Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 12-02 CCP Regular Session t � 0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DECEMBER 2, 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. November 13, 1991 - Budget Work Session b. November 18, 1991 - Regular Session 8. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Require Minimum Separation between a 24 Hour Commercial Operation and R1, R2, or R3 Zoned Property -This ordinance amendment was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at its November 7, 1991, meeting. This item is offered this evening for a first reading. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the City Council's Review of Site and Building Plans -This ordinance amendment was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at its November 21, 1991, meeting. This item is offered this evening for a first reading. C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Wall and Freestanding Signs in the C2, I -1 and I -2 Zoning Districts -This ordinance amendment was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at its November 21, 1991, meeting. This item is offered this evening for a first reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- December 2, 1991 d. An Ordinance Creating Chapter 23 -600 of the City Ordinances Relating to Pawn Brokers and Second Hand Dealers -This item is offered this evening for a first reading. 9. Executive Session After Council Meeting a. Update on Labor Contract Negotiations 10. Resolutions: *a. Approving Final Costs and Closing the Project for Delivery of a Telephone System for the Brooklyn Center City Hall and the Earle Brown Heritage Center *b. Acknowledging Gift from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club *c. Approving Purchase of a Laserjet Printer *d. Approving a Final Tax Capacity Levy for the Purpose of Defraying the Cost of Operation, Providing Informational Service, and Relocation Assistance Pursuant to the Provisions of MSA 469.001 through 469.001. of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year 1992 11. Final Plat Approval: *a. Larry Addition 12. Discussion Item: a. Motion to Authorize Additional Purchase from Fire Department Capital Outlay Account *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment s/ y � MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA BUDGET WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 13, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in a budget work session and was called to order by Mayor Paulson at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Paulson, Councilmembers Scott, Pedlar, Rosene and Cohen. (Councilmember Rosene was excused from the meeting between 7:20 p.m. and 8 p.m.). Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, and Assistant Finance Director Charlie Hansen. Mayor Paulson asked the Council if they had any comments from the previous work session regarding questions which were raised during that session. Councilmembers Scott and Cohen stated the Council reviewed the budget from the beginning to the Vehicle Maintenance section of the budget. The two major items of discussion were the request from the Hockey boosters for $10,350 for hockey program expense and discussion regarding the canine program. The City Manager was asked at that meeting to provide information regarding program costs per participant in the various recreation programs and cost information regarding the canine program and the use of forfeited drug funds to finance the canine program in 1992. The City Manager presented information on the recreation programs stating per participant program costs ranged from a high of $46.72 per band member per year to a per participant (spectator) cost for the puppet wagon playground program of $1.17 per participant per year. With regard to the canine program he stated in a survey of 22 suburban communities in the metro area indicated 11 cities had canine programs and 11 cities did not. He further stated forfeited drug funds could be used as a funding source for the canine program. Mayor Paulson asked for public comment regarding the canine issue and Dennis Kelly, Chairman of the Financial Task Force, appeared stating his support of the Police Chief and City Manager's recommendation to cut the program. He stated he believes such programs as D.A.R.E. and Crime Prevention are more effective programs than the canine program. Mr. Moen, representative of the Police Union, supported the canine program if no further cuts were made from other portions of the police budget. He also stated there were safety factors for officers which were eliminated by the use of canine units. Mr. Mann, Mr. Rayl and Mr. Slovak spoke in favor of the canine program. The City Council discussed various alternatives of funding and Councilmember Scott stated she had 11-13-91 -1- discussed the possibility of a joint program with Brooklyn Park Mayor, Jesse Ventura, and she reported he was in favor of working on a closer cooperative program in the future. Councilmember Cohen suggested the possibility of working with Hennepin County on a canine program and /or some joint powers agreement with a number of communities in the north metro area. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar directing staff to provide suggested alternative funding including forfeiture funds so as to include in the 1992 budget the canine program and suggest a process for reviewing alternative programs for providing this service in future years. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Paulson asked if the Council had any comments or discussion regarding the Hockey Boosters request for $10,350. Councilmembers Cohen and Scott commented they would like to consider some amount of money to assist the program on a one time basis and should be reviewed and sent to the school districts for contribution to this type of program. The City Manager stated the Council could fund such a program if a services contract of some type were developed to meet legal requirements. Mr. Bridges appeared on behalf of the Hockey Boosters in favor of supporting the Hockey Boosters request and Mr. Christensen, a member of the Financial Task Force, appeared opposing the request and asking the Council to encourage the organization of Hockey Booster or feeder programs along school attendance boundaries. After further discussion the Council requested the staff to review the possibility of developing an overall policy on these matters in conjunction with the Hockey Boosters and the schools and pending review of that the Council would consider using contingency funds for financing this request but not as a part of the regular budget. Mayor Paulson asked if anyone else in the audience had any further comment about any portion of the City budget proposal and Janet Maher, representing the North Hennepin Mediation Project, spoke in favor of modifying the current budget proposal to allow some monies for the mediation project. Councilmember Rosene reported the Human Rights and Resources Commission had recommended $7,000 for the Peacemaker Center contract and $3,000 for the North Hennepin mediation Project contract and the proposed budget recommended $10,000 for the Peacemaker Center and no funding for the North Hennepin Mediation Project funding. The Council asked staff to review with the Peacemaker Center the recommendation of the Human Rights and Resources Commission and the Council preference was to split the funding rather than eliminate the funding for one of the projects. Councilmember Rosene reported after a meeting of the Human Rights and Resources Commission representatives of the Mediation Project and police chief met to review and agree on a referral policy. The Council asked when that review is complete it be submitted to the City Council. 11 -13 -91 -2- Mayor Paulson recognized Donna Powers, Aquatics Program Supervisor. Ms. Powers stated if this position is cut there would be problems with maintaining a consistent certified program and communicating with the parents and the children because running lessons and supervising the program is a very demanding and time consuming job. By cutting it back to part time people and splitting remaining duties between other staff in the Park and Recreation area would be a step backwards as the program has stabilized under one individuals supervision over the last eight years. She suggested there could be ways of increasing class size and other revenue measure which could possibly increase revenues enough to pay for this position. The City Council requested the City Manager to review possible increase revenue sources and asked for a report on the five year pool use based on program, income and attendance records. During the discussion Diane Lerbs requested consideration of increasing the temperature of the pool when smaller children are in the pool and the Council asked the City Manager to review the feasibility and Ms. Lerbs further requested if there was regularly scheduling children's activities as to certain days and certain times as a way of increasing pool use. Ms. Lerbs questioned if the sale of the liquor stores would improve the city's financial picture. Mr. Holmlund explained the liquor stores currently contribute $100,000 to $125,000 to the General Fund and privatization of our liquor stores would cost the General Fund at least $100,000 annually in lost revenue. Mayor Paulson asked if any one else present wished to comment on the 1992 budget and Mr. Escher, a member of the Financial Task Force, stated he believed the City Council should not make the same mistake as the State Legislature in attempting to micro manage the City. Elected officials should spend their time and emphasis on policy matters and leave the management and operation to capable professionals. Mayor Paulson asked if the Council wished to consider continuing the budget session this evening or adjourning it to another time. After discussion, there was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to recess the budget work session to the regular Council meeting date of November 18, 1991, in the City Council chambers and requested the Mayor and City Manager to limit the size of the regular agenda to allow more time for the budget review. The motion passed unanimously. i 11 -13 -91 -3- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY k OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 18, 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, Councilmembers Celia Scott, 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, Parks and Recreation Director Arnie Mavis, City Engineer Mark Maloney, Chief of Police Jim Lindsay, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Assistant Finance Director Charlie Hansen, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary Peggy McNabb. OPENING CEREMONIES Reverend Robert Me offered the invocation. OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had received one request to use the open forum session I this evening. RICK JEWETT 6552 WILLOW LANE NORTH Mr. Jewett asked the Council when the residents of Brooklyn Center could expect to see the lighting at SuperAmerica be brought to code. � � r L� The Director of Planning and Inspection advised Mr. Jewett the City had contacted SuperAmerica; however, had not received a response to date. He added the matter is clearly not negotiable. The ordinances are clearly stated, and SuperAmerica's site plan is on file. The City will give SuperAmerica an opportunity to correct the lighting. If the lighting is not brought to code, the next step will be to cite SuperAmerica for a violation of the City Ordinances. The City will then need to make a decision whether to arraign the issue through the criminal courts system or civil courts system. Given the current court schedules, it may take up to one year to be heard. The City Manager will contact Mr. Jewett by telephone once that decision has been made. 11/18/91 - 1 - The Mayor inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL REPORTS HEN\TEPIN -ANOKA SUBURBAN DRUG TASK FORCE PLAQUE The Mayor presented a plaque from the Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation acknowledging the Hennepin -Anoka Suburban Drug Task Force's assistance in the surveillance, arrests and convictions of the Reginald Woodards Bank Robbery Gang. He advised the Council and residents the task force is a cooperative effort of the cit=ies of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids and Maple Grove, and expressed appreciation for the task force's fine work. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Mayor read excerpts from several commendation letters and telephone caIIs received from Brooklyn Center residents, and once again acknowledged the fine work of the Public Works Department staff in getting the snow moved in order to keep the roads passable for automobiles, buses and emergency vehicles following the October 31 snowstorm. REPORT ON BROOKLYN CENTER TOWN MEETINGS The Mayor reported to the Council the first Town Meeting was held on Thursday, November 14. The topic was the Charter Preamble and the City's Mission Statement. The Mayor advised the Council the beginning and ending portions of the preamble were drafted during the meeting. The remaining contents will be developed by citizens, possibly through a contest. The Mayor felt the Town Meeting was successful; there was good input by participants, and good quality discussion. The Mayor advised the Council the second Town Meeting will be held on Thursday, November 21, at 7 p.m. in the C Barn at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The topic will be improved transit in Brooklyn Center. PARK CENTER SCIENCE CLASS The Mayor acknowledged and welcomed a science class from Park Center High School. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Cohen requested item No. 12 -d be removed. Councilmember Rosene requested item 12 -f be removed. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the agenda and consent agenda with items 12 -d and 12 -f removed. The motion passed unanimously. 11/18/91 -2- APPROVAL OF MINUTES OCTOBER 29 1991 - BUDGET WORK SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the minutes of the October 29, 1991, budget work session as printed. The motion passed with three ayes. The Mayor abstained. NOVEMBER 4, 1991 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the minutes of the November 4, 1991, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene t oin o approve the mayoral appointments tments of election judges for . 3 g the December electi er 1 on for P 7 1991 Precinct 9. The � , special ele motion passed unanimously, P RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 91 -261 Member Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE PROCESSING FEE CHARGED ON APPLICATIONS FOR TAX ABA'T'EMENTS BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ASSESSOR'S OFFICE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously, y RESOLUTION NO. 91 -262 Member Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION COMMENDING STATE REPRESENTATIVE PHIL CARRUTHERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -263 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF HEARING PROTECTION SYSTEMS FOR FIRE PUMPERS 11/18/91 -3- 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 b Councilmember y Rosene to approve the following list of licenses: CHRISTMAS TREE SALES LOT Builders Square 3600 -63rd Avenue N NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th Street Group Health A 6845 Lee Avenue N PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th Street Group Health 6845 Lee Avenue N TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 North Lilac Drive RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: TCF Bank fsb River GIen Renewal: George Lucht 5105 Brooklyn BIvd. J. G. Strand' 5329 Penn Avenue N Gary and Danae Morrison 5104 E Twin Lake Blvd. Peter S. Kelly 3900 - 56th Avenue N The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $4,275.000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX TNCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 1992A The City Manager presented a resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $4,275,000 general obligation tax increment refunding bonds, series 1992A, and advised the Council the bond sale is being proposed to provide funds to recall the General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1985A. Prevailing interest rates today are much lower than they were when the 1985 bonds were sold. This bond sale creates an opportunity for the City to lower its interest expense by replacing the old high interest rate bonds with new lower interest rate bonds, thus saving the difference. 11/18/91 -4- Robert Thistle, Springsted and Associates, advised the Council Springsted and Associates had reviewed the City's tax increment refunding bonds issued in 1985, and recommended refinancing the series. At the current interest rate of 5.89%, the savings to the City will be $308,300. He advised the Council the 1985 series cannot be retired until the maturity date of 1996. Therefore, the proceeds of the 1992 bonds will be invested until 1996 when they will be used to retire the 1985 bonds. He advised the Council proposals for the bonds will be received by Springsted and Associates on behalf of Brooklyn Center on Monday, January 13, 1992, until 11 a.m. at the offices of Springsted and Associates, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. The City Council will consider the award of the Bonds at 7 p.m. that same day. In response to the Mayor's question as to whether or not additional bonds could be added to this sale in order to raise additional monies for the City, Mr. Thistle indicated additional bonds could not be added. If desired, a new series would have to be issued. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -264 Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $4,275,400 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1992A The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE DATE OF THE OFFICIAL FLOOD PLAIN MAP The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Relating to the Date of the Official Flood Plain Map for a first reading. The Director of Planning and Inspection advised the Council the ordinance amendment had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its November 7, 1991, meeting, and will make two technical changes to the City's flood plain ordinance adopted on March 25, 1991. The first amendment corrects the date the City used for the flood insurance study and official flood plain map. The second amendment reflects a recodification of a Minnesota Statute citation used in the Ordinance. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Relating to the Date of the Official Flood Plain Map. The motion passed unanimously. 11118/91 _ 5 - DISCUSSION ITEMS PROPOSED 1992 MEETING SCHEDULE The City Manager presented a proposed 1992 meeting schedule for Council consideration. Councilmember Cohen raised a discussion on establishing a parameter for the Council's regular sessions to provide for a reasonable adjournment time. Rather than having the adjournment time being governed by an established parameter, the Mayor would rather see the meetings adjourned by parliamentary procedure as desired by Councilmembers. Councilmember Rosene recalled the Council had also on several occasions discussed the possibility of scheduling three regular sessions.each month. In response, Councilmember Cohen cautioned the Council on committing to• another evening meeting each month and recommended consideration be given to other commissions and committees to which the Councilmembers are also committed. The City Manager suggested, and the Council members concurred, staff and the Council members review and prioritize the list of impending issues to be addressed during the coming year, and schedule some additional work sessions during 1992 to address these issues. The list of impending issues will be provided by the City Manager at the next Council meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the City Manager's proposed 1992 meeting schedule. The motion passed unanimously. DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO DEVELOPING OF A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The City Manager advised the Council Minnesota Statutes section 473.878 requires each city in the metropolitan area to prepare a local water management plan. This statutory requirement has been noted to the Council on several occasions, i.e., during the 1991 budget development process and during the development of the City's storm drainage utility ordinance and budget. The adopted 1991 and 1992 budgets for the SDU system each include $75,000 for the development of this plan. Because the rules and regulations regarding the required content for such local plans have been under development by the Minnesota Board of Water and Sol Resources during the past year, and because numerous changes were made, staff have waited until now to recommend initiation of the City's plan development. He recommended using the City Engineer's draft copy of a request for proposal for soliciting proposals for the consulting services which will be required for the development of Brooklyn Center's water management plan. 11/18/91 _ 6 - RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZING SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The City Manager presented a resolution approving request for proposals and authorizing solicitation of proposals to develop a water management plan. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -265 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING OVING RE UEST FOR PROPOSALS AND Q 0 0 OSALS AUTHORIZING SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP A WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 1992 RECYCLING SERVICE RATE The City Manager advised the Council that as a follow -up to the proposed 1992 Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) budget which was presented at the Council's September 9, 1991, regular session, he had recently been notified by the HRG Administrator that it will not be necessary for HRG cities to increase the recycling service utility rate in 1992. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to accept the 1992 Recycling Service Rate report. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH SEH INC FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT_ _NO. 1990 -10. PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS The City Manager presented a resolution approving amendment to a professional services contract with SEH, Inc., relating to 69th Avenue improvement project no. 1990 -10, phase I improvements. The Public Works Director reviewed the contract amendments, and advised the Council additional soil testin g g necessary and other construction monitoring services are necessa to assure proper control of the soil correction phase of construction in the Palmer Lake area. He advised Council the soil correction process will Ieave the existing unstable soils in place. Heavier soils will be laid on top to compress and force the moisture out of the peat. SEH, Inc., has submitted a proposed amendment providing the additional services at an estimated cost of $27,000. The Public Works Director felt the actual costs may be closer to $20,000, depending on the number of tests which are determined to be necessary as the process proceeds. The Council members briefly discussed the recommended amendments and proposed soil correction process. Councilmember Scott asked the Council be kept abreast of this soil correction process as it proceeds. 11/18/91 -7- RESOLUTION NO. 91 -266 Member Phil Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH SEH, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO 69TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1994 -10, PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91018 SUBMITTED BY PDO FOOD STORES INC The City Manager presented a resolution regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 91018 submitted by PDQ Food Stores, Inc. On November 4, 1991, after a prolonged and exhaustive review, the Council had directed staff to prepare the resolution on the basis that the standards for a special use permit were not met in that the plans submitted were not in conformance with applicable ordinance regulations pertaining to the property. Councilmember Cohen advised the Council he had asked to remove this resolution from the consent agenda in response to a telephone call from Mr. Atkins requesting an opportunity to address the Council this evening. Councilmember Cohen asked the Director of Planning and Inspection for a synopsis of all communications /requests made by PDQ Food Stores, Inc., since the Council's November 4, 1991, meeting. In response, the Director of Planning and Inspection stated Mr. Archer had called inquiring when the minutes from the November 4, 1991, meeting would be available. The Director of Planning and Inspection advised Mr. Archer the minutes would be available pending approval at this evening's Council meeting. He also stated he had received a call from Mr. Jim Shelton, President of PDQ, at approximately 12:30 p.m. today while he was out of the offices. He explained he returned that call at about 2 p.m. and that Mr. Shelton was unavailable. There were no other contacts with PDQ. The Mayor invited Mr. Atkins or his designee to address the Council. JIM SHELTON, PRESIDENT PDQ FOOD STORES INC Mr. Shelton began his address to the Council by recapping the concessions PDQ had made relating to the driveway, the screening device on the east side, the lighting and signage to accommodate the City's recommendations /requirements in order to be in compliance with the standards for a special use permit. He advised the Council PDQ had based its site plan on that of the nearest competition, and he then asked the Council for the same consideration previously given to both Fina and SuperAmerica. 11/18/91 - g _ In response to Councilmember Cohen's request for clarification and reiteration of the basis for denial, the Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the key points in the resolution specifically addressing the four areas of nonconformance. He then advised the Council the resolution requires any future revisions or modifications to the proposed plans shall be subject to the resubmission of a new Planning Commission Application consistent with the provisions of Sections 350 -220 and 35 -230 of the City Ordinances regarding special use permits and plan approval. The Director of Planning and Inspection then advised the Council an ordinance amendment is currently being prepared by staff for Council consideration at the December 4, 1991, meeting prohibiting the review of planning commission applications at the City Council table. The ordinance amendment further restricts Council's review of substantially altered site plans to only after they have been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Cohen concluded the dialogue by stating he felt the Council had been more than fair in trying to accommodate PDQ in meeting the City ordinance requirements. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -267 Member Phil Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 91018 SUBMITTED BY PDQ FOOD STORES, INC. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b member Dave g g Y Y Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Rosene recommended the City aggressively enforce the signage and lighting ordinances at all service stations in the City. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SEWER REPLACEMENT AT BROOKLYN DRIVE. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1991 -23 The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Sewer Replacement at Brooklyn Drive, Improvement Project No. 1991 -23. The plans and specifications and advertisement for bids were authorized at the October 21, 1991, Council meeting. The Public Works Director advised the Council six bids were received, and they all significantly exceeded the City Engineer's estimate of $43,125. In addition to an underestimation of a few construction factors, the Public Works Director felt the October 31, 1991, snowstorm had a dramatic impact on the bids. He felt an option to reject all the bids and advertise again in the spring may be more cost effective; however, in view of the seriousness of a potential collapse, he recommended awarding the bid to J.P. Norex, Inc., based on their low bid of $58,371. The cities of Brooklyn Park and St. Louis Park had provided excellent references /recommendations on J.P. Norex, Inc. 11/18/91 .9- 9 c 1 Councilmember Rosene advised the Council he had asked to remove this resolution from • the cons ,-nt agenda, and recommended the resolution be amended to include an additional paragraph addressing the urgency of this project in view of the Director of Public Works' opinion that the sewer is in such disrepair that a collapse by next spring is highly probable. The Director of Public Works and the Council concurred with this recommendation. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -268 j Member Dave Rosene introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption subject to an amendment addressing the urgency of this sewer replacement project: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SEWER REPLACEMENT AT BROOKLYN DRIVE, - IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -23 -. E The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Phil Cohen, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Pedlar arrived at the meeting at 8:15 p.m. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. 1992 PROPOSED BUDGET WORK SESSION The Mayor recapped the Council's October 29, 1991, budget work session, and recommended this budget work session be for the Council to address some concerns raised at the October 29, 1991, budget work session and also to further review the 1992 City Manager's proposed budget. Public input will be received at the November 25, 1991, Truth in Taxation Public Hearing. CITY -OWNED LIQUOR STORES The City Manager presented the Director of Finance's estimation of what the annual property taxes would be on the City's liquor stores if they were privately owned. Of the estimated $35,965 in taxes, Brooklyn Center would realize $4,459; the rest would be distributed to other taxing entities. The City Manager calculated the loss in revenues generated by the liquor stores to be $120,000 annually. The information was prepared in response to a resident's suggestion at the October 29, 1991, budget work session that the City's liquor stores be sold, and the proceeds be used to cover the budget shortfall. AQUATIC SUPERVISOR POSITION The Council discussed raising user fees for the various swimming programs to fund the aquatic supervisor position in the 1992 budget. Councilmember Scott felt, and the Council concurred, that maintaining the position would be money well spent. The City Manager felt there would be little, if any, impact on swimming program participation rates. 11118/91 - 10 - t i There was a motion by Counc>lmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to fund the aquatic supervisor position in the 1992 budget by increasing swimming program user fees effective January 1, 1992. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene to amend the motion to communicate to the swimming pool program patrons the increased fees are necessary in order to maintain the high quality program provided by the City. The motion, as amended, was seconded by the Mayor, and passed unanimously. The Mayor suggested offering patrons various options for financial savings, such as promoting books of swimming pool tickets at reduced rates. COUNCIL'S ROLE IN BUDGET PROCESS A The Council discussed its intended /desired role in the budget process. The Councilmembers expressed a need and desire to be more closely involved in the decisions that are made in drafting the proposed budgets. BROOKLYN CENTER YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION REQUEST FOR FUNDS Following a brief discussion on the Brooklyn Center Youth Hockey Association's request for funding, there was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to refer the request to the Parks and Recreation Committee for further consideration. The motion passed unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR/RECORDING SECRETARY POSITION The Mayor raised a discussion on funding a newly created position for a communications coordinator /recording secretary for the City Council. He recalled the Council's enthusiastic response to his memo dated June 4, 1991, outlining the need for such a position. A copy of that memo was distributed, along with a copy of a memo from the Personnel Coordinator outlining the job description/responsibilities of such a position, as well as the cost, which was estimated to be $53,000 annually. The Mayor also recalled the Council's desire to be proactive in communications, and felt a highly visible communications coordinator in the community would certainly enhance work of the City and the Communications Commission. A lengthy discussion ensued on possible funding source. Several sources were cited, including surplus amounts from the 1991 budget, the contingency fund, and cutting nonprofit programs. The Council discussed options of staffing the position at different salary levels, and the advantages and disadvantages of designing the position an entry level opportunity to requiring a fully experienced communications background. 11/18/91 - 11 - There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to earmark $53,000 from the 1992 contingency fund to create a new communications coordinator /recording secretary position, subject to a report from staff due by February 1, 1992, outlining the Communication Commission's recommendationrob description of such a position, and the Personnel Coordinator's estimated cost of the position based on the Communications Commission's recommendation. The motion passed unanimously. LEGAL SERVICES Councilmember Pedlar questioned the 5.5% increase in legal services, and directed staff to ascertain whether the increase represented an increased volume of services or an increased hourly rate. He felt competition is keen, and the City should aggressively pursue a competitive rate for legal services, whether it be through negotiations with the current legal service providers s e p ovi s or through an advertisement for bids. The City Manager advised the Council he will work with staff on various ways of reducing the amounts spent on legal services and report back to the Council. POLICE PROTECTION Councilmember Pedlar discussed the need for reorganization of the City's Police Department. He felt there are too many captains and too many levels of management. Authority needs to be granted downward in the department, thereby eliminating the need for upper and middle Ievels of management. He highly commended the department on a job well done; however, stressed the need to shift positions and monies. He recommended adjustments be made to reduce administrative /management staff and provide more services and more patrols on the streets protecting the City's citizens. He concluded by asking staff to obtain a metropolitan salary survey, and compare the metropolitan area police departments' structures and salaries. Following a prolonged discussion of staffing in the Police Department, there was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Scott directing staff to examine both the positive and negative impacts of reducing the Police Department force by both one captain and two captains, as well as to ascertain the potential impact on the union. The motion passed unanimously. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Councilmember Pedlar discussed the need for reorganization of the Public Works Department. As with the Police Department, he felt the management to employee ratio is excessive. He reiterated the need to grant authority downward in the department and to focus on teamwork. He cited the fine teamwork performed by the divisions of the department following the October 31, 1991, snowstorm as an indication that staff is indeed very capable and competent. Since the position of superintendent of public works is currently vacant, he recommended eliminating it from the 1992 proposed budget. 11/18/91 -12- The Council and staff challenged Councilmember Pedlar's thoughts, and a lengthy discussion, including alternatives to eliminating a superintendent position, ensued. Councilmember Scott reminded the Council the two -week time frame for adopting the 1992 proposed budget does not allow for the Council to reorganize departments. In response, the Mayor stated the budget is the Council's most important policy. He felt the Council ends up in this same position each year at budget time — definitely wanting to have some constructive and effective input into the budget, but finding itself up against the clock each year. He again reiterated the need and desire for staff to more closely involve the Council in drafting the proposed annual budgets. MOTION TO ADJOURN There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by the Mayor to plan on adjourning at 12 midnight. The motion passed unanimously. CONTINUATION OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by the Mayor to remove the position of superintendent of public works from the 1992 proposed budget. The Council and staff expressed opposition to this motion, and discussed several alternatives. Following a prolonged discussion, there was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to eliminate the positions of supervisor of street maintenance and supervisor of parks from the 1992 proposed budget, and add a position of supervisor of street maintenance and parks. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT By previous motion made by Councilmember Rosene, seconded by the Mayor, and passed unanimously, the Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 12 :10 a.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Peggy McNabb Northern Counties Secretarial Service 11/18/91 - 13 - CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12/2/9 Agenda Rem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Require Minimum Separation Between a 24 Hour Commercial Operation and R1, R2, or R3 Zoned Property ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 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: s lemental sheets attached x � app ) A Zoning rdinance amendment which would restrict some late night 9 g and early morning business operations within the City is being presented to the City Council for consideration. The amendment would prohibit service, entertainment or retail sales operations located in a C2 (Commerce) zoning district from being open to the general public between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. if such an operation is located closer than 200' from any R1, R2, or R3 zoning district. The distance would be measured from property line to property line for making such a determination. Medical emergency services are proposed to be exempt from this restriction. It might also be worthwhile to consider exempting abutment with institutional type uses located in these zones such as schools and churches as well as parks and other open spaces. Councilmember Scott, during the review of the PDQ proposal, suggested that the staff look at the possibility of establishing a restriction of this type as a means of addressing the negative impacts presented by such operations to nearby residential areas. The potential for noise, light glare, and the coming and going of traffic all lead to an unfavorable impact on surrounding residential property during a time when a residential area might normally expect quiet and a reduced activity level. SUMMARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED Page 2 Gas stations /convenience stores /car washes were not looked at specifically as being the only type of land use that would have such an impact. It is believed that almost any 24 hour or late night /early morning operation in a commercial area has the potential for a similar impact such as theaters, convenience food restaurants, restaurants in general, restaurants serving alcoholic beverages or having live entertainment, retail sales outlets, or service operations. Medical emergency services, as indicated, were considered an exception because of the potential for providing possible life saving services to the general public. The 200' separation from R1, R2 and R3 zoned areas is about the equivalent of a little less than three interior residential lots and seems to be a fairly reasonable separation. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of this Zoning Ordinance amendment at their meeting on November 7, 1991. Attached is a copy of pages 2 and 3 of their minutes from that meeting regarding this matter. It should be noted that this provision would affect some existing operations, although it would not prohibit them from continuing • their activity. Only new operations or operations not now being open for business to the general public during the hours indicated would be prohibited from doing so. Operations already in existence would be considered nonconforming uses ( "grandfathered ") and subject to the provisions of Section 35 -111 (attached) . If such an operation ceased from being used during these times for two consecutive years, it could not be reestablished. We are preparing some maps showing properties which would be affected by this proposal. Some areas that would be affected would include the Northbrook Shopping Center and businesses along the south side of 57th Avenue North in the 57th and Logan area; the Humboldt Square Shopping Center and other areas in the 69th and Humboldt area; many C2 zoned areas along Brooklyn Boulevard such as the service station /convenience store at 69th, the Boulevard Shopping Center at 63rd and Builders Square /Red Owl Country Store at 63rd; the Days Inn on Freeway Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue; the Highway 100 Racquet and Swim Club; and a number of properties in the area of 66th and T. H. 252 such as the site proposed for the PDQ operation. Recommendation As noted, this amendment was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission on November 7, 1991. It is recommended that the City Council also review and discuss the proposal and if they • believe it meets their concerns, approve it for first reading and set it on for public hearing and adoption. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 19 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require minimum separation between a 24 hour commercial operation and R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO REQUIRE A MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN A 24 HOUR COMMERCIAL OPERATION AND R1 R2 OR R3 ZONED PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -412 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN C2 DISTRICTS. 8. _Commercial operations which are open for business to the general public for service, entertainment or retail sales between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall not be located closer than 200 feet from any R1, R2, or R3 district measured from property line to property line. Medical emergency services shall be exempt from this provision. 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.) HOURS OF OPERATION AT COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS The second ordinance amendment that the Secretary introduced was an ordinance amendment relating to 24 hour operations being separated from R1, R2, and R3 zoned property. He explained that commercial uses would not be prohibited from locating near R1, R2 and R3 property if they did not operate between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. He went on to explain that the ordinance amendment would affect some existing operations that are 24 hour, operations near residential property. He stated that if these uses were to lapse in their present use, a similar use could not resume the operation if discontinued for a period of two years. He stated that this would be a nonconforming aspect to these operations. The Secretary reviewed various locations of businesses that might be affected by the limitation of hours adjacent to R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that the health club was open past 11:00 p.m. The Secretary acknowledged this and that there may be other conflicts with the proposed ordinance. He suggested that the Commission may want to change the limitation of hours to between midnight and 6:00 a.m. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that if the ordinance were adopted, these existing operations would be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. Commissioner Bernards observed that this ordinance would affect PDQ Food Stores which wished to locate near a residential area. The Secretary explained that it would not allow them to be a 24 hour operation, but that they could operate between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Bernards noted that this limitation would affect the interest of other buyers in that property. The Secretary acknowledged this. He went on to say that staff would recommend that the ordinance allow hospitals and other emergency medical services to locate in such an area and not to be subject to the limitation on hours. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the businesses that would be affected by this ordinance would be notified of the ordinance amendment. The Secretary stated that that could be done. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the limitation could be changed from 11:00 p.m. to midnight. The Secretary responded that was a possibility if the Commission so desired. Commissioner Sander stated that she would prefer to start out with tighter hours of operation and loosen later if there is a problem. The Secretary acknowledged that the City could be challenged on this ordinance. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the City could supersede state law with this kind of ordinance. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that zoning ordinances always affect where businesses can locate. 11 -7 -91 2 ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE HOURS OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION ADJACENT TO Rl R2 AND R3 ZONED PROPERTY Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance relating to the hours of commercial operations within 200 ft. of R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards stated that his opposition was because he felt the hours were overly restrictive and not consistent with some standard closing times. SIGN ISSUES The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to a memo regarding real estate signs and also some materials from the City Manager on a requested sign by Marquette Bank. The Secretary reviewed the Marquette Bank sign. He noted that the bank proposes to have a freestanding sign and offered to take down all wall signery in exchange for having the extra freestanding sign. The Secretary pointed out that the ordinance presently allows up to 30% of the wall area to be used in signery which is a very generous limit. He pointed out that no one has 30% of their wall area in signery. The Secretary recommended to the Commission that it consider scaling back the allowable area that can be used for wall signery and that it perhaps look at some sort of tradeoff as has been proposed between wall signs and an extra freestanding sign. The Secretary also suggested that there may be merit in establishing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) sort of provision in the sign ordinance to allow a sign package to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that such a package could consider tradeoffs between different types of signs, but that standards need to be in place to start with. Commissioner Johnson stated that he felt inadequate to judge what a sign ought to look like and asked that any ordinance amendment developed systematically an idea of what signs should look like. The Secretary stated that it was a matter of aesthetics, that signs with the same size and message could look good or bad, depending on the colors, lighting, etc. Commissioner Sander pointed out that different types of businesses want different types of signs. She asked what percent of wall area would be adequate for commercial buildings. The Planner answered that between 15% and 20% would probably be more than adequate. The Secretary stated that the tradeoffs that could be pursued under a sign package might also include provision for real estate signs. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the ordinance differentiates between permanent signs and real estate signs. The Secretary stated that permanent signs require a permit. 11 -7 -91 3 CHAPTER 35 - ZONING ORDINANCE Section 35 -100. STATEMENT OF POLICY. The City Council finds that the municipality is faced with mounting problems in providing means of guiding future development of land so as to insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public activities, and to promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Through enactment of this ordinance, nance, the City ouncil intends t y o for ant" prepare ici aced changes es a d P g n by such preparations, to bring about a significant savings in both private and public expenditures. This ordinance is intended to be one means of effectuating the municipal planning undertaken by this municipality. Through this ordinance, the municipality intends to encourage the wise development of lands within the municipality and to serve its citizens more effectively and to make the provision of public services less costly and to achieve a more secure tax base. Specifically, the provisions are designed to achieve the foregoing objectives through the regulation of the location, height, bulk, number of stories, size of buildings, and other structures, the --ercentage of lot area which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, and through the establishment of standards and procedures regulating uses within the City. Section 35-110. PERMITTED USES. Except as provided for in Section 35 -111, no building or premises may hereafter be used or occupied within a given land use district unless it is a permitted use in that district or unless it is 1 authorized as a special use. Sections 35 -310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 320, 322, 330, 331, 340, 341 give the various permitted and special uses. ` ' Section 35 -111 NONCONFORMING USES. Unless specifically provided otherwise herein, the lawful use of any land or building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be continued even if such use does not conform to the regulations of this ordinance, provided: 1. No such nonconforming use of land shall be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 2. Such nonconforming use shall not be moved to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 3. A nonconforming use of a building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be extended throughout the building provided no structural alterations except those required by ordinance, law, or other regulation are made therein, and provided that no such extension in the floodway overlay zone shall result in increased flood damage potential. Excepted from the structural alteration limitation are single family dwellings, located in residential districts other than R1 and R2, provided any structural alterations or additions shall conform with the requirements of the R1 and R2 district, and the Flood Plain regulations as applicable. L 35 -111 4. If a nonconforming use occupies a building and ceases for a continuous period of two years, any subsequent use of said building shall be in conformity to the use regulation g lation specified by this ordinance for the district in which such building is located. 5. Any nonconforming use shall not be continued following 50% destruction of the building in which it was conducted by flood, fire, wind, earthquake, or explosion, according to the estimate of the Building Inspector, approved by the City Council. 6. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, where there is a nonconforming use of land on a parcel with no structure or where there is a nonconforming use of land (such as storage of equipment and supplies), on which there is a conforming structure such use shall be terminated within two years following the effective date of this ordinance. t Section 35 -201. PLANNING COMMISSION. A Planning Commission of seven members is hereby established and continued as a planning agency advisory to the City Council. The Planning Commission shall have the powers and duties conferred upon it by statute, charter, ordinance or resolution. The Planning Commission shall serve as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the purpose of considering variances and appeals. Section 35 -202. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING. 1. Comprehensive Planning. The City Council hereby undertakes to carry on comprehensive study and planning as a continuing guide for land use and development legislation within the municipality. For this purpose the City Council has adopted, by Resolution No. 82 -255, a Comprehensive Guide Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center, and designates an advisory planning agency by Section 35 -201 to aid in such planning. The Planning Commission shall, from time to time, upon its own motion or upon direction of the City Council, review the Comprehensive Plan and by a majority vote of all members of the Planning Commission recommend appropriate amendments to the City Council. Before recommending any such amendments to the City Council, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing to consider the proposed amendment. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall publish notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing once in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing. Furthermore, the Secretary shall transmit copies of the proposed amendment to the City Council prior to the publication of the notice of hearing. Following the review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City ouncil shall consider seder the proposed amendment and may, by resolution of two- thirds of its members, amend the Comprehensive Plan. 0 POTENTIAL NONCONFORMING C2 USES OPEN BETWEEN 11:00 P.M. & 5:00 A.M. Days Inn Brookdale Motel Scoreboard Pizza Neil's Total Holiday (69th & Brooklyn Boulevard) Legion Club Red Owl Country Store Bridgeman's Wes's Amoco Highway 100 Racquet and Swim Club Superamerica (57th & Logan) Subway Sandwiches Chuckwagon ? CITY Zal f/v li � .�L _. -" —" f _ -- __._. - - � , ___ � - l'N 3hY0 Ol _ �"_'�1_, �`` c�`�i CD T_ 310 0 T M -A 1101I_ �y *,� '" ����E3' i m (J-) ------ -N '3.1Y I10J� �_L 11 Q3 '3AV IN- i I ��� - 1 I N )AV m T Ir - V m _Hl 1 j ; IA, _3Ay livno L 'N 4 N,- N _T T -D ,E ORGHAR - '3AV 3 � m - - - �� - EftPV - _ _ i - ' 3ntl Alfb3 __ - _ � . � -' i � r-. "X, N '303 s R � _" 'N Wr N 3AV N ---------------- ---- -- ---- J" � � LEE AV �. L` _L� AV. ----------- ------ ------ AV. VE jEd --- 31),A X� - -------- - --- T f-= i 'I I y ��? `�•,;c t SY3 •`��- N � �' L_l.l_ �.. _ _ /�. V /oj '3htl 3Nflf A VE . INDIA _ AVE � \ � �. �K " .`c: .�+ � � 3AY _ '; 11 ��T�� � � � m ,S $ �' � I L JAI jrmr_ � V V V V V nr C�L ��_�_� � ��� . 'HU J t N ON X I ly�i V4 s;OM N ' PL f N, ..... I t 111111((( T L�N NVJH `�`1 �� o F I I - :--_] T I , 9 H,IL 17- i N!" RAE Pt, �<��/ l �- - ADMT� J1 I A. \_ AVE r Nr \� Av Aj LE N J__i i � ^` ��__ f;, AVE w1l; I � i _ rTT] - �1 P ` _� � „�Uktw �_� � -' � Evi� '- r. I 7 R __- a y tj IT , . 3 XV - �I'� - � � _ - � ��� �'�� � I >l � �� _ � � -- c� Y ; ,,� r r - � N 3nv � [_I fs , o l �_ -li t �H / 1 � 7/ I� w. -- __� -- - _ � - - -- -_ _• - �___ _- F`_ i - -( t -- fir, "'r, r`n -_ - -- � __ L �lldd_ �u [ � Ir �I III �\m'! �' � `. ,D T AVE. N ji AV k3 1 '0 1 li 14 1 III I � , � ��.::` ;>. .�W.;:.� . I� tl l e X � - y" ' N 3/V 1N37NIn I �`,� I��tttt r tttt�f� ' - X _ - -- ] - __ -- _ - -_ -- 'N '3AV NW RsvM IT — -- .- , , J A y � , , - - - -- — — N ,V NllOA - w J '3nV < "K �- — 'N 1 L11L1 '3r,V lio" r '{ �, ` �OOKIYN �. , DatHY \ I N \ ; NOR HPORT PF r � I �r`;i i � -- -z - --� � �._� ��11 L`1 �r,v ,r3ba f • �y <, g y �k - ( •3nv M3HaT -- _ - � - I J � � -� N — -- I w _ ;i 11 IAA �\��- �.. "3nV 9NIM3 _ �� �. �'�` ✓, � � . f ��X ,� ,`c �1� 1�� � _ — ___ -- - � __- T , J z, 1� t vi - RANGE EVE. _ N 44 � $j AVE -- 1i 1 ' �! HALIhnXAVE. N.� __ + �.` :� V ��•C�' - �� � - Nrtr =��-v� A/[ IN It 3 Nn " w r N c } AZELI T �Atda I1J111_ll .w s t I h ti ill I1II v �: sy \� t � h a` - AVE X ao v 4 r _ �d , �aerrn �X _ I I - f } J as , . \`` 1W LLJ i ° _ < - ; n m �w m tD � m y. �y'Nwa1�UmUUM <«mo���uUmY441 ° < << - � �\ I II" II` 'lul �l I F I I I B :Iz�, x �Y, IT y am ,, EARLE ti -.� - 31`V -���- , r� NV901 - . 4 1 SUMMIT D R. f JAS CIR. N. e �J k , A v 'N '3AV S3YIV P �- - - - s • EARLE O DR. 3 T - wra JAlleS AVE. N. :! < J , '� of •�� N � ^,V ONI ABI _ -_ I VE. N. � _ , IR✓R.G AVE. N „� A e g ; . ,;A.n, �r - - 6 6 a r' , I T I II ' ti AV , _ J t 1I I f l 1 RAf AtlE l [ de V i ht ttT R EE_ L �FR MGNT A E }� N \ C h 1 1 —.� n_ 1_ _ GIRARD AVE. N. GIRARD AVE. _ REM -�� A �� I1LD ; _t ` fr�� T ! i a , i ONT VE. A I L]GI E � R N 7 C )� II� I I_L. �FHEIAOtfT AVE. N f 1 N + �" L- � .. -L_._ L� i I EMERSON AVE. j - z { f_ - . H DUP_. -- , tf 1� - E ITT ^� r� K ,, tit ' -- - ' -- - - - 1 - - - - COLFAX AVE N� 7 ` _ - COLFAX x y` �.` �� : y _ _ L jj �- - - a tPNT AVE. N� - - - - •' X x ` L_1 1_1 L111111� rn BRYIJlT AVE. N.� , N a FIT T : - -- - - i L - J -I c _ �� - AVE. J T CAN I ALDRICII AV6 N '3AV N3G4�V z -1 ? Y CJJIDEN AVE. . I� III( __ �' 111.. r [ tl `E N CAMDEN _AVE. N. 1 N — AV-- -_ 1 ... Fj �/ � �� �; N In ''� � a fft -- - - J _= m V -� I CUOw I LA. Will ACA! N. '+J, , = S ISS -- - - -- DURN qV ` I VF f ,/ _ crT 0 , Flo C - �- l.. l v, , � Nom- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 7, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Ainas had called to say he would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 10, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the October 10, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Sander, Johnson and Mann. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 17 1991 Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to approve the minutes of the October 17, 1991 joint Planning I Commission and City Council meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki Commissioners Sander Mann and Holmes. Vot P � g against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Bernards and Johnson. DISCUSSION ITEMS Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced two ordinance amendments for the Planning Commission to consider. The f irst ordinance amendment was a f lood plain ordinance amendment which made two technical changes, one to the date of the official map and another a change to a statute cited. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend adoption of an amendment to the flood plain ordinance relating to the map date and a statute citation. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 11 -7 -91 1 HOURS OF OPERATION AT COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS The second ordinance amendment that the Secretary introduced was an ordinance amendment relating to 24 hour operations being separated from R1, R2, and R3 zoned property. He explained that commercial uses would not be prohibited from locating near R1, R2 and R3 property if they did not operate between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. He went on to explain that the ordinance amendment would affect some existing operations that are 24 hour operations near residential property. He stated that if these uses were to lapse in their present use, a similar use could not resume the operation if discontinued for a period of two years. He stated that this would be a nonconforming aspect to these operations. The Secretary reviewed various locations of businesses that might be affected by the limitation of hours adjacent to R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that the health club was open past 11:00 p.m. The Secretary acknowledged this and that there may be other conflicts with the proposed ordinance. He suggested that the Commission may want to change the limitation of hours to between midnight and 6:00 a.m. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary stated that if the ordinance were adopted, these existing operations would be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. Commissioner Bernards observed that this ordinance would affect PDQ Food Stores which wished to locate near a residential area. The Secretary explained that it would not allow them to be a 24 hour operation, but that they could operate between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Bernards noted that this limitation would affect the interest of other buyers in that property. The Secretary acknowledged this. He went on to say that staff would recommend that the ordinance allow hospitals and other emergency medical services to locate in such an area and not to be subject to the limitation on hours. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the businesses that would be affected by this ordinance would be notified of the ordinance amendment. The Secretary stated that that could be done. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the limitation could be changed from 11:00 p.m. to midnight. The Secretary responded that was a possibility if the Commission so desired. Commissioner Sander stated that she would prefer to start out with tighter hours of operation and loosen later if there is a problem. The Secretary acknowledged that the City could be challenged on this ordinance. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the City could supersede state law with this kind of ordinance. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that zoning ordinances always affect where businesses can locate. 11-7-91 2 ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE HOURS OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION ADJACENT TO Rl R2 AND R3 ZONED PROPERTY Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance relating to the hours of commercial operations within 200 ft. of R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards stated that his opposition was because he felt the hours were overly restrictive and not consistent with some standard closing times. SIGN ISSUES The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to a memo regarding real estate signs and also some materials from the City Manager on a requested sign by Marquette Bank. The Secretary reviewed the Marquette Bank sign. He noted that the bank proposes to have a freestanding sign and offered to take down all wall signery in exchange for having the extra freestanding sign. The Secretary pointed out that the ordinance presently allows up to 30% of the wall area to be used in signery which is a very generous limit. He pointed out that no one has 30% of their wall area in signery. The Secretary recommended to the Commission that it consider scaling back the allowable area that can be used for wall signery and that it perhaps look at some sort of tradeoff as has been proposed between wall signs and an extra freestanding sign. The Secretary also suggested that there may be merit in establishing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) sort of provision in the sign ordinance to allow a sign package to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that such a package could consider tradeoffs between different types of signs, but that standards need to be in place to start with. Commissioner Johnson stated that he felt inadequate to judge what a sign ought to look like and asked that any ordinance amendment developed systematically an idea of what signs should look like. The Secretary stated that it was a matter of aesthetics, that signs with the same size and message could look good or bad, depending on the colors, lighting, etc. Commissioner Sander pointed out that different types of businesses want different types of signs. She asked what percent of wall area would be adequate for commercial buildings. The Planner answered that between 15% and 20% would probably be more than adequate. The Secretary stated that the tradeoffs that could be pursued under a sign package might also include rovision for or real estate signs. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the ordinance differentiates between ns ermanent signs g and real estate signs. The Secretary stated that permanent signs require a permit. 11 -7 -91 3 Commissioner Bernards stated that he did not want to open up the City to the charge of being arbitrary and capricious. The Secretary stated that if a sign package were not approved, an applicant would always have the alternative of simply living within the ordinance. ADJOURNMENT 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 8:36 p.m. Chairperson 11 -7 -91 4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12/'2, Agenda Rem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the City Council's Review of Site and Building Plans ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) • This ordinance amendment is offered in response to the City Council's direction to prepare a policy statement in the form of an ordinance or resolution which would indicate that the City Council will not review plans which have not been reviewed and commented on by the Planning Commission. The City Council does not believe it is appropriate to review revised site plans at the Council table if, and when, an applicant chooses to revise their plans without these matters first being reviewed and commented on by the Planning Commission. This ordinance amendment is offered in response to that concern and notes that any substantially altered plans not reviewed by the Planning Commission which are offered to the City Council for their consideration shall be referred back to the Planning Commission for that group's review and recommendation. Such a referral shall not count against the time limit the City Council has for making its final determination. Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of this ordinance amendment at their November 21, 1991 meeting. It is recommended that the Council also review and discuss this proposal and if they believe it meets their concerns, approve it for a first reading and set it on for a public hearing and adoption. * t CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 19 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the City Council's review of site and building plans. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL'S REVIEW OF SITE AND BUILDING PLANS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -230. PLAN APPROVAL. It is declared to be the policy of the City to preserve and promote an attractive, stable residential and business environment for the citizens through encouraging well conceived, high quality developments. To this end, imaginative architectural concepts shall be employed in the design of buildings and in the development of respective sites. In this regard, every person, before commencing the construction or major alteration of a structure, except one and two family dwellings and buildings accessory thereto, shall make application for plan approval from the City Council. Plan approval may be required in conjunction with special use permit consideration. The following rules shall govern applications for plan approval. 1. Procedures e. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty - eight (48) days of the recommendation by the Planning Commission, or in the event the Commission has failed to make any recommendation, within one hundred and eight (108) days of the date of referral to the Commission. If during City Council consideration of the plans the applicant submits substantially altered plans from those originally submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Council shall refer ORDINANCE NO. the altered plans back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The time needed for such a referral and review of altered plans shall not count against the time period which the City Council has to make a determination on the application. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 21, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the November 7, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Ordinance Amendment to allow City Council to Refer Back Altered Plans Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first discussion item, a draft ordinance to allow the City Council to refer development plans back to the Planning Commission when they have been substantially altered. The Secretary stated that this ordinance amendment grows out of the experience with the PDQ application. He reviewed the history of the PDQ application and how it was handled by the City Council. He stated that when PDQ came before the City Council, the Planning Commission recommendation was submitted. He explained that the City Council directed a resolution of denial, but gave the applicant an opportunity to work with staff to iron out problems with the plans. He explained that a revised sketch plan was ultimately brought back and that there was a brief staff review, but that it did not meet all the recommended changes. He stated that the City Council was put in a position of having to negotiate various changes to the plans at the public meeting. The Secretary explained that the City Council did ultimately deny the application and directed that any changed plans be submitted to the Planning Commission. He added that the City Council asked for a policy or ordinance to adopt regarding altered plans. 11 -21 -91 1 The Secretary then reviewed the draft ordinance amendment and made two recommended changes from that draft. The first change would be to make the referral of plans back to the Planning Commission mandatory by changing the word "may" to "shall." The second alteration to the language was to change the last sentence to explain that the time needed for the referral and review of the altered plans shall not count against the time period in which the City Council has to make a determination on an application. The Secretary further discussed the negotiating process with PDQ. Commissioner Bernards stated that if, during the referral of plans back to the Planning Commission, a public hearing is held only on the changes to the plans, he felt that would be acceptable. He stated, however, that to open up the entire issue again was unfair. The Secretary stated that the provision would deal with a situation where an applicant would relent to doing certain changes at the City Council meeting. He stated that instead of negotiating those changes at the City Council meeting, the ordinance would require that the plans be referred back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Bernards asked who would decide what is a "substantial" change to development plans. The Secretary answered that the City Council would have to make that determination. Commissioner Bernards expressed concern that this provision could be used to procrastinate and keep from making a decision regarding an application rather than confronting an issue head on. Commissioner Sander stated that the staff could recommend to the City Council that the plans be referred if the changes seem substantial to them. The Secretary agreed and stated he felt in the case of PDQ, that the City Council should have referred the plans back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the City Council could not refer plans back at present. The Secretary answered they could, but that this ordinance would mandate that procedure. The Secretary stated that it is the staff's role to haggle with developers and to convey City policies. He stated that the Planning Commission can decide whether the staff is being unreasonable or not. Commissioner Ainas recommended the adoption of the draft ordinance and recommended that the staff circle any changes to the plans so that the Commission could focus on those areas. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that, although the clock would stop for the City Council, the clock would not stop for the developer and that this referral process could be a political ploy to simply hope that an applicant will go away. The Secretary stated that the developer may see the handwriting on the wall and make the changes before going to the City Council. Commissioner Bernards stated that he hoped the City Council would rely on staff input as to what is a substantial change. The Secretary stated that he expected the City Council to seek staff input on what is a substantial change. There followed more discussion as to how the referral process would work. 11 -21 -91 2 0 Commissioner Holmes stated that he preferred the word "may" rather than "shall" in allowing the referral, but not mandating it. He stated that he did not want the City Council to use this referral process as a crutch. The Secretary stated that he did not believe the Council would do that. He stated that he felt the Planning Commission would feel it was wasting its time if the City Council negotiated all of these changes and ignored the Planning Commission's input. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO SECTION 35 -230 REGARDING REFERRAL OF PLANS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment requiring the referral of substantially altered development plans back to the Planning Commission if altered during City Council review. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards stated that his opposition was because he wanted to give the City Council the option to make a decision rather than have to refer the plans back. He stated that this could be used to procrastinate on a decision. There followed a brief discussion regarding time limits in the ordinance in certain r provisions. b) Ordinance Amendment Regarding Wall Signs and C) Ordinance Amendment to Allow Tradeoff of Wall and Freestanding Signs The Secretary then briefly reviewed two sign ordinance amendments, one dealing with the maximum area allowable for wall signs (reducing it from 30% to 15 %) and another allowing a tradeoff between wall signery and an extra freestanding sign. The Secretary stated that this language would basically accommodate the type of situation presented by the Marquette Bank. The Secretary added that he felt the City needs a PUD type provision for signs to allow the City to make other tradeoffs in an overall sign package for a development. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment regarding wall signs and an ordinance amendment to allow a tradeoff of wall and freestanding signs. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. d) Meeting Time The Secretary then asked the Commission whether there might be any desire to change the meeting time from 7:30 p.m. perhaps to 7:00 11 -21 -91 3 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 21, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the November 7, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Ordinance Amendment to allow City Council to Refer Back Altered Plans Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first discussion item, a draft ordinance to allow the City Council to refer development plans back to the Planning Commission when they have been substantially altered. The Secretary stated that this ordinance amendment grows out of the experience with the PDQ application. He reviewed the history of the PDQ application and how it was handled by the City Council. He stated that when PDQ came before the City Council, the Planning Commission recommendation was submitted. He explained that the City Council directed a resolution of denial, but gave the applicant an opportunity to work with staff to iron out problems with the plans. He explained that a revised sketch plan was ultimately brought back and that there was a brief staff review, but that it did not meet all the recommended changes. He stated that the City Council was put in a position of having to negotiate various changes to the plans at the public meeting. The Secretary explained that the City Council did ultimately deny the application and directed that changed Planning t an ch g d plans be submitted to the Plann Y Commission. He added that the City Council asked for a policy or ordinance to adopt regarding altered plans. is P g g P 11 -21 -91 1 h l The Secretary then reviewed the draft ordinance amendment and made two recommended changes from that draft. The first change would be to make the referral of plans back to the Planning Commission mandatory by changing the word "may" to "shall." The second alteration to the language was to change the last sentence to explain that the time needed for the referral and review of the altered plans shall not count against the time period in which the City Council has to make a determination on an application. The Secretary further discussed the negotiating process with PDQ. Commissioner Bernards stated that if, during the referral of plans back to the Planning Commission, a public hearing is held only on the changes to the plans, he felt that would be acceptable. He stated, however, that to open up the entire issue again was unfair. The Secretary stated that the provision would deal with a situation where an applicant would relent to doing certain changes at the City Council meeting. He stated that instead of negotiating those changes at the City Council meeting, the ordinance would require that the plans be referred back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Bernards asked who would decide what is a "substantial" change to development plans. The Secretary answered that the City Council would have to make that determination. Commissioner Bernards expressed concern that this provision could be used to procrastinate and keep from making a decision regarding an application rather than confronting an issue head on. Commissioner Sander stated that the staff could recommend to the City Council that the plans be referred if the changes seem substantial to them. The Secretary agreed and stated he felt in the case of PDQ, that the City Council should have referred the plans back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the City Council could not refer plans back at present. The Secretary answered they could, but that this ordinance would mandate that procedure. The Secretary stated that it is the staff's role to haggle with developers and to convey City policies. He stated that the Planning Commission can decide whether the staff is being unreasonable or not. Commissioner Ainas recommended the adoption of the draft ordinance and recommended that the staff circle any changes to the plans so that the Commission could focus on those areas. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that, although the clock would stop for the City Council, the clock would not stop for the developer and that this referral process could be a political ploy to simply hope that an applicant will go away. The Secretary stated that the developer may see the handwriting on the wall and make the changes before going to the City Council. Commissioner Bernards stated that he hoped the City Council would rely on staff input as to what is a substantial change. The Secretary stated that he expected the City Council to seek staff input on what is a substantial change. There followed more discussion as to how the referral process would work. 11 -21 -91 2 Commissioner Holmes stated that he preferred the word "may" rather than "shall" in allowing the referral, but not mandating it. He stated that he did not want the City Council to use this referral process as a crutch. The Secretary stated that he did not believe the Council would do that. He stated that he felt the Planning Commission would feel it was wasting its time if the City Council negotiated all of these changes and ignored the Planning Commission's input. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO SECTION 35 -230 REGARDING REFERRAL OF PLANS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment requiring the referral of substantially altered development plans back to the Planning Commission if altered during City Council review. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards stated that his opposition was because he wanted to give the City Council the option to make a decision rather than have to refer the plans back. He stated that this could be used to procrastinate on a decision. There followed a brief discussion regarding time limits in the ordinance in certain provisions. b) Ordinance Amendment Regarding Wall Signs and C) Ordinance Amendment to Allow Tradeoff of Wall and Freestanding Signs The Secretary then briefly reviewed two sign ordinance amendments, one dealing with the maximum area allowable for wall signs (reducing it from 30% to 15 %) and another allowing a tradeoff between wall signery and an extra freestanding sign. The Secretary stated that this language would basically accommodate the type of situation presented by the Marquette Bank. The Secretary added that he felt the City needs a PUD type provision for signs to allow the City to make other tradeoffs in an overall sign package for a development. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment regarding wall signs and an ordinance amendment to allow a tradeoff of wall and freestanding signs. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. d) Meeting Time The Secretary then asked the Commission whether there might be any desire to change the meeting time from 7:30 p.m. perhaps to 7:00 11 -21 -91 3 p.m. Chairperson Malecki stated that she did not want to make the meeting any earlier because of work reasons. Other Commissioners generally agreed that keeping it at 7:30 p.m. was fine with them. Other Business The Secretary then briefly explained to the Planning Commission that there is a resolution which governs wall signery for the buildings in the industrial park along the south side of 69th Avenue North. He explained that that resolution requires that any wall signery on the north walls of the industrial park buildings abutting 69th Avenue North not be higher than 5' and that individual letters be used in those signs. He stated that the purpose of this resolution was basically to prevent any signery from being visible across 69th Avenue North in the residential neighborhood. He explained that there is no access from these properties to 69th Avenue North and that the City's policy is to try to protect the residential area to the north. He explained that the owners of one of the buildings want to have wall identification signs by the doors of the tenant areas that would consist of panels that could slip in and out of a frame. He explained that they would be uniform in appearance although they would not be individual letters. The Secretary explained that there have been complaints that individual letters result in damage to the wall. Chairperson Malecki asked what was the point of requiring individual letters. The Secretary stated that it was to provide for consistency and aesthetics. Chairperson Malecki noted that the signs proposed would at least be consistent. Commissioner Sander asked whether the colors could vary from one letter to another. 0 The Secretary responded in the affirmative. There followed a brief discussion of the merits of the resolution governing the signs. The Secretary asked whether staff should look at that policy. Commissioner Bernards and other Commissioners responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the Superamerica sign on its canopy was in violation. The Secretary stated that there was a plan submitted with the Superamerica plans which showed a backlit canopy. He stated that the Building Official rejected that plan, but that Superamerica has violated that order by the Building Official. He stated that staff have contacted Superamerica and that they have not yet responded. There followed a brief discussion regarding displays at the pump islands. The Secretary explained that those displays are allowed though they should not block a driving lane. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Chairperson 11 -21 -91 4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 12/2/9 Agenda Item Number _ 7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding Wall and Freestanding Signs in the C2, I -1 and I -2 Zoning Districts DEPT. APPRO o+� Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: =� V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) • At the City Council's November 4, 1991 meeting the City Manager discussed a letter which was received from Mr. Frank Slawson, President of Marquette Bank Brookdale, requesting consideration of some modifications to the City's Sign Ordinance to allow some additional freestanding signery at the bank. The bank was proposing the additional signery in lieu of wall signery that might be permitted under the current Sign Ordinance. The City Manager also pointed out at that time the large amount (up to 30% of a wall area ) of wall signery that is allowed under the g Y current ordinance. It was suggested that it would be beneficial to reduce this amount of wall signery significantly. The City ouncil also considered the desirability for more Y d i Y flexibility in the Sign Ordinance to possibly allow certain kinds of tradeoffs between wall and freestanding signs. The Council referred this matter to the Plannin g Commission and requested they evaluate the City's existing Sign Ordinance to see if reduction of wall signage is warranted and if smaller freestanding signs would be a possible tradeoff. . SUMMARY EXPLANATION Page 2 The Planning Commission considered a proposed ordinance amendment relating to these concerns at their November 21, 1991 meeting. They recommended an ordinance amendment which would reduce the allowable amount of wall signery in the C2, I -1 and I -2 zoning districts from the current 30% of a wall area to 15% and they also recommended a provision in the sign Ordinance which would provide for a wall /freestanding sign tradeoff. This particular provision would allow an individual or clustered establishment to be entitled to an extra freestanding identification sign of not more than 1/2 the height and area of the normally permitted freestanding sign if that establishment agreed to forego all other permitted wall signs. Recommendation This ordinance amendment was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at its November 7, 1991 meeting. It is recommended that the City Council also review and discuss the proposal and if they believe it is appropriate, approve it for a first reading and set it on for second reading and adoption. • s CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 19 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances regarding wall and freestanding signs in the C2, I -1 and I -2 zoning districts. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING WALL AND FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THE C2, I -1 AND I -2 ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: SECTION 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS. 3. Permitted Signs Requiring a Permit a. Commercial (C2) and Industrial (I -1 and I -2) Districts 1. Wall Signs and Projecting Signs. a. Individual Establishments Individual detached establishments or enterprises not clustered in a shopping center complex or in a multitenant office or industrial building may have wall signs and projecting signs on each wall, provided the aggregate area of such signs does not exceed (30) 15 of the area of the wall supporting the signs. b. Clustered Establishments Attached establishments or enterprises clustered in a shopping center complex or in a multitenant office or industrial building may have wall signs and projecting signs subject to the following: ORDINANCE NO. i. Each establishment or enterprise may have such signs on each of its exterior walls, provided the aggregate area of such signs does not exceed [30] 150 of the wall supporting the signs; ii. In lieu of the above, the aggregate of the establishments or enterprises may have a wall or projecting sign on each wall identifying the tenants collectively, or identifying the complex or building; provided the area of each sign does not exceed [30] 15% of the area of the wall supporting it. 2. Freestanding Signs d. Wall /Freestanding Sign Tradeoff An individual or a clustered establishment shall be entitled to one extra freestanding identification sign of not more than one half the height and area of the normally permitted freestanding sign(s) if that establishment shall agree in writing to forego all permitted wall signs. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day f 19 Y , Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) Commissioner Holmes stated that he preferred the word "may" rather than "shall" in allowing the referral, but not mandating it. He stated that he did not want the City Council to use this referral process as a crutch. The Secretary stated that he did not believe the Council would do that. He stated that he felt the Planning Commission would feel it was wasting its time if the City Council negotiated all of these changes and ignored the Planning Commission's input. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO SECTION 35 -230 REGARDING REFERRAL OF PLANS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment requiring the referral of substantially altered development plans back to the Planning Commission if altered during City Council review. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards stated that his opposition was because he wanted to give the City Council the option to make a decision rather than have to refer the plans back. He stated that this could be used to procrastinate on a decision. There followed a brief discussion regarding time limits in the ordinance in certain provisions. b) Ordinance Amendment Regarding Wall Signs and C) Ordinance Amendment to Allow Tradeoff of Wall and Freestanding Signs The Secretary then briefly reviewed two sign ordinance amendments, one dealing with the maximum area allowable for wall signs (reducing it from 30% to 15 %) and another allowing a tradeoff between wall signery and an extra freestanding sign. The Secretary stated that this language would basically accommodate the type of situation presented by the Marquette Bank. The Secretary added that he felt the City needs a PUD type provision for signs to allow the City to make other tradeoffs in an overall sign package for a development. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment regarding wall signs and an ordinance amendment to allow a tradeoff of wall and freestanding signs. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. d) Meeting Time The Secretary then asked the Commission whether there might be any desire to change the meeting time from 7:30 p.m. perhaps to 7:00 11 -21 -91 3 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date December a. 1991 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER 23 -600 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO PAWNBROKERS AND SECONDHAND DEALERS Kkkkkkk Mkkkk kk x** �c Mkkkk�> kkkyckk DEPT. APPROVAL: James Lindsay hief of Police MANAGER'S RE W COMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _YES) The police department has been informed that the owners of Humboldt Square will be leasing space to a pawn shop that has been operational in the City of Golden Valley for a number of years. Attached is a new ordinance we are proposing which regulates pawn shops and secondhand dealers and requires licensing for each. The department is currently researching license fees that other cities charge for pawn shop licenses. When we have the results of that research, we will be providing that information to the council in order to draft the resolution setting these fees. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION The city council approve the attached ordinance for a first reading. 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 11 regarding Charitable Gambling Regulations in On -Sale Liquor establishments. 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 CREATING CHAPTER 23 -600 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO PAWNBROKERS AND SECONDHAND DEALERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 23 -600 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby created in the following manner: Section 23 -601. DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this section the terms defined in the sub - section have the meanings given them. 1. Pawnbroker means a person who loans money on deposit or pledge of personal property, or other valuable thing, or who deals in the purchasing of personal property or other valuable thing on condition of selling the same back again at a stipulated price or who loans money secured by chattel mortgage on personal property, taking possession of the property or any part so mortgaged. 2. Secondhand Goods Dealer means a person whose regular business includes selling or receiving tangible personal property (excluding motor vehicles) previously used rented, owned or leased. Section 23 -602. EXEMPTIONS This article shall not apply to or include the following 1. The sale of secondhand goods where all the following are present. a. The sale is held on property occupied as a dwelling by the seller or owned rented or leased by a charitable or political organization; b. The items offered for sale are owned by the occupant; c. That no sale exceeds a sale of 72 consecutive hours; d. That no more than four (4) sales are held in any 12 -month period; e. That none of the items offered for sale shall have been purchased for resale or received on consignment for the purpose of resale. 2. The sale of goods at an auction held by an auctioneer 3. The business of buying or selling only those secondhand goods taken as part or full payment for new goods and where such business is incident to and not the primary business of a person. 4. A_bulk sale of property from a merchant manufacturer or wholesaler having an established place of business or goods sold at open sale from bankrupt stock 5. Goods sold at an exhibition. 6. Sales by a licensed automobile dealer. 7. Firearms, including antique firearms sold by firearms _dealers holding current valid federal firearms dealer licenses permitting them to deal in such sales 8. Sales made by the sheriff or other public officials in the discharge of their official duties. 9. Sales made by assignees or receivers appointed in this state to make sales for the benefit of creditors. Section 23 -603 LICENSE REQUIRED No person may engage in the business of a secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker without first having obtained a license Subdivision 1. Separate Licenses Required: A pawnbroker may not conduct, operate or engage in the business of secondhand goods dealer without having obtained a secondhand goods dealer license in addition to a Pawnbroker license. A secondhand goods dealer may not conduct, operate or engage in the business of a Pawnbroker without having obtained a pawnbroker license in addition to a secondhand goods dealer license Section 23 -604. MULTIPLE DEALERS. The owners of a business at which two or more secondhand goods dealers are engaged in business by maintaining separate sales and identifying themselves to the public as individual dealers,. may obtain a multiple secondhand goods dealer license for that location A multiple license may not be issued unless the following requirements are met: 1. The business must have a single name and address; 2. The business must operate in a compact and contiguous space; 3. The business must be under the unified control and supervision of the one person who holds the license; 4. Sales must be consummated at a central point of register operated by the owner of the business, and the owner must maintain a comprehensive account of all sales. Subdivision 1. Compliance: The holder of a secondhand goods dealer license under this section for a business with more than one dealer at the same location must comply with all of the requirements of this section, including the responsibility for police reporting and record keeping in the same manner as any other dealer licensed under this section. A dealer licensed under this section is responsible to its customers for stolen or misrepresented goods sold at its place of business in the same manner as any other dealer licensed under this section. Section 23 -605. LICENSE FEE. Subdivision 1. Pawnbroker: The annual fee for a pawnbroker shall be set by the city council by resolution. Subdivision 2. Secondhand Goods Dealer: The annual license fee for a secondhand goods dealer, not a Pawnbroker, shall be set by the council by resolution. Subdivision 3. Multiple Sales: The annual license fee for a secondhand goods dealer for a location where more than one secondhand goods dealer is engaged in business shall be set by the council. Section 23 -606. APPLICATION. Subdivision 1. Contents: A license applicant must complete an application form provided by the chief of Police. The application must be in a form and request information of the applicant as determined by the chief of police. Subdivision 2. Execution: If the applicant is a natural person, the application must be signed and sworn by the person; if a corporation by an agent authorized to sign; if a partnership, by a partner. Subdivision 3. Fees: The application must be accompanied by the required license fee and the established fee for investigation. The license fee will be returned to the applicant if the application is rejected. Subdivision 4. False Statements: It is unlawful to knowingly make a false statement in the license application. In addition to all other penalties the license may be subsequently revoked by the city council for violation of this section. Section 23 -607. BOND A pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license will not be issued unless the applicant files with the city clerk a bond with corporate surety, cash, or a United States government bond in the amount of $5,000 for a pawnbroker license or $5,000 for a secondhand goods dealer license The bond must be conditioned on the licensee obeying the laws and ordinances governing the licensed business and paying all fees taxes penalties and other charges associated with the business The bond must provide that it is forfeited to the city upon violation of law or ordinance. Section 23 -608. SITE PLAN. Subdivision 1. The application for a pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license must be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale The site plan must contain: a. A legal description of the property upon which the proposed license premises is situated. b. A survey. c. The exact location of the license premise on the property, customer and employee parking areas access onto the property, and entrances into the premises. d. The location of and distance from the nearest church school, hospital and residence. e. A floor plan of the license premises. Section 23 -609. INVESTIGATIONS. Subdivision 1 Conduct: The city, prior to granting of an initial or renewed pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license must conduct a background and financial investigation of the applicant Any person having a beneficial interest in the license must be investigated The chief of police shall cause to be made such investigation of the information requested in this ordinance and shall make a written recommendation and report to the city council The chief of police must verify the facts stated in the application and must report all convicted violations of state federal or municipal law involving the applicant, interested Persons, or the unlicensed premises while under the applicant's proprietorship. Section 23 -610. PUBLIC HEARING. A pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license will not be issued or renewed without a public hearing. Any person having an interest in or who will be affected by the proposed license will be permitted to testify at the hearing. The public hearing must be preceded by a 10 -day published notice specifying the location of the proposed licensed business premises. Section 23 -611. GRANTING OF THE LICENSE. After review of the license application investigation report and public hearing the city council may grant or refuse for one or more of the reasons set forth in Section 23 -627 the application for a new or renewed pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license. A license will not be effective unless the application fee and bond have been filed with the chief of police. Section 23 -612. PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE. Subdivision 1. A pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license will not be issued to: a. A person who is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien, or upon whom it is impractical to conduct a background and financial investigation due to the unavailability of information; b. A person under 18 years of age; C- Subject to the provision of law, a person has been convicted of any state or federal law relating to receiving stolen property, sale of stolen property or controlled substance, burglary, robbery, theft damage or trespass to property, operation of a business, or any law or ordinance regulating the business of pawnbrokers or secondhand goods dealers; d. A person who within five (5) years of the license application date had a pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license revoked; e. A_person who the city council determines not to be of sufficient good moral character or repute; f. If when the city council determines after investigation and public hearing, that the issuance of or the renewal of the license would adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. Section 23 -613. PLACES INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSES. A license will not be issued or renewed under this section for any place or for an business: mess a. If taxes assessments or other financial claims of the city or the State of Minnesota on the licensee's business premise are delinquent and unpaid; b. If the premise is located within 300 feet of a school or church; C- Where operation of a licensed premise would violate zoning ordinances or; d. Where the applicant's present license was issued conditioned upon the applicant making specified improvements to the licensed premise or the property of the licensed premise which improvements have not been completed. Section 23 -614. LICENSE LIMITATIONS. A license will be issued to the applicant only and only for the business premises as described in the application. The license is effective only for the premise specified in the approved license application. Section 23 -615. TERMS; EXPIRATION• PRO RATA FEE. The license is issued for a period of one (1) year beginning on January 1 . except that if the application is made during the license year, a license may be issued for the remainder of the license year for a monthly pro rata fee. The unexpired fraction of a month will be counted as a complete month. The license expires on December 31 Section 23 -616. LICENSE REFUND. The city council may, in its judgement, refund a pro rata share of the license to the licensee or the licensee's estate if: a. The business ceases to operate because of destruction or damage; b. The licensee dies; C- The business ceases to be lawful for a reason other than license revocation; d. The licensee ceases to carry the licensed business under the license. Section 23 -617. DEATH OF A LICENSEE. In the case of the death of a licensee the personal representative of the licensee may continue operation of the business for not more than 90 days after the licensee's death. Section 23 -618. RECORDS. A licensed secondhand goods dealer and pawnbroker, at the time of receipt of an item must immediately record, in ink or other indelible medium in the English language in a book or word processing unit the following information: a. An accurate description of the item including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name and /or other identifying mark(s) on such item; b. The purchase price; C. Date, time and place of receipt; d. Name, address, phone number and date of birth of the person from whom the item was received; e. The identification number from any of the following forms of identification of the seller; IZ Valid picture driver's license; (2) Official state photo identification, passport or military I.D. f. The books, as well as the goods received, must be open for inspection by the police department during business hours. The records required by this subsection must be stored and maintained by the licensee for a period of at least three (3) years. Section 23 -619. DAILY REPORTS. For the following items regardless of resale price a secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker must make out on forms approved by the police department and send daily by mail or courier to the police department a legible _description of the goods received during the preceding day, together with the time received and a description of the individual from whom the goods were received. a. Items with a serial number, or other personal identification number or symbol; b. Cameras; C- Electronic audio or video equipment; d. Precious jewelry or gems and precious metals; e. Artist signed or artist attributed works of art; f. Guns and firearms; g_ Items not included in the above, except furniture and kitchen or laundry appliances, which the secondhand goods dealer intends to sell for more than $200. Section 23 -620. STOLEN GOODS. A licensed pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer must report to the police any article pledged or received, or sought to be pledged or received, if the licensee has reason to believe that the article was stolen or lost. Section 23 -621. HOLDING. An item received by a secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker for which a report to the police is required may not be sold or otherwise transferred for a period of 12 days after the date of such report to the police. However, an individual may redeem an item pawned 72 hours after the item was received on deposit excluding Sundays and legal holidays. Section 23 -622. RECEIPT. A licensed secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker must provide a receipt to the seller or consignor of any item which includes: a. The address and telephone number of the business; b. The date; C- A description of the items purchased; d. The purchaser's or co- signee's signature. Section 23 -623. POLICE ORDERS. If a city police officer or other law enforcement officer notifies a dealer not to sell an item, the item may not be sold or removed from the licensed premise until authorized to be released by the police or court order. Said notification, if verbal should be followed by a written order within 72 hours setting forth the item to be held and the reasons therefore. Section 23 -624. WEAPONS. Subdivision 1. A licensed pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer may not receive, as a pledge or otherwise, accept for consignment or sale, any revolver, pistol, rifle or shotgun unless said dealer also maintains a federal firearms dealer's license. Subdivision 2. A licensed pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer may not receive, as pledge or otherwise, accept for consignment or sale, any sawed -off shotgun, automatic rifle, blackjack, switchblade, knife, or other similar weapons or firearms. Section 23 -625. HOURS OF OPERATION. From 9 p.m. Saturday to 7 a.m. Monday, no property shall be received as a pledge, on consignment or purchased by an pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer; nor shall any property be sold during said hours by any pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer, nor any other day before 7 a.m. nor any other day after 9 p.m. Further, no pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer shall be open for business on Christmas Day or Thanksgiving Day. Section 23 -626. PROHIBITED ACTS. Subdivision 1. Minors: A minor may not sell or consign, or attempt to sell or consign, goods with a secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker. A secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker may not receive goods from a minor. Subdivision 2. Others: A secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker may not receive any goods from a person of unsound mind or an intoxicated person. Subdivision 3. Identification: A secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker may not receive goods, unless the seller presents identification in the form of a valid picture driver's license or official state photo identification, United States passport or military I.D. _ Section 23 -627. LICENSE DENIAL SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION. A license under this section may be denied suspended or revoked by the city council after a public hearing where the licensee is granted the opportunity to be heard for one or more of the following reasons: a. The operation of the business is in conflict with any provision of this ordinance; b. The operation of the business is in conflict with any health, building, maintenance, zoning, or other provision of this ordinance or law: C. The licensee or the business premise fails to conform with the standards for license application contained in this section; d. The licensee has failed to comply with one or more Provisions of this section or any statute, rule or ordinance pertaining to the business of pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer; e. Fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in securing a license, f. Fraud, misrepresentation or false statements made in the course of the applicant's business; ,q_ Subject to the provisions of law, the licensee has been convicted of any state or federal law relating to receiving stolen property sale of stolen property or controlled substances burglary, robbery, theft damage or trespass to property, operation of a business, or any law or ordinance regulating the business of pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer. Section 23 -628. REDEMPTION. A person who pawns an item shall have at least 120 days to redeem the item before it may be sold. Section 23 -629. PAYMENTS BY CHECK. When a secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker makes payment for an item pledged or received at the license place of business payment must be made by check, made payable to the named payee who is actually the intended seller. Section 23 -630. INSPECTIONS. Any peace officer or a properly designated employee of the city or the state of Minnesota may enter, inspect and search business premises licensed under this section, during normal business hours without a warrant. Section 23 -631. COUNTY LICENSE. Secondhand goods dealers and Pawnbrokers dealing in precious metals and gems must be licensed by Hennepin County in addition to the city license. Section 23 -632. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment or decree shall not affect or impair the remainder of this ordinance. Section 23 -633. PENALTIES. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and _upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700) and imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both together with the cost of prosecution. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 199 Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, EDA Coordinator ( .7 DATE: November 27, 1991 J SUBJECT: CLOSING CITY'S PORTION OF TELEPHONE PROJECT NO. 570 -57 Monday evening there will be a resolution before the city council closing out the City portion of project number 570 -57 which was the installation of a new telephone system at city hall. Previously, the EDA closed out its portion of the project at the Earle Brown Heritage Center under EDA resolution no. 90 -10 passed October 15, 1990. The original contracts let by the City totaled $96,826.89 plus $6,213 for consultant fees (City portion). Not included in the contracts were U.S. West line charges totaling $2,450.29, the removal of all existing phone lines in the ceiling totaling $5,386.60, plus the replacement and removal of all data lines in the ceiling at $1,871. All cables in the ceiling were replaced with teflon lines fire rated for plenum use. It is my understanding that the old lines were a hazard and needed to be removed because of the potential for toxic smoke. The remaining $5,749.48 was a reconfiguration of the phone layout in the police department. The increase was due to an additional zone added to the City's intercom system so that emergency notices could be directed to all parts of the city hall /civic center or individual areas from the dispatch center. Also, the phones in the clerical area were set up to act as an emergency switchboard if need be. I will be at the next council meeting to answer council questions about this project. (RESTELPH) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: � RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL COSTS AND CLOSING THE PROJECT FOR DELIVERY OF A TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY HALL AND THE EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER ------------------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center passed Resolution 68 -246 which established a Capital Improvements Fund in order to provide for certain major, permanent facilities needed by the city; and WHEREAS, Resolutions 89 -205, 89 -206, and 89 -235 authorized the expenditure of $96,826.89 by the Capital Improvements Fund for the equipment in the City buildings; and WHEREAS, Resolutions 89 -205 and 89 -206 authorized the expenditure of $39,089.60 by the Economic Development Authority for the equipment in the Earle Brown Heritage Center; and WHEREAS, construction has now been completed at a total cost of $118,497.26 for the City portion of the project which is $21,670.37 more than the appropriation; and WHEREAS, construction has now been completed at a total cost of $52,160.83 for the E.D.A. portion of the project which is $13,071.23 more than the appropriation; and WHEREAS, these overruns are attributable to unanticipated additions to equipment purchased; and WHEREAS, the E.D.A. portion of the project was previously closed by Resolution 90 -10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The work completed under the City share of the project is accepted and approved as follows: As Approved Final Amount City Share $96,826.89 $118,497.26 E.D.A. Share $39,089.60 $52,160.83 2. The project is declared to be final and closed. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. r (ARTAG) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB --------------------------------------- WHEREAS, THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB has presented the City a gift of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and has designated that it be used for the "Holly Sunday" recreation program; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and follows: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the gift of $250 be appropriated as Recreation Programs, "Holly Sunday" Program (5729 -413): $250 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. (REQPIMS) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Counci t Meeting Date Zv Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF A LASERJET PRINTER DEPT. APPROVAL: } i / W Barbara A. Gallo, MIS Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY E %PLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The Planning and Inspection Department has determined that it needs an Okidata 391 printer for use with a terminal to the Permit and Inspection • Management System (PIMS). It is planning to go live on that system on January 2, 1992. Originally it was thought that Laserjet printer on another computer in the office could be used with the PIMS terminal. That has turned out to not be feasible, generating the need to purchase another printer. A new Okidata 391 printer exists in the Finance Department. It was purchased in 1991 because it was the best printer for use with the LOGIS GEMUNIS financial system. The City is now using the new LOGIS IFAS financial system. While the Okidata 391 will work with IFAS, a H.P. Laserjet IIP+ would provide faster and quieter printing. Hence, we are recommending the purchase of the H.P. Laserjet IIP+ and transfer of the Okidata 391, since that will provide both departments with printers which are best suited to their needs. Appropriations for capital outlays from the Data Processing Department #20 budget for 1991 remain because other budgeted items have been purchased for less than was anticipated. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Passage of the attached resolution. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF A LASERJET PRINTER WHEREAS, the Planning and Inspections Department has determined that purchase of a dot matrix printer and accessories are needed to go live on PIMS because it isn't feasible to use a shared printer as originally planned; and WHEREAS, such a printer is available in the Finance Department provided that a H.P. LaserJet IIP+ can be purchased to replace it, and WHEREAS, the City's Management Information Systems Coordinator estimates that such a printer and accessories would cost approximately $850; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the Data Processing Division 1991 capital outlay budget for this purchase due to cost savings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The sum of $850 is appropriated from Object #4551, Division 20 for the purpose of purchase of a H.P. LaserJet IIP+ and accessories. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. �l Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL TAX CAPACITY LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PROVIDING INFORMATIONAL SERVICE, AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469.001 THROUGH 469.001 OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center is the governing body of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing and and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center entitled a "Resolution Establishing the Final Tax Levy for the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Year 1992 "; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes currently require certification of a proposed tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor on or before September 1, 1991 and a final tax levy on or before December 28, 1991. WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.033, Subdivision 6, must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that a special tax be levied upon all real and personal property within the City of Brooklyn Center at the rate of 0.0144% of taxable market value of all taxable property, real and personal, situated within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and not exempted by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota or the valid laws of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said property tax levy, to be used for the operation of the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.001 through 469.047, supersede any taxes previously levied for taxes payable in the year 1992. ---------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------ Date Mayor ATTEST: 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 12/2/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: FINAL PUT APPROVAL - LARRY ADDITION DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Kna �, Dire of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION V No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached SUMALA.RY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yves 1 1 Previous City Council Action On September 23, 1991 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 91016, preliminary plat for LARRY ADDITION. Please refer to attached maps for location. The proposed platting involves the combination of two existing vacant lots and resubdividing them into two buildable lots adjacent to a 45' wide outlot. The apparent - purpose of the outlot is to provide continued access to the seasonally used dwelling located on an island within the Mississippi River. The island itself is technically located in the City of Brooklyn Park, however, access to it is from Brooklyn Center. At that previous meeting, it was indicated that an encroachment (utility shed) existed on the property, and as a condition of final plat approval, the adjacent property owners would have to enter into an agreement or easement to address the problem. Evidence of such an easement has been submitted, and appears to be in order. Approval of the preliminary plat was subject to the conditions outlined on the attached memorandum. As noted in the memo, all conditions have been met. Staff Recommendation The final plat of LARRY ADDITION is recommended for approval. In CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF ` ®O T ��,T BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 L l�l TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE -FIRE 911 DATE: November 26, 1991 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works RE: Final Plat - LARRY ADDITION Conditions adopted for the preliminary plat by the City Council, at its September 23, 1991 meeting were as follows: 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 final plat is subject to either the encroachment being removed ar an easement being developed with the neighboring property owner to the north for continuation of the encroaching shed satisfactory to the City Attorney. I have reviewed the proposed plat and find it to be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Additionally, the applicant has entered into an easement agreement with the adjacent property owner, to satisfy Condition No. 4 as described above. Accordingly, I recommend approval of the final plat LARRY ADDITION. Sincerel , Mark J. al hey, PE City Engineer * VY N c E� �L 'W ALL-AMENCA C" ! l VICINITY MAP PROPOSED LARRY ADDITION 73 RD AVE. N. v A . N. WOODBINE LA h Z \ Z J 72ND AV Ch I 3 72ND AVE. N. I F11 2N1 AVE. N \ W% Z ` 71 ST AVE. N. �l ll n N / \'/ \ / \Y/ A ° / 70TH AVE. N. 4 70TH AVE Al ____ - PROPOSED PLAT } EMERSON L r =_ = ,j < V TH. AVE. Ni' p 69TH AVE. N. cc AVE. N. 252 lUG ` ` 1 ,-J 68TH AVE. N. LARRY ADDITION <In01e r irnnepinC Of - LOt 1. ?lock <_ al tn. COUnty -_ THE ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ONI THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 5, NORTH RIVER ESTATES WHICH IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF WEST. "s° c rac Le ° nar0 = nDENOTES IRON MONUMENT _ Z _, - f.l it4 F EF 7 r ' SEC. Z5 T. lid, A. Zl Of the 1:_t, (— a 'F� ,ne puDllc ror- p. �Itness ��^•�� Ilo ­e ercunto set r . °i 're u"� i.eonara E. LlnoaO st VICINITY I,tAp SIarF or mf`NESora NO 501LE rniJN Ty CF HE•: FP I': re f -e- ln5t a -role SO i . � EA 5T hereby certlry Ira -„ that this plat :; a V and nunurcu :as of a tree O tsrU, oounuar - . to oc aesl 9naleU on y ;9.SaA . / Sfa rE CF .MIU':F SO O T t.lU'Ify CF HENNEP i': T L U. i a / / '1 J V O V .. .SAS. '63 00 L�HRy ... /V . - / - / V J ?t • / �.` \ d•'d rCC UmwCn�IdL 1n5. m ¢ - L _— —_ J— 60.03 `WEST By SO VROPERTV tax AlU �So�ln i� e r Lnl 2�81. 5. + 1 hereDy certify t North Fief Ealaraa th15 plat. Cased tr Patrick H 'J'Ccnnor_ S'ur /Ey OPISIC.'+. Her 4'.IrSuant to Mir.N J9_ EGAN, FIELD a NOWAK, INC. Hernartl H Lars- SURVEYORS cJUtlry RECCPOER -e I hareDy certify t 199_ al (fan Carl -cn. - I TO: JERRY SPLINTER CITY MANAGER FROM: RON BOMAN FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: Purchase Additional Mobile phone for Fire Dept. DATE: November 26, 1991 In my 1991 budget I allocated $2,000 for two (2) cellular phones for the Fire Department, because of GSA pricing on these units I have spent only $900 for two cellular phones. I am requesting that the Fire Department be allowed to purchase one (1) additional phone for the fire department, this would allow us to have a cellular phone based out of each station as well as the one I have for my use. Having used the phone for the last few months we have found that the phones have become a valuable tool on the fire ground, especially during spills, hazmat incidents as well as on dwelling fires. In checking with other fire departments that have used cellular phones during severe weather, many times the cellular phone was the only means of communication. Maple Grove and St Anthony stated that during the time the tornado touched down in their Cities the only means of communication where the cellular phones. Because Brooklyn Center in tornado alley and for the many other uses the fire department has I feel it would be a valuable asset to purchase an additional phone under the current 1991 GSA contract from US West this month before the contract runs out. The total cost for the additional mobile phone would not exceed $500.00 and still leave us $600.00 in item 14 budget item 4552 budget object. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on December 2, 1991: RENTAL DWELLING Initial: �• W Dennis and Dorene Dvorak 3008 - 64th Ave. N. Director of Planning and Inspections SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Bizmart 5951 Earle Brown Dr. Q • C�CLI.� Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: P. Page, Deput Clerk