no detriment to other properties in the neighborhood as long as a 50' setback from the street is maintained. 5) Variance approval acknowledges a setback of 50' from the street. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 9-12-91 3 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91015 Applicant: Darrell Lynch Location: 7042 Halifax Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an approximate 16' front yard setback rather than the required 35 The purpose of the variance is to allow a two car attached garage to be added in front of the existing attached garage and for the existing garage to become a workshop. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by 71st Avenue North on the north, by single- family homes on the east and south and by Halifax Avenue North on the west. Across Halifax Avenue is St. Alphonsus Church. Applicant's Submittal The applicant has submitted a certificate of survey of the property as -built and a brief letter (both attached) describing the request with a drawing to illustrate what is proposed. The letter explains that they cannot go to the rear with the workshop addition (the net effect is the addition of a workshop) because there is an attached three season porch behind the garage with a basement below. Also, the floor of the porch is 2' 3 higher than the garage floor. The letter goes on to explain that about four years ago, the City installed a traffic circle at the intersection of 71st and Halifax. As a result of this improvement, the Lynchs' gained 25' of front yard (boulevard) and driveway. Because of this, the letter states, they would have 47' from the new addition to the street. The letter concludes that the addition would blend in well with other houses on the street. The house two doors down, he states is 49' back from the street. Staff Response By way of explanation, the front property line of the lot in question is at an angle. Halifax jogs to the east at 71st Avenue North and the street south of 71st formerly was set at an angle, parallel to the lot line. This angled street extended at the same angle for the next lot to the south also. When the modification was made to the intersection some years ago, Halifax became a true north -south street in this area, intersecting with a traffic circle at 90 rather than angling toward the other leg of Halifax, north of 71st Avenue North. As a result of this modification, the street is now located further from the front of the house than normal on a residential street. The as -built survey indicates the house is now 69' from the edge of the street. We have also measured the house two doors down and found it to be 50' 4 from the street. We have asked for the surveyor to give an accurate measurement and his measurement is 50.7' for that house. We have also asked for a 9 -12 -91 1 Application No. 91015 continued reading on the side setback to verify that the garage addition can, in fact, be built along the same building line. The surveyor reports that the side setback is 2.1 feet which is just 70% of the minimum requirement. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the expansion can take place along the same building line since it is 70% of the required sideyard setback. Variance applications are subject to four standards contained in Section 35 -240 attached. We will review the variance request in light of these four standards. (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. The shape of the lot in question is no longer a reflection of the pathway of the street, the public space from which dwellings and accessory structures are to be set back. The owner probably has other options for building a different garage, such as a detached garage behind the house. But, it may be asked if any public purpose is really served by continuing to enforce the setback based on a property line which no longer reflects the street location. The City does not wish to vacate the right -of -way in front of this property because the utilities still run under the old location of the street. However, it is not common to require an extra setback from a utility easement. The purpose of a setback is for light, air and ventilation which relate more to the location of the street. In terms of the street location, there is clearly excess right -of -way in this case. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The excess right -of -way in this case is fairly unique. Certainly, there are few instances where streets have been relocated away from their old alignment. In other cases of excess right -of -way adjacent to a major thoroughfare, some mitigation from the normally required setback is allowed. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. 9 -12 -91 2 Application No. 91015 continued If the hardship is an extraordinary setback from the public street, it has been created by an action of the City, not the applicant. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Since other houses along Halifax Avenue North are set back approximately 50' from the street, it does not appear that allowing a 50' setback from the street in this case will be detrimental. We do recommend, however, that the addition not extend closer than 50' from the street since that reflects the standard 35 setback plus 15' of boulevard. In this c ase, there will be more boulevard than front yard. This will allow for a 19' addition rather than 22' as requested. Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that the standards for a variance are met in this case. Variance approval is recommended in light of the following findings: 1) Imposing a 35' setback from the front property line in this case creates the hardship of an unnecessarily large setback from the street because of the change in street location. 2) The condition of excess right -of -way is relatively unique in the R1 zone and is grounds for mitigation from the required setback. 3) The hardship of unnecessary setback from the street has not been created by the property owner, but by the City. 4) There is no detriment to other properties in the neighborhood as long as a 50' setback from the street is maintained. 5) Variance approval acknowledges a setback of 50' from the street. Submitted by, C � Gary Shallcross Planner roved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9 -12 -91 3 Description of Request We are requesting a variance so we may add 22-to th of our existing garage. The existing garage a workshop area. The addition would then be the garage. The reason we can't go out the back for the addition is that there is a three - season porch attached behind the garage with a basement below.(See illustration) Also, the floor of the porch is 213" higher then the garage floor. the city altered the street to put in About four y ears ago done we gained 25' of front was a traffic circle. When this from yard and driveway. Because of this, we would have 47' the new addition to the street. This addition would also blend in well with the houses on Halifax avenue. For instance the house two doors to the south is 49' from the street. 24.1 1 i { EXISTING HOUSE i 1 i { I EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTIJ - wl DRIVEWAY ADDITION GARAGE N w U)j 47_0 — — — 22.0 20.0 SCALE 1/8 " =1' i i 35 -240 d. No less than seven (7) days before the date of the hearing, the Secretary to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the property owners or occupants within 150 feet (including streets) of the subject property. The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings thereunder. e. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall report its recommendations to the City Council not later than sixty (60) days following the date of referral to the Board. f. The application and recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen (18) days following the recommendation of the Board, or in the event the Board has failed to make a recommendation, within seventy -eight (78) days of the date of referral to the Board. g. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty -eight (48) days of the recommendation by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, or in the event the Board has failed to make any recommendation, within one hundred and eight (108) days of referral to the Board. h. The applicant or his agent shall appear at each meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and of the City Council during which the application is considered. Furthermore, each applicant shall provide for the Board or the City Council, as the case may be, the maps, drawings, plans, records or other information requested by the Board or the City Council for the purpose of assisting the determination of the application. i. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals following the Board's action upon the application, the City Clerk, following the City Council's action upon the application, shall give the applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application. 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive' to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: - 35 -240 a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. C. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. ■ i11 ■ ■ ; '.; °mq Muni, `-'� iii,, • nay` �`a� • s � � ► ��� � ■� ��1 111,x. i� i■� ��■ i � ; _ �� ►��,�fi'�u►►��� � �� ",' . ■ � = ■ 11 I �� ■ ■ ` 111 „ � ;�� � � /'',`�� f/ .��� i i i �� �■� i i � 1 � 11 11 11 �� �� �� � � ,,� / �� /i ■� i► i� �� ■� ■ � i ■�i i i 11 111111 1111 Ii , � I ,� 1 . 1 Ic � 11 � - ."„ iii C� � 11111 11 11 11 / :uni:! ;►�� p ♦ / �■ � �■� ■ ■■ �■ ■ 1111 , • 1 �r _ 1l��, q , ► � I 11 ■,■ � �■ ■■ ■�■ ■■ ■ 11 1111 �� 11 r :. ►►: ���a = r "� �S1 1�� 1. =y 1111x►. I `�� � 1 IFS ��� 1111 it � �� %� ...off 1 ,. - �� 111 •••�� - ; III 111 �1 � ; -� ,� t 11 , ► ►, ►. ,,,.. ;� Ia IIIIIIR ■� If111� � r / � � � 11 ill 1111111 ■■ 11 ' " ���� . ��� , - a1 � 11 11 ., ► � ►�:� , - - . 1 1111 �► � "1111 11 ,•. •. : ���� �� ♦��- � �� - �1111 � ; , d r���� . � , � ■1� 11 1111111 ; � ,: 11��� ��► -�► ■ 11 1111/ i■■ ■■ ■■i■ 1 1111 � �� ■i CIS 1,: 1/ . ��• ,. // ,!�; ii �� 1111 11 ' � .1 111��� I ii "�' '�■ �'; ,.' - " �� �' , . � �% / I I� i 111111 1111 �1 1111 �1 � 1�� . = . = ' C i '. r ■.. � 11 X11 /1 11 X111 ,. ; ,•1 / I� ► I 1 : 11 1 1111 01 1111 � � 1 .'• r 111 � _ -,11 j �• 11 111111 11 1 1111 11 �r � .■ r � i1■ � 11111 1 �..��„� 1• r 1► 11111 1111 �r IN - ► i" ME �� 1111 ©11 �, ♦� •n,� ,;.� :: 1 1/ 11 /11� 11 11 � 11111 11 � • . _ • 1 �� �, 11801 1 • • • 111 � .�. � 111 �� . � 1 ► � iy � ' � - ° 1 111111 111 1 1111 1 111 � �. � � !� �i - ,, r� ��1► 1 11 � 1111 ���R 1!. 1 1111 11 111 1 � �� ��•�� 1 � A � ■ ..i IIII 1 I � � � •• 1 111111 1111111 � 1�� 11 IMMUNE 1 ■ ��' 111 �� . _ � t1► 111 ♦ ,,.. ,� . . ���� .. ♦ ,I .,, "� 11 11111/ iI �� ..� 1111 — . , .G �:�� /' 0 - 111111 11.■ • � ♦ �.► ♦ �• � ..,, . � 11 1 1 111 11 111,! � �1 � � � � �►,� = ► 1 ,. IA �.. 1111111 ���►�,,,,�� i 1111 11 r.. 11 //. ♦ ����►..�.:�► �► CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DARREL LYNCH 71ST AVE. N o � / /.62 S 89 ° Sg�30 L 0 N u 0 J N - Z� LOT 26 X 0 viz Lk I� o vi x LL. 69' Q �X ISTJlJ6 tp 16 a � Q D w o GARP (coivc.) ti N SHED '28.2 5 �v 3. 5 9° s`6 '38 "E N 61D Scale 1" Bearings are based on assumed datum o Denotes 1/2" a Iron Pipe Set • Denotes iron monument found NOTE: The Dimension from the East edge of the street to the West Side of the house at 7030 Halifax (2 houses south of here) is 50.7 feet. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 26, Block 1 BOBENDRIER'S 4TH ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota ALL -METRO I WMENY CERT Y THAT TMS SURVEY WAS PREPARED 6Y ME Oft TH AA T I A A DUD REGIS DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, P.A. RED AND THAT 1 NN A DlA]f REG�STF7IED lArD SURVEYOR Lk.ND `i: RVEYING • ENGINEERING • CONSTRUCTION STAKING UNDER THE LAWS OF 7 FIE STA37E OF Wt4ESOT~ Thomas H. Veenker. President Registered Land Sur, eyor / i � Dra/ _� +' �/ 7441 JD;ly Lane Tele. (612) 425 -6161 REG, tv0. IZL'4 DATE No. 910 24, Brock! -.n Park. Mr 55423 FAX (612) 425 -2033 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/23/9 Agenda hem Number 8 b REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91016 - Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. DEPT. ;n__ - -0 C, . Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectio J ol ************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * ** ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) • Plannin g PP q Commission Application No. 91016 is a request for preliminary plat approval submitted by Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane. Attached are minutes and information sheet from the September 12, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, map of the area and a copy of the preliminary plat for the City Council's review. Recommendation This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991 meeting subject to the conditions listed in the minutes on page 5 from that meeting. • APPLICATION NO. 91016 (Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot, the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91016 attached). The Secretary also pointed out that the outlot and the island in the Mississippi are located in separate municipalities. There were no questions of the Secretary following presentation of the staff report. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Mr. Nick Eoloff, representing the applicant, stated that he had nothing to add and requested approval of the application. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91016) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Charles Stutz, of 7001 Willow Lane, asked whether any apartments would be, or could be, built on the property. The Secretary responded that the property is located in an R1 zone which is strictly a single family zoning district. Mr. Stutz also asked, if a garage is built on the outlot, what would be the setback from Willow Lane. The Secretary stated that it would be at least 35' from the front property line. Mr. Stutz stated that there was a problem with transient traffic through these vacant lots to the river. He asked if a garage could be allowed on the outlot if it were attached to the island. The Secretary stated that that might be a possibility or if the outlot was attached to a neighboring lot in Brooklyn Center. He stated that an easement would then be required to cross the outlot to gain access to the island. In response to another question from Mr. Stutz, the Secretary explained the final plat process. Mr. Stutz noted the location of the 45' wide outlot and asked whether the access would definitely be on this lot or whether it could be shifted north or south. The Secretary stated that the outlot could not be shifted with the plat that has been submitted. He stated that a new plat would have to be submitted to accomplish that. Chairperson Malecki asked whether anyone else wished to speak regarding the matter. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes asked whether a replat of this property would come back to the Planning Commission. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bernards asked about the need for the easement for the shed that encroaches on the northerly lot. 9 -12 -91 4 The Secretary stated that the dedication of that easement could be added as a condition of the approval. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 91016 (Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 91016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2) The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3) Outlot A is considered an unbuildable parcel unless combined with or attached to an adjacent buildable lot 4) The applicant shall grant an easement to the neighboring property owner to the north to allow for continuation of the encroaching shed. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 9 -12 -91 5 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91016 Applicant: Egan, Field and Nowak, Inc. Location: 7000 block of Willow Lane Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant has submitted a request for preliminary plat approval on behalf of the owner, Leonard Lindquist, to resubdivide into two lots and an outlot the two vacant lots on the east side of Willow Lane between the homes at 7006 and 7032 Willow Lane. The land in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by a single- family home, on the east by the Mississippi River, on the south by a single- family home, and on the west by Willow Lane. There is presently an access through the southerly lot to an island in the river that is actually in Brooklyn Park, though it is proximate to this land in Brooklyn Center. One of the purposes of the subdivision is to create a different access to this island and allow for two buildable lots. The proposed plat, which is called Larry Addition, provides for two buildable lots (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2) separated by an outlot. The following dimensions describe the lots: Lot Width Depth Area Buildability Lot 1, Block 1 80.52' 244.24' 19,466 s.f. Buildable Outlot A 45.05' 239.99' 10,346 s.f. Unbuildable Lot 1, Block 2 78.43' 222.88' 16,866 s.f. Buildable' Block 1 is on the north. Block 2 is on the south. The outlot is in the middle. The present access to the island which includes a gravel drive, wood steps to the water, and a wire cable over the water is located on Block 2. Mr. Lindquist intends to relocate the access to the outlot. No building can be built on the outlot unless it is attached to a buildable lot. There is a dwelling on the island, but it is our understanding that it is not occupied year round. It may be that the outlot could be combined with the island lot since both are located in Hennepin County. Given this kind of attachment, a garage could perhaps be built on the outlot. However, the outlot is not a buildable lot for a dwelling. It should also be noted that there is an approximate 3.3' encroachment on the northerly lot by a shed belonging to the neighboring lot to the north. Mr. Lindquist has apparently agreed to grant an easement to the adjacent property owner. Recommendation Altogether, the proposed plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions and considerations: 9 -12 -91 1 Application No. 91016 continued 1) The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2) The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3) Outlot A is considered an unbuildable parcel unless combined with or attached to an adjacent buildable lot. Submitted by,, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, *1000 MF+� Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9 -12 -91 2 A I �` JAMES AVE n � JAMES AVE. N• � � � � > � -�� I _. -- P JAMES AVE. N. a o 1700 rn z m I z DR_. -_� Z > > z - > 1 IRVING AV[ N WIO S3Nf IRVING AVE. N. ?• < ( 1600 IRV 1G AVE. N. ? m �. C w HIJ P180LDT _ AVE. N• I 15 0DOLDT f - _-- -•--"' 1500 �1 HUMBO AV �o _ GIRARD AVE. N GIRARD AV[ 1400 I� J GI - ARD AVE. ` � ^' FREMONT AVE. N. = z , IL ---- 13000NT A'. 1 AVE. � i AVE. EMERSON A`. REMON7 __ A _ EMERSON 1200 AVE DUPONT A6. 0 1 EMERY AS N rn z m 1 EMERSON AVE• DUPONT N z pUPONT AYE. N• - 1100 -- z o � o ir DUPONT #E• N. COLFAX A% b �d r'rl I 1000 F N �` �`• , ` COLFAX AVE. N• < - -. COLFAX AVE N• - 1 d BRYANT AV a' `•� � : • ; •� d I 900 AVE. YANT N. :, ? Y X < a y BR - - y 'x Y "• r PORYMTE. N I I 1 LJ f ; y x.,X I ALDRIGi - t-t`T a > %C % ^ 4 ( 800 ALDRICH AVE_._N., f r. J< Y a •; ;C Y ,�i % ;.: `.� %< r _ CAMDEN Al 700 , CAMDEN AV--- N z N A l EN DR. a m I z N Cl 5TH AVE I. VF EN S Q' I _ z - -� 5TH. AVE•_--• - -- - - -- l vl 4-4 600 ( � I TH 252 rr+rrrrrr ' I .rf�r...r.. rX . ... —__ — W RIVER 1. rrrrr. 4 r�rrrrrr _ WEST RIVER RD. I \ DALLAS DAL RD 1A DALLAS RL WILLOW LA. a 300 ' v p RIVERDALE RD. S. RIVERDALL Y WILLOW �CA� N. 200 r - •� �� I WILLOW Lr 3IS �� �•. WILLOW LA_ N. _ 1� .. CITY 0 p a '1 F EY300 IfLYTy plkK Qw O �"�""► .., .� ...++°"' ..--- _.....� ..._.___--- _....•� -mil - _..__..._ X _.^ --•• / • GAD G // l / pm / , nEAST tii Fence corner clear O,SO _ • N c // 4ro _ - - - - - 210 22 2 F , PROPOS 00 EASEMENT - S � �C D 0 u -- 835.40 834.44 m -" n �� (V ll- •- {25.00 ees.o4 - X5 _ - 834.43 r 0.45 Wood fence 831.80 +1 . 3.30 • 2 /� ti ' v % UTILITY EASEMENT L5 FL AINAGE AND 832.00 r N 1ARE A = l9, 46 SQ. FT. t °�0ti0 e3 a 6 �• 01 -11 &29.80 I N 834.26 j 1 1 i t _ 2n -.. /w JI B32 s J I f 2i _- I v v � � � ' x� /� / - - - -- 18 4.7 4 --- R ' -WEST ' 830.23 A C vi 14j, 0 (835.39 834.69 �5 FT. DRAINAG AND UTILITY EASEMENT h III C h a, a Sj �' A RE 10 3 S4 3x, / C y 0 4' / n d' H h T 833.90 o F �(� �H / / � \ L. a' 2 / e p hone box Q c 6 / � e34.21 Q (pn / ,�•+ L 3 � W833.40 4L �A,'� fe3 L 1.06!!!` • Q E m I' r a� It r ° r m rr to N, o, {I rn /°j� C 4� E ' i t u Q NC u h F? 934.05 m? m O mV m.. m•'i -my Md 833.31 ----- 3� �( r / h - -_ � �N�' 163.12 WN - - - m_ - mo G 9 _ 60.0'_ 83244 , --19 °08;51 "p 175.73 , t - - h' I �i w DESCRIv -power pole wlth - 3- p,lectrle Ires and 1 -T.V. cable ' 3 d transform . -- EAST 24 ^qsh /\ /a3�°�• "" °'� c-5 FT. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT >� A '��--- V E -- --- - L --- - --- -- - - I 829.75 •• J --- - - - - --- .. e31.z3� -• ✓ / o `- �b 0 X834.5.9 ----- - ----- . R / _ I /a /�\ `� that I T -- \ �- �� •. 2 � Minnr /� n0 3 •D/ L~P- JIV�.. ' X833.79 F1 / •.�•' f Uated t V. �l 1 •� �' L - � Q Q , • ; '�+. sg .moo +: / ^ 4! , 833.5 d it DRAINA AR Q L r I=A= 16 FT T. ,a C7 � � 866 F ee f ' BENCH h °ARK' S ke in power 834, ? / 5 ° d \ pole= Elev. 8369 n+ 5 F P p �T. GE UTILITY EASEMENT ' � ej6 eS �O� �•• l GROUND 8.35_64 l t - 1 53.0 *_ - 160.03 - - - - --' OUND IRON ° a NOTES: 1 -FOUND IRON X835.36 .% I I 11 k -, ..I Ili Q` �yp / 834.37 833.10 OWNER Gerel�l CaJlander I I ( II CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/2 91 Agenda kem S Number e,, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION is ITEM DESCRIPTION; P anning Commission Application No. 91017 - Dennis and Gloria Cardinal DEPT. ,APPROV L: . Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MA NAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report � . Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attache • Planning Commission Application No. 91017 is a request for an appeal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone (6544 France Avenue North) is a nuisance as defined by Section 19 -103 of the City Ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit. Attached are the minutes and information sheet from the September 12, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, affadavit from a Minnesota State Trooper, a map of the area, and miscellaneous correspondence for the City Council's review. This appeal matter is related strictly to a judgment or determination of whether or not the activity of parking an otherwise prohibited vehicle in a residential area can be considered a special use under the Zoning Ordinance and, thus, be considered for a Special Use Permit. The Cardinals and their attorney, Mr. Robert Wilson, seem to want to argue more about the merits of the nuisance regulation prohibiting the parking of a tow truck at their home and the apparent hardship this regulation causes them in operating their business. They have supplied an affidavit from a trooper with the Minnesota State Patrol pointing out the 'importance of a fast response by tow trucks to accident scenes on the freeway. • Summary Explanation Page 2 September 23, 1991 Recommendation This application was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991 meeting on the grounds that the parking of the tow truck is considered a nuisance activity and not a land use and is, therefore, not eligible for a special use permit. If the City Council concurs with this recommendation and determines the appeal should be denied, it is then recommended that the staff be directed to prepare a resolution outlining the history and facts of this application and the reasoning and rationale for denial to be brought back before the City Council for their consideration. The Council may, or may not, wish to discuss whether or not there is a justification for considering a change in the Nuisance Ordinance regulations relating to the parking and /or storage of various vehicles in residential areas in the City. This, however, should not be confused with the appeal matter before the City Council. • APPLICATION NO. 91017 (Dennis and Gloria Cardinal) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for an appeal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone at 6544 France Avenue North is a nuisance as defined by Section 19 -103 of the City's ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91017, attached). The Secretary added that no public hearing is required for the application. He added, however, that letters have been submitted by some of the neighbors of the Cardinals supporting their desire to park the tow truck. Commissioner Mann asked whether a special use home occupation would be grandfathered at the time the ordinance was adopted. The Secretary provided some of the past history of the ordinance regulating the parking of commercial vehicles. He pointed out that no special use permit had ever been granted to the Cardinals and that one is not required for operating a home office. - He stated that the City has a problem with the parking of a tow truck in a residential zone. He stated that that is now classified as a nuisance. Commissioner Mann asked whether it would still be a nuisance if it were stored in a garage. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the problem related to the fact that the tow truck was a commercial vehicle. He pointed out the example of a vehicle used in a home occupation with a sign on it. The Secretary stated that, if the vehicle is less than 9,000 lbs., less than 21 feet long, and less than 8 feet in height and is not a prohibited type of vehicle as described in Section 19 -103, then it is a vehicle which is allowed to be parked in a residential area. Commissioner Holmes concluded that different cities must regulate these vehicles differently. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and described what he knew of the Brooklyn Park ordinance. He stated that Brooklyn Center was formerly one of the more lenient communities with respect to these kinds of vehicles. Commissioner Holmes asked about the treatment of emergency vehicles and police cars. The Secretary stated that no exception was made for an emergency vehicle. He stated that the question before the Commission is whether this proposed activity qualifies for a special use permit or not. He stated that he did not believe that it qualifies for a special use permit. He stated that ambulances are not parked at home, generally. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Robert Wilson, an attorney for the applicant, stated that the Cardinals have been parking their tow truck on their property for 21 years. He stated that Mr. Cardinal needs to respond to late night calls. He stated that it was not economically feasible to respond to these calls from his shop on 85th Avenue North in Brooklyn Park. He then asked the Commission for permission to submit a letter from a highway patrol officer regarding the need for emergency response to accidents on the 9 -12 -91 6 freeways. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission could accept the letter if it chose to. He stated that if Mr. Wilson wants to argue the merits of the ordinance, he should do so before the City Council. Mr. Wilson stated that there is danger at accident sites and that towing is needed on a timely basis. He stated that there would be a public safety problem if the appeal were denied. The Secretary stated that he did not believe that argument related to the Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that there are other towing services which might be able to respond in a timely manner. Mr. Wilson asked the Secretary how the matter should proceed. The Secretary pointed out that the application before the Planning Commission is whether or not the parking of the tow truck is a special use. He stated that he believed the activity to be a nuisance, not a land use matter eligible for a special use permit. He stated that the City Council must ultimately decide that question. He added that if the activity is determined to be eligible for a special use permit, a special use permit application must be filed and then a determination made as to whether the Standards for Special Use Permits have been met. Mr. Wilson stated that under Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance "uses required for the public welfare" are classified as special uses. He stated that the City used to allow commercial vehicles, but that now they are classified as a nuisance. He stated that there is case law which indicates that cities cannot classify aesthetic differences as a nuisance. He cited the case of a city which sought to have nonconforming signs eliminated by classifying them as nuisances. He stated that the Cardinals are looking for a compromise with the City on this issue. He concluded by saying that the City has unconstitutionally taken away his client's livelihood by the adoption and application of their nuisance ordinance. He vowed to take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. He added that the neighbors do not object to the presence of the tow truck. Commissioner Bernards stated that the parking of a tow truck is not a land use and is not considered a special use. He stated that if the ordinance needs changing, then the applicant should pursue a change in the ordinance to allow for emergency vehicles to be parked in residential zones. Commissioner Ainas stated that he sympathized with Mr. Cardinal, but that he saw no legal justification to uphold the appeal. He stated that it would be necessary to change the ordinance in order to remedy the situation. Commissioner Holmes agreed with the previous comments. Chairperson Malecki stated that no one was out to get the Cardinals. She stated that the remedy is to change the ordinance. She pointed out that there was a lot of publicity when the ordinance was adopted and that there was considerable discussion as to how it would affect people's livelihood. Mr. Wilson asked whether the Planning Commission would recommend a change in the ordinance. Commissioner 9-12-91 7 Mann stated that the public hearings on the ordinance were long and difficult. She stated that she did not believe commercial vehicles should be allowed in a residential zone and added that she did not feel the appeal is justified. Mr. Wilson again asked if the Planning Commission would recommend a change in the ordinance. Chairperson Malecki stated that nuisance ordinances are not within the purview of the Planning Commission's responsibility. Mr. Wilson stated that he was not sure if this was properly a nuisance. He pointed out that commercial vehicles were formerly allowed in the Zoning Ordinance and he felt that it is a zoning matter. The Secretary stated that the regulation regarding commercial vehicles is not a land use regulation by the Zoning Ordinance, but a nuisance regulation covered by the Nuisance Ordinance. He stated that he did not believe it was a matter of whether Mr. Cardinal would stay in business. He stated that the question of the ordinance is a legislative decision to be resolved by the City Council. The Secretary recommended to the Commission that it not make a recommendation on an ordinance change without reviewing the record relating to the Council's study and adoption of the existing Nuisance Ordinance. Chairperson Malecki noted that there was no formal public hearing on the proposed application, but asked whether anyone present wished to add anything to the discussion. Mr. Dennis Cardinal, the applicant, asked about Minnegasco trucks and telephone company trucks and other trucks that are violating the ordinance. He stated that the City was picking on him because he had a tow truck. He stated that other vehicles are allowed, but that his truck is not. He stated that his truck does not look any worse than these other vehicles. The Secretary responded that there is a whole list of prohibited vehicles in the ordinance, not just tow trucks. He stated that he was not aware of any vehicles being parked in violation of the ordinance, but if Mr. Cardinal knew of any vehicles violating the ordinance, he could provide a list and enforcement of the ordinance would be pursued. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 91017 (Dennis and Gloria Cardinal) Following further discussion on the appeal, there was a motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial of Application No. 91017 on the grounds that the parking of the tow truck is considered a nuisance activity and not a land use and is, therefore, not eligible for a special use permit. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:17 p.m. and resumed at 9:35 p.m. 9 -12 -91 8 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91017 Applicant: Dennis and Gloria Cardinal Location: 6544 France Avenue North Request: q Appeal This application is an appeal by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone is a nuisance as defined by Section 19 -103 of the City Ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit. The applicant's live at 6544 France Avenue North which is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 66th Avenue North, on the east and south by single - family homes, and on the west by France Avenue North. In 1989 Chapter 19 (Nuisances) of the City Ordinances was amended to declare the parking of most commercial vehicles in residential areas to be a public nuisance. (See Section 19- 103.12 attached). The ordinance specifically lists the parking of tow trucks in a residential zone as such a public nuisance. On May 23, 1991, Building Inspector David Fisher informed Mr. Cardinal by letter that the tow truck parked on his property was in violation and gave him 30 days to remove it from the property. Mr. James J. Tuzinski, an attorney representing the Cardinals, in a letter dated June 3, 1991 questioned whether there was indeed a violation of the City Ordinances. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded to the attorney's letter pointing out the proper interpretation of the ordinance and suggested that he advise his clients comply with Mr. Fisher's original 30 day compliance deadline or run the risk of being cited for a misdemeanor violation of City Ordinances (see attached correspondence). On June 24, 1991, Mr. Fisher requested that a tag be issued. On June 26, 1991, the Director of Planning and Inspection transmitted a request for a tag to the Chief of Police if the violation continued. A citation was issued soon thereafter. On August 6 1991 Mr. Cardinal's g al s obert Wilson, , submitted an application to the Planning and Inspection Department for a Special Use Permit to park tow trucks at the Cardinal residence noting that the Cardinals had been doing this for the last 21 years. On August 9, 1991, the Director of Planning and Inspection issued a letter to Robert Wilson, attorney for the Cardinals, advising him that a Special Use Permit application would not be accepted because the continuation of a nuisance violation is not a proper special use under the City's Zoning Ordinance. The letter also pointed out that granting a variance to allow the parking of the truck would be a use variance which is prohibited by the City's Zoning Ordinance and by state law. (Copies of all correspondence are attached for the Commission's review.) Applicant's Submittal On August 29, 1991, an appeal was filed by Mr. Robert Wilson representing the Cardinals. A handwritten letter was submitted by the Cardinals stating that they believe that under Section 35 -220 9 -12 -91 1 Application No. 91017 continued of the City Zoning Ordinance on special uses, a special use permit 0 application is appropriate for consideration. They refer to a letter submitted by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson's letter cites a portion of Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: "Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given district, but which are, in some respects, incompatible with permitted uses in the district." Mr. Wilson states that a speedy response time to accidents is required for the public welfare. He notes the staff's position that parking a tow truck in a residential area constitutes a nuisance, but argues that precisely because this use is "incompatible with the permitted uses," this use is eligible for Special Use consideration. The remainder of Mr. Wilson's letter addresses the standards for a special use permit, arguing that they are met in this case. Since this application is an appeal and not for special use permit approval, we will not review those arguments in depth at this time. Staff Response The purpose of this appeal application, as we see it, is to determine whether the parking of a tow truck at a residential property can be considered a special use under the City's Zoning Ordinance. Such an activity is classified by Section 19 -103 of the City Ordinances as a nuisance. We do not believe that a special use permit can be granted to carry on a nuisance violation in any zone. The parking of a vehicle is not a principle use in any residential district, certainly not in the R1 district. Parking is an accessory use which for zoning purposes is usually regulated through the control of physical improvements such as driveways and garages. Such physical improvements can be used for the parking of many kinds of vehicles. In this case, tow trucks are no longer a legal vehicle to be parked in the residential zones of the City except if they are actively engaged in providing a service at the time they are parked. The Zoning Ordinance allows one family dwellings and various accessory uses as permitted uses in the R1 zoning district. A number of special uses are also allowed in the Rl zone by special use permit. (See Section 35 -310 attached.) While all these uses involve the parking of vehicles, there is no explicit mention of tow trucks being allowed in the Rl zone as a special use. What must be understood about special uses is that they are specifically listed. Just because an activity is incompatible with the uses allowed in a district does not mean it qualifies as a special use in that district. It must be listed as a special use or be very similar to a listed special use to qualify for a special use permit. All special uses are somewhat incompatible, but not all incompatibilities are special uses. If every nuisance violation is eligible for a special use permit, there will be no end to the challenges to every code infraction in the City and code enforcement will suffer as will the efforts to keep the community a pleasant place to live and work. 9 -12 -91 2 Application No. 91017 continued A review of nuisance regulations will give one the understanding of the types of activity regulated through this body of regulations. In addition to the parking and /or storage of vehicles in residential areas, nuisance regulations also control among other things the following: disturbing the peace; disorderly conduct; the accumulation of junk, rubbish and debris; storing inoperable and /or unlicensed vehicles or vehicle arts• misdemeanor assault; P ► ► indecent conduct; fighting and brawling; the sale and use of fireworks• o p ssession, purchase and /or delivery of certain drugs; prostitution, nudity and related acts; the dissemination of pornography and related materials. Nuisances are unacceptable conduct or activity as determined by the City Council and are prohibited. It makes little sense to prohibit certain activity or conduct and then, somehow, grant a special use permit to allow the activity to be conducted. The activity is either prohibited or not prohibited as determined by the City Council through its legislative authority. Parking a two truck is not a land use regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance regulates land uses which involve a substantial investment in real property. Parking the tow truck is an activity. The single family home at 6544 France Avenue North was built as a residence and continues to function as a residence. It has never been a truck garage. The realization of the investment in the dwelling as a dwelling does not depend on the p arking of a tow truck on the remises. parking P g p The king of a tow truck is, therefore a nuisance activity and not a land use. We recommend that the appeal be denied and that the matter be prosecuted as a nuisance violation as long as the ordinance is in effect. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, + V� Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 9 -12 -91 3 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) PAUL ANDRESCIK, being first duly sworn, on oath, states as follows: 1. My name is Trooper Paul Andrescik, I am a trooper for the Minnesota State Patrol. I have been a trooper for the last three (3) years. The year before that, I was a police officer for the town of Wyoming, Minnesota. My patrol beat takes me to various areas in Hennepin County. I have worked extensively on the Minneapolis freeway system. 2. One of the primary goals of the Minnesota State Patrol is to expedite the flow of traffic. This is explicitly stated in the State Patrol mission statement. Whether it is through the enforcement of laws or through the clearing of an accident scene, our job is to keep the traffic on state roads flowing smoothly. 3. Every trooper in the state will agree that it is extremely critical that a tow truck arrives at a scene as quickly as possible. When we respond to traffic accidents, the damaged vehicles are often blocking lanes of traffic. Residual or secondary accidents often occur as a result. The average freeway traffic. speeds are upwards of fifty -five (55) miles per hour. Anyone who has driven on a freeway knows it is not uncommon for vehicles to travel at speeds between seventy (70) and eighty (80) miles per hour. The lanes of traffic are blocked by the w immobilized vehicles, and drivers are required to slow or stop unexpectedly. These residual accidents are very common, especially in the winter time. This often results in a high speed personal injury accident. The longer the vehicle blocks traffic, the greater chance there is of having additional accidents. I have personally witnessed many accidents that occurred as a result of a tow truck not getting to the scene fast enough. 4. Another problem with damaged vehicles remaining at the scene is caused by the "rubberneckers ". There is a genuine danger of residual accidents occurring from people slowing to look at the damaged vehicles. These type of accidents occur in both the same lane and the opposite lane of the accidents. If a vehicle is removed from the scene quickly, it reduces or eliminates rubbernecking. 5. The state patrol and the other police agencies rely on the tow truck to not only remove the immobilized vehicle, but also to clear the traffic lanes from debris. We rely on the tow truck operator to use their broom to clear glass out of the way so other vehicles can drive through without getting flat tires. We do not have brooms in our vehicles. Upon arrival on the scene, tow truck operators sweep off lanes of traffic so that other vehicles can pass through. 6. If a tow truck is slow to get to the scene, the trooper must sit and babysit the vehicle. As soon as the tow truck arrives at the scene, the troopers are free to leave. On snowy or icy days in the winter time, we will spend the entire shift going from one 2 accident to the other. The quicker we can leave the scene, the quicker we can go assist other accident victims. This is especially true when a trooper makes a DWI arrest. If the trooper has to wait for a tow truck, the arrestee gets belligerent. The trooper is tied up sitting and waiting at the scene. 7. Conceivably, there are some situations where a tow truck can be used to lift a vehicle off of someone trapped underneath it. The tow truck has capabilities such as a crane that a fire department truck or rescue truck does not have. 8. I like to use Dennis Cardinal when I need a tow truck at a scene. He is very experienced and competent. He is very helpful at the scene, and he really knows what he is doing. More importantly, Mr. Cardinal arrives at the scene fast. There are other tow truck operators who are not able to get to the scene as fast as Mr. Cardinal. 9. Mr. Cardinal mentioned that he is having some P roblems with a new City Ordinance that may delay his response time to accident scenes. Mr. Cardinal did not ask for my help in this matter, but because I feel so strongly about it, I offered to assist Mr. Cardinal in any way that I could. I did not know Mr. Cardinal. personally. My only contact with him has been through him towing vehicles for the State Patrol. If Mr. Cardinal's response time is slowed down, the safety of the public will be compromised. 10.. "I will be happy to talk with any council members or city officials personally. Please notify me if you request my presence at any city council meetings. I can be reached at 591 -4661. 3 Further, affiant sayeth not. / Paul Andrescik SubScr ibla and swo n to before me _ da of ptember, 199 ota ubl'c 4 4 Section 35 -251. APPEALS. 1. A eal Matters The Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall hear and recommend and the City Council shall make a final determination in the following appeal matters: a. Appeals from the denial of a building permit made pursuant to the adoption of an official map as provided for in Minnesota State Law. b. Appeals from an order, requirement, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance, where it is alleged that some error in interpretation or judgment exists as provided for in Section 462.357, Subdivision 6 (1), Laws of Minnesota. 2. Procedures a. A written appeal stating the position of the appellant and a fee in an amount as set forth by City Council resolution shall be filed with the Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at least fourteen (14) days prior to the next regular meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. b. The Secretary shall refer the matter to the Board by placing the application upon the agenda of the Board's next regular meeting. C. The Board shall report its recommendations to the City Council not later than thirty (30) days following the date of referral to the Board. d. The application and recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen (18) days following the recommendation of the Board, or in the event the Board has failed to make a recommendation, within forty -eight (48) days of the date of referral to the Board. e. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within thirty -two (32) days of the recommendation by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, or in the event the Board has failed to make any recommendation, within sixty -two (62) days of the date of referral to the Board. f. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, following the Board's action upon the application, and the City Clerk, following the City Council's action upon the application, shall give the applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application. BROOKLYN CENTER CITY ORDINANCES CHAPTER 19 - PUBLIC NUISANCES AND PETTY OFFENSES Section 1� -103. PUBLIC NUISANCES FU :THE?. DE- - INED. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, maintain, or harbor any of the following: 12. The parking and /or storage cf canstruction equipment, farm vehicles and equipment, or a commercial vehicle with a length greater t:.nan 21 feet, or a heigt_t greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weigh_ greater than 9,300 pounds, continuously for mc1re than two hours on any property 'within a residential zoning dis :rice or being lawfully used for resi:tential purposes or on any public street adjacent to such properties. Such equipment and vehicles shall include, but are not limited to, the following: dump trucks, ecnstruct'_on trailers, back hoes, front -end loaders, bobcats, well drilling equipment, farm+ trucks, ccabines, thrashers, tractors, tow trucks, truck- tractors, step vans, cube vans and the like. The prohibitions of this subdivision shall not apply to the following: a) Lny equipment or vehicle describe above being used by a public Utility,governmenta= agency, construction company, moving ecrmpany or similar company which is actually being used to service a residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of tt^e vehicle. b) Any equipment or vet_icle described above wimich is actually making a pickup or delivery at the location where it is parked. Park?ng for any period of time beyond the time reasonably necessary to make such a pickup or delivery and in excess of the two hour limit small be unlawful . c) Any equipment or vehicle exceeding tae above described length, height or weight limitations, bu_ w-nict: is classified as recreation equipment as specified i Minnesota Statutes 168.011, Subdivision 25. d) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is par_i<ed or stored on property zoned residential and being lawfully used as a church, school, cemetery, golf course, park, playground or publicly owned structure provided tae equipment or vehicle is used by said use in the conduct of its normal affairs. e) Amy equipment or veh`cle described above which is parked or stored on property which is zoned residential and the principal use is nonconforming within tine ©eaning of Section 35 -711 of the City Crdinances, provided such park_ng or storage is not increased or expanded after the effentive date of this ord:�_nance. ROBERT E. WILSON ATTORNEY AT LAW 7050 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55429 TELEPHONE (612) 560 -3900 FAX (612) 566 -4416 August 28, 1991 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Special Use Application 6544 France Avenue North Dennis Cardinal Our File No. 26081 -01 Dear Mr. Warren: Attached please find a check for $50.00. This is to cover the filing fee for the appeal regarding the parking of tow trucks at the home of Dennis and Gloria Cardinal. Brooklyn Center City Ordinance, Section 35 -220, states: "Special uses are those which may be required for the welfare in a given district but which are, in some respects, incompatible with the permitted uses in the district." It is our position that a speedy response time to accidents is required for the public welfare. It is your position that the parking of a tow truck in a residential area is in violation of Brooklyn Center's Ordinance Section 19 - 103. Because this use is "i. paAtibl w ith the r,er:: fitted uses", this use is eligible ; i bl = F t�:,:il x. iil' a Special Use consideration. Brooklyn Center City ordinance, Section 35 -220 subd. 2, outlines five standards that must be met for a Special Use Permit to be granted. Mr. Cardinal meets these standards. 1. The granting of the Special Use Permit will promote and enhance the general public welfare through speedy response to accident scenes. 2. Granting of the Special Use Permit will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. (See attached letters) Mr. Cardinal's vehicle is no louder than the average pick -up truck. If he gets a late night call, he responds very quietly and discretely. He even turns off Page two August 28, 1991 his headlights and engine when he pulls into his driveway on his return. 3. Establishment of the Special Use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. 4. There is no concern of parking congestion in the Special Use Permit. 5. Special Use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. If you have any comments or if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Robert E. Wilson Attorney at Law REW:jt P.S. I have also attached a copy of the original Special Use Permit application. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 D R ® ®KLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 y. EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE May 23, 1991 911 Dennis And Gloria Cardinal 6544 France Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 First Notice Re: 6544 France Avenue North, Tow truck stored at residents Dear Mr. and Mrs Cardinal The Brooklyn Center City Council, in an effort to maintain the residential character of its neighborhoods, has adopted regulations restricting the parking and storing of certain types of vehicles and equipment in these residential areas. These regulations generally prohibit the parking and /or storage of tow trucks and equipment ment q in residential ial areas. More specificall prohibits the P Y, the ordinance P parking and/or storage P of commercial vehicles s with a length / g 1 ngth greater than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weight greater than 9,000 pounds for more than two consecutive hours in residential areas. Examples of such vehicles and equipment include the following: dump trucks, construction trailers, backhoes, front -end loaders, bobcats, well drilling equipment, farm trucks, combines, thrashers, tractors, tow trucks, truck tractors, step vans, cube vans and the like. There are certain exceptions to these regulations such as vehicles and equipment needed to make deliveries, repairs, or to do authorized construction work; vehicles and equipment classified as recreational; vehicles and equipment legitimately used by churches, schools, playgrounds or other public uses in residential zones; or vehicles and equipment associated with a legal nonconforming use as provided for in the City's Zoning Ordinance. A copy of this City ordinance (Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12) is attached for your review. ON Page 2 It has been brought to my attention that a vehicle(s) or equipment prohibited by this ordinance is being parked and /or stored on property owned or controlled by you. Please be advised that you have 30 days from the date of this letter to come into compliance with the provisions of Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12 of the City ordinances. If you have any questions regarding the above, or care to discuss this matter further, please contact me. Sincerely, David Fisher Building Inspector DF JAMES J. TUZINSKI ATTORNEY -AT -LAY (612) 560 -3900 7050 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD (612) 566 -4411 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55429 FAX:(612) 566 -4416 June 3, 1991 Mr. David Fisher Building Inspector City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Cardinal, Dennis & Gloria 6544 France Avenue North Dear Mr. Fisher: Mr. and Mrs. Cardinal have requested that I respond to your letter of May 23, 1991 regarding the parking of tow trucks at their property. The tow trucks parked at their home do not violate city regulations. The trucks are less than 21 feet in length and are lower than 8 feet. Mr. Cardinal has operated his towing business in this area for more than 20 years and has parked units at his home since 1970. To the best of his knowledge, he has never had a complaint in this regard. Mr Cardinal parks tow trucks at his property in the evening so that he can quickly respond to emergency towing requests from the police, fire and highway patrol. If you,feel a meeting is necessary to resolve this matter, please contact me. We would be happy to meet with you at your cal S e s, cc: Dennis and Gloria Cardinal June 20, 1991 Mr. James J. Tuzinski Attorney at Law 7050 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Re: 6544 France Avenue North Dear Mr. Tuzinski: Building Inspector David Fisher has provided me with your June 3, 1991 letter regarding tow trucks being parked at 6544 France Avenue North by your clients Dennis and Gloria Cardinal and asked me to review this matter and respond to you. You have stated that the tow trucks at your clients' home do not violate City regulations noting that the tow trucks are less than 21 feet in length and are lower than 8 feet in height. Please be advised that Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances (copy attached) prohibits the parking and /or storage of various equipment and vehicles including commercial vehicles with • length greater than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or • gross vehicle weight greater than 9,000 lbs. on residentially used property. If a commercial vehicle exceeds any of the length, height, or weight limitations, it may not be parked or stored in a residential area. Mr. Fisher's notice referred to a 1989 Ford tow truck with a license number of YU69419. This vehicle may, or may not, be less than 21 feet in length and less than 8 feet in height as you indicate in your letter, however, it has a gross vehicle weight of 15,000 lbs. which exceeds the 9,000 lbs. limit and is, therefore, in violation of the ordinance. Furthermore, tow trucks are specifically listed in this ordinance as a type of vehicle not allowed to be parked in a residential area. The interpretation given to this ordinance is that the types of vehicles and equipment specifically listed in the ordinance are prohibited from being parked in residential areas regardless of the length, height, or weight. p{ Y + James J. Tuzinski Page 2 June 20, 1991 I would suggest that you advise your clients to comply with Mr. Fisher's May 23, 1991 notice giving them 30 days in which to come into compliance with Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances regarding the parking and /or storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas. Your clients may be cited for misdemeanor violations if any vehicles or equipment are being parked or stored in violation of the above ordinance provision after June 24, 1991. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please contact me. Sincerely, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW:mll cc: Dennis and Gloria Cardinal, 6544 France Avenue North Bill Clelland, City Prosecutor James Lindsay, Chief of Police MEMORANDUM To: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection From: David Fisher, Building Inspector Date: June 25, 1991 Subject: Dennis Cardinal, tow truck license number Y/U 84096 at 6544 France Avenue North A letter was sent May 23, 1991 providing notice to Dennis Cardinal at 6544 France Avenue North, his residence. The letter explained the regulations prohibiting the parking and storing his tow truck in a residential area. He was given 30 days to have the tow truck removed. Mr. Cardinal responded by contacting his Attorney and having him send a letter to me at the City. The letter questioned the regulations of height and length of the ordinance. In responce to the attorney's letter, Ronald Warren sent the Attorney and Mr. Cardinal a follow up letter advising them that June 24, 1991 would be the compliance date to have the tow truck removed. On June 24, 1991 a follow up inspection was conducted at Mr. Cardinal's residence. I observed a tow truck license number Y/U 84096. Mr. Cardinal came out of his house and spoke with me about the tow truck. He said "a judge will have to decide on whether I can park my tow truck at my residence or not ". I therefore, request the issuance of a citation for the violation of the Public Nuisance Ordinance Section 19 -103 Subdivision 12 prohibiting parking and storing a tow truck in a residential area. Citation to be issued to: Dennis Cardinal 6544 France Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 MEMORANDUM TO: James Lindsay, Chief of Police �� 1 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspecti6n 7��� ✓. DATE: June 26, 1991 SUBJECT: 6544 France Avenue North Attached is a copy of a memo I have received from Building Inspector Dave Fisher regarding the parking and /or storing of prohibited vehicles by Dennis Cardinal on his property at 6544 France Avenue North. Dave originally sent a notice on May 23, 1991 informing the Cardinals that they were parking or storing a vehicle (tow truck) in violation of Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances. He gave them 30 days to come into compliance with this ordinance. I have had written correspondence with the Cardinals' attorney, James Tuzinski, explaining the ordinance and recommending that he advise his clients to comply with the Building Inspector's request or be subject to a misdemeanor citation. Dave Fisher has since talked with Dennis Cardinal, who left him with the impression that he does not intend to comply with the notice. Dave notes that a prohibited vehicle was parked at 6544 France Avenue North by Cardinal and he has requested a citation be issued. Also attached are copies of all correspondence and reports that we have to date regarding this matter, and a copy of 19 -103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances. I recommend having a Code Enforcement Officer or a Police Officer review this property periodically, and if they find a vehicle parked on this property, or the street adjacent to this property, belonging to, or in control of, Dennis or Gloria Cardinal, or Cardinal Towing, Inc., that is in violation of the above ordinance, then issue an appropriate citation. Please advise me of any citations that may be issued. Thanks for your cooperation. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE August 9, 1991 911 Mr. Robert E. Wilson Attorney at Law 7050 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Re: 6544 France Avenue North Dear Mr. Wilson: On Tuesday morning, August 6, 1991 you came to the Planning and Inspection Department in the Brooklyn Center City Hall and attempted to submit a planning commission application on behalf of Dennis and Gloria Cardinal requesting a special use permit apparently to be allowed to park a tow truck, or tow trucks, at 6544 France Avenue North. You also submitted a $50 check as a filing fee. The Planning and Inspection Department Secretary explained to you that she could not process this application without my approval. You and I have discussed quite extensively the parking and /or storage of a tow truck at the Cardinal residence and the ordinance citation they received for a violation of Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12 of the City's Nuisance Ordinance. You have requested, and I have provided, copies of City Council minutes, staff reports and other written matters relating to the City Council's adoption of the Nuisance Ordinance provision in question. I have also provided written correspondence to your colleague, Mr. James Tuzinksi, regarding this provision of the ordinance. r!9 Robert E. Wilson Page 2 August 9, 1991 Please be advised that I am not accepting an application for a special use permit in this matter and, therefore, returning your $50 check. The reason for not accepting such an application is my determination that the proposed application is not related to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Your client has been cited for a nuisance violation and the City's Zoning Ordinance does not comprehend allowing a nuisance to be carried on as a special use in the residential zoning district where your client's property is located. Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given zoning district, but which are, in some respects, incompatible with the permitted uses in the district. I am not aware of any special uses which would allow nuisance violations to be carried on in an R1 zoning district. Furthermore, the City Council is prohibited from allowing, as a variance, any use that is not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance in the district where an affected person's land is located. To allow your client to park the tow truck in question on residential property would be a use variance which is prohibited by the City's Zoning Ordinance and by state law. Your concern apparently is the propriety or fairness of a nuisance regulation as it relates to your client. In my opinion this matter is legislative in nature and relief to your client can only be granted by the City Council amending the nuisance ordinance provision in question. Be advised that Section 35 -251 of the City's Zoning Ordinance at Subdivision lb allows appeals from an order, requirement or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the City's Zoning Ordinance, where it is alleged that some error in interpretation or judgment exists. You, or your client, have the right to appeal my interpretation of the City's Zoning Ordinance as it relates to whether or not this matter is a special use permit or whether the granting of such a special use permit would be a use variance prohibited by the City's Zoning Ordinance. If you choose to appeal this determination, you may submit an application for such an appeal accompanied by a $25 filing fee and a written argument pointing out the error in interpretation or judgment. If you wish to proceed in this fashion, I would advise you to contact me regarding the specifics for filing such an application. Robert E. Wilson Page 3 August 9, 1991 If you have any other questions or comments regarding the above, please contact me. Sincerely, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW:mll cc: Dennis and Gloria Cardinal Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Charlie LeFevere, City Attorney Bill Clelland, City Prosecutor ' I I ! I � I ' � � i j ! � � � � ! } i � I i l i i t �� I � I � , i ! I i I ! ` I� ! i ' � i ! I j i , 1 0 Fill ' I ! t � ! � j I I � j � i � i ! I I ( ! i j i I � t �� j I( I t �. j 1 i�� I I I( t { ! � I ( j I � I I � I j i � � i i I j I i do I+ t j it .. �j i i t ii I i- ,- - ^-- +--- -- i i I 1 { � _ ' low � ~� /�6�� x /-�� v ' ` - r �----- ---- __ --..__--___-_-' - ` � lei , ow .~ _ �~~ ~- f Section 35 -310. R1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. One family dwellings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces. 3. Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the following limitations: aa. The ground coverage of any single accessory building shall be no greater than 1,000 square feet. bb. No more than two accessory structures shall be permitted on any one residential premises. CC. The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed- the ground coverage of the dwelling building. 4. Public recreational structures in parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 5. Playground equipment and installations, including private swimming pools and tennis courts. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 7. Signs as permitted by the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 8. A temporary real estate tract office for the purpose of selling lots on the tract upon which it is located. 9. The renting of not more than two sleeping rooms by a resident family, provided adequate offstreet parking is provided. 10. Tents, stands and other temporary structures for churches, charities, carnivals and similar purposes as provided by Section 35 -800 of these ordinances. 11. Rummage sales as defined in Section 35 -900. 35 -310 2. Special Uses a. Chapels, churches, temples and synagogues, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. b. Public and private elementary and secondary schools offering a regular course of study accredited by the Minnesota Department of Education, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. C. Golf courses and accessory buildings essential to the operation of a golf course. d. Cemeteries. e. Publicly -owned structures, other than poles and underground facilities in easements or in rights -of -way of public streets or alleys. f. Special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. g. Other, noncommercial uses required for the public welfare in an R1 L—L dis trict, as determined by the City Council. Section 35 -311. R2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a. One and two family dwellings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces. 3. Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the following limitations: aa. The ground coverage of any single accessory building shall be no greater than 1,000 square feet. bb. No more than two accessory structures shall be permitted on any one residential premises. CC. The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building. • �� _ \� � ' �■ ■i , �'� ■i �■� i// � / ' .r: ,,.... ` - _ _ • mono, ��``�� . : - ■. ■. i� � ■ 1 1111111 MIN ON ME Ai \M� � . � � ■ . .. ' -- . •. ,, . • ♦ • ♦ � �: � ',� . •.''� � 311111 ■ ♦♦ ♦ IN ri 111 1 1 1 ICI► , •' - - .� �' •��� �� 1 ■■jl 1 11 1' ,��� ��v��• ■ 1111 IN _ 1 ,, // /11111 i��• 111• ,�t1 �♦ �► ��/1/ �� ON - 1 INS sir . i � '� '�` , � 1 ,' � . � ■ ' � 1 �11 111 �• �� MEN NO NO ON ME ON 11 1 1� ��� �� 1 1' � , . � � 11 1 �■ / /1 111 �_.�,�.� �i• i� '�� �� 111 =" "'■ "` 111111 SO�! � �� ON� .■■� 1 j : �� ■■ �" 1 111111 111 1 111 111111 t/ ■1 1 . p 1 1111 1� 1 � � .111 ■ � 1 ME ►S � ■ : . � . 1 1111 1� 1111 111111 . loom, old a 1 Ii � , 11 1111 ."� r■ �■ �� j ■ � � :_ 1 ��� _ ry � . .■� . /1111 _ •�♦ ♦� � � .1 , :1 � � 111 11 ° � �►� ± ♦� ♦� ♦� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9 /23/9 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances extending the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Code to Include Commercial and Industrial Properties DEPT. APPROVA 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 g ) On September 9, 1991 the City Council, after closing the public hearing, tabled the above entitled ordinance amendment until September 23, 1991 to give the Minnesota Multi Housing Association the opportunity to make comments relative to the portion of the ordinance requiring rental dwelling license holders to prevent disorderly activities on their premises. I met with Mr. James Sorbel, Minnesota Multi Housing Association's Director of Government Relations, and Jerry Cowan, one of the owner's of Evergreen Park Apartments on Tuesday, September 17, 1991 to discuss the ordinance amendment. The Association is not in disagreement with the ordinance amendment, but believes some language modifications or changes would be in order to help apartment owners deal with disorderly tenants, particularly when it comes to unlawful detainers. Attached is a copy of a September 18, 1991 letter from Mr. Sorbel with proposed language changes. This letter has been forwarded to City Attorney Charlie LeFevere for his comments as well. For the most part, I do not believe the changes proposed significantly alter the basic direction of the ordinance that being to require apartment owners to take action to correct and . prevent disorderly activity on their property and /or to remove tenants who, on a regular basis, engage in disorderly activity as defined by the ordinance. I • Summary Explanation Page 2 September 23, 1991 I do not have a problem with the proposed language relating to Subdivision 1 of Section 12 -911. However, I would suggest that this be an additional point, not a replacement for the existing language. Subdivision 1 might read as follows: "It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to see that persons occupying the licensed premises conduct themselves in such a manner as not to cause the premises to be disorderly and to take appropriate action following official notification of conduct by person(s) occupying the licensed premises which is determined to be disorderly. For the purposes of this ..." We do believe the licensee has an absolute duty to prevent disorderly activity from occurring on the licensed premises at least as far as this particular ordinance is concerned. This does not preclude the City from taking action against tenants by charging them with misdemeanor violations for this disorderly activity as the case may be. However, the City is not in a position to determine that a lease violation has occurred allowing the City to proceed with an eviction of tenants for repeated disorderly conduct. Only the building owners can do this. I can also support the proposed changes to Subdivisions 4 and 5 e which limits the notices to particular occupants. However, disorderly activity can be caused by guests of occupants which should require the licensee to also seek to bar or remove those parties if necessary. I do not support the proposed change to Subdivision 7. This seems to imply that the City must provide the evidence for the licensee to obtain an unlawful detainer. I have no problem with the City providing evidence which might be helpful to an owner, but the owner is the one ultimately responsible for the success of the unlawful detainer action. Finally, I believe the proposed Subdivision 10 need not be a formal or official part of the ordinance. If the City Council chooses to follow this proposal, they need not have it formally in the ordinance, but rather by motion or resolution can direct the City Manager to bring this matter back for their review. The City Attorney may wish to comment further on the procedure to be used to make additions or deletions to the ordinance. If the changes are considered minor, publication can be with the summary publication undertaken for all ordinances. Otherwise, the ordinance should be adopted as previously published and an amended first reading can then be undertaken requiring publication and public hearing on only the proposed modifications. • OFFICERS President Robert S. Bisanz Real Estate Equities �1 Vice President mi Inesot John g J. ment MULTI kOUSI G Thayer Management Assoc. Vice President O ssajo ion Fronk C. Dunbar Dunbar Development Serving The Rental Community Executive Vice President September 18, 1991 Ed A. Harrington Multi Housing Assn. Secretary Jeanne L. Aanerud Griffin Dain Prop. Mgmt. Ronald A. Warren Treasurer David R. Thies City of Brooklyn Center Thies 6 Talle Management 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway DIRECTORS Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 David M. Anderson Attorney at Law Dear Ron: James M. Bitaro GMAC Mortgage Corp. Charles W. Boentgen I appreciated the chance to meet with you this morning to discuss Appliance Parts. Inc. the proposed amendments. As requested, I am sending you a copy Colleen ou M. ing Carey D of our s changes to the proposed amendments along with Twin Cities Housing Devel. gg g P P � g Kim E. Carlson a brief explanation of why we are requesting these changes. The Cities Management underlined language is our suggested changes or additions to the Ronald Dod P Burgundy Properties proposed amendments. The numbers refer to the paragraph numbers Lloyd E. Ford of Section 12 -911. Lynn Properties Leslie A. Hartman Section 12 -911. Conduct on Licensed Premises. Is For Rent Magazine John Ramme om 1. It shall be the re of the licensee to take Healey -Ramme Company p y David J.Kuefler appropriate action following official notification of Kuefier Property Mgmt. co by person(s) occupying the licensed premises which Lee A.d Maxfield Research earch Group is determined to be disorderly For purposes of this.... Jack W. Safer Dominium Management This change, I think, more accurately sets out exactly what the Thomas L. Warner licensee's duties are. The language as proposed implies that the Werner Properties licensee has an absolute duty to prevent all disorderly conduct Stephen F. Welsbecker Lloyd Realty BManagement from occurring. I do not think the city intends this, and in any HarryJ.Yaffe event, the licensee cannot prevent all disorderly conduct before Belgarde Enterprises the fact. I do not think this is a real substantive change, but COORDINATORS it does more clearly state exactly what the licensee is required Education to do. Thomas G. Backstrom Griffin Dain Prop. Mgmt. Legislative 4. If another instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises Susan M.Landwehr CoidweiiBanker by the same occupant(s) occurs within three.... Membership Nancy K. Erickson Town's Edge Properties 5. If another instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises Program by the same occupant(s) occurs within three.... Sheryl L. Gallagher Management by Stucki This change to paragraphs 4 and 5 addresses two concerns. First, Public Relations Michael J. Cusack it could help to alleviate the disparate treatment a large apartment Weston Real Estate Corp. building would receive under the proposed amendments. Three notices Special Events Judie A. Harrington disorde month of disdl conduct, within a three to six th for a etcetera Minnesota Multi Housing Association • 4250 Park Glen Road • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • (612) 927 -8602 FAX (612) 927 -8606 page two triplex or fourplex might be a reasonable number to trigger a license action, but three notices to a hundred unit building might be an unreas- onably small number. By tying the second and third notice procedure to the same occupant, the owner will only face a possible license action if he or she does not take action against repeat violations by the same occupant. I think that makes more sense than requiring the licensee to take action at some point against the next tenant who creates a distur- bance, even though that might be the first problem with that tenant, and an eviction action might otherwise not be the best course of action under the circumstances. Secondly, tying the second and third notices to the same occupant provides the licensee with a better record of disorderly behavior upon which to base an unlawful detainer case. Except in non - payment of rent cases, owners often have a very difficult time winning eviction actions, even for lease violations related to drug activity, let alone disturbing the peace or noise violations. Under the proposed language, a licensee may feel forced to spend $95.00 to bring an unlawful detainer action that is really not winnable simply to forestall a license revocation proceeding. But if the licensee can bring to court, e.g., two police reports of dis- orderly conduct by the same occupant, and can also show that the occupant was informed of the violation after the first notice and that a second violation would cause an eviction to be filed, the licensee might stand a better chance of winning, and the ultimate goal of the ordinance would be realized. 7. A determination that the licensed premises have been used in a dis- orderly manner as described in paragraph 1 shall be made upon sub- stantial evidence to support such a determination. Any official notice of such a determination provided to the licensee shall contain sufficient specificity regarding the disorderly use to enable the licensee to proceed with an unlawful detainer action should the licensee wish to do so It shall not.... This suggestion is an attempt to deal with an owner's proof problems. Very often the owner or caretaker only hears about a problem. Neighbors or other tenants are often unwilling or afraid to testify in unlawful detainer cases. Owners would certainly be helped if any official notice requiring them to act contained, to the extent possible, the information they need to successfully act. 10. The City Council shall review Section 12 -911 two (2) years after its effective date to determine its impact upon both landlords and tenants, and to recommend any changes which may be appropriate The City Manager shall keep records of all actions and proposed actions under Section 12 -911 to facilitate the Council review re- quired herein This additional language is suggested to ensure that Section 12 -911 is reviewed in two years to determine if it has had overly harmful effects on either landlords or tenants, if there are things that should be page three changed, or if it seems to be operating successfully as it stands. There are already numerous laws on the books that are not achieving what they were intended to achieve, and if there are problems with Section 12 -911, mandatory review would help prevent that from happening this time. Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to hearing from you and working with you in the future. ncerely, Ja es W. Sorbel rector of Government Relations JWS:ab BROOKLYN CENTER [HOUSING] BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY ORDINANCE CHAPTER 12 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 12 extending the housing maintenance and occupancy code to include commercial and industrial properties. 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 12 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES EXTENDING THE HOUSING MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY CODE TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: CHAPTER 12 - [HOUSING] BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY ORDINANCE Section 12 -101. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety, and the general welfare of the people of the City. These general objectives include, among others, the following: 1. to protect the character and stability of [residential areas] all buildings and property within the City; 2. to correct and prevent [housing] conditions that adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the life, safety, general welfare and health, including the physical, mental and social well -being of persons occupying [dwellings] buildings within Brooklyn Center; 3. to provide minimum standards for cooking, heating, and sanitary equipment necessary to the health and safety of occupants of buildings; 4. to provide minimum standards for light and ventilation, necessary to health and safety; 5. to prevent the overcrowding of dwellings by providing minimum space standards per occupant for each dwelling unit. 6. to provide minimum standards for the maintenance of existing [residential] buildings, and to thus prevent slums and blight; ORDINANCE NO. 7. to preserve the value of land and buildings throughout the City. With respect to rental disputes, and except as otherwise specifically provided by the terms of this ordinance, it is not the intention of the city council to intrude upon the fair and accepted contractual relationship between tenant and landlord. The city council does not intend to intervene as an advocate of either party, nor to act as an arbiter, nor to be receptive to complaints from tenant or landlord which are not specifically and clearly relevant to the provisions of this ordinance. In the absence of such relevancy with regard to rental disputes, it is intended that the contracting parties exercise such legal sanctions as are available to them without the intervention of City government. Neither in enacting this ordinance is it the intention of the city council to interfere or permit interference with legal rights to personal privacy. Section 12 -102. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. [Every building and its premises used in whole or in part as a home or residence, or as an accessory structure thereof, for a single family or person, and every building used in whole or in part as a home or residence of two or more persons or families living in separate units shall conform to the requirements of this ordinance, irrespective of when such building may have been constructed, altered, or repaired. This ordinance establishes minimum standards for erected dwelling units, accessory structures, and related premises.] Every building, as well as its premises, and all occupied premises within Brooklyn Center shall conform to the requirements of this ordinance irrespective of when such building may have been constructed altered, or repaired. Section 12 -201. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this ordinance: 1. Approved - acceptable to the jurisdiction having authority, and meeting all applicable codes. [1]2. Accessory structure - a structure subordinate to the main or principal building [dwelling or dwellings and] which is not used nor authorized to be used for living or sleeping by human occupants and which is located on or partially on the premises. [2]3. Building - any structure [erected for the support, shelter, or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or movable property of any kind] used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy [3]4. Compliance Official - the city manager and his designated agents authorized to administer and enforce this ordinance. I ORDINANCE N0. [4]5. Dwelling - a building, or portion thereof, designed or used predominantly for residential occupancy of a continued nature, including 1- family dwellings, 2- family dwellings, and multiple family dwellings; but not including hotels and motels. [5]6. Dwelling unit - a single residential accommodation which is arranged, designed, used or, if vacant, intended for use exclusively as a domicile for one family. Where a private garage is structurally attached, it shall be considered as part of the building in which the dwelling unit is located. [6]7. Family - any of the following definitions shall apply: -A person or persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, together with his or their domestic servants or gratuitous guests, maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit; -Group or foster care of not more than six (6) wards or clients by an authorized person or persons, related by blood, marriage, or adoption, together with his or their domestic servants or gratuitous guests, all maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit approved and certified by the appropriate public agency; -A group of not more than five (5) persons not related by blood, marriage or adoption maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit. [7]8- Flush water closet - a approved toilet, with a bowl and trap made in one piece, which is connected to the City water and sewer system or other approved water supply and sewer system. [8]9. Garbage - putrescible animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food. [9]10. Habitable building - any building or part thereof that meets minimum standards for use as a home or place of abode by one or more persons. [10]11. Habitable room - a room or enclosed floor space used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking, or eating purposes, excluding bathrooms, water closet compartments, laundries, furnace rooms, unfinished basements, (those without required ventilation, required electric outlets and required exit facilities), pantries, utility rooms of less than 50 square feet of floor space, foyers, communicating corridors, stairways, closets, storage spaces, and workshops, hobby and recreation areas in parts of the structure below ground level or in attics. ORDINAMCE NO. [11]12. Heated water - water heated to a temperature of not less than 120 degrees Fahrenheit, or such lesser temperature required by government authority, measured at faucet outlet. [12113. Kitchen - a space which contains a sink with counter working space, adequate space for installing cooking and refrigeration equipment, and adequate space for the storage of cooking utensils. [13]14. Multiple family dwelling - a dwelling or portion thereof containing three or more dwelling units. 15. Non - residential building - all other buildings or structures other than dwellings or dwelling units [14]16. Occupant - any person (including owner or operator) occupying any structure building or part thereof, dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit or premise [living, sleeping, cooking and eating in a dwelling unit or living and sleeping in a rooming unit]. [15]17. Operator - the owner or agent who has charge, care, control, or management of a building, or part thereof[, in which dwelling units or rooming units are let]. [16]18. Owner - [any person, firm or corporation who, alone, jointly, or severally with others, shall be in actual possession of, or have charge, care or control of, dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit within the City as owner, employee or agent of the owner, or as trustee or guardian of the estate or person of the title holder. Any such person representing the actual owner shall be bound to comply with the provisions of this ordinance to the same extent as the owner] a_ person, agent, firm, or corporation having a legal or equitable interest in the property [17]19. Permissible [occupancy] occupant load - the maximum number of persons permitted to [reside in a dwelling unit or rooming unit] occupy a building or space within a building [18)20. Person - an individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation or joint venture or organization of any kind. [19]21. Plumbing - all of the following supplied facilities and equipment in a [dwelling] building gas pipes, gas burning equipment, water pipes, steam pipes, garbage disposal units, waste pipes, water closets, sinks, installed dishwashers, lavatories, bathtubs, shower baths, installed clothes washing machines, catch basins, drains, vents, and any other similar fixtures and the installation thereof, together with all connections to water, sewer and gas lines. [20]22. Premises - a platted lot or part thereof or unplatted parcel of land, either unoccupied or [un]occupied by any [dwelling ORDINANCE NO. or nondwelling] structure[, including such building, accessory structure or other structure] thereon. [21]23. Public Corridor - a hall, corridor or passageway for providing egress from [a dwelling] an occupied [unit] area to a public way and not within the exclusive control of one [family] occupant. [22]24. Refuse - all putrescible and nonputrescible waste solids including garbage and rubbish. [23]25. Rental dwelling or dwelling unit - a dwelling or dwelling unit let for rent or lease. [24]26. Repair - to restore to a sound and acceptable state of operation, serviceability or appearance. [25]27. Rodent harborage - any place where rodents can live, nest, or seek shelter. [26]28. Rooming unit - any room or group of rooms forming a single habitable unit used or intended to be used for living and sleeping, but not for cooking and eating purposes. [27]29. Rubbish - nonputrescible solid wastes consisting of both combustible and noncombustible wastes, such as paper, cardboard, tin cans, grass and shrubbery clippings, wood, glass, brick, plaster, bedding, crockery and similar materials. [28]30. Safety - the condition of being reasonably free from danger and hazards which may cause accidents or disease. 31. Structure - that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. [29]32. Substandard dwelling - any dwelling which does not conform to the minimum standards established by City Ordinances. [30]33. Supplied - paid for, furnished by, provided by or under the control of the owner, operator, or agent of a [dwelling] building [31]34. Meaning of certain words - whenever the words "dwelling ", "dwelling unit ", "premises ", "building ", or "structure" are used in this ordinance, they shall be construed as though they were followed by the words "or any part thereof ". Section 12 -301. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS. No owner or other person shall occupy or let [to] another person occupy any building, [dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit] unless ORDINANCE NO. it and the premises are clean, sanitary, fit for human occupancy, and comply with all applicable legal requirements of the State of Minnesota and the City of Brooklyn Center, including the following requirements: Section 12 -302. MAINTENANCE OF SHARED OR PUBLIC AREAS. Every owner of a [dwelling] building [containing two or more [dwelling units] shall maintain in a clean [and] sanitary and safe condition, the shared or public areas of the [dwelling] building and premises thereof. Section 12 -303. MAINTENANCE OF OCCUPIED AREAS. [Every] All occupants of a building, [dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit] shall maintain in a clean [and] sanitary and safe condition that part or those parts of the building, [dwelling, dwelling unit] and premises thereof that sLhe occupies and controls. Section 12 -304. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF RUBBISH. [Every] All occupants of a building, [dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit] shall store and dispose of all [his] their rubbish in a clean, sanitary, and safe manner as prescribed by Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances. Section 12 -305. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE. [Every] All occupants of a building, [dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit] shall store and dispose of all [his] their garbage and any other organic waste which might provide food for insects and /or rodents in a clean, sanitary, and safe manner as prescribed by Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances. Section 12 -306. RESPONSIBILITY FOR STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE AND RUBBISH. Every owner of a multiple family dwelling or non - residential building shall supply facilities for the sanitary and safe storage and[ /or] disposal of rubbish and garbage. In the case of single or two - family dwellings, it shall be the responsibility of the occupant to furnish such facilities. Section 12 -307. RESPONSIBILITY FOR STORM AND SCREEN DOORS AND WINDOWS. The owner of a rental dwelling unit shall be responsible for providing and hanging all screens and storm doors and storm windows whenever the same are required under the provisions of this ordinance, except where there is written agreement otherwise between the owner and occupant. Section 12 -308. RESPONSIBILITY FOR PEST EXTERMINATION. Every occupant of a dwelling containing a single dwelling unit or an occupant of a non - residential building containing a single unit shall be responsible for the extermination of vermin infestations and /or rodents on the premises. Every occupant of a dwelling unit in a dwelling containing more than one dwelling unit or an occupant of a non - residential building containing more than one unit shall be responsible for such extermination whenever [his] their [dwelling] unit is the only one infested. Notwithstanding, however, whenever infestation is caused by the failure of the owner to maintain a i ORDINANCE NO. [dwelling] building in a reasonable rodent -proof or reasonable vermin -proof condition, extermination shall be the responsibility of the owner. Whenever infestation exists in two or more of the [dwelling] units in any [dwelling containing two or more dwelling units] building extermination thereof shall be the responsibility of the owner. Whenever extermination is the responsibility of the owner, the extermination must be performed by a licensed pest control contractor. Section 12 -309. RODENT HARBORAGES PROHIBITED IN OCCUPIED AREAS. No occupant of a [dwelling or dwelling unit buildi shall P [ g g ] g accumulate boxes, lumber, scrap metal, or any other similar materials in such a manner that may provide t y p a rodent harborage in or about any [dwelling or] dwelling unit or building Stored materials shall be stacked neatly [in piles]. Section 12 -310. RODENT HARBORAGES PROHIBITED IN PUBLIC AREAS. No owner of a [dwelling containing two or more dwelling units] building shall accumulate or permit the accumulation of boxes, lumber, scrap metal, or any other similar materials in such a manner that may provide a rodent harborage in or about shared or public areas of a [dwelling] building or its premises. Materials stored by the owner or permitted to be stored by the owner shall be stacked neatly [in piles]. Section 12 -311. PREVENTION OF FOOD FOR RODENTS. No owner or occupant of a [dwelling or dwelling unit] building shall store, place, or allow to accumulate any materials that may serve as food for rodents in a site accessible to rodents. Section 12 -312. SANITARY MAINTENANCE OF FIXTURES AND FACILITIES. Every occupant of a [dwelling unit] building shall keep all supplied fixtures and facilities therein in a clean and sanitary condition and shall be responsible for the exercise of reasonable care in the proper use and operation thereof. Section 12 -313. MINIMUM HEATING CAPABILITY AND MAINTENANCE. In every dwelling unit or rooming unit when the control of the supplied heat is the responsibility of a person other than the occupant, a temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit, or such lesser temperature required by government authority, shall be maintained at a distance of three feet above the floor and three feet from exterior walls in all habitable rooms, bathrooms, and water closet compartments from September through May. Non - residential buildings shall meet State of Minnesota regulations and statute requirements. Section 12 -314. REMOVAL OF SNOW AND ICE. Every occupant of a dwelling containing a single dwelling unit, and the owner of a multiple family dwelling or [dwellings] a non - residential building shall be responsible for the removal of snow and ice from parking lots, driveways, steps, and walkways on the premises. Individual snowfalls of three inches or more, or successive snowfalls accumulating to a depth of three inches, shall be removed from ORDINANCE NO. parking lots and driveways within 24 hours after cessation of the snowfall. Individual snowfalls of one inch or more, or successive snowfalls accumulating to a depth of one inch, shall be removed from steps and walkways within eight hours after cessation of the snowfall. Section 12 -315. MINIMUM EXTERIOR LIGHTING. The owner of a [multiple family dwelling or dwellings] building shall be responsible for providing and maintaining effective illumination in all exterior parking lots and walkways. Section 12 -316. MAINTENANCE OF DRIVING AND PARKING AREAS. The owner of a [multiple family dwelling or dwellings] building shall be responsible for providing and maintaining in good condition paved and delineated parking areas and driveways for tenants consistent with Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances. Section 12 -317. MAINTENANCE OF YARDS. The owner of a [multiple family dwelling or dwellings] building shall be responsible for providing and maintaining premises' yards consistent with Section 12 -711. Section 12 -401. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BASIC EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES. No person shall occupy as owner, occupant, or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit, for the purposes of living, sleeping, cooking, and eating therein, which does not comply with the following requirements: Section 12-402. KITCHEN FACILITIES. Every dwelling unit shall have a room or portion of a room in which food may be prepared and/or cooked oked and which shall have adequate circulation area, and which shall be equipped with the following: 1. A approved kitchen sink in good working condition and properly connected to an approved water supply system and which provides at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water under pressure, and which is connected to an approved sewer system. 2. Cabinets and /or shelves for the storage of eating, drinking, and cooking equipment, and utensils and of food that does not require refrigeration for safekeeping; and a counter or table for food preparation. Said cabinets and /or shelves and counter or table shall be adequate for the permissible occupancy of the dwelling unit and shall be of sound construction furnished with surfaces that are easily cleanable and that will not impart any toxic or deleterious effect to food. 3. A stove or similar device for cooking food, and a refrigerator or similar device for the safe storage of food at or below 40 degrees Fahrenheit which are properly installed with all necessary connections for safe, sanitary and efficient operation. Provided that ORDINANCE NO. such stove, refrigerator, or similar devices need not be installed when a dwelling unit is not occupied and when the occupant is expected to provide same on occupancy, in which case sufficient space and adequate connections for the installation and operation of said stove, refrigerator or similar device must be provided. Section 12 -403. TOILET FACILITIES. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a nonhabitable room which is equipped with an approved flush water closet in good working condition. In a rental dwelling unit, such room shall have an entrance door which affords privacy. Said flush water closet shall be equipped with easily cleanable surfaces, shall be connected to an approved water system that at all times provides an adequate amount of running water under pressure to cause the water closet to be operated properly, and shall be connected to an approved sewer system. Section 12 -404. LAVATORY SINK. Within every dwelling unit there shall be an approved lavatory sink. Said lavatory sink may be in the same room as the flush h water closet, or if located in another room, the lavatory sink shall be located in close proximity to the door leading directly into the room in which said water closet is located. The lavatory g g sink shall be in good working condition and shall be properly connected to an approved water supply system and PP PP Y Y shall provide at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water under pressure, and shall be connected to an approved sewer system. Section 12 -405. BATHTUB OR SHOWER. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a nonhabitable room which is equipped with 'a an approved bathtub or shower in good working condition. In a rental dwelling unit, such room shall have an entrance door which affords privacy. Said bathtub or shower may be in the same room as the flush water closet, or in another room, and shall be properly connected to an approved water supply system and shall provide at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated water under pressure, and shall be connected to an approved sewer system. Section 12 -406. STAIRWAYS, PORCHES AND BALCONIES. Every stairway, inside or outside of a dwelling and every porch or balcony, shall be kept in safe condition and sound repair. [Every flight of stairs and every porch and balcony floor shall be free of deterioration. Every stairwell and every flight of stairs which is more than four risers high shall have handrails approximately 30 inches high, measured vertically from the nose of the stair tread to the top of the handrail. Every porch which is more than four risers high and every balcony shall have handrails approximately 30 inches above the floor of the porch or balcony.] Stairs and handrails shall conform to the Uniform Building Code standards. Every deck porch and balcony which is 30 inches or more above grade shall have a quardrail that conforms to the Uniform Building Code standards Every handrail and [balustrade] guardrail shall be firmly fastened and maintained in good condition. No flight of stairs shall have settled out of its intended position or have pulled away from the ORDINANCE NO. supportin g or adjacent structures enough to cause a hazard. No J flight of stairs shall have rotting, loose, or deteriorating supports. Excepting spiral and winding stairways, the treads and risers of every flight of stairs shall be uniform in width and height. Stairways shall be capable of supporting a live load of 100 pounds per square foot of horizontal projection. Section 12 -407. ACCESS TO DWELLING UNIT. Access to or egress from each dwelling unit shall be provided without passing through any other dwelling unit. Section 12 -408. DOOR LOCKS. No owner shall occupy nor let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit unless all exterior doors of the dwelling or dwelling unit are equipped with safe, functioning locking devices. Multiple family dwellings shall be furnished with door locks as follows: 1. For the purpose of providing a reasonable amount of safety and general welfare for persons occupying multiple family dwellings constructed after May 5, 1969, an approved security system shall be maintained for each multiple family building to control access. The security system shall consist of locked building entrance or foyer doors, and locked doors leading from hallways into individual dwelling units. Dead -latch type door locks shall be provided with lever knobs (or doorknobs) on the inside of building entrance doors and with key cylinders on the outside of building entrance doors. Building entrance door latches shall be of a type that, are permanently locked from the outside and permanently unlocked from the inside. 2. Every door that is designed to provide ingress or egress for a dwelling unit within a multiple family building shall be equipped with an approved lock that has a deadlocking bolt that cannot be retracted by end pressure, provided, however, that such door shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. Section 12 -501. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LIGHT AND VENTILATION. No person shall occupy as owner, occupant or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit, for the purpose of living therein, which does not comply with the following requirements: Section 12 -502. HABITABLE ROOM LIGHT AND VENTILATION. Except where there is supplied some other device affording adequate ventilation and approved by the compliance official, every habitable room shall t one window facing have at leas directly Y outdoors which can be opened easily. The minimum total of openable window area in every habitable room shall be the greater of [4%] 10% of the floor area of the room or [four] ten square feet. One half of the required ORDINANCE NO. window area shall be openable Section 12 -503. NONHABITABLE ROOM VENTILATION. Every bathroom and water closet compartment, and every laundry and room shall contain at least 500 of the ventilation requirement for habitable rooms contained in Section 12 -502, except that no windows shall be required if such rooms are equipped with a ventilation system which is approved by the compliance official. Section 12 -504. ELECTRIC SERVICE, OUTLETS AND FIXTURES. Every dwelling unit and all public and common areas shall be supplied with electric service, functioning overcurrent protection devices, electric outlets, and electric fixtures which are properly installed, which shall be maintained in good and safe working conditions, and shall be connected to a source of electric power in a manner prescribed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Brooklyn Center and by the laws of the State of Minnesota. The minimum capacity of such electric service and the minimum number of electric outlets and fixtures shall be as follows: 1. Dwelling containing one or two dwelling units shall have at least the equivalent of 60- ampere, three -wire electric service per dwelling unit [as a condition of sale]; 2. Dwelling units shall have at least one branch electric circuit for each 600 square feet of dwelling unit floor area; 3. Every habitable room shall have at least one floor or wall -type electric convenience outlet for each 60 square feet or fraction thereof of total floor area, and in no case less than two such electric outlets provided, however, that one ceiling or wall -type light fixture may be supplied in lieu of one required electric outlet; 4. Every water closet compartment, bathroom, kitchen, laundry room, and furnace room shall contain at least one supplied ceiling or wall -type electric light fixture and every bathroom, kitchen, and laundry room shall contain at least one electric convenience outlet; 5. Every public [hall] corridor and stairway in every multiple family dwelling shall be adequately lighted by natural or electric light at all times at one foot candle at floor level so as to provide effective illumination in all parts thereof. Every public [hall] corridor and stairway in structures containing not more than two dwelling units may be supplied with conveniently located light switches controlling an adequate lighting system which may be turned on when needed, instead of full -time lighting; 6. A convenient switch or equivalent device for turning on a light in each dwelling unit shall be located near the ORDINANCE NO. point of entrance to such unit. Section 12 -601. MINIMUM THERMAL STANDARDS. No P erson shall occupy as owner, occupant or let to another for occupancy any [dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein] building or portion thereof which does not have heating facilities which are properly installed, and which are maintained in safe and good working condition, and which are capable of safely and adequately heating all habitable rooms, bathroom, and water closet compartments i n every u temperature P y nit located therein to a tem g P of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit or such lesser temperature g t y Y re a uired b government authorit at a distance of three feet above g floor level and three feet from exterior walls [at an outside temperature of -25 degrees Fahrenheit]. Gas or electric appliances designed primarily for cooking or water heating purposes shall not be considered as heating facilities within the meaning of this section. Portable heating equipment employing flame and the use of liquid fuel does not meet the requirements of this section and is prohibited. No owner or occupant shall install, operate or use a space heater employing a flame that is not vented outside the structure in an approved manner. Section 12 -701. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. No person shall occupy as owner, occupant or let to another for occupancy, any [dwelling or dwelling unit, for the purpose of living therein,] building or portion thereof which does not comply with the following requirements,- unless specifically exempt Section 12 -702. FOUNDATIONS, EXTERIOR WALLS AND ROOFS. The foundation exterior walls, and exterior roof shall be substantially Y water tight and protected against vermin and rodents and shall be kept in sound condition and repair. The foundation element shall adequately support the building at all points. Every exterior wall shall be free of deterioration, holes, breaks, loose or rotting boards or timbers, and any other condition which might admit rain or dampness to the interior portion of the walls or to the exterior spaces of the [dwelling] building The roof shall be tight and have no defects which admits rain, and roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent rain water from causing dampness in the walls. All exterior wood surfaces, other than decay resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or other protective covering or treatment. If [25% or more of] the exterior surface is unpainted or determined by the compliance official to be paint blistered, the surface shall be painted. If [25% or more of] the exterior surface of the pointing of any brick, block or stone wall is loose or has fallen out, the surface shall be repaired. Section 12 -703. WINDOWS, DOORS AND SCREENS. Every window, exterior door, and [hatchway] other exterior openings shall be substantially tight and shall be kept in sound condition and repair. Every window, other than a fixed window or storm window, shall be capable of being easily opened. Every window, door and frame shall be constructed and maintained in such relation to the adjacent wall construction as to completely exclude rain, wind, vermin and rodents ORDINANCE NO. from entering the building. Every openable window [or other device required by Section 12 -502] shall be supplied with 16 -mesh screens during the insect season and shall be equipped with an approved lock if located less than 6 feet above adjacent grade Section 12 -704. FLOORS, INTERIOR WALLS AND CEILINGS. Every floor, interior wall, and ceiling shall be adequately protected against the passage and harborage of vermin and rodents, and shall be kept in sound condition and good repair. Every floor shall be free of loose, warped, protruding or rotted flooring materials. Every interior wall and ceiling shall be free of holes and large cracks and loose plaster and shall be maintained in a tight, weatherproof condition. Toxic paint and materials with a lasting toxic effect shall not be used. The floor of every toilet room [and] bathroom [floor surface] and kitchen shall have a smooth, hard, non - absorbent surface and shall be capable of being easily maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Section 12 -705. RODENT PROOF. Every [dwelling] structure [and accessory structure] and the premises upon which it is located shall be maintained in a rodent -free and rodent -proof condition. All openings in the exterior walls, foundations, basements, ground or first floors, and roofs which have a 1/2" diameter or larger opening shall be rodent - proofed in an approved manner. Interior floors or basements, cellars and other areas in contact with the soil shall be paved with concrete or other rodent impervious material. Section 12 -706. FENCE MAINTENANCE. All fences [supplied by the owner or agent on the premises and all fences erected or caused to be erected by an occupant on the premises] shall consist of metal, wood, masonry, or other decay resistant material. Fences shall be maintained in good condition both in appearance and in structure. Wood material, other than decay resistant varieties, shall be protected against decay by use of paint or other preservatives. Paint shall be maintained consistent with Section 12- 12 -702. Section 12 -707. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE. Accessory structures or buildings [supplied by the owner, agent or tenant occupant on the premises of a dwelling] shall be structurally sound, and be maintained in good repair and appearance. The exterior of such structures shall be made weather resistant through the use of decay- resistant materials such as paint or other preservatives. Paint shall be maintained consistent with Section 12 -702. Section 12 -708. SAFE BUILDING ELEMENTS. Every foundation, roof, floor, exterior and interior wall, ceilings, inside and outside stair, every porch and balcony, and every appurtenance thereto, shall be safe to use and capable of supporting loads [that normal use may cause to be placed thereon] required b the occupanc a v . p y Section 12 -709. FACILITIES TO FUNCTION. Every supplied facility, piece of equipment or utility required under City Ordinances and every chimney and flue shall be installed and ORDINANCE NO. maintained and shall function effectively in a safe, sound, and working condition. Section 12 -710. GRADING AND DRAINAGE. During the period May through October every yard, court, passageway, and other portions [in] of the premises on which a [dwelling] building stands shall be graded and drained so as to be free of standing water that constitutes a detriment to health and safety. Section 12 -711. YARD COVER. Every yard of a premises on which a [dwelling] building stands shall be provided with lawn or combined ground cover of vegetation, garden, hedges, shrubbery, and related decorative materials and such yard shall be maintained consistent with prevailing community standards. Non - residential sites shall be maintained in accordance with an approved City landscape Man and shall be supplied with an irrigation system Section 12 -712. DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE OR FACILITIES. No owner, operator, or occupant shall cause any service, facility, equipment or utility which is required under this ordinance, to be removed from or shut off from or discontinued for any occupied [dwelling or dwelling unit let or occupied by him] building or Portion thereof except for such temporary interruptions as may be necessary while actual repairs or alter[n]ations are in process, or during temporary emergencies. Section 12 -713. SCREENING. All outside trash disposal facilities, recycling containers and outside or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by an opaque fence or wall high enough to completely screen the equipment Section 12 -801. MAXIMUM DENSITY, MINIMUM SPACE, USE AND LOCATION REQUIREMENTS. No person shall occupy nor permit or let to be occupied any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein, which does not comply with the following requirements: Section 12 -802. PERMISSIBLE OCCUPANCY OF DWELLING UNIT. With the exception of owners occupying a respective dwelling unit prior to June 1, 1975, the maximum permissible occupancy of any dwelling unit shall be determined as follows: 1. For the first occupant, 150 square feet of habitable room floor space and for every additional occupant thereof, at least 100 square feet of habitable room floor space; 2. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed two times the number of habitable rooms, less kitchen, in the dwelling unit. Section 12 -803. ONE FAMILY PER DWELLING UNIT. Not more than one family, except for temporary guests, shall occupy a dwelling ORDINANCE NO. unit. Section 12 -804. MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT. In order to qualify as habitable, rooms shall have a clear ceiling height of not less than [six] seven feet, six inches, except that in attics or top - half stories used for sleeping, study, or similar activities, the ceiling height shall be not less than [six] seven feet six inches over at least one -half of the floor area. In calculating the floor area of such rooms in attics or top -half stories, only those portions of the floor area of the room having a clear ceiling height of five feet or more may be included. Section 12 -805. ACCESS THROUGH SLEEPING ROOMS AND BATHROOMS. No dwelling unit built after 1940 and containing two or more sleeping rooms shall have a room arrangement such that access to a bathroom or water closet compartment intended for use by occupants of more than one sleeping room can be gained only by going through another sleeping room, nor shall the room arrangement be such that access to a sleeping room can be gained only by going through another sleeping room. A bathroom or water closet compartment shall not be used as the only passageway to any habitable room, hall, basement or cellar or to the exterior of any dwelling unit. Section 12 -901. LICENSING OF RENTAL UNITS. From and after June 1, 1975, no person shall operate a rental dwelling without first having obtained a license to do so from the City of Brooklyn Center as hereinafter provided. After expiration of an initial licensing period of less than two years as determined by the compliance official, each such operating license shall be issued biennially and shall expire on the anniversary date of issuance. License renewals shall be filed at least 60 days prior to license expiration date. Section 12 -902. LICENSE FEES. License fees, as set forth by city council resolution, shall be due 60 days prior to the license expiration date; in the cases of new unlicensed dwellings, license fees shall be due upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy; in the cases of licensing periods of less than two years, license fees shall be prorated monthly: A delinquency penalty of 5% of the license fee for each day of operation without a valid license shall be charged operators of rental dwellings. Once issued a license is nontransferable and the licensee shall not be entitled to a refund of any license fee upon revocation or suspension; however, the licensee shall be entitled to a license fee refund, prorated monthly, upon proof of transfer of legal control or ownership. A fee, as set by City Council resolution shall be charged for all re- inspections necessary after the first re- inspection. The re- inspection fee(s) will be payable at the time of license renewal for the property, in the case of rental housing and at the time of recertification of occupancy for non - residential properties. ORDINANCE NO. Section 12 -903. OWNER OR AGENT TO APPLY. License application or renewal shall be made by the owner of rental units or his legally constituted agent. Application forms may be acquired from and subsequently filed with the compliance official. The applicant shall supply: 1. Name, address, and telephone number of dwelling owner, owning partners if a partnership, corporate officers if a corporation; 2. Name, address, and telephone number of designated resident agent, if any; 3. Name, address, and telephone number of vendee, if the dwelling is being sold through a contract for deed; 4. Legal address of the dwelling; 5. Number of dwelling units within the dwelling; 6. Description of procedure through which tenant inquiries and complaints are to be processed. Every person holding an operating license shall give notice in writing to the compliance official within five business days after any change of this information. Notice of transfer of ownership shall be as described in Section 12 -908. Section 12 -904. RESIDENT AGENT REQUIRED. No operating license shall be issued or renewed for a nonresident owner of rental dwelling units (one who does not reside in any of the following Minnesota counties: Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Scott, or Washington) unless such owner designates in writing to the compliance official the name of his resident agent (one who does reside in any of the following Minnesota counties: Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Scott, or Washington) who is responsible for maintenance and upkeep and who is legally constituted and empowered to receive service of notice of violation of the provisions of the City ordinances, to receive orders and to institute remedial action to effect such orders and to accept all service or process pursuant to law. The compliance official shall be notified in writing of any change of resident agent. Section 12 -905. CONFORMANCE TO LAWS. No operating license shall be issued or renewed unless the rental dwelling and its premises conform to the ordinances of Brooklyn Center and the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 12 -906. INSPECTION CONDITION. No operating license shall be issued or renewed unless the owner of rental units agrees in his application to permit inspections pursuant to Section 12 -1001. Section 12 -907. POSTING OF LICENSE. Every licensee of a multiple dwelling shall cause to be conspicuously posted in the main ORDINANCE NO. entryway or other conspicuous location therein the current license for the respective multiple dwelling. Section 12 -908. LICENSE NOT TRANSFERABLE. No operating license shall be transferable to another person or to another rental dwelling. Every person holding an operating license shall give notice in writing to the compliance official within five business days after having legally transferred or otherwise disposed of the legal control of any licensed rental dwelling. Such notice shall include the name and address of the person succeeding to the ownership or control of such rental dwelling or dwellings. Section 12 -909. OCCUPANCY REGISTER REQUIRED. Every owner of a licensed rental dwelling containing three or more dwelling units shall keep, or cause to be kept, a current register of occupancy for each dwelling unit which provides the following information: 1. Dwelling unit address; 2. Number of bedrooms in dwelling unit; 3. Names of adult occupants and number of adults and children (under 18 years of age) currently occupying the dwelling units; 4. Dates renters occupied and vacated dwelling units; 5. A chronological list of complaints and requests for repair by dwelling unit occupants, which complaints and requests are related to the provisions of this ordinance; and 6. A similar chronological list of all corrections made in response to such requests and complaints. Such register shall be made available for viewing or copying by the compliance official at all reasonable times. All non - residential Properties shall keep, or cause to be kept a current register of occupancy for each building which provides the following: 1. Building address; 2. List of all tenants occupying building; 3. Nature of business conducted by each tenant in building; 4. Contact person for each tenant; 5. Gross floor area leased by each tenant; Section 12 -910. LICENSE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION. Every operating license issued under the provisions of this ordinance is ORDINANCE NO. subject to suspension or revocation by the city council should the licensed owner or his duly authorized resident agent fail to operate or maintain licensed rental dwellings and units therein consistent with the provisions of the ordinance of the City of Brooklyn Center and the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event that an operating license is suspended or revoked by the city council for just cause, it shall be unlawful for the owner or his duly authorized agent to thereafter permit any new occupancies of vacant or thereafter vacated rental units until such time as a valid operating license may be restored by the city council. Any person violating this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Each day of each violation shall constitute a separate punishable offense. Section 12 -911. CONDUCT ON LICENSED PREMISES. 1. It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to see that persons occupying the licensed premises conduct themselves in such a manner as not to cause the premises to be disorderly. For purposes of this Section a Premises is disorderly at which any of the following activities occur: a. Violation of Section 19 -1202 (Noise Abatement) b. Violation of Section 19 -1121 (Unlawful Possession Delivery or Purchase) or violation of laws relating to the possession of controlled substances as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 152.01 Subdivision 4. C. Violation of Section 19 -202 (Disturbing the Peace) d. The unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating malt liquor. e. Violation of laws relating to gambling f. Violation of laws relating to prostitution as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 609 321 Subdivision 9, or acts relating to prostitution g_ Unlawful use or possession of a firearm in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 609.66 Subdivision_ la, 609.67, or 624.713. 2. The City Manager shall be responsible for enforcement and administration of this ordinance Authority to take any action authorized under this section may be delegated to the City Manager's authorized designee 3. Upon determination by the City Manager that a licensed ORDINANCE NO. premises was used in a disorderly manner, as described in paragraph 1, the City Manager shall give notice to the licensee of the violation and direct the licensee to take steps to prevent further violations. 4. If another instance of disorderly use of the licensed remises occurs within three (3) months of an incident for which a notice in paragraph 3 was given the City Manager shall notify the licensee of the violation and shall also require the licensee to submit a written report of the actions taken and proposed to be taken by__the licensee to prevent further disorderly use of the Premises. This written report shall be submitted to the City Manager within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of disorderly use of the premises and shall detail all actions taken by the licensee in response to all notices of disorderly use of the premises within the preceding three (3) months. 5. If another instance of disorderly use of the licensed Premises occurs within three (3) months after any two Previous instances of disorderly use for which notices were given to the licensee pursuant to this section, the rental dwelling license for the premises may be denied revoked_, suspended or not renewed An action to deny, revoke, suspend or not renew a license under this section shall be initiated by the City Manager who shall give to the licensee written notice of a hearing before the City Council to consider such denial revocation suspension or non - renewal. Such written notice shall specify all violations of this section and shall state the date, time place and purpose of the hearing The hearing shall be held no less than ten (10) days and no more than thirty (30) days after giving such notice Following the hearing the Council may deny, revoke suspend or decline to renew the license for all or any art or parts of the licensed premises or may grant a license upon such terms and conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this section 6. No adverse license action shall be imposed where the instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises occurred during the pendency of eviction proceedings unlawful detainer) or within thirty (30) days of notice given by the licensee to a tenant to vacate the premises where the disorderly use was related to conduct by that tenant or by other occupants or guests of the tenant's unit. Eviction proceedings shall not be a bar to adverse license action, however, unless they are diligently Pursued by the licensee Further, an action to deny, revoke, suspend, or not renew a license based upon violations of this section may be postponed or ORDINANCE NO. discontinued at any time if it appears that the licensee has taken appropriate measures which will prevent further instances of disorderly use. 7. A determination that the licensed premises have been used in a disorderly manner as described in paragraph 1 shall be made upon substantial evidence to support such a determination. It shall not be necessary that criminal charges be brought in order to support a determination of disorderly use, nor shall the fact of dismissal or acquittal of such a criminal charge operate as a bar to adverse license action under this section. 8. All notices given by the City under this section shall be personally served on the licensee, sent by registered mail to the licensee's last known address or, if neither method of service effects notice, by posting on a conspicuous place on the licensed premises. 9. Enforcement actions provided in this section shall not be exclusive, and the City Council may take any action with respect to a licensee, a tenant, or the licensed premises as is authorized by this Code or state law. Section 12 -1001. ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION AUTHORITY. The city manager and his designated agents shall be the compliance official who shall administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance and who is hereby authorized to cause inspections on a scheduled basis for rental dwelling units, and other buildings [or otherwise] when reason exists to believe that a violation of this ordinance has been or is being committed. Inspections shall be conducted during reasonable daylight hours and the compliance official shall present evidence of official capacity to the occupant in charge of a respective dwelling unit. Section 12 -1002. INSPECTION ACCESS. Any owner, occupant, or other person in charge of a [dwelling or dwelling unit] building may refuse to permit free access and entry to the structure or premises under his control for inspection pursuant to this ordinance, whereupon the compliance official may seek a court order authorizing such inspection. Section 12 -1101. UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. 1. Any [dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit] building or portion thereof, which is damaged, decayed, dilapidated, insanitary, unsafe, vermin or rodent infested, or which lacks provision for basic illumination, ventilation or sanitary facilities to the extent that the defects create a hazard to the health, safety or welfare of the occupants or of the public may be declared unfit for human habitation. Whenever any [dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit] building or ORDINANCE NO. Premises has been declared unfit for human habitation, the compliance official shall order same vacated within a reasonable time and shall post a placard on same indicating that it is unfit for human habitation,- and any operating license previously issued for such dwelling shall be revoked. 2. It shall be unlawful for such [dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit] building or portion thereof to be used for human habitation until the defective conditions have been corrected and written approval has been issued by the compliance official. It shall be unlawful for any person to deface or remove the declaration placard from any such [dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit] building Section 12 -1102. SECURE UNFIT AND VACATED [DWELLINGS] BUILDINGS The owner of any [dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit] building or portion thereof which has been declared unfit for human habitation, or which is otherwise vacant for a period of 60 days or more, shall make same safe and secure so that it is not hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of the public and does not constitute a public nuisance. Any vacant [dwelling] building open at doors or windows, if unguarded, shall be deemed to be a hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the public and a public nuisance within the meaning of this ordinance and shall be made safe and secure immediately. Section 12 -1103. HAZARDOUS BUILDING DECLARATION. In the event that a [dwelling] building has been declared unfit for human habitation and the owner has not remedied the defects within a prescribed reasonable time, the [dwelling] building may be declared a hazardous building and treated consistent with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes. Section 12 -1201. COMPLIANCE ORDER. Whenever the compliance official determines that any building or portion thereof, [dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit,] or the premises surrounding any of these, fails to meet the provisions of this ordinance, [he may issue] a compliance order setting forth the violations of the ordinance and ordering the owner, occupant, operator, or agent to correct such violations shall be issued This compliance order shall: 1. Be in writing. 2. Describe the location and nature of the violations of this ordinance. 3. Establish a reasonable time for the correction of such violation and notify of appeal recourse. 4. Be served upon the owner or [his] agent or [the] occupant, as the case may require. Such notice shall be ORDINANCE N0. deemed to be properly served upon such owner or agent, or upon any such occupant, if a copy thereof is a. Served upon [him] owner, agent or occupant personally, or b. Sent by registered mail to his last known address, or C. Upon failure to effect notice through (a) and (b) as set out in this section, posted at a conspicuous place in or about the [dwelling] building, or P ortion thereof, which is affected by the notice. Section 12 -1202. RIGHT OF APPEAL. When it is alleged by any person to whom a compliance order is directed that such compliance order is based upon erroneous interpretation of this ordinance, such person may appeal the compliance order to the city council sitting as a board of appeals. Such appeals must be in writing, must specify the grounds for the appeal, must be accompanied by a filing fee [of $15] as set forth per Council Resolution, in cash or cashier's check, and must be filed with the department of planning and inspection within five (5) business days after service of the compliance order. The filing of an appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless such a stay would cause imminent peril to life, health, or property. Section 12 -1203. BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION. Upon at least five business days notice to the appellant of the time and place for hearing the appeal, and within 30 days after said appeal is filed, the board of appeals shall hold a hearing thereon, taking into consideration any advice and recommendation from the advisory housing commission. The board of appeals may reverse, modify, or affirm, in whole or in part, the compliance order and may order return of all or part of the filing fee if the appeal is upheld. Section 12 -1204. RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any building, or portion thereof, [dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit] upon whom a pending compliance order has been served to sell, transfer, mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose thereof to another person until the provisions of the tag or compliance order have been complied with, unless such owner shall furnish to the grantee, lessee, or mortgagee a true copy of any notice of violation or compliance order and shall obtain and possess a receipt of acknowledging. Anyone securing an interest in the building, or portion thereof, [dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit] who has received notice of the existence of a violation tag or compliance order shall be bound by same without further service of notice [upon him] and shall be liable to all penalties and procedures provided by this ordinance. Section 12 -1205. PENALTIES. Any person who fails to comply P Y ORDINANCE NO. with a compliance order after right of appeal has expired, and any person who fails to comply with a modified compliance order within the time set therein, upon conviction therefor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $700 or by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Each day of such failure to comply shall constitute a separate punishable offense. Section 12 -1206. EXECUTION OF COMPLIANCE ORDERS BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY. Upon failure to comply with a compliance order within the time set therein and no appeal having been taken, or upon failure to comply with a modified compliance order within the time set therein, the criminal penalty established hereunder notwithstanding, the city council may, by resolution, cause the cited deficiency to be remedied as set forth in the compliance order. The cost of such remedy shall be a lien against the subject real estate and may be levied and collected as a special assessment in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, but the assessment shall be payable in a single installment. Section 12 -1301. ALTERNATIVE SANCTIONS. Notwithstanding the availability of the foregoing compliance procedures and the penalties, whenever the compliance official determines that any building, or portion thereof, [dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit] or the premises surrounding any of these fails to meet the requirements set forth in this ordinance, the compliance official may issue a violation tag summoning the responsible person into court or request the issuance of a criminal complaint and arrest warrant. Section 12 -1302. PENALTIES. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance by doing any act or omitting to do any act which constitutes a breach of any section of this ordinance, shall, upon conviction thereof by lawful authority, be punished by a fine not to exceed seven hundred dollars ($700) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both, together with the costs of prosection. Each day that a violation continues shall be deemed a separate punishable offense. No provision of this ordinance designating the duties of any official or employee of the City shall be so construed as to make such official or employee liable for the penalty provided in this section because of failure to perform such duty, unless the intention of the city council to impose such penalty on such official or employee is specifically and clearly expressed in the section creating the duty. Section 12 -1401. SEPARABILITY. Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision, or part to the extent that if any section, provision or part of the ordinance shall be held invalid, it shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part thereof. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/23/91 • Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR CITY VEHICLES DISCU ON ( SSI ITEM) ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works MANAGERS REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes At a recent meeting he City Council requested staff to review the possible use g y q P • of "alternative fuels" in City vehicles and equipment. Attached hereto are the following reference materials: • Hennepin County - Gasohol Program Description • "Alternative Fuels" - an article from the American Public Works Association Reporter /November 1990 • A copy of my August 2, 1990 report. Based on my current review, I recommend that the City now initiate a program for the use of gasohol (gasohol is a mixture of 15% ethanol and 85% unleaded regular gasoline) in City vehicles, based on the following considerations: • Ethanol reduces air pollution, reduces dependance on foreign oil, and is a renewable resource. • Based on information available to me, the only significant problems with the use of gasohol occur when switching an older car from regular unleaded to gasohol. To assure a minimum of these problems, I recommend that we start by using gasohol only in new vehicles, then "convert" older vehicles to the use of • gasohol on a monitored test program. • Based on current quotations, the price of gasohol is $.015 to .020 /gallon lower than the price of regular unleaded gasoline (it is noted that this reflects the State of Minnesota's policy to reduce taxes on gasohol by $.08 per gallon). Since the City's fleet uses about 70,000 gallons of gasoline per year, this would represent a potential savings of $1000 to $1400 /year... if all gasoline - fueled vehicles can be converted to use gasohol. • Until this year, the City fleet included some vehicles which required the use of leaded gasoline. Since we only have 3 storage tanks, we used one for fuel oil, one for regular leaded gasoline and one for regular unleaded gasoline. To allow the use of gasohol would have required another storage tank, at considerable expense. Because we no longer have vehicles which require the use of leaded gasoline, we can now simply switch that tank to use for gasohol storage. Other Alternative Fuel Options The next most promising alternative fuel options appear to be the use of propane or compressed natural gas (CNG). However, while the costs of these fuels are reasonable (possibly even lower than gasoline or gasohol), the costs for converting vehicles for their use is substantial. And the most serious disadvantage is that the resale market for used vehicles using these fuels is • almost non - existent... and the price to reconvert them, so they can be marketed, is high. We will continue to monitor available information on alternative fuels and make recommendations for changes in our program when we believe they are environmentally and fiscally appropriate. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review... Discuss... Comment... Consider motion concurring with the above recommendations. HENNEPIN COUNTY - GASOHOL PROGRAM PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Hennepin County i -s a major consumer of motor vehicle fuels. The increases in cost and instability of supply for petroleum -based fuels during the 1970s created an interest, on the part of the County Board, in exploring alternatives to traditional motor vehicle fuels. The farm crisis that began in the early 1980s emphasized the need for development of new and innovative markets for farm products. Minnesota's farm economy was par - ticularly hard hit by high interest rates and low farm prices. Gasohol, which is a blend of grain- derived ethanol and gasoline, provided a unique opportunity to try to meet both of these public goals while reducing County operating costs. On April 19, 1983 the Hennepin County Board of Commis- sioners passed a resolution adopting a policy "that gasohol be used as fuel for county motor vehicles and machine equipment whenever practicable Since passage of the County Board resolution and adoption of a "gasohol implementation plan" on June 7, 1983, the County has used approximately 620,000 gallons of gasohol in over 200 county vehicles driven more than 10.1 million miles. The cost for the gasohol purchased between April of 1983 and December 31, 1986 was $555,300.. The cost to purchase the same amount of unleaded gasoline for the same period would have been approxi- mately $599,630. The direct savings in fuel costs to the County was more than $44,000. The reduction in direct costs to the County was only one of the hoped for results from the shift to gasohol. Hennepin County's shift to gasohol increased the consumption of American grown corn by ap- proximately 24,800 bushels. At a per bushel price of $1,50, the increased revenue to farmers is estimated as approximately $37,200. As a byproduct, 446 tons of high protein animal feed were also produced. This product sells for approximately $210 per ton and had a total market value of al- most $94,000. . It must also be remembered that the dollars saved on gasohol and the in- crease in the market for farm products means major increases in the impact of these dollars in the local economy. The state has estimated that the overall economic multiplier for energy in Minnesota is about .90. In con - trast, the economic multiplier for all other goods and services is estimated to be 2.62. This means that $1 spent on traditional fuels stimulates 90 cents of economic activity in the state, while $1 spent on other goods and "home- grown" fuel stimulates $2.62 of economic activity. Hennepin County experienced the same problems that most organizations re- port during the first several months of gasohol use. Alcohol is a solvent and it did dissolve residue in the older vehicles, which resulted in clogged fuel filters and damage to rubber and neoprene components in carburetors and fuel pumps. Fuel system repairs during the first 18 months of gasohol r use were three times higher than the levels for similar repairs during the previous 18 months. Since the initial period, however, the County's fuel system repair rates have been negligible, returning to the pre - gasohol levels. The County did a pre- and post- comparison on the fuel economy for a sample of its vehicles, using 1982 and 1984 as the comparison years. The results showed no decrease in miles per gallon. The results from the effort to use gasohol have been positive for the County and the state, and the potential transferability to other local governments and organizations with substantial vehicle fleets is high. The County has realized a savings in its direct operating costs, switched to a less pol- lutant vehicle fuel and provided a market for agriculturally- derived ethanol, while continuing to meet its public service objectives in a more economical and effective manner. QUESTIONS 1. Why convert? Ethanol reduces air pollution by significantly reducing carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. See attached brochure. Ethanol can reduce dependance on foreign oil as it is a U.S, produced product. It is a renewable resource and market for agricultural products. Is it economical to convert? When Minnesota began its s promotion of ethanol blended 9 asoline it did reduce the State asoline tax to ameliorate orate conversion costs. For governmental agencies in Minnesota, the reduction is 8 cents /gallon. Hennepin County now pays no more for the gasohol than it would for unleaded 9 asoline. 2. How long did it take Hennepin County to change the fuel in their tanks and convert to ethanol fuels? Hennepin County began using gasohol in June 1983 and the people involved in the changeover are no longer with the County. Unfortunately, documentation of the changeover experience does not exist. I would expect the changeover was completed in a relatively short period of time. First, while Hennepin County is a large organization, it has a very modest sized fleet. Because of this, it was necessary to change only two filling facilities, each 12,000 gallon capacity, in order to. changeover the entire gasoline powered fleet. Second, with only two filling stations, the preparation for that change could not have taken but a few days. Finally, with such concentration of filling locations, the timing of the change with the emptying of the old fuel would also have been accomplished in a relatively short time. 3. Pump the Tanks? We had a contractor pump the tanks to remove the sludge, etc. We did this primarily for administrative ease. The contractor was licensed to dispose of the residue so the job was completed in one step. 4. Pump a second time? As best as anyone can remember, we did not pump the tanks a second time. 5. Changes to fuel dispensing system? No one recalls changes made to our dispensing system at the time of conversion. Since then, because of the underground fuel tank regulations our gasohol storage tanks have been replaced. We do have a filler hose filter on the current tanks. 6 -9. Maintenance Experience? In 1984, a little over a year into our experience, we reviewed our fleet maintenance. We found two major problems, deterioration of rubber and neoprene parts in the fuel systems and blockage of fuel filters from the solvent action of the alcohol. The costs for all these fuel system repairs went from $2,800 in the equivalent pregasohol period to $7,600 in the gasohol period. Even in 1983 dollars, this is not a large dollar expenditure. Since then, our experience shows that the filter clogging problem was about 18 months in duration. After this time, the old vehicles no longer had the problem, presumedly because their fuel systems were now clean. Any new vehicle started on gasohol never had this fuel filter problem. As far as other fuel system repairs, because of the changes made in vehicle manufacture, we do not have any gasohol caused repairs. 10. Before -after costs comparisons. Cost per mile data before and after gasohol use was not gathered. Alt ernate fuels R.E. "Gene" Moore Fleet Manager Sacramento. California ±.. ,�.sF'Y.. j - Ft�El: STSTE� - >'.'- .. 't; IDiUSTffi.;AAli1♦t TIWNG FU8flrc�4,(,.OMt} Z OM.wBf3AHD.QOgPIITEg �� - -. REY18EO6SIRAT90Y _ q ALTERNATE FUEL TECHNOLOGY snSYey r �' ,x,., r= OCTANE OCTANE is being developed for a number of _ 5> reasons. Vehicle exhaust accounts for two- thirds of U.S. carbon monoxide pollution, nearly half of its nitrogen ox- -; ides, and one -third of its hydrocarbons. sECUENTML - },,,., tt>lta�s Alternate fuels and vehicles could of- =mi a t PROVIDES Ststw TO. � � ° r � z» OINE fer cities additional ways to fight air tRANGER FLOW Ag pollution. In addition to improving air quality, , diversification of fuel sources should Flexible -fuel vehicles use both gasoline and methanol. ultimately improve energy security and pressed to 3,000 psi and requires a EVs for gasoline - powered vehicles reduce our vulnerability to oil supply special high - pressure fueling station. reduces the primary components of ur- disruptions and rapid price escalations. Electric vehicles require batteries and ban smog, nitrogen oxide and hydrocar- Recent events in the Persian, Gulf related equipment, much of it expen- bon, by 98% and 64% respectively. underscore this point. Alternate fuels sive. However, each of these alter- Attempts to introduce EVs during the provide the added environmental natives uses a base fuel cheaper than 1960s and 1970s were unsuccessful benefit of generating less global war- gasoline. because batteries and drivetrains were ming than petroleum -based fuels. Rates of progress in implementing not developed sufficiently. EV An implementation plan for alternate alternate fuels vary. In the case of technology has made good progress fuels should- not favor any particular CNG, reports of users and suppliers during the past five years, with limited alternative. Opportunities should be have been contradictory. While some commercial fleet uses developed, created for each alternate fuel to enter users have committed themselves to ex- tested, and ready for introduction. More the marketplace, as each offers some panding test fleets of CNG vehicles advanced technology is being benefit to air quality, economics, or because of encouraging preliminary developed. energy security. results, others have decided to curtail There are basically three types of Alternate fuel technologies have two their involvement. United Parcel Ser- electric vehicles: (1) the all- electric extra costs — the cost of adapting the vice (UPS) and Union Gas Company, vehicle; (2) the electric vehicle with a vehicles for the fuel and the cost of the Brooklyn, New York, have completed range extender which recharges the bat - fuel. Vehicles using alternate fuels tend a two -year project using natural gas to tery as the vehicle is driven; and (3) the to have higher initial costs. Propane and power 10 UPS delivery vehicles con- hybrid electric vehicle. The hybrid uses compressed natural gas (CNG) current- verted by Union Gas. According to electricity as a major fuel source, but ly need to be retrofitted and require UPS, the natural gas vehicles offered also contains an internal combustion special tanks. Natural gas must be com- a number of advantages: lower fuel engine for use when the electric charge Fueling the debate cost, cleaner burning, safer fuel tanks is depleted or the vehicle is in non- As Gene Moore makes clear, alter- (particularly in accidents), and re- urban areas. The California Energy nate fuels will receive increasing at- duced vehicle maintenance. Commission (CEC) is funding the tention as the 1990s advance. Sav- The disadvantage of CNG lies in the design and construction of a prototype vy fleet managers will want to start capital outlay for compressor stations hybrid electric vehicle. Additionally, in thinking about how these fuels will and vehicle conversions. Since cooperation with electric utilities and affect their fleets and employees. A manufacturers do not offer CNG local government agencies, CEC is good way to explore these issues will vehicles as original equipment, cars and planning a demonstration of electric be an upcoming publication available trucks must be converted at a cost of vehicles in local government fleets. soon from APWA. about $1,500 to $2,300 per vehicle. In Negative aspects of electric vehicles "The Impact of Alternative Fuels addition, CNG. vehicles must make include their limited range and the high on Hazards in the Workplace" is the tradeoffs among range, weight, cargo cost of prototypes. In addition, there is title of a report prepared by the Iowa space, and performance. the uncertainty of the technology's Transportation Center for the Urban By far the cleanest of alternate -fuel development and the public's lack of Mass Transportation Administra- options is electricity. Electric vehicles familiarity with EVs. - tion. The report explores what types (EVs) have virtually no emissions. Liquid petroleum gas (LPG), or pro- of problems will be caused by Although this is offset to some degree pane, has been used in vehicles since substances such as methanol and by emissions from electric power plants the early 1920s. Today, nearly 500,000 propane — and offers solutions. which provide energy for EVs, overall U.S. vehicles run on propane. Watch the APWA Reporter for more net emissions appear to be extremely Therefore, not only is there a substan- information. small. Analyses of Southern California tial infrastructure in place, but the test fleets have shown that substituting technologies for storing and dispensing 10 APWA REPORTER / NOVEMBER 1990 LPG are advanced. LPG currently costs about 55 cents /gal SAFETY MUST NEVER ; (14 cents /1). Assuming that it takes 1.6 gal (6.1 l) of pro- BE � ®R ®��E® _ pane to drive the same distance as with I gal (3.81) of diesel fuel, the actual fuel cost is 88 cents /gal (23 cents UUF IT CAN DE ENHANCED! -> Propane does not burn as cleanly as CNG, but its emis- sions are well below current diesel emissions. Cost of storage tanks is less than for CNG, and the combined weight of the - - tanks and fuel for a given range is comparable to diesel. The Los Angeles Times, which has run a fleet of propane trucks since 1971, reports that some engines have gone 600,000 to 900,000 mi (960,000 to 1.4 million km) between , overhauls. Like other alternative fuels, propane has disadvantages. If mishandled, it can be more dangerous than gasoline or diesel. Propane vapors are heavier than air and tend to col- lect in low spots in explosive concentrations. Collisions caus- ing leaks could create dangerous situations quickly. Propane vehicles must also be retrofitted, negating manufacturer sup - V port and warranties. Before they can begin to command a solid portion of the alternate vehicle market, propane vehicles must be mass - produced and warrantied. - - - - The best potential for widespread use in the transporta- This Highway Department truck equipped with tion sector seems to be methanol. A methanol vehicle is fun- a Truck Mounted Attenuator (crash cushion), is damentally the same as a gasoline vehicle, and methanol fits completely useless for its primary purpose as a reasonably well into our current liquid fuel economy. The dump truck. It is now only an escort vehicle. California Energy Commission has been working with methanol since the late 1970s. It began with demonstrations of low -level alcohol/gasoline blends in four unmodified Hon- da CVCs. Next, the engines and fuel systems in eight Ford Pintos were converted to demonstrate methanol and ethanol fuels. In 1981, the Commission began the first demonstra- tion of new, factory- designed cars to use methanol and 3 " -! ethanol. In 1983, CEC expanded its program further by placing¢ more than 500 methanol- powered Ford Escorts in public andu y private fleets throughout California. At this point, available f technology was limited to operation only on methanol fuel," - which is 85% methanol and 15% unleaded gasoline. These' ' vehicles have accumulated about 25 million mi (40 million t km) in fleet service with no unusual operational difficulties. CEC's current effort is known as the light -duty Fuel- Flexible Vehicle Demonstration Program. Fuel - flexible ThIS truck equipped with the same TMA, but vehicles (FFVs) automatically adjust to operate on alcohol with Cry`steel's TnpteTpper'3, way dump body, IS fuels, gasoline, or any combination of the two. CEC hopes �stlll fultlr functional as`a hnrd= working dump truck,; to place 5,000 FFVs in public and private fleets throughout multi purpose uses Including escort _z; . California by 1993. FFVs will probably have an easier time gaining public acceptance because of their capability of us- EIdOn D. JOneS, president ing any combination of methanol and gasoline. This will be of Crysteel Manufacturing, useful until the methanol infrastructure is solidly in place and - submitted this winning idea methanol is widely distributed. in the Compe- Along with the 1983 demonstration of methanol in light- tition for highway work Zone duty vehicles, CEC began a demonstration using heavy -duty safety. This was a nationwide engines. In Marin County, California, two buses have ac- Strategic Highway Research cumulated more than 80,000 mi (128,000 km) each in Program contest sponsored h' = revenue service and have demonstrated substantial reductions by the National Research in particulates and nitrogen oxide. Early methanol buses ex- ��'"` - Council. *. . perienced frequent failures of glow plugs and injectors. r ' However, technology has advanced rapidly and these pro- $pedlally designed — . blems appear to be solved. w/th quality in mind The largest of CEC's vehicle demonstration fleets is the s r t�;tt r y w� a k�r Sri, i School Bus Demonstration Program, which is funded by $100 +�%� ,. ��{ ,„ million from California's Petroleum Violation Escrow Ac- Highway 60 East . P.O. Box 178 count. This program is designed to replace up to 1,000 of CRYSrFEL ® Lake Crystal, MN 56055 the state's oldest school buses with safe, efficient, and cleaner MFG ll 507 -726 -2728 . INC. . models. Phase I will place 50 methanol buses, 10 com- Toll Free 14800- 533 -0494 For more information, circle 205 on Reader Service Card r pressed natural gas buses, and 103 having the nation's worst air quality private fleet operators need incentives advanced diesel buses with up problem. to join demonstration programs and to Aldlikk to 15 school districts by the end of Currently, several heavy -duty, alter- place large orders for alternate -fuel 1990. Phase II will place up to 400 ad- nate fuel demonstration programs are in vehicles. Demonstration programs will ditional buses throughout California by progress throughout North America, in- provide the experience and data that are 1992. Phase III will provide additional volving a variety of fuels and applica- so vitally needed to advance commer- =i buses for fleets around the state. CEC tions. During the next 20 years, cially attractive alternate -fuel ; has also begun a demonstration of methanol, ethanol, natural gas, pro- technologies. ❑ methanol in heavy -duty trucks. pane, reformulated gasoline, and clean Based on a paper presented at the 1990 Inter- To meet 1993 mandated emission diesel will all play roles in the heavy - national Public Works Congress and Equipment standards for heavy -duty diesel duty engine, alternate fuel arena. As Show vehicles, engine manufacturers are with light -duty vehicles, the successful Les carburants de Pavenir researching several options: current alternate fuel will be the one that is Les produits qui font actuellement engines with particulate traps, straight adaptable, reliable, cost - effective, and ('objet de recherches en matiere de diesels with combustion improvements, truly leads to cleaner air. carburation visent d'abord a assurer and alternative fuels for local driving. Fleet demonstration programs appear la qualite de I'air et la securite Many manufacturers are working to to be the most effective way of en- energetique. Parmi les produits sous develop "clean diesels" that will meet couraging auto manufacturers to pro- essais figurent le gaz nature) corn- prime, 1'e1ectricite, le gaz propane or exceed emission standards for 1993 duce alternate -fuel vehicles. In addition ainsi que le methanol. Afin d'inciter and beyond. For example, Chevron has to providing experience and data, des fabricants a les produire en introduced a reformulated diesel fuel demonstration programs benefit fleet serie, des vehicules alimentes par that reduces exhaust emissions enough managers by allowing them to obtain I'un ou I'autre de ees produits to meet the 1993 requirements. alternate -fuel vehicles at the lowest devraient faire leur apparition sur Chevron Special Diesel can be used by possible cost and assuring them that the une base experimentale. Pour ce all diesel vehicles. In addition to im- vehicles are covered by a manufac- faire, le gouvernement doit en- proving emissions, it enhances certain turer's warranty. courager la recherche et le aspects of vehicle performance such as Several events must occur before developpement en ce sans. De plus, engine start-up and smooth running. alternate -fuel vehicles are produced and les responsables de flottes de vehicules doivent etre motives a par - The new fuel is available at 70 retail and sold in large numbers. Government ticiper aux demonstrations experi- three terminal locations in the Los should support research and develop- mentales. Angeles Basin — a region identified as ment. In addition, government and — Prepare par Robert Bourguignon Do you know:t, Wa what's happening = r t Zi in public works? A must fora public works professional's bookshelf and a j -- - graduate school library, Public Works Today describes the changing profile of the public works field. This once -a- decade Arl report is based upon a 1989 survey of more than 2000 public works leaders serving large, medium g g , and small communities 1n various geographical locations across the United States and J • „ 4 Canada. Findings from 1989 are compared with similar surveys r conducted in 1980,1969 and 1955, providing abroad perspective. f Among topics covered are: p • Trends in Public Works Management • What Public Works Agencies Do • How Public Works Departments Are Organized • How Public Works Functions Are Financed P _ lease send me copies of Public Works Today _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • How Public Works Agencies Communicate with the Public • Who Public Works Managers Are I NAME Public Works Today. A Profile ofLocalServiceOrganizatioons I AGENCY and Managers is available at $50 for members, $65 for nonmembers. To re ADDRESS To p repay, send your check to APWA, P.O. Box I 94310, Chicago, IL 60678 -4310. To be billed, send your I CITY ST/ PROV CODE purchase order to APWA, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637 -2881. PURGHASEORDERNUMBER 12 APWA REPORTER/ NOVEMBER 1990 August 2, 1990 TO: G. G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works RE: Use of Alternative Fuels In Motorized Vehicles and Equipment Per your request I contacted the Hennepin County Department of Transportation to discuss their use of alternative fuels, and requested information from Barb Sutey of the HCDOT Fleet Operations Division. Ms. Sutey advised me that HCDOT is involved in 3 Alternative Fuel Programs, i.e.: Program No. 1 HCDOT still has a few vehicles in which they are using propane. This is being continued as an environmental program, mandated by their Commissioners (to operate at least 45 vehicles using propane). However, they do not regard this program to be cost effective because of (1) the high cost of conversion for use of propane; (2) the high cost of the fuel and (3) the high cost of reconversion - (i.e., to make a used vehicle saleable on the used-vehicle d ehicle market). Pro ram No. 2 - g HCDOT is using gasahol g g (i.e., a mixture of IO$ ethanol with 90$ gasoline) in most of their vehicles, with success. However, there are several "caveats" regarding a start -up of this program, i.e.: (1) never use gasahol in any pre -1980 vehicles, because those vehicles have components which deteriorate when exposed to alcohol (i.e.: gasahol), causing numerous problems; and (2) it is best to start the use of gasahol in a new vehicle which has not been used with gasoline because any vehicle which has used gasoline will have a build -up of materials in the engine. If that vehicle is switched to gasohol, the alcohol will "clean out" those materials, causing plugging of filters, etc. In general, however, they believe the gasahol program is a good one. Program No 3 HCDOT is just beginning the development of a "researc h and e testin " program wherein the plan to y p purchase a few vehicles P Iles with diesel engines which are designed for use with 100% ethanol. At this point they believe that only one company (i.e.: Detroit Engine Co.) can supply engines meeting the performance specifications. This is a very preliminary program which has more questions than answers! Ms. Sutey was unaware of any discussion to coordinate this program with MTC or with the cities. August 2, 1990 Page 2 Comments: Before proceeding with any plan for the use of alternative fuel programs, we would need to evaluate their potential impact on our operations. One significant question arises immediately, i.e.: the need to have additional fuel storage /fuel pumping facilities. Sy Kna CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/23 • Agenda Item Number / C2 , 6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1991 RESIDENTIAL REFORESTATION PROGRAM REPORT DEPT. "PROV : Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOAMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /atta ed ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUIVEVIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes On July 8, 1991 the Council approved expending $3,000 from the Park Maintenance Division 1991 budget to provide for the 1991 Residential Reforestation Program. This program offers $50 coupons to residents who have had a diseased tree removed via the City's Diseased Tree Program. The coupon is good toward purchase of a replacement tree from participating nurseries. All sixty coupons that were authorized have been awarded. First priority for award of the coupons was given to those persons who replied to 1990's reforestation survey. Almost half of those residents applied for and were awarded a coupon. The second priority was given to those residents having a diseased tree marked in 1990 through the Diseased Tree Program. The attached memo summarizes the mailing and response statistics. Residents applying for a coupon were asked to indicate where they expected to plant the tree. Two- thirds of the applicants plan to plant the tree in the front yard or on the boulevard. The response to the program has been positive. Some residents have said that they'd already replaced the trees they lost last year, and wished that this program had been in place then. Other residents who lost trees in previous years have heard about the program and wondered if they would be able to participate. It appears that there is interest in repeating the program next spring. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • Review the information and discuss the possibility of repeating the program in Spring, 1992. MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19, 1991 TO: Diane Spector FROM: Joyce Gulseth RE: Agenda Item /Reforestation Report The first mailing was sent August 29, 1991 to 100 residents and 39 awards were made on September 11, 1991. The second mailing was sent September 10, 1991 to 309 residents and 27 requests were received as of September 19, 1991. Residence preferences for planting are as follows: Front yard 21 Boulevard 20 Side Yard 5 Back yard 13 No Preference 7 TOTAL 66 All three nurseries were contacted and 2 vouchers were redeemed at Malmborgs Garden Center as of 09/19/91. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/23/91 • Agenda Item Number ! Q/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR WATER SLIDE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONTRACT 1991 -R DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knap Direc or of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • In accordance with Council approval, Mjorud Architecture has prepared plans and specifications for construction of a water slide in the Community Center swimming pool area. For your information: • The configuration of the water slide has been revised to include a reverse loop (see attached plan sheet) instead of two loops in the same direction. This revision was selected by staff after discussion with the architect and other slide "owners" who report that a reverse loop adds considerable appeal to users. • The plans have been reviewed with required approval agencies, and have received preliminary approval. • Comments and recommendations submitted by the City risk management agency have been addressed by the architect and the Recreational Director. • It is proposed to open bids for the project on October 16, and hopefully to award bids on October 21. At this time it appears that material delivery can be made in time to allow completion by late December. That scheduling is considered ideal by Recreation Director Arnie Mavis. • The architect reports that the previously reported estimate of costs (i.e. - a total project cost of $200,000) is still "on target ". • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. • NEW GUARD RAIL NEW GUARD RAIL FLUME LENGTH: 150 F 24' WIDE CROSSOVER BRIDGE _ r NEW GUARD RAIL SKYLIGHTA VEED9 EADROOM i u EXISTING HANDICAPPED RAMP uj Q 1 3' INTAKE SUCTION TANK I I �DOOR PUMP ROOM W L t PUMP ROOM BELOW PLATFORM SET AT 20' OFF POOL DECK PLUNGE POOL W N N t ' NEW SURFACE ~ SAFETY MARKER ` f COLUMN UNDER PLATFORM Z f 7t I y W f I THREE SETS OF STAIRS OF tt RISERS EACH fl PARTIAL PLAN OF SWIMMING POOL CONSTITUTION HALL CONTINUE HANDRAIL AT PLATFORMS (J REVISED DRAWING: J - ^ f I CHANGES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED HEREIN PER RECOMMENDATIONS AND CORRECTION NEW LADDER FROM THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH I ( PRELIMINARY REVIEW ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 MJORUD ARCHITECTURE COMMUNITY CENTER City of Brooklyn Center SHEET 1 12400 12TH AVENUE NORTH 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Dated: Sept 16, 1991 s,tiss+aan Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55441 WATER SLIDE Scale: 1/8" = 1 " -0' I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR WATER SLIDE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -24, CONTRACT 1991 -R WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 91 -203, adopted August 26, 1991, the consulting firm of Mjorud Architecture has prepared plans and specifications for Water Slide Improvement Project No. 1990 -24, Contract 1991 -R, and has submitted the plans and specifications to the City Council for review and approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said plans and specifications as prepared by the consulting firm of Mjorud Architecture are hereby approved. 2. The Deputy City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the Deputy City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Deputy City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 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 9/23/91 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR SIDEWALK AND MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -04, CONTRACT 1991 -E DEPT. APPROV L: Sy Knapp, irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Contract 1991 -E, Improvement Project No. 1991 -04, Sidewalk and Miscellaneous Concrete Removal and Replacement on Brooklyn Boulevard, has been completed by Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors Co. The City Council accepted their bid per Resolution 91 -184 and a contract was subsequently executed. Due to an overestimation of quantities, the actual value of work performed is $ 6,912.41 less than original contract. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors Co. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment to Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors Co. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR SIDEWALK AND MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -04, CONTRACT 1991 -E WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors Co. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: SIDEWALK AND MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -04, CONTRACT 1991 -E NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $ 26,751.30 $ 19,838.89 2. The actual value of work performed is $ 6,912.41 less than the original contract value, due to an overestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $ 19,838.89. 4. Project No. 1991 -04 is final and is accepted and approved according to the following schedules: As Amended Per Project Costs Low Bid As Final Contract $ 26,751.30 $ 19,838.89 Contingency 1.337.70 - -- Subtotal Construction $ 28,089.00 $ 19,838.89 Materials Testing (1 %) $ 281.00 120.00 Staff Engineering (8 %) $ 2,247.00 $ 1,587.11 Admin. & Legal (2%) $ 562.00 $ 396.78 Total Est. Project Cost $ 31,179.00 $ 21,942.78 RESOLUTION NO. 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. m BROOKLYN PARK — J Dl rag _ 1 50 ��` L 1�,5 ll pp j,3 �1 C nECErTJ� —_ b 04 000 1 I' IL�YE J n E (Pf4ENi 4m \I ' C_`. _ t t0 f : A i, AYE I CRYSTAL ` J -7`- 11 ll�- I A s 6ODIL O tiS. AYE O . A +t a AVE � C (I,ppc LuNE �' L -_] > a1EU��AV( 16 'E lot 'j,,4 11 (�2`7c.5..FaF.11 S AV _ - ,Oz R•I � -� `U 1l N_.♦. -... INQIANa. -.-i 0 02', , 46_i., - �� __ w d /A. O m 69 � ` - -� L E _ u i =Jl kr Ir ,9 Os a - C '{(. _ + A� •SAY =.002b 1 ia' ` � ll. 9� ➢MUL1L v4� '� _ y \ `� L1 L_ l{z. ObZ S\LU LwING AY C- II * .tl. �P`" tl_fir ..Ex1V1D- �rR CE. FvC� 0 . \LYfl IL�ILN - E - T M s _ i.. `III / 1 [ __. '/f �] r � ] I m ( f ISM'LW lCfl �� �,-- I .� - \�i)MI` ��gf1E = L �C� // ,Z - - o f� o `' �_ SM� a � ✓ q F , o P1 o fih vi rl Eq . nEagQ1C Ate/ TT � L�Xy O / � ZEttIIHjf EIQ {1( / 1 �i zE ` E 0,.� i/•'���'' [pn \I . \\ C ' p O / -`17 (l��✓ y_.�I_I IikLJ -0 V aL`J✓ vrux , I/O F9 tll 8700: i �IY ^OS69 0 9 i '-•^ / 7t 6�N / J NcrNT nvE - N a I j � e "w_ oP� - n o 1 s u vf. AVL p• ` V'2 b 9^ ,fi / O \ (, J I144CCN IlAY .�10I \. 9n�\ \C� / A y Y`j E '�j NEW Lott �l� z tip E v.1�51 N - . NII RC\ NgAOAN 1 1 � z �tl�oA4Atl \ J L4q!H_. eVE. 14650 2 @251 ie v �� -_.. .� °`` I 2550 ` E cw ``° 00 P l °_atl4X_.1� av4. Jj^' A,J( 1 II220 �� J�T .. f s 0 J , �DAYE._IL„ �VROwN ESQ. -_� I _1l �� �� E Il M _ JI InVING1� � 10. -. jAVE. -C_7f. ° O O f)pI. IPVIN l id" \ \- _N 11 T� 00901.. '^ SIC , N._._J90 a L4 Rn9¢�_ J� 4400. CN - _ 9 EEC9 HL��AyL. N. RE O EMERSON • �- RCN O s - I N s _ 5 p �I �L .._I� J� tots �i I `= _ un w: .ti �8�1�� o • 6 Elfrr" U `�90 1300 700. x'11.. 7...JJ. �1.. \ S m O.by 4R�b S Ob62 s � N I 2 I, C .490. J� • -.. ... e \� 2 75 OS11 S ttf , . A 4 v 1 : N snr 11 ,a �f {p 7 - �, - i 11. L ""I1'11 OJ�gAVEH_� - Vg, y I U - ' tL I I' ] (� AUAA _- LQ.A ttl Fn- , _... CF�j I C DEN VE N Z L M I' _ O p u .PCN860f� I�LOP!Ctl u�I(AYE I� N... .lk•.._� ) caMUEN..._•�is �r t4Q - rr . Orj o, n _� •, N �` �� . 4 .o Ir 1f- Opp92 -- 1G ( l w ° 21 :- rhd� - -- . 000vz�Q�Ee9_ aG_ i � .�.•, 1, 5 vl ^"VU�A I QW. nvrNl Ali Fo] Mlsys ip IT �o r S ° 3 FRIDLEY II CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/23/91 • Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION REQUESTING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET MAINTENANCE ALLOTMENT FOR 1992 DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dire or of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: j No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes Under the Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) program each City is allowed to designate a portion of its annual MSAS allocation as a "maintenance allotment" which the City can use to pay for the routine costs of maintaining the MSAS system. ( Note : The MSAS system is the designated system of collector and arterial streets which comprises 20% of the City's total street mileage. In Brooklyn Center, the MSAS system includes a total of 21.3 miles - see attached map showing the MSAS system.) Any interest costs for bonds sold for use in improving MSAS streets must also be paid from the MSAS maintenance allotment. Because the use of any MSAS funds allotted for maintenance (and interest payments) effectively reduces the funds which are available for construction improvements, Brooklyn Center has historically requested a low level of maintenance allotment. Accordingly, for 1991 Brooklyn Center requested and received a maintenance MSAS allotment of $ 31,950, providing $6,550 for the final interest payment on the City's 1970 MSAS bond issue, and $25,400 for street maintenance operations. (This $25,400 for street maintenance operations is shown as revenue to the General fund.) Because of the City's issuance of a new $3 million MSAS bond issue in 1991, and because of the City's financial "crunch ", it is necessary to review how much maintenance funding should be requested for 1992. MSAS regulations provide that the normal total maintenance allotment should be no more than 25% of the previous years' total allocation. However, if a City agrees ® to document that more funds are spent on maintenance of the designated MSAS • street system, then the City may have up to 35% of its total MSAS allocation allotted for maintenance. For Brooklyn Center, with a 1991 total MSAS allocation of $861,771, these percentages calculate as follows: 25% of $861,771 = $215,400 35% of $861,771 = $301,600 The City's 1992 interest payments under our new MSAS bond issue will be approximately $198,900. Accordingly, the maximum funds which we could receive for actual maintenance operation (i.e. - through the General fund) would be: $301,600 (35% total) ( -) $198,900 (interest) Net $102,700 (for maintenance operations) While staff believe we could document that level of actual maintenance operations costs on the MSAS system, we believe the costs of providing that documentation could be counter productive. However, we do believe it would be fairly easy to document actual costs of approximately $75,000. Accordingly, if the Council wishes to use MSAS funds to assist in balancing the 1992 budget, we recommend adopting the attached resolution which requests a total 1992 MSAS Maintenance allotment of $275,000, providing $198,900 for interest payments and $76,100 for maintenance operations. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution is provided for Council consideration. Ile, Member introduced the followin g resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET MAINTENANCE ALLOTMENT FOR 1992 WHEREAS, the Municipal State Aid apportionment regulations allow municipalities to request up to twenty -five percent of their annual apportionment to fund maintenance activities and to pay interest on State Aid Bonds; and WHEREAS, those regulations provide that municipalities may specially request up to thirty -five percent provided they agree to prepare and submit documentation of expenditures; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center on August 12, 1991 sold a State Aid bond issue requiring substantial interest payments in 1992 and in subsequent years; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works states that expenditures for maintenance of State Aid streets totalling $75,000 can be documented; and WHEREAS, the sum of the 1992 bond interest payment and $75,000 exceeds twenty -five percent of the City's 1991 State Aid apportionment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center requests that $275,000 of its 1992 State Aid apportionment be allocated for maintenance, to provide approximately $198,000 for interest payments due in 1992 and $76,100 for maintenance operations. 2. Staff are directed to prepare the required expenditure report detailing interest and maintenance expenditures, and to submit such report to the Office of State Aid at the proper time. RESOLUTION NO. 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 9123191 • Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR HUMBOLDT AVENUE /65TH AVENUE LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -D DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, DiKect6r of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: :2- V se2=9ffeZe — No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • Contract 1991 -D, Improvement Project No. 1991 -03, Humboldt Avenue /65th Avenue Landscaping, has been completed by Greenworks, Inc. The City Council accepted their bid per Resolution No 91 -148 and a contract was subsequently executed. The actual final value of work is $ 80.00 less than the original contract due to an overestimation of quantities. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment to Greenworks, Inc. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment to Greenworks, Inc. is attached for consideration. i %f Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR HUMBOLDT AVENUE /65TH LANDSCAPING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -D WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Greenworks, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: HUMBOLDT AVENUE /65TH AVENUE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -03, CONTRACT 1991 -D NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: As Approved Final Amount Original Contract $ 12,649.00 $ 12,569.00 2. The actual value of work performed is $ 80.00 less than original contract value, due to an overestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $ 12,569.00. 4. Project No. 1991 -03 is final and is accepted and approved according to the following schedules: As Amended Per Project Costs Low Bid As Final Contract $ 12,649.00 $ 12,569.00 Contingency $ 1,897.00 - -- Professional Services $ 2,850.00 $ 2,966.50 Staff Engineering (8 %) $ 1,164.00 $ 1,005.50 Administration (1 %) $ 145.00 $ 126.00 Legal (1 %) $ 145.00 $ 126.00 Total Est. Project Cost $ 18,850.00 $ 16,793.00 RESOLUTION N0, 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 id resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 9/23/91 • Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR 1991 SEALCOATING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -F DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Di ctor of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • Contract 1991 -F, 1991 Sealcoating Program (Improvement Project No. 1991 -05) has been completed by Allied Blacktop Company. The City Council awarded the bid as per Resolution No. 91 -149 and a contract was subsequently executed in the amount of $ 115,678.15. At that time, the Council also approved execution of a Contract Change Order in the amount of $ 20,228.86, which added back some areas which had previously been deleted from the 1991 program. As a result of a minor underrun of quantities, the final contract amount is less than the original contract, plus approved change order by $ 2,491.29. It is requested that the Council approve final payment in the amount of $ 133,415.72. The 1991 Division No. 42 Street Maintenance budget, after the City Manager's requested 15% reduction, is $ 136,000. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the attached resolution. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED FOR 1991 SEALCOATING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -05, CONTRACT 1991 -F WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Allied Blacktop Company has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: 1991 SEALCOATING PROGRAM NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract With Approved Change Order Final Amount Value of Work $ 135,907.01 $ 133,415.72 2. The value of work actually performed is $ 2,491.29 less than the original contract value plus approved change order, due to a minor overestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $ 133,415.72. 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 9/23/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION OPPOSING CERTAIN STANDARDS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED LEAD CONTAMINATION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1991 DEPT. APPROV Sy Knapp,' W ector o ublic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attach SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • The American Water Works Association (AWWA), of which Brooklyn Center is a member, recently alerted its members to proposed federal legislation which could have an impact on the Brooklyn Center Water Utility. The proposed Lead Contamination Control Act Amendments of 1991 would significantly change the lead in water regulations recently promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. A report to the Council on May 13, 1991 detailed the provisions of the Lead and Copper Rules and other provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Those rules will require the water utility to begin in 1992 to test water from 60 high -risk taps twice yearly for lead or copper contamination. If more than ten percent of those samples exceeded a limit of 15 parts per billion (lead) or 1300 parts per billion (copper), then the utility would be required to increase its corrosion control. The amendment as proposed which is most troubling to staff would require that if just one sample exceeded 10 parts per billion for lead, then additional corrosion control would be required. It is a virtual certainty that one sample will exceed the proposed standard. The result of the proposed legislation is that most, if not all, water utilities will be required to increase corrosion control. States would be responsible for designating corrosion control. Brooklyn Center currently spends just over $40,000 to provide zinc orthophosphate corrosion control, which is one of the preferred treatments. If additional control is required, the State may simply require the addition of more orthophosphate. However, it is possible that a different type of treatment could be mandated, which may be more costly or which may have unknown maintenance or other consequences. In the worst case, the corrosion control specified by the State would require Brooklyn Center to build a treatment plant. This plant could cost up to $15 million and require tripling or quadrupling the current water rates. To make matters worse, another provision of the proposed amendments would require implementation of the treatment within three years of the date of the enactment of the amendments. Background The water industry's concerns about a standard at the tap, which were presented throughout the debate on the Lead and Copper Rules, related to making the utility responsible for conditions beyond their control. Water utilities should be held responsible for delivering uncontaminated water to the property's water service. Property owners should be responsible for all portions of their plumbing on their property, from the service line to the tap fixtures. Tests have shown that brass faucets holding lead free water can reach 10 parts per billion lead into the water over an 8 hour period. Under the proposed legislation, if this occurs in just one sampled home, then additional corrosion control must be implemented throughout the system. The proposed legislation makes no provision for the utility if it finds that an excessive reading, for example, was found in a sample taken from a home where lead solder was illegally used in installing or repairing the plumbing. Samples taken earlier this year by the Brooklyn Center water utility found no contamination by lead in the water delivered to customers. Two "first draw" samples taken from home taps tested at two and six parts per billion. r RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution endorsed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors has been provided for Council consideration. This resolution expresses the Council's support of achievable lead standards but opposition to the proposed Tap Water Lead Limit. Note A copy of the informational packet received from the AWWA is attached for the Council's information. r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OPPOSING CERTAIN STANDARDS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED LEAD CONTAMINATION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1991 WHEREAS, municipal governments that supply drinking water are committed to protecting public health by providing safe and aesthetically acceptable potable water; and WHEREAS, lead in drinking water due to leaching from home plumbing and distribution systems is of concern to city water suppliers; and WHEREAS, cities are responsible to the lead content of the water within the distribution system, but are not responsible and can not control lead leaching from home plumbing systems; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently promulgated a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for lead that establishes a maximum contaminant level goal for lead and establishes a treatment technique requirement that is triggered by exceeding an established action level; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota supports setting drinking water standards for compliance and enforcement purposes within the water supply distribution system; and WHEREAS, lead in drinking water presents a special case where contamination can occur within the home environment beyond the water suppliers' control; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation attempts to deal with the problem of lead leaching from home plumbing through water treatment and by requiring public water systems to collect diagnostic tap water samples for lead from high risk homes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that. 1. The Council supports the establishment of standards (maximum contaminant levels - MCLs) for drinking water monitored for compliance and enforcement purposes within the water distribution system which is under the ownership of the water supplier. 2. The Council supports diagnostic sampling for lead in order to provide the homeowner with information about lead being leached from the home environment and for purposes of analyzing appropriate corrosion control treatment. RESOLUTION NO. 3. Drinking water diagnostic sampling at the customer's tap may be conducted on a cost recovery basis. 4. The prohibition of new lead solder and flux be extended and vigorously enforced. 5. Water systems, required to replace lead service connections, be allowed to develop a plan of replacement on a priority basis and in conjunction with state primacy agents. 6. Corrosion control treatment be required of large systems only upon exceeding the lead action level of .015 mg /L measured in the 90th percentile. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b P g g Y Y 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. i � American Water Works Association LEGISLATIVE ALERT TO: AWWA Water Utility Members FROM: Al Warburton, Associate Director for Legislative Affairs DATE: August 20, 1991 RE: Lead in Drinking Water Legislation - Grassroots Action WATER UTILITIES NEED TO INFORM THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS OF THE EFFECTS OF THE LEAD IN DRINKING WATER BILL (H.R.2840)! On July 10, 1991, Representatives Waxman and Sikorsld introduced The Lead Contamination Control Act Amendments of 1991 (H.R.2840). The bill did not include an MCL at the tap for lead as was expected. However, H.R.2840 has some significant concerns for water utilities. The major concerns are; - a Tap Water Lead Limit of 10 parts per billion in my sample which we believe no utility can meet; - a corrosion control implementation schedule which is not based on scientific requirements (copy enclosed); - a lead service line replacement program which may not be achievable for many water utilities to meet (copy enclosed); and - a requirement to replace lead service lines not owned by the water utility. These issues and several others are explained in the enclosed summary of issues for H.R.2840. The Congressman from your district is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which has responsibility for H.R.2840. We need your assistance in informing your representative of the problems you may have with H.R.2840 and how it may affect the people in your district. We need your assistance to prevent the bill from being enacted in its present form and amend the bill for the public good. GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS OFFICE: 1010 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 810, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628 -8303 If you have a problem with implementing the corrosion control or lead service line removal schedules, illustrate the effect of the bill on the le of our community in PceP Y ty concrete terms. If the information is available, water utilities should inform their representative of the total number of lead service lines in their system, the estimated total cost for removal, the total cost per rate payer in rate increases, the estimated cost for each property owner to replace the portion of the lead service line owned by the property owner, the number of lead service lines to be removed per day based on the schedule in the bill and the ability of the utility or municipality to comply with the proposed law within the time periods specified. Please be factual! In addition to communicating with your representative in Congress, it is very important to involve the mayor and the city/state lobbyist and other groups which may assist you. A copy of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' resolution on Lead in Drinking Water is enclosed for your information. Representative John D. Dingell, the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, told a meeting of AWWA members in Michigan, that members of Congress must also hear from people, other than the water utilities, about the cost or rate of lead service line replacement problems or other concerns with the bill. Enclosed for your use is a copy of a draft letter to your representative informing him of the water utility's concern with H.R.2840. The draft letter should be revised to reflect your personal style and to add relevant information on your system but keep the tone professional and unemotional. You may use a copy of the enclosed summary of issues as an enclosure to your letter or extract issues which you may wish to highlight. It is important that you send copies of your letters to Representative Dingell (the Committee Chairman), Representative Waxman (the Subcommittee Chairman), Representative Lent (ranking minority committee member), and Representative Dannemeyer (ranking minority subcommittee member) all of whom will have significant influence on what happens to this bill. A list of addresses is enclosed. Since this bill will be considered by the Committee in September, it is very important that you call, FAX or write to the members of Congress as quickly as possible. This is the first major grassroots lobbying effort of AWWA. We need your support for success. Your letter will be essential for enacting legislation which protects public health by reducing lead contamination in drinking water in the most effective manner. Save this Legislative Alert material for future use AWWA members will need to contact the congressmen on the Energy and Commerce Committee in the future on this bill and during the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization. We will keep you up to date on legislative developments on these bills. Your contacts with your member of Congress are key to the success of the AWWA legislative program. Please send a copy of your correspondence to the AWWA Washington Office. We would also be very interested in any response you receive. Please call the Washington Office (202) 628- 8303, if you have any questions or need additional information. DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO COMMMME MEMBERS The Honorable U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative I am writing to you concerning The Lead Contamination Control Act Amendments of 1991 (H.R.2840). We have significant concerns with some provisions of H.R.2840 which we believe are not good public policy and urge you not to enact the bill in its present form. I have enclosed a brief summary of our concerns with H.R.2840. I want to assure you that we recognize the health hazards posed by lead contamination in the environment and support lead exposure reduction measures which protect public health. We support The Lead Exposure Reduction Act of 1991 (H.R.1750 and S.391). Lead is unique as a drinking water contaminant in that the contamination primarily occurs fterr the water has been treated and distributed to the consumer. The primary source of contamination is from lead in home plumbing and the service lines connecting homes to the water mains. This presents a regulatory situation much different than that for other contaminants found in drinking water sources. We support an MCL of 5 parts per billion at the entry to the distribution system. We support a Tap Water Lead Limit that is protective of public health and can be achieved. We support the use of corrosion control treatment techniques to reduce lead exposure. We support a lead service line removal rate which can be accomplished and at a cost which the American people can afford to pay. We support public education on the hazards and remedies for lead contamination. However, we believe some provisions of H.R.2840 may not be the best way to achieve the public health goals that we share. Although we support the basic lead reduction strategy in the drinking water provisions of H.R.2840, we do not support the details of implementation, some of which we believe are scientifically and technicallv unsound. Additionally, some H.R.2840 provisions go far beyond lead reduction and significantly affect many other areas of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These other issues should be considered in the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. We look forward to working with you and the Committee to address the concerns that we have raised and in enacting effective legislation to protect public health in America. Thank you for your kind consideration of this request. Sincerely, THE LEAD CONTAMINATION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1991 (H.R. 2840) ISSUES - TAP WATER LEAD LIMIT AWWA supports the concept of a Tap Water Lead Limit as a measure to trigger corrosion control treatment techniques. However, there is concern that the Tap Water Lead Limit of 10 parts billion in any tap sample cannot be met in every sample. (The Tap Water Lead Limit replaces the Action level of 15 parts per billion in 90th percentile samples contained in the EPA lead rule.) Studies have shown that brass faucets holding lead free water for an 8 hour period can leach lead into the water at levels of 10 parts per billion or higher. The practical effect of the proposed Tap Water Lead Limit will be that nearly all water utilities will have to install corrosion control treatment techniques and those that have lead service lines will be required to remove all lead service lines except for those individual service lines which are tested and determined not to contribute to tap water lead concentrations in excess of 10 parts per billion. For instance, one brass faucet in one house conceivably could force installation of corrosion control techniques on the entire water system of a city or force the testing of all lead service lines in the system for removal when the lead contamination problem may exist entirely within the home and can be corrected by the homeowner. The bill also makes no provision for the illegal activities of others such as using lead solder in plumbing. Recommendation: The Tap Water Lead Limit not be based on one exceedance in one sample. - CORROSION CONTROL AWWA supports corrosion control techniques as a method of reducing lead contamination from home plumbing and lead service lines. However, there is concern that a time period of 36 months to install optimal corrosion control treatment from start to finish (including state review) can not be done. Systems will be required to obtain funding, design, prepare and begin operations all within a twelve month period of the 36 months. A six month testing period may not be sufficient time to determine corrosion control techniques. It takes testing in yearly cycles through all seasonal water characteristic changes to determine what treatment is required and when corrosion control has been optimized. Additionally, the state's failure to act in a timely manner would force a system into non- compliance. Setting a . standard which cannot be met, will virtually assure failure to meet timeframes and thus mean non - compliance which will trigger immediate lead service line replacement in cases where it might not be necessary. Factors beyond the control of a water utility or state must be seriously considered. Recommendation: Corrosion control implementation be based on a schedule which can be achieved within scientific limits. - LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT AWWA supports lead service line removal as a means of reducing lead contamination in drinking water when the lead service line is significantly contributing to the lead contamination. However, any schedule of lead service line replacement must be achievable and affordable for the rate payer - the individual citizen. There is concern that the lead service line replacement schedule mandated in the bill does not sufficiently address the widely differing circumstances throughout the nation. Many systems may not be able to remove the lead service lines by the dates mandated in the bill. For instance, a system with 250,000 total service connections, of which 50,000 were lead, would have to test and remove 69 lead service lines every day for two years or 125 lead service lines every working day for two years to comply. It is questionable if any city of any size in the United States has the capability to test and remove lead service lines at this rate. Additionally, the cost to the individual citizen who must pay the bill and the ability of a city to finance the cost must be considered. Recommendation: State primacy agents establish a schedule for lead service line replacement in the shortest time period feasible, taking into account such factors as the size of the system, number of service lines to be replaced, cost of replacement, impact on water rates also considering other ( g costs mandated b the Safe Drinking Water Act Y g ), and the extent and magnitude of exceedances of the Tap ater Lead Limit. This set schedule would be the legal P g fixed compliance schedule for the water system. - PUBLIC EDUCATION AWWA supports public education regarding the hazards of and remedies for lead contamination in drinking water. However, we believe there is a better approach than mandating specific x PP g spec c to is by statute. The first sentence of the introduction in the required written material implies that the water utility is providing contaminated drinking water to the consumer. Unless the water utility exceeded the MCL established for lead, this would be an incorrect statement. Mandating specific language by statute makes it difficult .to change the public education requirements as required by various circumstances. This is best left to the regulatory process. Recommendation: Delete the mandatory language provisions for public education material from the bill and leave specific language of public education material to the regulatory process. - OWNERSHIP VS. CONTROL AWWA opposes the provision of the bill requiring . water utilities to replace lead service lines which they control, as defined in the bill. Water utilities have always defined "control" to mean "ownership." This provision would require some water utilities to replace lead service lines they do not own and are located on private property. The definition of control in both the bill and the EPA lead rule is overly broad and could be interpreted to extend control, not only to the wall of a building, but also to the plumbing inside a building. This provision raises constitutional legal problems with regard to private property and eminent domain Additionally, there are state and local restrictions on some water utilities authority to pay for work done on private property and problems in collecting payment from owners. This provision of the bill is identical to the provision in the EPA lead rule which is under litigation for these same reasons. This portion of the EPA lead rule was not part of the public comment process and was added just prior to promulgation of the rule. Recommendation: Water utilities be held responsible for removing only those lead service lines or portions which they own.* *This recommendation may change based on the results of litigation. - ANALYTICAL METHODS The bill eliminates the use of Practical Quanititation Levels (PQL) and consideration of economic and technical feasibility in the development of regulations and setting standards and invalidates all regulations based on PQL. This provision of the bill is broad in scope, is not limited to lead contamination and could throw the entire regulatory program into chaos. It is a subject more appropriate for consideration in the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Recommendation: Delete this provision from the bill and consider it during the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. - ACTION LEVELS The bill eliminates the use of action levels in future regulations. This provision is broad in scope, not limited to lead contamination and is a subject more appropriate for consideration in the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The concept is useful for establishing measurable triggers for treatment techniques for contamination which occurs after water leaves the public water distribution system. The Tap Water Lead Limit established in this bill is an action level by another name. Recommendation: Delete this provision from the bill and consider it during the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. - CLASSES OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The bill prohibits establishment of different requirements based on system .size (large, medium, small) except as provided in the bill for lead contamination _reduction. It effectively requires all regulations that consider system size to be revised. Since distinctions based on size were useful in this bill, there may be other circumstances in which these distinctions would be useful or even necessary. This provision is broad in scope, not limited to lead contamination., could throw the entire regulatory program into chaos, and is a subject more appropriate for consideration in the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Recommendation: Delete this provision from the bill and consider it during the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. - CITIZEN SUITS The bill amends the citizen suit provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This provision is not limited to lead contamination but has a broad effect throughout the other Safe Drinking Water Act programs. These provisions should be considered in context with the other enforcement means available to EPA and the states under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Recommendation: Delete this provision from the bill and consider it during the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. - INCREASE IN SDWA PROGRAMS The bill dramatically increases the size of the Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory programs by adding approximately 120,000 transient, non - community systems to the 80,00 systems already scheduled for regulation. It requires 200,000 reviews and opportunities to comment within the space of approximately one year and requires prompt withdraw of all primary enforcement responsibilities if all Safe Drinking Water Act requirements are not fully implemented by a state. There are no comparable authorizations in the bill for a nearly three -fold increase in the number of regulated systems and for EPA to assume primary enforcement responsibilities of the states. Recommendation: Delete from the bill the provisions which expand the size of Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory programs and, together with the additional resources required, consider them during the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT (H.R. 284x) "(a) Basic Requirement. — Public water systems that fail to meet the tap water lead limit in samples taken pursuant to section 1418G(d) after installing corrosion control shall replace lead service lines in accordance with the requirements of this section. "(b) Replacement Schedule. — '(1)' In general. — A system shall replace lead services lines in its distribution system at an annual rate which will replace each year either 20 percent of the lead service lines or 10 percent of the total service lines, whichever results in replacement of a greater number of lead service lines. The initial number of lead service lines is the number of lead lines in place at the time the replacement program begins. The system shall identify the initial number of lead and nonlead service lines in its distribution system based upon a materials evaluation, including the evaluation required under section 1418G(a). The first year of lead service line replacement shall begin on the date the tap water lead limit was exceeded in tap water sampling referenced in subsection (a) of this section. If the State fails to designate optimal corrosion control by the date required under section 1418B or if a system fails to install corrosion control treatment by the date required under section 1418B, the first year of lead service line replacement shall begin 6 months after the such date. "(2)' Extension of schedule for certain systems. — Upon the application of a public water system with an especially large number of lead service lines in its distribution system, the State may, after notice and opportunity for comment, extend the schedule for lead service line replacement established under paragraph 0). Such extension shall provide for the replacement by the system at the earliest feasible date. Such extension shall provide for replacement of an equal percentage of such lines in each year during the extension and shall terminate no later than the date specified in the following table: Total number of lead service Maximum lines to be replaced by System extension period Morethan 50, 000 ............ ........:...................... 3 years More than 100, 000 ............ ...... "— ** * * ** ...... * *— 5 years More than 300, 000 ........... ............................... 10 years More than 450, 000 ........... ............................... 13 years CONTR L SCHEDULE - LAR E M .R. 2840 CORROSION O S G SY STEMS (H ) '(d) Treatment Steps and Deadlines for Large Systems. — Except as provided in paragraph (2) and (3) of subsection (b) of this section, large systems shall complete the following corrosion control treatment steps by the indicated dates. "(1) Step 1: The system shall conduct initial monitoring (sections 1418G(d)(1) and 1418H(b) within 6 months after enactment of this subpart. "(2) Step 2: The system shall complete corrosion control studies (section 1418C(c)) within 12 months after enactment of this subpart. '(3) Step 3: The State shall designate optimal corrosion control treatment (section 1418C(d)) within 18 months after enactment of this subpart. "(4) Step 4: The system shall install optimal corrosion control treatment (section 1418C(e)) within 24 months after enactment of this subpart. "(5) Step 5: The system shall complete follow -up sampling (section 1418H(c)) within 30 months after enactment of this subpart. "(6) Step 6: The State shall review installation of treatment and designate optimal water quality control parameters (section 1418C(f)) within 36 months after enactment of this subpart. "(7" Step 7: The system shall operate in compliance with the State specified optimal water quality control parameters (section 1418C(g)) and continue to conduct tap sampling (section 1418H(d)). CORROSION CONTROL SCHEDULE - SMALUMEDIUM SYSTEMS (H .R. 2840) "(e) Treatment Steps and Deadlines for Small and Medium -Size Systems. — Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, small and medium -size systems shall complete the following corrosion control treatment steps (described in the referenced portions of sections 1418C, 1418G, and 1418H) by the indicated time periods. "(1) Step 1: The system shall conduct initial tap sampling (section 1418G(d)(1) within 6 months after enactment of this subpart. A system exceeding the tap water lead limit shall recommend optimal corrosion control treatment (section 1418C(d) within 12 months after such system exceeds the tap water lead limit. "(2) Step 2: Within 12 months after a system exceeds tap water lead limit the State may require the system to perform corrosion control studies (section 1418C(b)). If the State does not require the system to perform such studies, the State shall specify optimal corrosion control treatment (section 1418C(d) within 12 months after such system exceeds the tap water lead limit. "(3) Step 3: If the State requires a system to perform corrosion control studies under step 2, the system shall complete the studies (section 1418C(c) within 12 months after the State requires that such studies be conducted. "(4) Step 4: If the system has performed corrosion control studies under step 2, the State shall designate optimal corrosion control treatment (section 1418C(d)) within 6 months after completion of step 3. "(5) Step 5: The system shall install optimal corrosion control treatment (section 1418C(e)) within 12 months after the State designates such treatment. "(6) Step 6: The system shall complete follow -up sampling (section 1418H(c)) within 24 months after the . State designates optimal corrosion control treatment. "(7) Step 7: The State shall review the system's installation of treatment and designate optimal water quality control parameters (section 1418C(f)) within 6 months after completion of step 6. "(8) Step 8: The system shall operate in compliance with the State designated optimal water quality control parameters (section 1418C(g)) and continue to conduct tap sampling (section 1418H(d)). Resolution No. 67 Submitted By: The Honorable W. R. "Bob" Holcomb Mayor of San Bernardino The Honorable Coleman A. Young Mayor of Detroit LEAD IN DRINKING WATER 1) WHEREAS, municipal governments that supply drinking water are committed to protecting public health by providing safe and aesthetically acceptable potable water; and 2) WHEREAS, lead in drinking water due to leaching from home plumbing and distribution systems is of concern to city water suppliers; and 3) WHEREAS, cities are responsible for the lead content of the water within the distribution system, but are not responsible and can not control lead leaching from home plumbing systems; and 4) WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently promulgated a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for lead that establishes• a maximum contaminant level goal for lead and establishes a treatment technique requirement that is triggered by exceedance of an established action level; and 5 ) WHEREAS, -. -The - United - States - Conference - of--- Mayors supports setting drinking water standards for compliance and enforcement purposes within the water supply distribution system; .. and 6) WHEREAS, lead in drinking water presents a special case where contamination can occur within the home environment beyond the water suppliers' control; and 7) WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation attempts to deal with the problem of lead leaching from home plumbing through water treatment and by requiring public water systems to collect diagnostic tap water samples for lead from high risk homes, 8) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that.. The United States Conference of Mayors supports the establishment of standards (maximum contaminant levels - MCLs) for drinking water monitored for compliance and enforcement purposes within the 110 water distribution system which is under the ownership of the water supplier; and 9) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The united States Conference of Mayors supports diagnostic sampling for lead in order to provide the homeowner with information about lead being leached from the home environment and for purposes of analyzing appropriate corrosion control treatment; and 10) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that drinking water diagnostic sampling at the customer's tap may be conducted on a cost recovery basis; and 11) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the prohibition of new lead solder and flux be extended and vigorously enforced; and 12) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that water systems, required to replace lead service connections, be allowed to develop a plan of replacement on a priority basis and in conjunction with state primacy agents. 13) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that corrosion control treatment be required of large systems only upon exceedance of the lead action level of .015 mg /L measured in the 90th percentile. Projected Cost: Unknown 111 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Cow Meeting Dew 09/23/91 Agenda Item Number__��1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES DEPT. APPROV : Sy Knapp irector of Public Works ************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOnM[ENDATION: XZ 14- A No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached t SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ---- I 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 all as new trees are marked. A total of 378 trees have been marked for removal thus far this year, compared with 600 at this time last year. State forestry officials report that the number of trees marked statewide is about 40% less than last year. We anticipate a total of about 400 trees this year, compared to a total of 695 last year, or a decrease of 42 %. The primary reason the numbers are down is that 1990 reflected the continuing effects of the drought of 1988 -89. Trees that were weakened in the drought succumbed to disease in 1990. The wetter weather this year strengthened many trees' resistance to disease. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. s 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 09/23/91 ) 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 --------- ------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- CITY OF B.C. GRANDVIEW PARK 371 CITY OF B.C. WEST PALMER PARK 372 MARGARET NELSON 5906 UPTON AVE N 373 JOHN GARDAS 5900 VINCENT AVE N 374 JOHN GARDAS 5900 VINCENT AVE N 375 JOHN GARDAS 5900 VINCENT AVE N 376 JOHN GARDAS 5900 VINCENT AVE N 377 MELTON & ADELINE BLOMQUIST 6412 FREMONT AVE N 378 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. RESOLUTION NO. 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 council Meeting Date 9/23/9 Agenda Rem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Performance Guarantee Release ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPRO L: � . )190 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 The following performance guarantee is recommended for release as specified: 1. Olive Garden 1601 James Circle Planning Commission Application No. 90018 Amount-of Guarantee - $110,000 Obligor - General Mills Restaurants All improvements have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. An as -built survey has also been submitted. Recommend total release. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Licenses to be approved by the City Council on September 23, 1991: AMUSEMENT DEVICE VENDOR 4139 Red Oak Rid B & B Video Games e i g ief of Police GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE •• �ca� Northern Disposal, Inc. 2817 Anthony Lane S. Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Axiom Marketing Brookdale Center Korean Presbyterian Church 6830 Quail Ave. N. Sanitarian lot MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Bostrom Sheet Metal Works, Inc. 785 Curfew Street Comfort Mechanical, Inc. 4721 33rd Ave. N. Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. 1441 Rice Street Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewal: Dale C. Wegner 5935 Dupont Ave. N. B. C. Church of Christ 6219 Dupont Ave. N. 1 Charles Knudtson 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #313 •�. � )L� /� Director of Planning k and Inspection Y • Y SIGN HANGER Scenic Sign Corporation P. 0. Box 881 Schad - Tracey Sign 1600 East Cliff Road Building Official GENERAL APPROVAL: P. Page, Depu14 Clerk