HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 04-24 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
APRIL 24, 1989
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5. Approval of 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 from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
6. Presentation:
a. Charter Commission - Retiring Member
1. Resolution Expressing Recognition of and
Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of
John B. Lescault
7. Recess to EDA
8. Approval of Minutes:
*a. April 10, 1989 - Regular Session
9. Private Kennel License - 7:30 p.m.
10. Resolutions:
*a. Approving Supplemental Agreement Nos. 4 and 5 to
Contract 1988 -H for Improvements on Logan Avenue, on
France Avenue, on Lakebreeze Avenue and on 50th Avenue
North
b. Amending the 1989 General Fund Budget and Accepting
Proposal to Conduct Preliminary Design Study for
Development of Properties Adjoining the Twin Lakes Area
for Park and Recreational Purposes
*c. Authorizing a Capital Projects Fund Appropriation,
Accepting a Proposal and Authorizing Execution of a
Contract for Phase 2 -B Plantings at Centerbrook Golf
Course (Project No. 1988 -26)
*d. Authorizing a Golf Course Fund Appropriation, Accepting
a Proposal and Authorizing Execution of a Contract for
• Installation of Security Lights at Centerbrook Golf
Course
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- April 24, 1989
*e. Authorizing a Capital Projects Fund Appropriation,
Accepting a Proposal and Authorizing Execution of a
Contract for Installation of Lights along Trailway in
Lions Park
*f. Authorizing a Capital Projects Fund Appropriation,
Accepting a Proposal and Authorizing Execution of a
Contract for Installation of Lights in Arboretum
*g. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1)
Mechanical Hoist
-1989 Budget Item
*h. Rejecting Bids and Directing Advertisement for New Bids
for Purchase of One (1) Tow Type Auger Paver
-1989 Budget Item
i.
Declaring Surplus Property
- Additional auction items
*j. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1)
11,000 GVW Truck /Chassis
- Public Utilities Division
*k. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1)
3/4 Ton - Pickup
- Public Utilities Division
11. Ordinances:
a. An Ordinance Extending Interim Ordinance No. 87 -16 for
the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and the
Health Safety, and Welfare lfare •f the residents of the
Community and Regulating and Restricting the
Development of Adult Halfway Houses, Community Based
Residential Facilities and Similar Uses in the City
-This item is offered this evening for a first reading.
1. Extending Moratorium on Development of Adult
Halfway Houses, Community Based Residential
Facilities and Similar Facilities
b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
Regarding Zoning Classification of Certain Land
-This relates to the City initiated planning
application for rezoning from R5 to Cl in the southwest
corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and I -694. This item is
offered this evening for a first reading.
C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding Expansion of
Single Family Homes in the Cl Zoning Districts
-This item is offered this evening for a first reading.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- April 24, 1989
d. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Brooklyn Center
Code Relating to Collection of Recyclable Materials and
Yard Waste, Prohibiting Scavenging of Recyclable
Materials and Authorizing Collection Districts
-This item is offered this evening for a first reading.
12. Planning Commission Items:
a. Planning Commission Application No. 89006 submitted by
E and H Properties requesting rezoning of a sliver of
land east of 6550 West River Road from R5 to C2 to
allow construction of a service station /convenience
store /car wash as a development on the C2 land
-The Planning Commission recommended the City Council
establish a moratorium on further development in this
area. The City has received a letter from the
applicant's attorney withdrawing their application for
rezoning. A motion by the City Council acknowledging
the withdrawal of this application is in order. It
would also be in order for the City Council to discuss
the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the
adoption of an interim ordinance establishing a
moratorium while undertaking a land use study of this
area.
13. Discussion Items:
a. City Attorney Appointment
b. Residential Treatment Facility Legislation
14. Motion to Approve 1988 -1989 Police Contract
*15. Licenses
16. Adjournment
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION
FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF JOHN B. LESCAULT
WHEREAS, John B. Lescault served on the Brooklyn Center
Charter Commission from April 20, 1981, to April 20, 1989; and
WHEREAS, John B. Lescault has always been willing to
serve on various ad hoc committees throughout his term; and
WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the
betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens
of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, his leadership and expertise has been greatly
appreciated by the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to
the community should be recognized and expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of
John B. Lescault is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City
of Brooklyn Center.
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.
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 10, 1989
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order
by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Todd Paulson, and
Jerry Pedlar. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of
Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning &
Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Administrative Aide
Patti Page,
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Blaine Fluth, President of the 1989 Brooklyn
Center Prayer Breakfast Committee.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open
forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished
to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda
items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from
the consent agenda. Councilmember Paulson requested items 7b, 7c, 7d, and 10 be
removed from the consent agenda. No other requests were made.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 27 1989 - REGULAR SESSION
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to approve the minutes of the March 27, 1989, City Council meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -60
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING REVISED FINAL PAYMENT FOR WORK
UNDER CONTRACT 1987 -L (CAMDEN AVENUE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -10)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
4/10/89 -1-
The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting and Approving Environmental
Assessment Worksheet Relating to the Reconstruction of West River Road between
Interstate Highway 694 (I -694) and 73rd Avenue North. Councilmember Paulson
inquired when the neighborhood meeting was held regarding this item. The
Director of Public Works stated there was a meeting held on March 8, 1989. A
brief discussion then ensued regarding some of the concerns expressed by the
neighborhood.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -61
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET RELATING
TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST RIVER ROAD BETWEEN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 694 (I -694)
AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing the
Purchase of One (1) Four Wheel Pavement Marking Machine. Councilmember Paulson
inquired if the City would still be complying with the State purchasing
procedures by taking only one bid. The City Manager responded affirmatively.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -62
Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) FOUR WHEEL
PAVEMENT MARKING MACHINE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Declaring Surplus Property.
Councilmember Paulson inquired if the City is responsible for registration of
these guns once they are sold at the auction. The City Manager stated the City
is not required to handle any of the paperwork for registering these guns. He
noted the City is not acting as a dealer for the sale of these weapons and,
therefore, does not have to complete any paperwork.
RESOLUTION N0, 89 -63
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for
Tree Removal Project No. 1989 -03, Contract 1989 -B. He noted this project covers
the removal of trees in accordance with the City's diseased tree removal
program. He stated staff is recommending that the contract be awarded to the
lowest responsible bidder. Councilmember Scott inquired if there was any sign
4/10/89 -2-
1
of the State providing funding for reforestation programs in the future. The
City Manager stated at the present time the state is not providing reforestation
funding to municipalities.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -64
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO.
1989 -03, CONTRACT 1989 -B
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Todd Paulson, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Private Sale of One Parcel of
Nonconservation Land to the Owner of an Adjacent Property. The Director of
Public Works stated this property has severe soil conditions which make it
unsuitable for building house on it. He noted ted in addition to the unstable
soil conditions on the property, the soil conditions also extend to adjacent
properties so that any effort to provide soil corrections or to install piling
would create adverse affects on the adjacent property owners. He noted there
were three options discussed by staff but only one is recommended. He noted
staff is recommending approval of the sale of this parcel, only to an owner of
one of the adjacent properties, with the condition that the properties then be
combined for use as a single property.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -65
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRIVATE SALE OF ONE PARCEL OF NONCONSERVATION LAND TO THE
OWNER OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the
y motion passed unanimously.
Y
LICENSES
Councilmember Paulson inquired if U.A. Communications must follow the same
health inspection process as other food establishments. The City Manager
responded affirmatively. Councilmember Paulson stated he has noted numerous
times how messy and dirty the floor is in this establishment. The City Manager
ager
stated he would have the health department check into it. Mayor Nyquist
inquired how the Que Viet Restaurant is doing at this point. The City Manager
stated he spoke with the sanitarian late last week, and they are very pleased
with the progress shown at this establishment.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
to approve the following list of licenses:
BULK VENDOR
Brooklyn Center Lions P. 0. Box 29092
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N.
4/10/89 -3-
Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brookdale Unocal 5710 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center American Little League 2701 64th Ave. N.
Iten Field
Brooklyn Center Mobil 6849 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brooklyn Center National Little League 5312 North Lilac Drive
Lions Park T.H. 100 & N. Lilac
Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. N.
Carmel Corn 1333 Brookdale Center
Children's World Learning Center 6020 Earle Brown Drive
Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N.
T. J. Cinnamons Bakery 1345 Brookdale Center
Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Center
Fanny Farmer Candy Shops 1236 Brookdale Center
Food Express 1131 Brookdale Center
Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Boulevard
House of Hui's Restaurant 6800 Humboldt Ave. N.
Jerry's New Market 5801 Xerxes Ave. N.
K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr.
Kids' Time Out 5611 Xerxes Ave. N.
Leeann Chin, Inc. 6050 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Little Brooklyn 6219 Brooklyn Blvd.
Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N.
Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Dr.
Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N.
McDonald's 5525 Xerxes Ave. N.
Metz Baking Company-- Taystee Bread 4215 69th Ave. N.
Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 West 74th Street
U.S. West 5910 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Nature Food Centre 6068 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
New Horizon Day Care Center 6625 Humboldt Ave. N.
Northwest Residence 4408 69th Ave. N.
1 Potato 2 1319 Brookdale Center
Perkins Family Restaurants 5915 John Martin Drive
Subs Etc. 6048 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
T. Wright's 5800 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
U. A. Communications 5800 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Village House, Inc. Que Viet 6100 Brooklyn Blvd.
Wes' Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Blvd.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Aer, Inc. Box 1146
Air Corp, Inc. 13005 16th Ave. N.
Airco Heating & A/C Co. 4014 Central Ave. NE
Arrow Heating and Cooling, Inc. 8455 Center Drive NE
Egan & Sons Co. 7100 Medicine Lake Road
Furnace Care, Inc. 8733 Humboldt Ave. N.
Gas Supply, Inc. 2238 Edgewood Ave. S.
General Sheet Metal Corp. 2330 Louisiana Ave. N.
Kleve, Inc. 13075 Pioneer Trail
Master Mechanical, Inc. 9864 James Circle
Northwest Heating & A/C 9964 Hemlock Way
4/10/89 -4-
Pete's Repair, Inc. 8835 Xylon Ave. N.
Precise Heating, A/C & Electric, Inc. 2729 Ensign Ave. N.
R & S Heating and A/C 21357 Hemlock Ave.
MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP
Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd.
North Star Dodge Center, Inc. 6800 Brooklyn Blvd.
SIGN HANGER
Topline Outdoor Advertising, Inc. 1493 94th Lane NE
SWIMMING POOL
Real Estate Equities 325 Cedar Street
Brookside Manor Apartments 1121 -1307 67th Ave. N.
Bill Bjerke c/o Fun Services 3701 50th Ave. N.
Hiway 100 North France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N.
Riverwood Townhomes Association 6626 Camden Drive N.
Twin Lake North Apartments 4536 58th Ave. N.
TAXICAB
Suburban Taxi Corporation 9614 Humboldt Ave. S.
Town Taxi 2812 University Ave. SE
Yellow Taxi Service Corporation 3555 5th Avenue S.
The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89002 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENTER REQUESTING REZONING FROM R5 TO Cl THE LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF
I -94 AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND THE NEIGHBORING LOTS TO THE SOUTH
The City Manager noted this application was first reviewed by the Planning
Commission at its January 12, 1989, meeting and was referred to the West Central
Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Planning Commission
again reviewed the application at its March 30, 1989, meeting and recommended
approval of the application. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred
the Mayor and Councilmembers to page one of the March 30, 1989, Planning
Commission minutes and attached information sheet.
Police Chief Jim Lindsay entered the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
The Director of Planning and Inspection went on to briefly review the site
location and noted the rezoning from R5 to Cl would put it in compliance with
the City's comprehensive plan. He then went on to review the past proposals
which have been made for development on this site.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated at the February 21, 1989, West
Central Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting there was one resident who mildly
objected to the rezoning because if the property were rezoned to Cl, he would
not be allowed to make any further additions to his home if he wished to. He
noted this property owner agreed that in the long range the Cl zoning was more
correct for the area but was concerned that he would not be allowed any
4/10/89 -5-
expansion to his home under the Cl zoning. The Director of Planning and
Inspection then reviewed the six considerations contained in the resolution
regarding disposition of the application and noted there would be a first
reading of the ordinance amendment at a later date. He stated a public hearing
has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if
under the R5 zoning laws a currently existing single- family home has the ability
to expand. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated under the R5 zone
single- family homes are exempt from the restriction prohibiting expansion. He
noted under the Cl zone these existing single- family homes would be prohibited
from expanding their home. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if there would be any
way to allow these existing homes the right to expansion. The Director of
Planning and Inspection stated there could be an amendment to the zoning
ordinance which would allow an exemption for existin g single-family sin le -famil homes in a
Cl district.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 89002. He recognized Clarence Dudley who stated he
lives on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard and feels there has to be a better
plan for this area. Mayor Nyquist stated it appears the comprehensive plan
agrees with Mr. Dudley's remarks. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone
else resent who o wished to
address the Council. There being none, he
entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 89002
submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to request staff to
q identify i Y where
other single-family omes exist t in Cl zones. He stated he would like to see a
possible ordinance amendment which would allow an exemption from the restriction
prohibiting expansion of single- family homes in the C1 zoning district.
RESOLUTION NO 89 -66
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 89002 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY
OF BROOKLYN CENTER
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motio
n assed unanimously.
p I .
Y
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Paulson
directing staff to prepare an ordinance amendment and identify single- family
homes within Cl zones. The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89011 SUBMITTED BY PUBLIC STORAGE FOR AN
APPEAL FROM A DETERMINATION BY STAFF THAT MINI - STORAGE FACILITIES ARE NOT
PERMITTED IN THE Cl ZONING DISTRICT
The City Manager noted the Planning Commission recommended denial of this
application at its March 30, 1989, meeting. The Director of Planning and
Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages one through four of
the March 30, 1989, Planning Commission minutes and information sheet. He went
4/10/89 -6-
on to briefly review the arguments submitted by Public Storage for allowing this
type of use in a Cl zone. He noted there is not a public hearing scheduled for
this evening, but the applicant is present to answer questions. He stated this
type of use is not permitted or recommended for the C1 zone. Mayor Nyquist
stated even if the Council is to conclude that this project would be a good use
for this particular site, they would be setting a precedent for other areas of
the City. Councilmember Lhotka stated he agreed with the Mayor and noted in the
past the Council has been very sensitive to the wishes of the neighborhood, and
he feels this use is not appropriate for this Cl zone.
Mayor Nyquist then recognized Don Jensen of Public Storage. Mr. Jensen reviewed
the proposed development for this site and showed a rendering of a similar mini -
storage facility located in Golden Valley. He stated one distinction between
warehousing and mini - storage is that warehouses have employees which stay and do
work during the day, and self- storage has customers who come and go. He noted
many communities throughout the country have begun to allow self - storage in
commercial and even residential zoning districts because they recognize its
customer orientation. He noted he has had contact with approximately three -
quarters of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood and stated it appears
to be a generally accepted development for the area. Mr. Jensen then introduced
Dan Rooney of Public Storage. Mr. Rooney stated Public Storage was interested
in a commercial location because the location is safe, convenient, attractive,
and secure. He stated Public Storage generally locates in or adjacent to
commercial areas along major thoroughfares. He noted the general public is 80%
of the customers and businesses the remaining 20 %.
Mayor Nyquist then recognized Tim Malloy of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban. Mr.
Malloy noted that mini - storage use has changed in response to market concerns.
He pointed out that self- storage is a low traffic generator, and self - storage
can develop in commercial areas and have an attractive facade. Mr. Jensen
stated Public Storage is willing to meet with the neighborhood and discuss the
proposed development and its concerns.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott
to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission denying the appeal
submitted by Public Storage. The motion passed unanimously.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :56 p.m. and reconvened at 9 :14
p.m.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
DELIVERY AND TAKEOUT FOOD AS A FACTOR IN LIQUOR ORDINANCE FOOD TO LIQUOR
PERCENTAGE
The City Manager stated it has come to staff's attention recently that Lynbrook
Bowl is achieving its minimum 40% food percentage with significant food revenue
from its food delivery business which is based at Lynbrook Bowl. He stated as
requested by the City Council an audit has been completed of the food /liquor
percentage figures for Lynbrook Bowl and the relationship of the food delivery
service revenues for this establishment. He noted a similar analysis was also
done of the Green Mill Restaurant for comparison purposes. He stated staff
4/10/89 -7-
n
feels the spirit of the ordinance is being violated by the use of revenues from
catered or delivery food services to meet the minimum licensing requirements of
the ordinance. Mayor Nyquist stated it is not logical for the City ordinances
to require a set number of seats if the majority of revenue is being collected
from off -site deliveries. Councilmember Scott inquired if it would be possible
to amend the ordinance to allow 25% of the revenue for food not consumed on -site
to count towards the food /liquor split. The City Manager stated we could amend
the ordinance to allow that, or we could amend it to not allow any percentage of
of -
f site food
sales to count towards the split. The Police Chief stated when
the liquor ordinances were first written there was virtually no off -site
delivery of food. He noted now many restaurants do catering and off -site
deliveries.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott
directing staff to investigate possible amendments to the liquor ordinances and
make these proposed amendments available to the Chamber of Commerce and license
holders for their review and comment. The motion passed unanimously.
OUTDOOR LIQUOR AND FOOD SERVICE UNDER OUR LIQUOR LICENSING ORDINANCE
The City Manager stated the Police Department and Planning and Inspection
Department are receiving more requests each year to extend eating areas at
restaurants to the outdoors. He noted this issue brings a number of questions
to mind, such as the relationship to residential areas, noise levels, quick
order food or full dinner menus, and a type of barrier from outside to control
sale of liquor. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated a concern from
him is the number of parking spaces required if the amount of seating is
increased for the restaurant. He noted that generally the outdoor seating would
only be used for three to four months out of each year. The Police Chief stated
noise control becomes an issue with this type of activity and is also part of
the liquor control ordinance. A discussion then ensued regarding the different
types of requests received in the past. Councilmember Scott stated she would be
very much against allowing bands to play outside. She stated she feels the
music carries too far and would be disturbing to surrounding neighborhoods.
There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
directing staff to investigate possible ordinance amendments that will
accommodate these situations. The motion passed unanimously.
The Finance Director and Police Chief left the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY REPORT - 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM ZANE AVENUE NORTH TO
DUPONT AVENUE NORTH
The City Manager noted in April of 1987 the City Council approved an agreement
with Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) to conduct a traffic study and
develop a preliminary design of the 69th Avenue North Corridor between Dupont
Avenue North and Zane Avenue North. He noted that study is now complete and a
copy of the report was submitted to the Council for this evening's meeting. The
Director of Public Works explained after reviewing the report, staff does not
believe the proposed improvements would require the City to prepare an
environmental assessment worksheet for this project. However, staff does
recommend the City voluntarily prepare an EAW for this project because it will
demonstrate the City's commitment to full consideration of the environmental
i s
4/10/89 -8-
impacts of this project. He noted there is also a resolution for the Council's
consideration this evening initiating the preparation of an EAW.
Councilmember Lhotka inquired if any of the design alternates comprehend the
taking of property. The Director of Public Works stated there would be a need
to take some property in all alternates. He then introduced Glen Van Wormer,
project manager from SEH, and Marland Larson, design engineer from SEH. Mr. Van
Wormer went on to explain that 69th Avenue North is basically the only real
through street from east to west, although it is not typically used as a normal
through street. He noted the traffic generally uses only sections of it to get
from point A to point B. He noted there are approximately 13,000 cars traveling
this road daily.
Mr. Larson went on to review alternates A, B, and C and briefly explained each
alternate. Councilmember Lhotka inquired where the funding would come from for
acquisition of the property. The City Manager stated it would come from state
aid funds. The Director of Public Works noted the difference between alternates
A and B, and alternate C is $1.3 million in right -of -way costs. He also noted
the anticipated traffic level in ten years for the area between Shingle Creek
Parkway and Brooklyn Boulevard is 16,000 to 17,000 cars per day. A discussion
then followed regarding the differences in the three alternates and how each
would fit into the MSA funding standards. The discussion then turned to how the
Council would like the staff to proceed with the project.
There was a general consensus among Councilmembers that staff should set up an
initial public information session for this neighborhood to discuss the proposed
improvements with them.
RESOLUTION
LUTION N0. 89 67
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION INITIATING THE PREPARATION OF A DISCRETIONARY ENVIRONMENTAL WORKSHEET
(EAW) FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE 69TH AVENUE NORTH CORRIDOR FROM THE WEST CITY
LIMITS TO DUPONT AVENUE NORTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar
to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center
City Council adjourned at 10 :50 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
4/10/89 -9-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date p 4/24/89
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
IT DESCRIPTION:
Private Kennel License — 5229 Great View Avenue North
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. AP ROVAL:
Administrative Aide
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Ms. Rustad, 5229 Great View Avenue North, submitted an application for a private kennel license for
9 cats. Following two inspections by the Health and Police Departments, staff is recommending
denial of this license. Staff also recommends allowing Ms. Rustad 30 days in which to remove the six
excess cats from the residence. If the excess cats have not been removed after the 30 -day period, a
citation will be issued for noncompliance to the ordinance.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald Splinter
City Manager
FROM: Jim Lindsay
Chief of Police
DATE: April 6, 1989
SUBJECT: Private Kennel License Application
The police department was requested to comment on a kennel
license application by Mable Rustad at 5229 Greatview Avenue
North. The department was contacted by the Hennepin County
Humane Society on March 9, 1989 regarding a complaint they
received regarding this address. Code Enforcement Officer Nass
accompanied the Society's investigator to the house.
Rustad admitted the two into the house. A total of 26 cats were
present in the house. This area had only newspaper for the cats
to use. No litter was used or available in the house. They were
greeted by an overwhelming foul odor of cat urine and feces. The
cat area was generally an unkempt mess. The Society left
intending to obtain a court order to remove the cats.
Nass was notified by phone that Rustad had removed all but seven
of the cats. The Society was satisfied with this and was closing
their case.
On March 28, 1989 Nass and Sanitarian Pam Foster inspected the
Rustad residence. Seven cats were found downstairs. They also
found the same stench that was present on March 8th. Litter
boxes were full and overflowing with feces. An attempt had been
made to cover the odor with ammonia. It appears Rustad does not
find the stench offensive.
Based on the two inspections resulting only a reduction to'seven
cats, I recommend the City deny the kennel license. If a license
is issued, I suggest a condition of monthly inspections be made
by City personnel.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 19, 1989
TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Thomas Heenan, Supervising Sanitarian'
SUBJECT: Private Kennel License Application
Mable Rustad, 5229 Greatview Avenue North
We cannot recommend approval of a Private Kennel license at
this location. The house exhibits a strong cat urine odor
(ammonia) upstairs and down. There were seven cats in the
basement and one dog and two cats loose on the main floor.
The cat cages were wood and a worn laminate -type material
was used for the floors that was uncleanable (see photo).
Some cages did not have water and food at the time of our
visit. The cages were limited in size and the cats paced
back and forth. Mrs. Rustad indicated that the cats had eye
problems and one had a kidney problem.
I inspected the house accompanied by Clay Larson, Building
Official. The inspection was unannounced and Mrs. Rustad
was aware of the public hearing. She indicated she would be
at the hearing to "make a stink ". She stated she wanted the
opportunity to have the cats live out their lives and she
would not breed or obtain other animals.
Mr. Larson indicated to her that she could apply for a grant
to fix up the house. This grant could be used to eliminate
the odor problem, reroof the house and fix other problems.
It should be noted that the original complaint came from the
Humane Society and that originally there were 26 cats in the
house (see previous reports).
TLH:jt
cc: Health and Police Reports
rv5. �� � �m
�' � �
�'A+v. 4'. / � � '�' "s' .,fir �
'�" :r .
�. � iS -� .wc � �
�ffi�f .F...
a� �
"t�
c� t _
e � � ry y,:
�, ,
� i � ✓P1
W � k r� +� � s -,��!
� ;* �,� ;
i
__
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
SUPPL
J EMENTARY REPORT
Outside Offense: Yes No X Case No. 89 -04130
Nature of Offense: ANIMAL COMPLAINT #9812
Location of Offense:
Date Reported: 03 -09 -89 Time: 1345
Date Committed: Unknown exactly how long Time:
Total Value of Loss: none
Name of Complainant: Keith STREFF
Address of Complainant: Hennepin County Humane Society
City & State:
Res. Phone: Bus. Phone: 722 -4325
Disposition: Unfounded Clyd by Arrest Exc Clyd
Inactive Other X
Arrests: Adult Juvenile None X
Officer Assigned to Case: NASS
Transferred to:
Spvr. App.
Date and Time Report Made: 03 -10 -89 1140
On 03- 09 -89, Code Enforcement Officer George NASS received a call from
Keith STREFF, an officer of the Hennepin County Humane Society, who
reported that at 5229 Greatview in Brooklyn Center, the home of Mable
RUSTAD, 537 -5677, was 26 cats.
This was reported to the Humane Society by a Robbinsdale feed store when
they brought a delivery to the house on the morning of 03- 09 -89.
RUSTAD was not receptive to allowing STREFF and NASS to enter the house,
but finally consented. Upon entering the house, there was a horrible
stench of cat urine. RUSTAD did say that the cats were in the basement
in cages. NASS did observe two cats laying in a bed in a front room of
the home.
STREFF and NASS did go into the basement and observed the 26 cats in
cages, having newspaper in the cages and it was noted the cats were
urinating and defecating on the newspaper instead of cat litter. RUSTAD
claimed that she had a permit for a kennel for the cats. This was not
true.
STREFF was going to go back to the Humane Society and talk to the person
in charge, Al STENSRUD, and get his advice on what to do.
This report will continue after NASS hears more from the Humane Society.
jg NASS
r
BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT
INVESTIGATION REPORT
Case No. 89 -04130
Offense
Complainant Keith STREFF
Address Hennepin County Humane Society
Page 1
Code Enforcement Officer George NASS received a phone call from a Keith
STREFF from Hennepin County Humane Society stating that the Humane
Society is dropping all charges against Mabel RUSTAD living at 5229
Greatview in Brooklyn Center. In rechecking the house RUSTAD got rid of
all but nine cats and did attempt to clean up the property. Any further
action will have to be by the City of Brooklyn Center as to having nine
cats in the house.
Signed NASS Date 03 -16 -89
Time 1110
ss
CRYSTAL - BROOKLYN CENTER - BROOKLYN PARK HEALTH DEPARTMENT
4.141 DOUGLAS DRIVE, CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA 55422 537 -8421
ENVIRONMENTAL, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
DATE '� r
On 3 2 8' 8 this office conducted an inspection at 6 �/' ✓�� ,
The ollo�' deficiencies were noted. These must be corrected prior
to . - unless.otherwise noted. We ask your cooperation so that
referral to the City Attorney -is not required.
`FJ
C /
t�
t �
u o -)
C3 p
Ems'
wkv"( ��---
61.6 44
RECEIVED BY RI AN ; g&/
�� � r
�L�����G G�6Zd�1/��G2o G�� G?���
,�LC��G .� - L��
����� .
w�i d� `.
J���Y��' ���� .
I
April p. 1 3, 1989
FILE REPORT: 5229 Greatview, Brooklyn Center, MN
RE: Private Kennel License Application and Humane
Society Complaint (Police Case #89- 04130).
On March 28, 1989, Code Enforcement Officer George Nass and
Sanitarian Pam Foster inspected the Mable Rustad residence
at 5229 Greatview, Brooklyn Center, Minneosta, at
approximately 2:00 P.M.. The purpose of the inspection was
two -fold:
1. To determine if the premises was still in an
unhealthy state as described in a Hennepin
County Humane Society complaint report dated
March 9, 1989, when 26 cats were present.
2. To evaluate the conditions of the premises
in response to a private kennel license
application.
Ms. Rustad indicated to us that she had been aware that
someone would be coming out to visit the premises; even
though we had come unannounced. Upon entering the house, we
noted a strong, foul odor, typical of cat urine and feces.
Downstairs seven cats were located in cages. The stench in
this room was overwhelming.' The ammonia caught in my throat
and burned my eyes. Several litter boxes were full and
overflowing with cat feces. Many of the cages lacked a
smooth, easily cleanable base due to the cats scratching the
formica (and /or linoleum) surface off down to the bare wood.
The wood appeared to have absorbed moisture; possibly urine
and drinking water. The drinking water in most cages was
dirty. Ms. Rustad claims that some of the strong odor we
had noted may have been due to the other seventeen cats
spraying their scent on items in the basement. Orders were
issued to clean the litter boxes and carpet both upstairs
and down and to remove the foul stench by April 5, 1989. A
follow -up inspection will be conducted after that date to
determine if conditions have improved.
CEO Officer George Nass said that there was some improvement
noted over previous inspections, however, the strong ammonia
stench was still present.
PAF:jt
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/24/89
Agenda Item Number 1491
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS NO. 4 AND 5 TO CONTRACT 1988 -H FOR
IMPROVEMENTS ON LOGAN AVENUE, ON FRANCE AVENUE, ON LAKEBREEZE AVENUE AND ON 50TH
AVENUE NORTH
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
* * * * * * * ** Y KNAPP� *DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORK ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
Explanation
• As noted in earlier memos, a large number of changes were required during
completion of Contract 1988 -H for reconstruction of Logan Avenue, France Avenue,
Lakebreeze Avenue and 50th Avenue. These changes have resulted in significant
cost increases.
On February 13, the City Council approved Supplemental Agreement No. 3 providing
for a $119,732 increase in contract costs. At that time we also advised the
Council that the contractor has submitted additional claims exceeding $16,000
and the City Council authorized the administration to initiate formal
arbitration proceedings if those claims could not be resolved by negotiations.
Since that time, the contractor has submitted additional claims, bringing the
total unresolved claims to $24,326.14. In addition, we have submitted claims
totalling $2544.30 against the contractor for work items done by City crews.
One claim by the contractor for installation of 4 -inch concrete sidewalk on
France Avenue, was very clear and non - debatable. Agreement was reached on the
quantity, and we agreed that the contractor's requested unit price was
reasonable. Accordingly, we agreed to enter into Supplemental Agreement No. 4
in the total amount of $5867.86 to cover that work. This left unresolved claims
totaling $18,458.28 and the City's claims against the contractor totaling
$2544.30.
To avoid the time and expense of formal arbitration proceedings, the contractor
and our office agreed to meet in early March to review all claims in detail and
to attempt to arrive at a negotiated settlement. Based on that conference, I
submitted a letter to the contractor, dated March 17 (copy attached) in which I
recommended a resolution of all claims. In that letter, I proposed that the
City pay X15,170.14 of the contractor's claims, and that the contractor agree to
pay $2264.49 of the City's claims. In that letter I also required the
contractor's assurance that "...there are no other unresolved issues at this
• time," and that no claims would be made for accrued interest on the items in
question.
On April 14, the contractor accepted this proposal, and signed proposed
Supplemental Agreement No. 5.
It is my opinion that Supplemental Agreements 4 and 5 are fair to both parties
to the contract and I recommend that the City Council approve them.
City Council Action Required
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS NO. 4 AND 5 TO
CONTRACT 1988 -H FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON LOGAN AVENUE, ON FRANCE
AVENUE, ON LAKEBREEZE AVENUE AND ON 50TH AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, City Council entered into a contract on June 6, 1988, with
Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. for the construction of Improvement Project
No. 1988 -04, 1988 -05, 1988 -06, and 1988 -07; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined certain modifications as
detailed in proposed Supplemental Agreements No. 4 and No. 5 (copies attached)
need to be made to the contract to facilitate the construction of the project; and
WHEREAS, the contractor, Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc., has agreed
to the prices for the modifications as noted above, and has executed proposed
Supplemental Agreements No. 4 and No. 5.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. Proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 4 to Contract 1988 -H, providing
for compensation for the additional work completed, as detailed
therein, at a net additional cost of $5867.86 is hereby approved.
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute
Supplemental Agreement No. 4 on behalf of the City of Brooklyn
Center.
2. Proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 5 to Contract 1988 -H, providing
for compensation for the additional work completed, as detailed
therein, at a net additional cost of $15,170.14 is hereby approved.
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute
Supplemental Agreement No. 5 on behalf of the City of Brooklyn
Center.
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.
Mn /DQT 2134(5 -78)
STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Supp. -to Contract No. 1988 —H
No. 4
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT shut 1 of 1
tractor Fed. Project
State Project No.
nd Sons Construction, Inc.
Id C=" 109- 105 -01
dress
Location
le Blvd. Rogers, MN 5537
This contract is amended as follows:
O r
.0 v Ci
Whereas, the contract did not have a quantity of 4" sidewalk specified on
Project 109 - 105 -01, France Avenue.
Now therefore, it is agreed that the contractor shall furnish and install
ciao 4046.8 square feet of 4" sidewalk conforming to MNDOT Specification 2521.
u o q
g g The unit price of new item 2521.501 shall be $1.45 per square foot.
o� o
r y U
a3� Total Increase Project 109 - 105 -01 - $5,867.86
r
Q y
_ a �
N'- V
d
Q y
u u O
O «'O
u v
u� w
u a
sue;
L
V. O °-
ouo.
o O
w ��
o C <
u a�
y �
c oo
up a
<3s
Pro.No. Account I.D. Organization F.V. Requisition No. Vrndor Number Type Terms Source S.Act. Task S. Task
Cost. Job or Client Code Amount Suffix Object
SEND
TYPE OF TRANSACTION El �! U Entered by
A40 A41 ate um t
❑ El a Entered by
A44 A45 Aq6 Date Number
APPROVED: City Manager Original Contract
C r � %„
- _ Dated l �91 LG
f A , p � prove � ct t n ei or Arc ect
Dated �o�t� 19
-- Ac opted by Contractor
Dated Approved as to form and execution Dated
3,L2 _ 19
Distriicc rs� E
Dated 19 �� ✓y- /,11
Assistant Attomev l,eneral Recommended '*pprcved - A - 2MYHM-
1 -STATE AUDITOR (Whire anZinal) 2- CONTRACTOR /Pink) 3- AGENCY /Goldenrorl,
Director of Public Works
Mn /00." :1 24(5 -78)
STATE OF 11INNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRA;IISPORTATION Supp. to Contract No. 1988 -H
No. 5
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
Sheet 1 of 6
ctor Fed. Project State Project No.
Th mas ] Sons Construction Inc. 109- 104 -01
Id ess Loca IAC3
109 - 105 -01
r hdale Blvd. Rog ers, MN 55374 109- 106-02
This contract is amended as follows:
3 y o Whereas, the Contractor has submitted claims for additional payment as force account for the ab6ve
referenced Municipal State Aid projects; and
_° ° = Whereas, a list of said claims is attached as Exhibit A; and
t` 4 Whereas, there were quantity changes for contract items in said corltract; and
Whereas, a list of said changes is attached as Exhibit B.
s ° 'o Now therefore it is agreed as follows:
Y!+
o ' 1. The claims listed in Exhibit A are hereby incorporated in the contract as full payment for all
o
a force account work contained in the list of claims.
G
2. The contract quantities -shall be adjusted according to the totals listed in Exhibit B, and there
shall be no change in the unit prices as a result of this change.
o =' 3. Based on the quantities accepted by March 30, 1989, and based on the adjusted quantities listed in
E Exhibit B, quantity changes shall increase the total contract amount by the totals shown in the
o mIM
following table.
r 3 Summary of Changes
o
Force Account Quantity
Work Changes Total
r 3 Logan Avenue North (109- 106 -02) $ 6,713.60 $ 6,713.60
,,g y France Avenue North (109- 105 -01) 1,301.18 $124.80 1,425.98
o Lakebreeze Avenue North 7,030.56 7,030.56
Y �<
n ' ' Total Contract 1988 -H $15,045.34 $124.80 $15,170.14
0
'
v— a
<3�
Pro.No. Account I D. Organization F.V. Requisition No. Vendor Number Type Terms Source S.Act Task S. Task
Cost, Job or Client Code Amount Suffix Object
SEND
TYPE OF TRANSACTION
Entered by
aao ant D ate u
❑ ❑ El Entered by
• aaa aas nab Date Number
APPROVED: City Manager Origin I Contract
C'afr+mksieneref-of Dated 19v '���
roved by j tecf
�R v ��
Dated � 19
Ac c red by Contractor
Approved as to forest and execution Dated 19
Dated
District Director- State Aid
Dated 19 E ngineer
Assistant Attomev uenctal ADOroved-by-Are .cvHeztt
, -STAT- aCDITOR /t✓h origincli _ - CONTRACTOR %Pine: AGcNCY /Goldenrou, Recommended:
I
CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF
I:BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
ENTER
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
v 1 1 L 911
March 17, 1989 (Amended April 7, 1989 Item #3 and Summary Page)
Mr. Steve Thomas Sr.
Thomas and Sons Construction Co.
P.O. Box 303
Rogers, MN 55374 -0303
Re: Unresolved Claims for Contract Work Items
Contract 1988 -H
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Based on our conference on March 14, 1989, and subsequent discussion with my
staff members, I propose that we agree to develop and execute a "Supplemental
Agreement No. 5" to the contract wherein you and the City agree to the following
resolution of all unresolved claims under this contract.
Item No. 1 - (Your Letter of January 19, 1989)
Description: Installation of B -612 concrete curb and gutter on North Lilac
Drive.
Your Request: 524.8 LF @ $9.00 /LF — $4723.20
My Recommendation: 524.8 LF @ $7.50 /LF — $3936.00
Explanation: I believe that $7.50 /LF is a fair price under these circumstances.
Item No. 2 - (Your Letter of August 24, 1988)
Description: Lakebreeze Lift Station relocation.
Your Request: Work by Lindberg — $4000.00
Work by Visa Sewer — 438.00
Work by Layne Minnesota — 1032.50
Dewatering by Thomas & Sons — 500.00
Subtotal — 5970.50
+10% 597.05
Total — $6567.55
Page Two
March 17, 1989
My Recommendation: To approve only the following items -
Work by Lindberg — $4000.00
Work by Visa Sewer — 438.00
Subtotal — 4438.00
+ 10% 443.80
Total — $4881.80
Explanation: It is my understanding that the lift station was moved at the
request of Layne Minnesota - to simplify their work. Accordingly,
I object to paying them extra costs.
Also, I'm asking that you assume the cost of the additional
dewatering because I believe that there was some lack of
subcontractor supervision by your staff.
Item No. 3 (Your Invoice No. 885717)
Description: Lowering manhole at lift station.
Your Request: $650.52
My Recommendation: To pay $398.76 for materials. To deny $251.76 for labor.
Item No. 4 (Your Invoice No. 885751)
Description: Construct temporary trail past Lift Station No. 6.
Your Request: $341.83
My Recommendation: To deny this request.
Explanation: It is my understanding that, while some of the delay at Lift
Station No. 6 occurred because of NSP's slow response, the major
delay would have occurred in any event because of delays in
equipment delivery and installation by your subcontractor and his
supplier.
And, it is my firm opinion that the General Conditions of Contract
require the general contractor to provide safe temporary
facilities for vehicles and pedestrians at all times, when a
situation such as this occurs; and that the cost of providing such
temporary facilities is incidental to the project.
Page Three
March 17, 1989
Item No. 5 (Your Invoice No. 885729)
Description: Raising handhole, etc.
Your Request: $1301.18
My Recommendation: $1301.18 (i.e. approve your claim to pay for this work on a
force account basis).
Item No. 6 (Your Invoice No. 885757)
Description: Remove concrete curb & gutter and reinstall for
knockdown section
Your Request: $36.40 (as force account work)
My Recommendation: $41.60 (using unit prices)
Item No. 7 (Your Invoice No. 885734)
Description: Removals and replacement of curb and gutter, as
needed for installation of handicap ramps.
Your Request: $310.00
My Recommendation: Remove concrete curb and gutter
16 LF @ 1.00 /LF — 16.00
Install B -618 concrete curb
and gutter 16 LF @ 4.20 /LF — 67.20
Total $83.20
Item No. 8 (Your Letter Dated 8/30/88)
Description: Bituminous drive patching.
Your Request: 280.7 SY at 9.85/SY — $2764.90
My Recommendation: 280.7 SY at 9.85/SY — $2764.90
less 30.88 tons Bit. Mixture
@ $13.80 /ton — 426.14
less 2.0 tons Bit. Material
@ $144.00 /ton — 288.00
Net Additional Payment — $2050.76
a
Page Four
March 17, 1989
Explanation: I'm proposing to pay the full amount you requested, by paying the
contract unit prices for the bituminous mixture and for bituminous
materials, then paying the additional $2050.76 for the additional
work involved.
Item No. 9 (Your verbal statement on December 30, 1988 and March 14)
Description: Removal of 43 feet of 12" RCP storm sewer
Your Request: $461.00
My Recommendation: $461.00 (i.e. payment on a force account basis, as
requested).
Item No. 10 (Your letter and estimate of completion stated during our
meeting of March 14, 1989)
Description: Repair of Sprinkler Systems
Your Request: 1/2 of $3500 (estimate) a $1750
My Recommendation: To pay your request of $1750.00.
Item No. 11 (Your Invoice No. 885719)
Description: Remove concrete structure near Anderson Drywall
Your Request: $265.84
My Recommendation: $265.84 (i.e. payment on a force account basis, as
requested).
Item No. 12 (City claims to Thomas and Sons Construction)
Description: 7 unpaid claims for work by City crews
Amount of My
City's Claim Description Comments Recommendation
$76.89 Develop temporary My staff advises me this $76.89
access to Lift request was made several
Station No. 6 times to your supervisor.
When the work wasn't done,
we had to do it.
$62.14 Set up barricades This was required by Police $62.14
at 58th Avenue/ Dept. because of dangerous
Logan Avenue conditions. Although we
acknowledge that you were
1
Page Five
• March 17, 1989
Amount of My
City's Claim Description Comments Recommendation
not given notice to do so,
I believe your costs would
have been at least as great,
or higher.
$279.81 Clean sewerline This work was necessitated 0.00
at 1915 - 57th due to changes requested by (i.e. -
Avenue North City cancel this
claim)
$726.80 Remove debris, etc. I am advised that Dave $726.80
from manholes Peterson requested Dan
Thomas several times to do
what's necessary to prevent
debris from getting into
manholes, and then to clean
them out.
$920.23 Repair L.S. #6 Again, I am advised that $920.23
Dave Peterson requested
Dan Thomas to take
necessary preventive
action on several
occasions. When the lift
station failed, we had an
emergency which needed
immediate attention, and
required crew's knowledge
of this facility.
$190.72 Cleaning Sewer at Dave Anderson reports $190.72
5650 North Lilac that your foreman
Drive Tony Deutch
requested that our crew
do this work, since he
was unable to do it.
$287.71 Repairs at Lift (same comments as for $287.71
Station No. 6 our $920.23 invoice)
$2544.30 - Total $2264.49
Summary
Following is a summary of your requests and my recommendations:
A
Page Six
March 17, 1989
Item No. Your Request My Recommendation
1 $4723.20 $3936.00
2 6567.55 4881.80
3 650.52 398.76
4 341.83 -0-
5 1301.18 1301.18
6 36.40 41.60
7 310.00 83.20
8 2050.76* 2050.76
9 461.00 461.00
10 1750.00 1750.00
11 265.84 265.84
Subtotals $18,458.28 $15,170.14
Less
12(City Claims) 0 2264.49
Net Totals $18,458.28 $12,905.65
* Note : Although your claim for this item is in the full amount of
$2764.90, we have paid $714.40 under unit prices for tonnage, leaving your
net claim at $2050.76.
Conditions and Commitments Relating to MY Proposal
As noted, my proposal is to develop a "Supplemental Agreement No. 5" covering
these items. This proposal is subject to the following conditions and
commitments:
1. Agreement must be reached on an "all or none" basis; i.e. - unless we reach
agreement on all twelve items described above, I will consider that all are
still unresolved.
2. Your agreement that there are no other unresolved issues at this time.
3. My proposal is, of course, subject to approval of the proposed Supplemental
Agreement No. 5 by the City Council. If I receive your acceptance of my
proposal by Tuesday noon, March 21, 1989, I will submit the Supplemental
Agreement to the City Council for their consideration on March 27, 1989.
If agreement is not reached by that time and date, but is reached at a later
date, I am willing to submit the required Supplemental Agreement to the City
Council at the next available Council meeting, noting that we need to reach
agreement at least a week prior to a Council meeting, to allow the
Supplemental Agreement to be formalized, etc.
Page Seven
March 17, 1989
4. If a Supplemental Agreement is approved by the City Council, the City will
issue a partial payment covering all work to date, including all items
covered by the Supplemental Agreement, withholding the normal retainage,
within 10 calendar days following City Council approval.
5. If a partial payment as described above is made before April 27, 1989, no
payment will be made for any accrued interest claims.
Please review this proposal in detail. If you agree to accept it as is, please
sign it and return it to me as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Sy Knap
I hereby agree to accept the above proposal, including the itemized conditions
and commitments thereto, provided the proposed "Supplemental Agreement No. 5" is
developed and approved by the Brooklyn Center City Council.
By Title
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
On this day of A p(zi1 Iq T9 , before me, appeared
0 C- rn A to me personally known, who
being be me duly sworn, did say that /he_ is /are the \PQ �S )a "J
of 1 kAD r11 0 2 COUSI L . - TJC
a corporation, that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the
corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was executed in
behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of 01 e AOit S ;
and that said S� JiY � m n-s acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
i ota ublic
S. J. THOMAS. JR.
t NOI�RY PUBLIC — MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY My CO mm 1SSiOn expires — �—
Mv commission expires April 27, 1990
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/24/89
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO
CONDUCT PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES ADJOINING THE
TWIN LAKES AREA FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES
DEPT. APP
G.`G. LINTER, CITY MANAGER
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
History
• On February 27, 1989, the City Council received and discussed the report from
Westwood Professional Services, Inc. entitled "Twin Lakes and the Preserve
Study" and dated February, 1989. After review and discussion of this report,
the City Council referred the report to the Park and Recreation Commission for
its review, comment and recommendations.
At the time this matter was discussed with the City Council, we also noted that
Joslyn Inc. has advised us that they are beginning to consider redevelopment of
their property, either concurrently or subsequent to the clean -up operations.
This information was also discussed with the Park and Recreation Commission.
After reviewing and discussing the Westwood report and considering the
information the Joslyn property may be redeveloped, and noting that the Westwood
report includes a recommendation to develop a major activity node encompassing a
substantial portion of the Joslyn site, the Park and Recreation Commission, on
March 28, 1989, recommended that the City employ a consultant to conduct a more
detailed study to evaluate the feasibility of this site for the proposed uses
(see copy of the Commission's minutes attached).
Accordingly, we requested Westwood to submit a proposal to conduct the
feasibility study. A copy of this proposal is attached. Please note that the
proposal includes a review of liability issues relating to the contamination
problem at this site, and a review of shoreland and wetland issues, both of
which are very important with reference to this property. In addition the
proposal includes development of a base map, concept development planning,
developing a grading plan, contacts with State and Federal agencies, etc.
We believe Westwood's proposal describes a process of obtaining the information
which the City needs if we are to give serious consideration to the use of this
site. And, we believe that this is the appropriate time to proceed with this
® study. Accordingly, I recommend acceptance of the Westwood proposal.
City Council Action Required
A resolution amending the General Fund Budget and accepting the Westwood
proposal is attached for consideration by the City Council.
•
w
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1989 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND
ACCEPTING PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES ADJOINING THE TWIN LAKES AREA FOR
PARK AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES
WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn
Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General
Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be
transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Commission has
recommended that a preliminary study be conducted for development of certain
properties adjoining the Twin Lakes area for park and recreational purposes; and
WHEREAS, Westwood Professional Services Inc. has submitted a proposal
to conduct the desired feasibility study at a total estimated fee of $9600.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
1. That the 1988 General Fund Budget be amended as follows:
Increase the Appropriations for the following line items
Recreation and Parks Administration - No. 61,
Object No. 4310 $9600.00
Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items
Unallocated Dept. Expense - No. 80, Object No. 4995 $9600.00
2. That the proposal submitted by Westwood Professional Services Inc.
is hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and City Manager are
hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with said firm
to conduct the proposed study in accordance with the proposal.
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.
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
MARCH 28, 1989
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sorenson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and
subsequently recessed the meeting until a quorum was present.
At 7:45 p.m. a quorum of the park and recreation commission was
present.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Sorenson, Commissioners Mead, Peterson, Pollock, and
Propst. Also present were Councilmember Jerry Pedlar, Director
of Recreation Arnie Mavis, and Recording Secretary Tom Bublitz.
Chairman Sorenson noted Commissioner Skeels was absent and
excused from this evening's meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21 1989
There was a motion by Commissioner Pollock and seconded by
Commissioner Peterson to approve the minutes of the February 21,
1989 park and recreation commission meeting as submitted. The
motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Director of Recreation pointed out the third Tuesday of the
month is the only time Geralyn Barone can meet with the
commission since she has commitments on other Tuesdays of the
month. Because of Ms. Barone's schedule, the staff is requesting
the commission keep the park and recreation commission meeting to
the third Tuesday of the month.
There was a motion by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by
Commissioner Pollock to retain the third Tuesday of each month as
the regular park and recreation commission meeting date. The
motion passed.
REVIEW OF TWIN LAKES AND PRESERVE STUDY
Chairman Sorenson stressed the need for commission members to
visit the parcels in the Twin Lake and Preserve study. He
emphasized the need to review the Preserve area and the Middle
Twin, Joslyn, and Kylawn areas. He suggested reviewing these
areas as a group and directed the staff to arrange a tour of the
area beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the Commission on April 18.
3 -28 -89
-1-
Chairman Sorenson then recognized the Director of Recreation who,,, —
proceeded to continue the review of the Twin Lake and Preserve±
study. The Director of Recreation pointed out the staff's number \,
one priority for the commission to consider in the study is the
Joslyn site and added, the staff is recommending the park and
recreation commission consider recommending the hiring of a
consultant to the city council to conduct a study on the
potential uses of the Joslyn site. He explained the study would
address the issue of whether or not the City can place a park on
the property, particularly with regard to the contamination
issue. He explained the contaminated earth has been removed; the
cleared portion needs to aerate for some time and then will be
capped with noncontaminated fill. He explained the staff's
recommendation to the commission is to provide input on the types
of development that would be appropriate for the area including
such items as a boat launch, picnicking, ball fields, and a
beach. He emphasized the consultant would work primarily on the
issues of what the area could be used for based on park and
recreation commission input and guidelines.
The commission discussed the Joslyn site and generally agreed
this site was the number one priority in the study. Commissioner
Peterson commented that this area is the last available 48 acre
site in the entire city of Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Pedlar raised the issue of whether or not the City
wants the entire 48 acre site for development.
The commission continued its discussion and focused on the
past
use of the Twin Lake beach area. The commission discussed the
liability issue regarding the re- establishment of a beach in the
area including the provision of lifeguards and decided the
liability issue would be one issue that would be important for
any consultant to consider. The commission recommended including
consideration of a beach in any,consultant study and additionally
a canoe launch, picnic area, and seating nodes for the area. The
Director of Recreation pointed out if a softball field is built
in the Joslyn area, the City would give up the East Palmer North
field since parking near this field is a problem. The East
Palmer field would be made into a green area. Another
Possibility would be to give up a softball field at Grandview and
locate another Babe Ruth League field at Grandview Park.
Councilmember Pedlar stated he has somewhat of a problem with the
Possibility of softball tournaments interfering with the use of a
park area. He expressed interest in seeing the Twin Lake area
developing similar to the County Park at Medicine Lake. He added
the preserve has a great amount of land available and that is his
vision for the development of this area in Brooklyn Center.
Chairman Sorenson also stressed the parking for softball versus
the parking for the beach and other park areas be examined in any
3 -28 -89 -
• z
consultant study.
The commission also recommended considering sand volleyball
courts for the park area.
p
The Director of Recreation stated the Joslyn site would include a
review of Twin Lake beach and the area north of the Soo Line.
There was a motion by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by
Commissioner Pollock to recommend to the City Council to hire a
consultant to conduct a study of potential park and recreation
uses for the area known as the Joslyn site. The motion passed.
The Director of Recreation stated the staff's recommendation for
a second priority after the Joslyn site is the Kylawn area.
Chairman Sorenson pointed out that at the next meeting, the
commission could begin to prioritize other areas of potential
development. Chairman Sorenson pointed out the next step would
be to review the goals for the study area which are expressed on
page 2 of the study. He requested the commission to make a
determination whether or not they agree with the goals of the
study as listed on page 2.
The Director of Recreation pointed out that a resource becomes a
resource only when you make use of it.
There was a motion by Commissioner Mead and seconded by
Commissioner Peterson to support the five general goals presented
in the Twin Lakes and Preserve Study and listed as follows:
1. Establish a format for the involved communities to implement
common goals around lake usage.
2. Develop a year round approach to development and management
of the resource for broadened community uses.
3. Preserve the natural resources wherever possible.
4. Improve the water quality of the lakes.
5• Develop a trail system which links the presently planned
trails of the four communities in the Twin Lake area.
The motion passed.
Chairman Sorenson stated he believed the city council should also
review and consider these goals. Councilmember Pedlar commented
that the city council has reviewed the plan and believes they are
generally supportive of the concept expressed in the plan.
There was a motion by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by
Commissioner Mead to recommend the city council consider and
3 -28 -89 -3-
adopt the goals recommended by the park and recreation
commission. The motion passed.
RECESS
The park and recreation commission recessed at 8:40 p.m. and
reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
COMMISSION PLAN OF ACTION
Councilmember Pedlar pointed out to commission members the City
is under a new budget cycle which moves the budget dates up
several months from what they had been in the past.
Chairman Sorenson reviewed the summary of community needs and
issues related to Brooklyn Center parks and recreation and
explained he believed the commission should establish the needs
in terms of a priority list and perhaps some number rating system
could be used rating the priorities from high to low.
The Director of Recreation reviewed the list of community needs
and issues from a staff perspective and pointed out the City
staff has reviewed the entire list. He proceeded to review the
list item by item and relay the staff input on each item.
The commission discussed possible ways of rating the items in a
priority ranking and finally agreed that at the next meeting the
commission members would take each item in a particular category
and rate that item from zero to five, with five being the highest
priority and zero being the lowest or no priority. The ratings
would then be submitted to the staff at the April meeting and
would be tabulated for the May meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by
Commissioner Mead to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed.
The Brooklyn Center park and recreation commission adjourned at
9:40 p.m.
Chairman
3 -28 -89 -4-
Viestwood Professional Services, Inc.
e'
April 17, 1989
7101 York Avenue South
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Mr. Arne Mavis
612 - 921 -3303
City Recreation Director Brooklyn Park, 612- 424 -8862
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
RE: Planning Services Proposal, Joslyn Site
Dear Mr. Mavis:
Based on our meeting last month I have prepared this proposal for the
City's consideration. At this time it is a generalized approach and may
benefit from City review and comment prior to entering into an agree-
ment. I have provided it as an estimate of the approximate cost which
you can budget for and as a basis for further refinement (if necessary) .
SERVICES
Task 1 Liability Issue
Ron Peterson (Westwood's environmental specialist) will aid the
City Attorney in assessing the risk of liability borne by the City
should it accept /purchase the site. You should note that Mr.
Peterson's input will be of a technical nature only and that all
legal determinations or recommendations must come from the City
Attorney.
Task 2 Shore and Wetland Issues
Westwood shall field verify the locations of wetlands, shorelands
and state protected waters. This task includes delineating the
limits of DNR and Army Corps jurisdiction. The intent of this
task is to establish the parameters for regrading /filling shore-
land and upland areas of the site.
Task 3 Contamination Review
Subtask 3a Contact P.C.A. (Liz Gelbman or others to review
reuse limitations and allowable potentially
allowable reuses of site such as park, private
development, etc.)
Subtask 3b Contact Barr Engineering (Bill Gebhart) to
obtain information on remediation plan, final
grades, etc.
Subtask 3c Contact Joslyn's representative, Roland Mattson,
to inform them of our study and invite their
input and involvement.
Joslyn Site Proposal
April 17, 1989 -
Page 2
Task 4 Base Map Preparation
Subtask 4a Obtain topographic base map. This will involve
a 1989 flight, 1" =100' scales, 2' contour
interval and ground control.
Subtask 4b Prepare 1" = 100' scale study area map
Task 5 Concept Development Planning
Westwood shall utilize a prioritized use list of acceptable uses
developed by the City Parks Committee and the concepts developed
in the Twin Lakes & Preserve Study (Westwood, February 1989) as
the basis to begin site planning. Alternative master plans will
be developed which demonstrate the site's opportunities and
limitations. The alternatives shall feature differing types of
development and different quantities of various uses. The purpose
of this task shall be to illustrate potential redevelopment
scenarios. Access, active recreation, passive recreation and
private development options will be considered.
Task 6
Prepare draft plan and report and present to staff .
Task 7
Develop preliminary grading plan which considers proposed reuse
and the current soil reconditioning and filling plans.
Task 8
Obtain DNR, Army Corps, PCA the amount of work in this task is
highly dependent on the specifics of the preferred development
plant and the level of approval sought. Westwoods roll could be
to merely obtain agency position statements to actually obtain
permits.
Task 9
Revisions and Presentating. Westwood shall refine the draft
report and plans as necessary to summarize project status.
Additionally, Westwood shall attend meetings with the land owners,
park or planning commission and council as requested.
Joslyn Site Proposal
April 17, 1989
Page 3
The topographic base mapping is an optimal element which may be delayed
or omitted at your preference. It is however, felt that an accurate
base map will be necessary to resolve several site issues (such as
grading, filling and wetland jurisdiction). Not included in this
proposal are survey services beyond what is needed for base map
preparation. At a later time there maybe a need to field stake
jurisdictional limits, easement areas and preparation of legal
descriptions.
COST OF SERVICES
The cost can be refined once this proposal has been reviewed by
the City. At this time our proposal is hourly as incurred using
the attached hourly rate schedule toward the fees estimated here:
Task 1 Liability Issue $ 250.00
Task 2 Shoreland /Wetland
Review 650.00
Task 3 Contamination Issues
Review 1000.00
Task 4a Topographic Base Map 2500.00
Task 4b Site Base Map 400.00
Task 5 Concept Planning 2500.00
Task 6 Draft Report 400.00
Task 7 Preliminary Grading
Report 1200.00
Task 8 DNR, Army Corps, PCA
permits or approvals 700.00 (may vary de-
pending on impact
of selected
alternative)
Task 9 Final Report and,
Revisions, and As incurred
presentations
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE $9,600.00
TIMING
It is our understanding that this study should begin promptly.
We suggest that we can begin work upon verbal confirmation of the
proposal. If you wish, we can order the topography. Written
confirmation can follow later. It will take approximately one month to
obtain the topographic map.
Joslyn Site Proposal
April 17, 1989 -
Page 4
PROJECT TEAM
Tim Erkkila, Vice President in charge of planning shall direct the
project. Ron Peterson in charge of environmental studies shall lead the
efforts on site usability. Gordon Anderson, a senior planner who has
participated in the Twin Lakes Study land others in Brooklyn Center)
shall provide day to day site planning. Resumes of Mr. Erkkila and Mr.
Peterson are attached. This project team seems well suited to the scope
of work and has experience in this type of study.
We look forward to hearing from you about this project. This proposal
is valid until June 1, 1989. If additional work is requested after
January 1990, that work shall be governed by the Westwood charge rate
schedule for 1990.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
vt�m ,&
Tim Erkkila, ASLA
Vice President, Planning
TE:kd Approved by Brooklyn Center City Council:
Date:
Attachments Accepted for the City of Brooklyn Center:
By:
Mayor
and By:
City Manager
TIM ERKKILA, ASLA
Mr. Erkkila is Vice President, Planning, for Westwood
Professional Services, Inc.
Mr. Erkkila directs the planning section of the firm. In this
role, he works directly with clients to generate plans and
concepts and as an advisor to projects in the engineering
division of the firm. In his 14 years of professional work, he
has participated in a wide range of projects, either as team
member or in a supervisory role. Typical projects include site
planning for development, redevelopment, urban planning, park
planning and design and preparation of construction documents for
site amenities.
Mr. Erkkila's experience prior to joining Westwood includes:
President of the consulting firm of Erkkila & Associates.
Representative projects include park system planning and
park site design for developing cities, landscape
architectural services on urban projects such as Galtier
Plaza in St. Paul and Riverplace in Minneapolis, and
developer assistance on commercial, industrial and
residential projects.
Landscape Architect and project manager for site planning
projects such as facility master planning, neighborhood
rehabilitation, downtown redevelopment projects in three
states and municipal planning and technical assistance.
This work was done as the Vice President and Director of
Design at Midwest Planning & Research, Inc.
Landscape Architect /Planner for the University of Minnesota
Planning Office. Mr. Erkkila's duties included preparation
of campus master plans, site development planning for new
campus buildings and sculpture siting for the projects at
all University of Minnesota facilities.
Site Planner for the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Duties here included preliminary planning for Interstate
rest areas at the South Dakota and Iowa borders and on I -94,
plus building siting at 11 primary rest areas.
Mr. Erkkila is a Registered Professional Landscape Architect in
Minnesota. He has a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture and B.S.
Landscape Design and Environmental Planning from the University
of Minnesota, 1972. Mr. Erkkila is a member of the American and
Minnesota Society of Landscape Architects and the APA.
RONALD P. PETERSON
Mr. Peterson is Vice President, Environmental Services, for
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Mr. Peterson is in charge of Westwood's environmental practice.
His primary responsibilities are project management on
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) and other environmental
review documents, preparation of government permit applications
and technical advice to clients on environmental matters. He
works closely with clients and staff from Westwood's engineering,
planning and landscape architecture divisions to identify
environmental constraints and regulatory requirements on both
public and private projects.
Mr. Peterson's experience prior to joining Westwood includes:
Senior Associate with Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. -
Representative projects include EIS and Indirect Source
Permit for Homart's Minnesota Center in Bloomington; federal
Environmental Assessment (EA) on the 144th Street /U.S. 275
interchange in Omaha, Nebraska; and federal environmental
review documents for Forest Highways 11 and 69 in northern
Minnesota. He also developed successful wetland mitigation
designs for the Anoka County - Blaine Airport, Centerville
Road in Ramsey County and the SYSCO /Continental Minnesota
Distribution Center in Mounds View.
Wildlife Biologist for the Minnesota Department of
Transportation - While at MnDOT, he provided department -wide
policy guidance on natural resource issues, drafted EIS's
and EA's, prepared biological assessments on threatened and
endangered species, and conducted wetland assessments.
Representative projects include EIS and wetland mitigation
package for the St. Paul - Downtown Airport, development of
MnDOT's wetland mitigation banking program, and biological
assessment on bald eagles for the Trunk Highway 60 bridge in
Wabasha.
Wildlife Biologist for the Kansas Fish and Game Commission -
While at Kansas Fish and Game, he administered 12,000 acres
of public wildlife lands and three state recreation lakes.
He also supervised a private land habitat improvement
program for seven counties.
Independent Environmental Consultant - Mr. Peterson has
completed a number of independent consulting assignments,
including design and installation of a lake outflow
monitoring system in Vadnais Heights and expert witness
services in contested case hearings on protected waters
permits and state environmental review documents. He also
served as a natural resource consultant to the Upper
Mississippi River Basin Commission.
Mr. Peterson has a Bachelor of Science in Wildlife Management
from the University of Minnesota, 1975; Master of Science in
Natural Resources from the University of Wisconsin — Stevens
Point, 1979; and Juris Doctor from William Mitchell College of
Law, 1986. He was admitted to the Minnesota Bar in 1986. Mr.
Peterson is a member of the Hennepin County Bar Association,
Environmental Law Committee, and The Wildlife Society, and is a
core staff member of The Wetlands Group.
v t
FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
JANUARY 1. 1989
In general. where it is possible to determine in advance the SCOPE OF A PROJECT
and the time and effort the Project will require. the fee basis for Engineering
Services will be a percentage of construction cost or lump sum. Where this is
impossible, because of the complex nature of work tasks that are variable in
nature and where the time required is controlled by the Client, citizen
involvement and environmental problems; where the time requirement is beyond the
control of the Consultant, the following fee schedule will apply. Charges for
Other Direct Costs and facilities furnished by Westwood are computed on the
basis of actual cost plus fifteen percent. This override covers the costs
associated with cost of money, the risks associated with our responsibility for
delivery on behalf of subcontractors. etc. Examples of such items which are
directly attributable to the project include: shipping charges; printing and
reproduction; special fees; permits; special insurance and licenses;
subcontracts; outside computer time: and miscellaneous materials. Travel and
travel - related expense, and equipment purchased for the project with advanced
authorization are computed on the basis of actual cost plus ten percent.
Classification Hourly Rate
Senior Principal Engineer . ............................... S 85.00
Principal Engineer /Planner /Landscape Architect. 75.00
Environmentalist .......... ............................... 65.00
Senior Engineer/ Transportation ........................... 62.00
Senior Project Engineer /Planner /Landscape Architect ..... 59.00
Project Coordinator ...... ............................... 49.00
Engineer /Landscape Architect /Planner .................... 46.00
Senior Construction Coordinator ......................... 45.00
Senior Engineering Technician ........................... 45.00
Construction Observer .... ............................... 39.00
Engineering Technician ... ............................... 39.00
Associate Landscape Architect /Planner .................... 36.00
Draftsman ................ ............................... 35.00
Engineering Aide ......... ............................... 28.00
Typist................... ............................... 25.00
Registered Land Surveyor .. ............................... 70.00
Two -Ian Survey Crew ...... ............................... 72.00
Three -Han Survey Crew .... ............................... 90.00
Systems Analysis /Computer Technician ..................... 45.00
Computer Time......... .. ............................... 1.00
FAX.... ..(Per Page) ..... (Maximum of 517.00) ............. 3.00
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/2
Agenda Item Number /L/ C
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION, ACCEPTING A
PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PHASE 2 -B PLANTINGS AT
CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE (PROJECT NO. 1988 -26)
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
I
* * * * * * * ** Y KNAPP * * ** OR OF PUBLIC � * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Explanation
On November 2, 1988, the City Council adopted a resolution accepting a proposal
from Brauer & Associates to develop plans, specifications and a request for
proposals (RFP) for the furnishing and installation of additional deciduous
trees and plantings at the Centerbrook Golf Course.
Those plans and specifications have been developed by Brauer & Associates, in
consultation with City staff members. The plan calls for installation of 36
deciduous trees (a variety of linden, aspen, river birch, red maple, sugar
maple, and swamp white oak) and 247 shrub plantings (lilacs, potentilla and red
leaf barberry). Mulch beds will be installed around the shrub plantings. A
copy of the plan will be available at the City Council meeting.
As shown in the attached resolution, 3 proposals were received in response to
the City's RFP. We recommend acceptance of the lowest proposal, from
Greenworks, Inc. in the total amount of $13,619.80. That firm has
satisfactorily completed other projects at Centerbrook.
City Council Action Required
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
7
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION,
ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT
FOR PHASE 2 -B PLANTINGS AT CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE (PROJECT
NO. 1988 -26)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 88 -193 adopted on November 21,
1988, Brauer & Associates Ltd. has developed plans and specifications for the
following improvement.
Improvement Project 1988 -26
Centerbrook Landscaping Phase 2 -B
AND WHEREAS, the following proposals for furnishing and installing
landscaping in accordance with the plans and specifications have been received:
Greenworks, Inc. $13,619.80
Perkins Landscape Contractors 15,855.00
Fair's Garden Center, Inc. 15,995.00
AND WHEREAS, it appears that Greenworks Inc. has submitted the lowest
responsible proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The sum of $15,000.00 is hereby appropriated to the Capital
Projects Fund Golf Course Project 40, from the Capital Projects
Fund balance to fund the costs of the proposed improvements.
2. The proposal submitted by Greenworks, Inc. in the amount of
$13,619.80 is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are
hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with that firm
in accordance with their proposal and the plans and specifications.
3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to approve minor changes to
the contract if he determines the need to do so, provided however,
that the total costs incurred under the contract shall not exceed
$15,000.00.
RESOLUTION N0,
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 4/24
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
0 *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A GOLF COURSE FUND APPROPRIATION, ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL
AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION T N OF A CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF SECURITY LIGHTS AT
CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 2 t�ZF
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Explanation
• During the past year several incidents of vandalism have occurred during
nighttime hours at the Centerbrook Golf Course. Manager, Kurt Johnson, and
Recreation Director, Arnie Mavis, believe that the installation of one pole with
one floodlight fixture and two poles with two floodlight fixtures on each (total
of five fixtures) will dramatically improve the security of the course and assist
in reducing vandalism. Accordingly, they have obtained two proposals for this
work, and they recommend acceptance of the lowest proposal in the amount of
$4,347.00.
City Council Action Required
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A GOLF COURSE FUND APPROPRIATION,
ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT
FOR INSTALLATION OF SECURITY LIGHTS AT CENTERBROOK GOLF
COURSE
WHEREAS, the Director of Recreation reports that a number of incidents
of vandalism have occurred during nighttime hours at the Centerbrook Golf Course
and recommends the installation of five security lights; and
WHEREAS, the following proposals have been received for the furnishing
and installation of the proposed lights:
Killmer Electric Co. Inc. $4347.00
Collins Electric Co. 6574.00
AND WHEREAS, it appears that Killmer Electric Co. Inc. has submitted
the lowest responsible proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The sum of $4347.00 is hereby appropriated from the Golf Course
Fund 73 to Object No. 4530 to fund the costs for the proposed
improvement.
2. The proposal of Killmer Electric Co. Inc. to complete said
improvement at a total cost of $4347.00 is hereby accepted and
approved. The City Manager is hereby directed to execute a
contract with that firm in accordance with their proposal.
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 4/24/89
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION, ACCEPTING A
PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF LIGHTS
ALONG TRAILWAY IN LIONS PARK
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
* * * * * * * * ** KNAPP� *DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WO * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Explanation
During the past year several incidents have occurred along the north -south trail
through Lions Park, along the east -west trail from Lions Park to the 53rd
Avenue/Vincent Avenue area and at the Centerbrook Golf Course, which have
demonstrated a need to install lights along these trails. These lights would
provide lighting for trail users and provide additional security to the No. 1
fairway, the No. 4 green and the No. 5 tee areas of Centerbrook.
Accordingly, two proposals have been received.for the installation of five
lights on five poles along these trails. As shown in the resolution, the two
proposals vary greatly in cost. However, we believe both firms have the same
knowledge of our requirements and that they represent the same scope of work.
Accordingly, we recommend acceptance of the lowest proposal in the amount of
$6222.00.
City Council Action Required
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION,
ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT
FOR INSTALLATION OF LIGHTS ALONG TRAILWAY IN LIONS PARK
WHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the City Council that there is a
need to install lights along the trails in Lions park, and
WHEREAS, the following proposals have been received for the furnishing
and installation of five lights along the trailway system:
Killmer Electric Co. Inc. $6,222.00
Collins Electric Co. 10,900.00
AND WHEREAS, it appears that Killmer Electric Co. Inc. has submitted
the lowest responsible proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The sum of $6222.00 is hereby appropriated to the Park Maintenance
Division 69 of the General Fund from the Capital Projects Fund
balance to fund the costs for the proposed improvement.
2. The proposal of Killmer Electric Co. Inc. to complete said
improvement at a total cost of $6222.00 is hereby accepted and
approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a contract with the firm in accordance with
their proposal.
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 4/
Agenda Item Number / 4-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION, ACCEPTING A
PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF LIGHTS IN
ARBORETUM
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
* * * * * * * * * * * * **IAPP�* DIRECTOR O F P *B * * * * * WOR * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _)
Explanation
During the past several years City staff members have received a number of
requests from residents in the vicinity of the Arboretum to install lights
within the Arboretum area, to provide security for the area and to allow
pedestrian use of the trails during nighttime hours.
Accordingly, two proposals have been received for the installation of four
lights on four poles within the Arboretum. We recommend acceptance of the
lowest proposal in the amount of $4982.00.
City Council Action Required
A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council.
•
/dam
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND APPROPRIATION,
ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT
FOR INSTALLATION OF LIGHTS IN ARBORETUM
WHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the City Council that there is a
need to install lights along the trails in the Arboretum, and
WHEREAS, the following proposals have been received for the furnishing
and installation of four lights along the trailway system:
Killmer Electric Co. Inc. $4,982.00
Collins Electric Co. 5,948.00
AND WHEREAS, it appears that Killmer Electric Co. Inc. has submitted
the lowest responsible proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The sum of $4982.00 is hereby appropriated to the Park Maintenance
Division 69 of the General Fund from the Capital Projects Fund
balance to fund the costs for the proposed improvement.
2. The proposal of Killmer Electric Co. Inc. to complete said
improvement at a total cost of $4982.00 is hereby accepted and
approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a contract with the firm in accordance with
their proposal.
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 4/24/89
Agenda Item Number_
FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Mechanical Hoist
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Qlili Administrative Aide
Signature - title
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _)
The Council approved an appropriation of $9,126 for a mechanical hoist in Department No. 19. On
February 13, 1989, the Council accepted the quote from G & G Service Station and approved the
purchase of this hoist. Since that time, staff has been notified that G & G Service Station would
like to withdraw its quote. They stated the representative who prepared the quote had made an
error on the quote and also is no longer employed by them.
Two other quotes were received along with the quote from G & G Service Station. It is staff's
recommendation the quote from Westside Equipment be accepted.
•
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE
OF ONE (1) MECHANICAL HOIST
WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1989
budget for the purchase of one (1) mechanical hoist; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 1989, the City Council
approved the purchase of this mechanical hoist from G & G Service
Station by passing Resolution No. 89 -21; and
WHEREAS, since the February 13, 1989, approval, the
City has been notified that G & G Service Station wishes to
withdraw the quote; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended the quote received from
Westside Equipment in the amount of $8,027 be accepted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Council acknowledges
withdrawal of the quote from G & G Service Station.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the quote from Westside
Equipment is hereby accepted and the purchase of the mechanical
hoist is approved.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member
and upon vote being o
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: g ke n
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said
p resolution was declared duly passed and
y p adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4/24/89
Agenda Item Number e
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Rejecting Bids for One (1) Tow Type Auger Paver
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APP OVAL:
p nnc Administrative Aid
Signature - title
************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report _ Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
On April 6, 1989, two bids were received for the tow type auger paver. When the bids were opened
it was discovered the section pertaining to the City's trade -in had been omitted. One bidder
submitted his bid based on a verbal discussion of the trade -in, the other bidder did not. Staff
believes it would be in the best interest of the City to reject both bids and rewrite the specs to
reflect the trade -in. We would then readvertise for bids and start the process over.
le h 1 );
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT
FOR NEW BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF ONE TOW TYPE AUGER PAVER
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center advertised for
bids for one tow type auger paver; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 1989, two bids were received and
opened; and
WHEREAS, it was discovered a section was omitted from
the bid specs that had been discussed with both bidders on
previous occasions; and
WHEREAS, one bidder submitted his bid based on the
verbal discussion of the trade -in, and the other did not; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined it would be in the best
interest of the City of Brooklyn Center to reject all bids
received and readvertise for bids on this piece of equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the bids received on April 6,
1989, from Ruffridge- Johnson Equipment Co. and Aspen Equipment
Co. for one (1) tow type auger paver are hereby rejected.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED staff is hereby directed to
rewrite the specifications for this piece of equipment and
readvertise for bids.
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 4124/89
Agenda Item Number A1/
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Declaring Surplus Property
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Q x6ii Pnvv Administrative Aide
Signature - title
************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
* * * * * * * * * * * **
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X
The attached list of surplus property is being submitted for council approval. I recommend approval
of the Resolution Declaring Surplus Property.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the list of property submitted by the City
Clerk at the April 24, 1989, City Council meeting is hereby
declared surplus property and is hereby authorized for public
sale at the annual City auction to be held on April 29, 1989.
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.
i
No. ITEM DESCRIPTION FIXED ASSET NO.
Secretarial Chair - orange 2889
486 Secretarial Chair - blue 2951
487 Secretarial Chair - orange
488 Secretarial Chair - orange
489 Secretarial Chair - orange
490 Saw horses - four
491 Gas tanks - 40
492 School desk chair
493 School desk chair
494 School desk chair
495 School desk chair
496 Chain link fencing
497 Wood podium
498 Microline U82 computer printer
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 4/24/89
Agenda Item Number -J
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) 11,000 GVW Truck/Chassis
DEPT. APPE,
r OVAL:
' Pol 'OL, Administrative Aide
Signature - title
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The City Council approved the purchase of a replacement truck for the Public Utilities department.
Three quotes were received, and staff is recommending acceptance of the quote from Superior Ford in
the amount of $11,987.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE
OF ONE (1) 11,000 GVW TRUCK /CHASSIS
WHEREAS, on March 27, 1989, the City Council approved
the replacement of a 1983 one -ton dump truck with a 1989 11,000
GVW truck; and
WHEREAS, all costs for the purchase of this unit will
be charged to the Public Utility Fund; and
WHEREAS, three
It were received as follows:
COMPANY QUOTE
Superior Ford $11,987
Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet $11,999
Iten Chevrolet $12,597
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) 11,000
GVW truck /chassis from Superior Ford in the amount of $11,987 is
hereby approved.
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 4/24/89
Agenda Item Number /�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) 3/4 -Ton Pickup
DEPT. APPROVAL:
�bA t-� P
Administrative Aide
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The City Council approved the purchase of a replacement truck for the Public Utilities department.
Three quotes were received, and staff is recommending acceptance of the quote from Thane Hawkins
• Polar Chevrolet in the amount of $11,285.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE
OF ONE (1) 3/4 -TON PICKUP
WHEREAS, on March 27, 1989, the City Council approved
the replacement of a 1980 Chevrolet pickup with a 1989 3/4 -ton
pickup; and
WHEREAS, all costs for the purchase of this unit will
be charged to the Public Utility Fund; and
WHEREAS, three quotes were received as follows:
COMPANY QUOTE
Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet $11,285
Superior Ford $11,515
Iten Chevrolet $12,059
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) 3/4 -ton
pickup from Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet in the amount of
$11,285 is hereby approved.
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 7 � J
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
- Ordinance Extending Interim Ordinance No. 87-16
- Resolution Extending Moratorium on Developement of Adult Halfway Houses, Community
Based on Residential Facilities and Similar Facilities
DEPT. APPROVAL:
1
Signature - title Director of anni ng am 1=16h
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report. Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _)
Both an Ordinance and Resolution are offered for City Council consideration which
would extend the moratorium on residential facilities. The property valuation
• study has been completed but the land use study being undertaken by Resolution, Inc.
is not totally completed. Some information has been submitted to the Planning
Commission and this information and material is being studied. Also, there is a
bill before the Legislature establsing requirements to prevent over - concentration
of residnetial facilities which may have some effect on the recommendations to be
made.
Because of the above, it is recommended that the moratorium be extended. It is
anticipated that at least an additional four months (to August 31, 1989) will be
needed.
i
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
1989 at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider an Ordinance Extending Interim Ordinance No. 87 -16 for the Purpose of
Protecting the Planning Process and the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the Residents
of the Community, and Regulating and Restricting the Development of Adult Halfway
p 1 ay
Houses, Community Based Residential Facilities lities and Similar
Uses in the City.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours
in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE EXTENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 87 -16 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING
THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE
COMMUNITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADULT HALFWAY
HOUSES, COMMUNITY BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES AND SIMILAR USES IN THE CITY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Background
1.01 On October 26, 1987, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 87-16
which placed a moratorium on the development of adult halfway
houses, community based residential facilities and similar
facilit in the City and on November 7, 19 adopted Ordinance No.
$$�9 — which extended said moratorium. T
1.02 The moratorium was necessary to protect the planning process and the
health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City and to ensure
that the City and its residents retained the benefits of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances until a study of such
facilities could be completed and any necessary modifications to
the City's zoning and land use regulations could be accomplished.
1.03 The moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 87 -16 and extended by
Ordinance No. 88 -1 will expir —'
9 on April 0
P 1
p 3 8
,
99
1.04 The studies of such uses which have been undertaken by the City will
not be completed by April 30, 1989. However, the justific
for the moratorium recited in Ord ance No. 7- continue and wi
continue to exist. Therefore, it is necessary to extend the
moratorium as hereinafter provided. `
Section 2. Determination.
2.01 The moratorium imposed by Sections 2.01 and 2.02 of Ordinance No.
87 -16 are hereby extended and continued.
2.02 This ordinance shall remain in effect until or
such earlier date as may be adopted by the City Council, provided
that, if the study and palming process have not e�i en completed by
said date, this ordinance may be extended for such additional
periods as deemed necessar
b the Cit Y Y 1 not
Y to exceed an
additionaT period of ei hteen months from —
s
g November � d9$� a --- , ,
permitted by Minne sota to utesetion 2.3 5, Subdivision Imo.
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 3. Applicability.
This ordinance applies to only application for site plan approvals, rezoning,
licenses, platting or replattings, land aivisions or consolidations, special
use perm s or building permits that have not received preliminary approval by
the City Council before October T6_779
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty
(30) days following its leagl publication.
Adopted this day of 1989.
Mayor
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
Member introduced the following resolution and moved it Ila,
adoption.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF ADULT HALFWAY
COMMUNITY BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES AND SIMILAR FACILITIES
WHEREAS, on October 26, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87-
201 which authorized a study pertaining to regulation of adult halfway houses,
community based residential facilities and similar facilities and placing a
moratorium on the development of such uses; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 1988, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-
170 extending the moratorium on the development of such uses until April 30, 1989;
and
WHEREAS, the studies authorized by said Resolution are in progress but have
not yet been completed; and
WHEREAS, additional time is needed to complete said studies; and
WHEREAS, the reasons for imposing a moratorium on such uses which existed at
the time of the adoption of Resolution No. 87 -201 and 88 -170 continue to exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center that the Council finds and determines that the adoption of the following is
necessary to protect the ongoing planning process in the City and to ensure the
health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Brooklyn Center:
1. The moratorium adopted on October 26, 1987, by Resolution No. 87 -201
on the development of adult halfway houses, residential facilities,
community -based residential facilities, and community correctional
facilities and which was extended to April 30, 1989 by City Council
Resolution No. 88 -170 is hereby again extended pending completion of
the study authorized by said Resolutions and the adoption of any
amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance. No license (other than
renewals) , special use permit, or building permit may be issued for
such uses during the moratorium period nor may any rezonings,
plattings or replattings, or land divisions or consolidations be
granted by the City for such uses during the moratorium period. The
moratorium period shall expire on , or
such earlier date, as may be further adopted by a resolution of the
City Council. The moratorium period may be extended for a reasonable
period of time, as determined by a resolution of the City Council, that
may be necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary
amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance.
2. The moratorium shall not apply to any use that meets the definitions of
a residential facility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
245.782, subd.6 and which is regulated by Minnesota Statutes, Section
245.812, subd. 3 and 4 Section 462.357, subd. 7 and 8.
Date Mayor
Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
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 Cate
Agenda Item Number — / 45
BLS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning
Classification of Certain Land.
DEPT. AP ROVAL:
Signature - title Director of P1 anni ng gn o
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
On April 10, 1989 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No.
89002 which was a City initiated rezoning from R -5 (Multi Family Residence) to C -1
• (Service /Office) of certain land located at the southwest quadrant of I -94 and
Brooklyn Boulevard. The last step in this rezoning process is an ordinance
amendment which lists the rezoned land by description within the proper zoning
classification within the Zoning Ordinance.
This procedure, for the most part, is a "house keeping" or routine matter but,
nevertheless., is required. This Ordinance is offered for first reading.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
, 1989 at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the
Zoning or Certain Land.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours
in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center
is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 35 -1140. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R5). The
following properties are hereby established as being within the (R5) Multiple
Family Resident District zoning classification:
[Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Northgate Addition; except highway.
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 970
That part of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, described as follows:
Commencing at the most northerly corner of Lot 9, thence southeasterly 100
feet along the northeasterly line of Lot 9 and the same extended; thence
northwesterly at right angles 104.8 feet to the north line of Lot 9; thence
east and northeasterly along the north line and northwesterly line of Lot 9
to the point of the beginning; except highway.]
Lot 1, Block 1, Hamm's Addition.
Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (Cl). The following
properties are hereby established as being within the (Cl) Service /Office District
zoning classification.
Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Northgate Addition; except highway.
Lot 2, Block 1, Hamm's Addition.
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 970
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1989.
p Y
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted).
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER counc Meeting Cate
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
IT DESCRIPTION:
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Expansion of
Single- Family Homes in the C =1- Zoning - District.
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
c, ( M4
Signature title Director of PlanningQ ti
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report ( Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
On April 10, 1989 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No.
89002 which involved the rezoning of certain land from R5 to C -1. Following that
approval the Council directed the staff to prepare an Ordinance Amendment for their
consideration which would allow otherwise nonconforming single - family homes in C -1
Zone Districts to be structurally altererd or enlarged. One of the owners of a
single family residential home on property that was being rezoned was mildly opposed
to the rezoning since it would prohibit any further expansion of his home. Under
the R -5 zoning, expansions or alterations of noncomforming single- family homes are
allowed as an exception.
The Draft Ordinance Amendment would extend this same consideration to single - family
homes in C -1 Zoning Districts. It would also affect other already existing
situations such as the homes north of the Union 76 Station on the west side of
Brooklyn Boulevard, south of 70th; on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard, north of
65th; on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard, south of 60th Avenue, and on the east
and west side of Brooklyn Boulevard, south of 59th Avenue.
The theory behind non - conforming uses is to allow them to live out their useful life
but not allow them to expand, enlarge or be structurally altered. Over time they
will be phased out and a comforming use of the property can replace it. It is not
desireable to have exceptions. An exception does, at least theoretically, prolong
the life of the non - conformity. From this standpoint, it is questionable whether
there should be an exception to allow non - conforming single family homes in
residential zones to be altered or enlarged let alone in commerical zones.
We do not recommend the adoption of the ordinance amendment because it seems to
prolong the use of non - comforming single - family residences rather than to speed up
• the eventual phasing out of non - comforming uses. It also adds to the number of non -
comforming residential structures which can be expanded which also seems to defeat
the purpose of trying to phase out these uses.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
, 1989 at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding
Expansion of Single - Family Homes in the C1 Zoning District.
Auxiliary Aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours
in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING
EXPANSION OF SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES IN THE C1 ZONING DISTRICT
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 -111. NONCONFORMING USES. Unless specifically provided
otherewise 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:
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 Rl and R2 or in t "e C1 zoning district provided any structural
alterations or additions shall conformwith the requirements of the R1 and R2
district, and the Flood Plain regulations as applicable.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted).
t •�' t�,� 46�4� � X11 \ �.
�,► I � � @� �� 4�11� IIl1� :oi ��R r
g •- `1144�t� -g �� � !40 1 1!I ! III
!!1!19!6 � ,��p "; /�:e :nti . � � •�
;:• -•: -. ••• ^•1 11 ail .. llmllf� :��� t ` ` '''o. `��
' ���', °"!- 1111. ;,C e= �1 %I,t= ms �C! � ' . ,y,�tii !� ► ����� �
- ,s% y • /tl�tlli�l / 1 tll 1 -_- - �- �e��1 `,
PON
! I �- -- -- ; 1! ! �C � �C= ;E HIM
;;' �? . 1111111 a .tll. 111 11
mall fill
HIM
� �Iflll�► , E��:�i�t�R�/'r =it u. � fir --!� 1 � ���
II HIM
II�III g� •�•
I n ! lill� pit =� E. - _ -A �
•41.4_7 i.A4 y,.. � � Oi� " t . ,,, ►., � � !`
.id3n 49gYr+Ld'6AiA:w' s'[�1.q. .xy�. `'1�
of 1 1�
�� ■ � 111. 11 EI 1
AS
rip ® �+:
2 Re RE MINE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the Brooklyn Center Code; Relating to Collection of Recyclable
Materials and Yard Wastes; Prohibiting Scavenging of Recyclable Materials; Authorizing Collection
Districts
—This ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening.
DEPT. APPROVAL:
HRG Administrator
Signature - title
*A**
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The ordinance amending Chapter 7 is an amendment to the City's Health, Garbage, and Sanitation
regulations and is being proposed to provide the necessary ordinance language to implement the City's
recycling program. In addition to the changes addressing recycling, the overall ordinance language
has been reviewed and numerous housekeeping -type language cleanup changes have been included.
With regard to the proposed changes addressing the City's recycling program, the following elements
are the major features of the ordinance:
I. Amendments to accommodate the elements of the City's curbside recycling program including
definitions of recyclables and recycling collection service.
2. The ordinance provides for preparation of yard waste by requiring separation from other refuse.
In 1990, yard waste will no longer be accepted at refuse disposal sites and must be taken to
separate compost sites.
3. The ordinance also establishes a recycling authority responsible for administering the City's
recycling efforts.
4. The ordinance provides for setting of rates for recycling services and the billing procedures for
recycling service.
5. The ordinance establishes an anti- scavenging provision. This is aimed at persons who scavenge
aluminum cans from curbside recycling containers. The aluminum cans are currently the most
valuable recyclable commodity and are valued at approximately 60 cents per pound.
•
6. The ordinance amendment establishes the authority to create collection districts for same -day
collection of recyciables and refuse.
HRG and City staff members of New Hope, Crystal, and Brooklyn Center began meeting with
residential refuse haulers in December 1988 to discuss the possible establishment of collection
districts. Based on the experience of curbside recycling programs in Minnesota and other parts of
the country, same -day collection of refuse and recyciables adds to the convenience and participation
in curbside recycling programs.
The last meeting held with Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and New Hope haulers was February 2, 1989, at
which time the collection districts shown on the attached City maps were reviewed with the haulers.
The maps show the collection district boundaries, days of collection, and household counts within
each district.
The New Hope recycling program has been operating for three weeks, and the collection district
system appears to be working well. The following recycling tonnages and participation rates were
recorded for New Hope for the first two weeks of the curbside recycling program.
Tons of Recyclable
Participation Rates Material Collected
43% (1st week) 22.63 tons
58% (2nd week) 25.26 tons
�. •, u I d � fltlt ttlt +t� 1' �� � . ��.A
/
1 ..Y ..; , Litt ti ,1 . si� L� � '� a ' M �, " "„ � �� � ±� M• rr I �� `_ •;� .
�� � ��,. �m � ��� ' lip�� { 131! i{iiiii N}• r ,.b'�' �� , � 1 � a ^' a�
_1lPl1�
MEMO
• � w � - ; 3.�. t rirrr \1111 ►:�
TO
\IN 4 11 /llllp 111
1(�gg'i a�w�i.l!lI����� �I
I 1 I
I
+ At1UILA -_ - _ -+
1 1
1 � n
I .(JNON
+ 1 r
- 1
1
i w,
Y < ~ LON + N
I O
� 'M AIM Y + �t •/,
i v < r r< I + � I t O �� 0 ' wINN [T KA - --- --- --- - INwSTKA
W .____.._. ___.
O +
_00 IE
1 aN IN A+</ JO I f -_sU M �' Q R_.l I 1
I ` '
1 fur aaG Z ! > 1 pl NOO[ N. O �;
1 ,
_ _ . •
- -- ---- -- �ftIVLVAWI r;
NEVADA iz i Y '
1
NEV i - - - - -? - -
- 1 NavAOA
-
M !JO < - A 1 MARY ------------
A0.; L
1
___ ______ _ ___ _MOUE DIANA 1
_____ _ ____________________ foul ANA LO
+ < T u KGNTUCKV IANA
1 KE NTUCKY N : L-
KfwT�+tT 0 ,Z !K{NTUGKT
D
r
I C[ {ay < x - y . GR SgY_ KY J 01 iR [Y V V N F '+ O C KaN TU Clay �)
+ s K < a > r
r ;� r A O . IDAHO p P > < IoAN° r
+ ! -
I N M E {[ORQIA i J + A P A A ? + < 7 AMP SHIRE C r }J� HA ► N INC Q
En
FLOlalow C J > ,,,���tt111 > r > > > .1 VI r• N > a
< r
F e uA < _. _ S PI i J Ii �'a FLOlc to c.
1 < _ ¢ Ae w•eo r
0
� .0 <•LOw AOas oou L s
a Y (j Fl /Il, F f
nJNf wILK
RuN {wlc
ApAlIt
--- ------ ----- i
'`= r ZONE It ;_ •___ � _ •_ -' AN[ o ~O� AoAI
,f LAN[
YAT 1.
1 0* > � 1 ? %[NIA O OJ• °� rt"� � p
+ ` XENIA QILD < ; ; > A 1,�'r yy l• i It[NIA "0
1 0
I
c9 wELCOMC w[Laorla
{
+ -+ VERA__CRUi ERA C11U< -
__
4 -4 100 - _-- -_ -_ -
A 1
1 1 00
I JAIL DE 1 � ZI� + JNl 4 1a1• r QUAIL P J �_—
i Pra i C w� I " Il i PER Y
I
vetRr
to Y
1 owcwA wo 1<
\ q -- - ��JJtU2t�7TLiI� L�r >r1
>I , N°alE
A o ; OD ] ;
%_[¢ ;
KYLE �
1
twrl
_.. w
j rte. � � � • � .:��� ��
�. I® Wplll� �• lemma
L' ,. -r±
C H R
- xxW w _ �_�...- ...,..
irz n$ ♦ �si.M 116U�i � �':ITTw - �b4�! .
K pp ��� - �� '' ♦ N t� - 4if,s _
~ �Ti: �� tNi11�W � - 1.... � �.rllitl stir
4 w
E
S.
At
♦ _ I 111 � • ; {{yy
_J �^�•"� - F'' } = �F
at"�'" .e, • � • i i 1. � , 145. i�. - ��•., - � :is.,
dF - 3..,�T�s rn3af_'a.a�aa
.
zn
•i ,.fd IY� r'o i � -� � �r- �4iaaty:fCn°I M� � , - Lc! �pC: '.
t_. + , - f o.._ar.0a'x:l I I - .•seta -L.�1.+.._
���_ -�rt �� �Iixititf lititlalr�ttiii't74Kur�i, ; ��u ��°�"� , <. >'•4�
3's! • r..1 G Iiii:Nt1731N1ai.IgN ^�", - 2a� ael.al � ° i3
� rtr _ ■ N �lliililp =INUi -'tai• `�' . S�a'r�` x .s-= ..
ti�� M � �� la! ■1lif13tiii 3111i31ii /tEt'1 /i�l - +it��
r w - =. =� �- IAIfO/OgagfiHg9Bt w. - �� •ieT' /•!t�•
��IE r`s J HltiltiNOtltLeq +Ya• z � t T��'$1
.::. r l � � = ■ l��ttmiiimar '-��� � # ' 'ten *1 -; {• �t r ��
,t•� +YS •a q _ . �iI "ttiiiiii �i C'!y� h�la ~__ ,�'E�1°I�.�fi�" i � i. _a�_
g _1'•i ^.:,r s' k MTM k�� ♦ A7iaii,� �� _�`' 't - q
"rrw�.�', 7 -� ';� � - =�w= •� /aata \�i } i�iiMa�'.i5.L1'. •...+� ���
��yR _ �� vlvftnnUtiti�3i�ai#s:+oiil�3fo.
r ae +i main
sss�i,;��� g .
���i��j����siiGSyy @ h �� i � riY 3aim�. • �';�1�\ i
_..: —•a :.s a ••.,,..ts•rur.i i� \%
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day
of 19 , at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle
Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 7.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please notify the personnel coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CODE RELATING TO
COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS AND YARD WASTES; PROHIBITING SCAVENGING
OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS: AUTHORIZING COLLECTION DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 7 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center
is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 7 -101. DEFINITIONS. (Whenever used in this ordinance words shall)
For purposes of Sections 7 -101 to 7 -112 the following terms have the
(following) meanings given them
(A.) Subdivision 1. Approved (shall mean) means acceptable to the health
authority following (his) the health authority's determination as to
compliance with established public health practices and standards.
Subdivision 2. Carryout Collection Service means the collection of
recyclable materials accumulated in recycling containers from a
location at a dwelling unit other than the location designated by
recycling authority for regular collection
(B.) Subdivision 3. Council (shall mean) means the governing body of the
(municipality) city
Subdivision 4 Dwelling Unit means a residential structure in the
city that is designated by the recycling authority to receive
recycling collection services
(C.) Subdivision 5 Garbage (includes) means all putrescible animal,
vegetable or other matter that attends the preparation, consumption,
display, dealing in or storage of meat, fish, fowl, birds, fruit or
vegetables, including the cans, containers or wrappers wasted along
with such materials but not including recyclable materials
Subdivision 6. Generator has the meaning given it in Minnesota
Statutes Section 115A.03. subd 12
D Subd. 7 Health Authority shall -mean
means the munieipal city public health
sanitarian or his an authorized representa-
tive.
E Subd. 8 Manager shall -mean means the
administrative head for the Fflusieipality
City
Subd. 9. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste
has the meaning given it in Minnesota Stat-
utes Section 115A.03, Subd. 21
P Subd. 10 Open Burning shall -FReas
means the burning of any matter whereby the
resultant combustion products are emitted
directly to the open atmosphere without
passing through an adequate stack, duct, or
chimney.
G Subd. 11 Owner is means any person,
firFRT - eerpe�aties -er -ether - partnership -er
ergasisaties who alone, jointly, or severally
with others shall- be- is- ewsership -eiT owns or
have has charge, care or control ofT any
premises or business within the munieipality
- city as owner, employee or agent of the
owner, or as trustee or guardian of the
estate or person of the title holder.
H Subd. 12 Person is means any perses
individual firm, partnership, association,
corporation, company, or organization of any
kind.
I Subd. 13. Premises is means any
dwelling, house, building, or other structure
or parcel of property.
d Subd. 14 Public Place is means any
and all streets, sidewalks, boulevards,
alleys, parks, public buildings, and other
public ways.
Subd. 15 Recyclable Materials has the
meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes
Section 115A.03, Subd. 25a
Subd. 16 Recycling has the meaning
given it in Minnesota Statutes Section
115A.03, subd. 25b.
• Subd. 17 Recycling Authority means the
official designated by the manager to perform
2
the powers and duties of the recycling
authority as provided in this chapter. The
recycling authority may be the administrator
of the Hennepin Recycling Group joint powers
entity of which the city is a member.
Subd. 18 Recycling Container means a
receptacle designated by the recycling
authority for the accumulation and collection
of recyclable materials at a dwelling unit.
Subd. 19 Recycling Collection Services
means the collection of recyclable materials
accumulated in recycling containers from a
location at a dwelling unit that is desig-
nated by the recycling authority for regular
collection
Subd. 20 Recycling Services means
recycling collection services, carryout
collection services, and any other services
provided to a dwelling unit in accordance
with this chapter
K Subd. 21 . Refuse means all solid
waste products or those having the character
of solids rather than liquids in that they
will not flow readily without additional
liquid and which are composed wholly or
partly of such materials as garbage, swill,
sweepings, cleanings, trash, rubbish, litter,
industrial solid wastes or domestic solid
wastes; organic wastes or residue of animals
sold as meat, fruit or. other vegetable or
animal matter from kitchen, dining room,
market, food establishment or any place
dealing in or handling meat, fowl, fruit,
grain, or vegetables; offal, animal excreta,
or the carcass of animals; tree - - shruh
} }sgsT -e- grass- e1 }p�sgsT brick, plas-
ter, wood, metal or other waste matter
resulting from the demolition, alteration or
construction of buildings or structures;
accumulated waste materials, cans, contain -
ers, junk vehicles, ashes, tires, junk, or
other such substance which may become a
nuisance but not including recyclable
materials
L Subd. 22 . Rubbish is nonputrescible
solid wastes such as wood, leaves, trimmings
from shrubs, dead trees or branches thereof,
shavings, sawdust, excelsior, wooden waste,
printed matter, paper, paper board,
3
pasteboard, grass, rags, straw, boots, shoes,
hats, and all other combustibles not included
under the term garbage but not including
recyclable materials
M Subd. 23 . Swill includes that par-
ticular garbage which is wholly or nearly
edible and usable as a food and has food
value for animals or fowl, accumulating from
animal, vegetable or other matter wasted from
clubs, hotels, hospitals, restaurants, and
public eating places.
N Subd. 24 . Vehicle is every device in,
upon, or by which any person or property is
or may be transported or drawn upon a thor-
oughfare including devices used exclusively
upon stationary rails or tracks.
A Subd. 25 Waste Matter is
nonputrescible solid waste such as soil,
earth, sand, clay, gravel, loam, stone,
brick, plaster, crockery, glass, glassware,
ashes, cinders, shells, metal, and other
noncombustible material which has been or is
to be discarded but not including recyclable
materials
Subd. 26. Yard Waste has the meaning
given it in Minnesota Statutes, Section
115A.931.
Sec. 2. Section 7 -102 of the Brooklyn Center Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 7 -102 REFUSE STORAGE AND
DISPOSAL.
A Subdivision 1 . Containers Required.
The owner of any premises, and any other
person having refuse as herein defined, shall
must provide and keep on such premises
sufficient containers for the storage of
refuse accumulated on the premises between
disposal or collection. Each sueh container
shall must be watertight, shall must have a
tight fitting lid, shall must be impervious
to insects, rodents, vermin, and absorption
of moisture and shall may not exceed 30
gallons in size unless otherwise specifically
authorized in writing by the health authori-
ty.
4
All refuse on any premises shall must be
stored in the required containers required
herein, emeept -if -the -safRe -FRay -be unless it
is immediately consumed or disposed of on
sseh the premises in an approved incinerator.
All commercial, business, industrial, or
other such establishments having a refuse
volume in excess of two cubic yards per week,
and all six family and larger dwellings,
shall must provide approved bulk or box type
refuse storage containers or approved equiv-
alent. These The containers shall must be
se located so as to be accessible to collec-
tion equipment and so as not to require an
intermediate transfer.
B Subd. 2 . Sanitary Disposal. All
refuse shall must be disposed of in a
sanitary manner as approved by the health
authority and shall may not constitute a
nuisance. Refuse shall may not be composted
or buried except that composting in an
approved rodent and fly proof device and /or
filling operations using approved fill
- materials and methods may be permitted. In
no case eas may garbage be composted or
buried.
E Subd. 3 . Frequency and Manner of
Collection. The contents of the containers
shall must be collected once every week, or
more frequently if necessary or required by
the provisions of any other ordinance of the
FRuni- eipality city, by a collector licensed
hereunder under this Chapter Fie -shall The
collector must transfer the contents of the
containers to his the collection vehicle
without spilling them, and if any spilling
occurs, he -shall the collector must clean it
up immediately and completely. Collection
shall must be conducted in sueh a manner as
to not create a nuisance. Collection in
residential zones shall must be between the
hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Upon each
collection the containers shall must be
completely emptied and returned to the racks
or stands where they are kept, and the lids
of the containers shall must be replaced.
B Subd. 4 . Placing of Containers. The
containers shall must be placed in the rear
of the premises or is- sueh- a- manner- as -te -be
out of view from the street in front of the
5
. premises or placed in a garage located on the
premises, except as may be reasonable and
immediately necessary for collection. In no
event shall may containers be placed or
maintained in sueh a way as -te that unrea-
sonably interfere interferes with the use of
adjoining property. Containers kept outside
shall must be placed in sueh a manner as
that does not to permit entry of or harborage
for animals, insects or other vermin, and -se
ma €stained -as - set -te -he or permit the con-
tainer to be tipped over. Containers shall
must be maintained in a reasonable clean
condition at all times.
E Subd. 5 . Defective Containers. If,
upon inspection by the health authority, a
container is found to be in poor repair,
corroded or otherwise defective so as to
permit insects, vermin or rodents to enter,
or does not meet other requirements of this
ordinance, the health authority shall- net}fy
the - presider -er- user -e €- the- eenta}ner -e€ -the
def €e}eney -and -shall - require - repair -er -re-
plaeeFRent -e €- the - eenta }nei--and - shall- state -a
• eempl €anee- date - }n- the- net}ee may require the
container to be repaired or replaced by
notifying the provider or user of the con -
tainer of the deficiency and stating a
compliance date in the notice If the
deficiency is not corrected by said the
compliance date, the health authority shall
may condemn the deficient container and affix
a tag so stating such condemnation. It shah
he is unlawful for any person to place or
deposit refuse in a container which has been
condemned.
Subd. 6. Preparation of yard wastes.
Yard wastes must be bagged separately from
other garbage, refuse, and waste matter and
must be placed 3 to 6 feet from garbage and
other refuse on collection day
Sec. 3. Section 7 -103 of the Brooklyn Center Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 7 -103 REFUSE HAULERS REGULATIONS.
A Subdivision 1 . License Required. No
person shall- engage - }n- haul }ng -er - eensey }ng
haul or convey refuse from any premises in
the city other than his the person's own
6
i domicile, is - the - fRunie}pallty unless he the
p erson holds a valid license- hereunder. Baeh
sueh - Yeh}ele -se -used -FRust -be - }eessed- A
license is required for each vehicle used to
haul or convey refuse.
B Subd. 2 . License Procedure. The
Provisions of Sections 23 -001 through 23 -013
of the City Ordinances shall apply to all
licenses required by this ordinance and to
the holders of sueh the license. The annual
lleesse -fee -shall -be -as -set - -ferth -by city
council may establish the annual license fee
from time to time by resolution. The term of
each license shall -be is from July 1 through
June 30.
The applications for license or renewal of
license shall must contain a description of
the types and makes of motor vehicles used
for collection, a schedule of services to be
made to the customers, the frequency of
service to be rendered, and full information
where and how the material collected will be
disposed of, and any other information the
health authority shall may require. Appli-
cants for licenses aftei-- 3a1y -17 -19797 to
provide routine weekly collection and removal
of refuse from residences shall must provide
as - required -alder -this - erd}saseeT complete
collection of all refuse which normally
results from day -to -day use of this- type -e€
residential property except furnishings,
appliances, building or construction wastes
and similar bulky wastes for which individu-
als must make special arrangements. The
health authority may require vehicle inspec-
tion before processing the license applica-
tion.
Applications for license hereander -shall must
be submitted to the health authority for
review and recommendation. If the council is
satisfied that the public need, convenience,
and good order will be served thereby, it may
grant a license to any sueh applicant meeting
the requirements of this ordinance.
E Subd. 3 . License Classification.
Applleasts - - €e -- lleeases-- }ssaed -- hereunder
shall -be Licenses are issued for the follow-
ing classes of operation:
7
. Class I
Residential Refuse Collection
ehicle
Class II
Commercial and Business Refuse
Collection Vehicle
Class III
Residential and Commercial Refuse
Collection Vehicle
Class IV
Rubbish and Waste Matter Collection
Vehicle
Class V
Rendering Collection Vehicle
B Subd. 4 . Insurance. Applicants for
licenses or renewals of licenses shall must
file with each application a copy of an
insurance policy or policies and an endorse-
ment, under which there is coverage as to
each vehicle to be used for loss or damage to
persons in the amount of $100,000 for each
• person and $300,000 for each accident; and
for loss or damage to property in the amount
P P Y
of $50,000. Every such policy shall must
provide that it shall may not be cancelled or
terminated for any reason without at least 10
days days' prior written notice thereef -first
being given to the municipality.
E Subd. 5 . Vehicle License Decals.
Whenever a license or renewal has been
granted hereunder the health authority shall
must furnish to the licensee a decalcomania
for each vehicle. The decalcomania shall -he
se- wended- as- te- s }gslfy must indicate that
the vehicle is licensed by the FRuslelpallty
city The licensee shall must apply the
decalcomania to the left forward side of the
body of the appropriate licensed vehicle as
indicated by the health authority. Old,
expired, or otherwise invalid decalcomania
shall must be removed from the vehicle.
F Subd. 6 . Vehicle Specifications.
Every vehicle used to collect refuse shall
must have the name of the owner or operator
. on the body or placed on a durable metal or
wood plaque attached to the body. Sa -id The
lettering shall must be at least three
inches in height and the color of the
8
. lettering and of the background shall must
be contrasting.
The body of every vehicle licensed hereunder -
shall must be constructed entirely of metal
or the space in the vehicle in which refuse
shall -be is kept shall must be completely
lined with metal. All joints shall must be
effectively closed so that no dripping or
leaking or drain off of water, liquids or any
substance can occur. The loading space shall
must be provided with a tight metal hood
having an opening fitted with metal doors, or
shall must be provided with a heavy tarpau-
lin or equivalent cover fitted with eyes,
grommets, tie ropes, or hooks so that the
cover can be held securely over the loaded
refuse. Every vehicle shall must be
equipped with the necessary hand tools for
cleaning up spills.
G Subd. 7 . Vehicle Maintenance. Every
licensed vehicle lleessed-- hereunder- -shall
must be kept well painted, clean, and in good
repair. Every vehicle used for collecting
- garbage or swill shall must be cleaned every
week or oftener as necessary to prevent
persistent odors and shall must be cleaned
before being used for any other purposes.
H Subd. 8 . Vehicle Loading. Garbage,
refuse, rubbish, or other waste matter shall
must be so loaded that none of such materi-
als can jar loose and fall to the ground or
street when the vehicle is in motion. Loose
paper, trash, and similar materials shall
must be so secured that they cannot be
displaced by the wind or fall out of the
vehicle. Containers used to carry refuse in
or on any vehicle shall must comply with the
requirements of Seetlen -2- hereunder Section
7 -102 of this Code
l Subd. 9 . Service Cancellation. The
collector shall must cancel service to any
premises when the only container or contain-
ers thereon have been condemned and may
cancel service for cause or when the party
charged for the collection service is two
months or more overdue in paying for such
services. When any collector cancels service
to any premises, written notice theree€ -shall
must be served upon or mailed to the occu-
pant, manager or owner of the premises and a
9
copy of the notice (shall) must be mailed to the health authority.
(J.) Subdivision 10. Vehicle Storage and Parking. No person (shall)
my at any time park or store any refuse collection vehicle on any
premises zoned for use as a single or multiple residence dwelling,
within one hundred feet of (any aforementioned) the premises or
within two hundred feet of any food establishment, for purpose
other than, or for periods inconsistent with, providing refuse
collection at (said) the premises. No person (shall) may at any
time park or store any loaded or partially loaded refuse collection
vehicle on any premises within the (municipality) city except for
the purpose of and for periods consistent with providing refuse
collection at that parcel of property.
Subdivision 11. Collection Districts. The City, under the
direction of the City Manager or his designee shall establish
specific refuse and recycling collection districts and specific
days of collection within these districts for all licensees The
purpose of this provision is to coordinate and facilitate same day
collection _within said districts throughout the City. Said
coordination is necessary to encourage citizen participation in the
City's recycling effort to insure compliance with state mandates
for solid waste management as set forth in Minn Stat Chapter 115A
and to insure compliance of the City's contractual obligations as a
member_ of the Hennepin Recycling Group pursuant to the Joint and
Cooperative Agreement for Solid Waste Disposal Also said
coordination will be beneficial to the health safety and welfare
of Brooklyn Center residents and streets by limiting the number of
refuse and recycling vehicles using said streets at any one time
The following considerations will be utilized by the City Manager
or his designee to establish the collection districts:
A._ household counts within the districts:
b, compatibility with the licensees existing refuse collection
stops to the extent possible•
c. compatibility with municipal boundaries to the extent possible-
d. coordination with recycling collection to the extent possible
Subdivision 12. Collection Within Districts. Where an --aDDroved
collection district has been established licensed refuse haulers must
establish their regular collection routes and days of collection in a
manner consistent with the approved collection district and specified
days of collection Violation of this subsection is grounds for
revocation of the hauler's license. It is not a violation of this
subsection to collect refuse or recyclable materials on a day other
than the specified collection day, if the collection is for a missed
pick up or is in a week in which a legal holiday occurs
i
10
Sec. 4. Section 7 -104 of the Brooklyn Center Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 7 -104 REFUSE LITTERING PRO-
HIBITED. No person shall may throw, scatter,
or deposit, ner or cause or permit to be
thrown, scattered or deposited any refuse,
handbills, or other littering materials upon
or in any public or private lands, bodies of
water, vehicles of structures within the
mune elpal}hy city. Every person shall must
maintain his or her premises and abutting
sidewalks and boulevard areas free of refuse
litter.
Sec. 5. Section 7 -105 of the Brooklyn Center Code is
amended to read as follows:
• Section 7 -105 NUISANCE ABATEMENT.
Subdivision 1 . Any accumulation of
refuse on any premises not stored in contain-
ers which comply with this ordinance, or any
accumulation of refuse on any premises whieh
has- rema}eed- hhereee for more than one week
is hereby declared to be a nuisance and A
nuisance may be abated by order of the
officer charged by the city manager with
enforcement of this section, and the costs of
abatement may be assessed against the prop-
erty on which the nuisance was found as
fellews provided in this section
11
AT Subd. 2 . In all cases to which
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 145A.04 and
145A.08 apply, the City shall will proceed
under those sections.
B- Subd. 3 . In all other cases, the
officer charged with enforcement shall must
notify the owner of the property on which the
nuisance is found in writing, specifying the
nature of the nuisance and ordering that the
nuisance be abated. Notice shall must be
served in person or by mail. If the owner is
unknown or cannot be located, notice may be
served by posting it on the property. The
notice shall must specify the steps to be
taken to abate the nuisance and the time, not
exceeding ten (10) days, within which the
nuisance shall must be abated. If the owner
does not comply with the notice and order of
the enforcement officer within the time
specified there }s, the city council may,
after notice to the owner and the occupant of
the property if different from the owner, and
an opportunity to be heard, order that the
nuisance be abated by the City. The notice
• of hearing shall must be served in the same
manner as the notice and order of the en-
forcement officer and shall must be given at
least ten (10) days before the date specified
for hearing of the matter by the city coun-
cil. If notice is given by posting, at least
thirty (30) days shall must elapse between
the date of posting and the hearing. In an
emergency circumstance where there is an
immediate threat to the public health or
safety or an immediate threat of serious
property damage, the enforcing officer may
provide for abating the nuisance without
action of the city council. In such a case,
the enforcing officer shall must reasonably
attempt to notify the owner and occupant of
the intended action and the right to appeal
the determination that a nuisance exists and
the order to abate the nuisance at the next
regularly scheduled city council meeting. is
ease -ef - abatement -ef - nulsasees -by -the -EltyT
apes - deteryRlsatlen -ef - the - eest - ef - abatefRestT
lseludlsg - adfala}strative -and -ether - related
empesses - the The city clerk shall must
prepare and mail a bill therefer to the
property owner for the amount of the costs
incurred by the city in abating a nuisance,
including administrative and other related
expenses. The bill is se - deterfRined -whleh
12
shall - ixRFRediately -be due and payable upon
receipt In the event the bill is not paid
by the September lst next following the
abatement of the nuisance, the costs of
abatement shall may be levied against the
property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429.
Sec. 6. Section 7 -106 of the Brooklyn Center Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 7 -106 MINNESOTA POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY REGULATIONS ADOPTED.
A Subdivision 1 . Regulation Adopted.
Subject to specific modifications and addi-
tions contained herein, the muRie }$ality cit
hereby adopts by reference Air Pollution
Control Regulations Nos. 7 (Incinerators) and
8 (Open Burning Restrictions) contained in
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
document entitled "Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Air Pollution Control Regula-
tions", adopted May 11, 1969; filed with the
- Secretary of State July 3, 1969, and filed
with the State Department of Administration
July 7, 1969, including all subsequent
amendments thereto. Three copies of such
regulations shall will be on file and avail-
able for inspection in the office of the
clerk. These regulations shall do not apply
to wood burning fireplaces, nor to fires used
solely for preparation of food by barbecuing.
B Subd. 2 . Modifications to APC Regu-
lations. It is hereby determined, effective
July 1, 1970, that adequate refuse collection
service is available to the FauM:eipality
city. Open burning is thereafter prohibited
after that date Effective January 1, 1971,
no device or container for open burning shall
may be maintained on any premises. Excep-
tions to APC Regulation No. 8 shall require
written approval of the municipal fire chief.
All incinerators of less than 2,000 lbs. /hr.
capacity shall must comply with the provi-
sions of APC Regulations No. 7 on or before
January 1, 1971.
13
• Sec. 7. Section 7 -107 of the Brooklyn Center Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 7 -107 Separability - -If -any
seetienT- eUbseet -ien gI-eUP phrase senteneeT
er - pertien -ef -this - erdfnanee - }s -fer -any
reasen- held -} natal -id- er- uneenst -it-SEeh
pert }ens -eha -1-1 -be - deemed -a - separateT -dis-
tinet -and - independent - preyisien -and -sueh
he�d�ng -sha�� - net -a €feet- the- �ta��d�ty -ef -the
refRain } ng- -pert }ens-- hereef: RECYCLING AU-
THORITY; POWERS The recycling authority is
responsible for supervising and controlling
the collection, removal, and disposal of
recyclable materials from all dwelling units
in the city. The recycling authority may
contract with one or more collectors or
haulers for the collection, removal and
disposal of some or all types of recyclable
materials from dwelling units. The recycling
authority may adopt and enforce additional
rules not inconsistent with this chapter as
necessary for the collection, removal, and
disposal of recyclable materials, including
. - but not limited to rules governing the days
and hours of collection, the types of recy-
clable materials to be collected, the manner
in which generators must prepare recyclable
materials for collection, the recycling
containers to be used, and the location of
recycling containers for collection. The
rules of the recycling authority are not
effective until approved by the Council.
Sec. 8. Section 7 -108 of the Brooklyn Center Code is
amended to read as follows:
Section 7 -108 PENALTY - --- Any-- persen
�t�e�at�ng -- any - -ef -- the-- p�e� }s }ens-- et - -th }s
e�d�nanee- sha��- t�pen- een�t }etfen be- gs��ty -ef
a - FRisdemeaneE -and - eu66eet -te -a -fine -ef -net
fRere -than - ;79A -er -by - imprisenment -fer -a
peried -ef -net - e -meeed}ng -90 -days - -bet-19T
tegether -with- the- eeets- ef- preseeetien. - -Baeh
day -that - a- Yielatfen -exists - sha -11- eenstitute
a - separate - effense. RECYCLING RATES; BILL-
INGS
Subdivision 1. Rates. The city council
may establish rates for recycling services
from time to time by resolution. By resolu-
tion the city council may also charge the
14
cost of recycling containers to owners or
occupants of dwelling units as a recycling
service.
Subd. 2. Billing. Each owner or
occupant of a dwelling unit must pay the
rates for recycling collection services. The
rates for carryout collection services are
payable by the owner or occupant of a dwell -
ing unit who requests to receive the service
according to the procedure established by the
recycling authority. The amounts payable for
recycling services will be shown as a sepa-
rate charge on the utility bill for the
dwelling unit and will be payable according
to the same terms as those provided in this
Code for utility bills.
Sec. 9. Section 7 of the Brooklyn Center Code is amended by
adding the following new sections:
Section 7 -109 AS OF UNPAID
B ILL S . On or before Septem er i st ot each
year, the city clerk must is the o-aI
unpaid c arge for recyc ing services agains
ea ch lot or parcel to which ey are a ri -
- utable. Th e city council may en spread the
_charges against the property bene fitted as a
special assessment in the same manner as
pro vided or curr — ems services by Minnesota
Statu tes, Section 429.101 an o er per inert
statu or cer i ica ion o e irecr r�
Property axa ion ot Hennepin county nd
Coll ec tion the following year a ong wi the
curren taxes . -
Section 7 -110. OWNERSHIP OF RECYCLABLE
MATERIALS; SCAVENGING .
Subdivision 1. Ownership Recyclable
materials are the property of the genera r
unti co e cte y au orize ci y emp oyee�,
colle ctors or haulers. Re ma eria s
become t - he property the city, au orize
colle ctor, or authorized au er upon co ec-
tion.
Subd. 2. No Scavenging It is unlawful
fo a person, other than authorized em jLU
of th e city, or a h orized coTlec� ors — Ur
haulers to is ri u e, co ec ,— remove
disp seoseo - of recycia5ie ma eria s after
tn-
15
materials have been placed or deposited for collection
Section 7 -111. SEPARABILITY If any section subsection group phrase
sentence, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional, such portions shall be deemed a separate distinct and
independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining_ portions hereof.
Section 7 -112. PENALTY Any person violating any of the provisions of
this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a find of not more than
$700 or imprisonment for a period of not exceeding 90 days or both together
with the costs of prosecution Each day that a violation exists constitutes a
separate offense.
Section 10. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (3) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of ,
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets and dashes indicate matter to be deleted.)
16
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date
Agenda Item Number 1 t
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Planning Commission Application N0. 89006 - E and H Properties
DEPARTM NT APPROVAL:
Signature - title Director of P1 ann " g and Inspection
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Planning Commission Application No. 89006, submitted by E & H Properties, is a
request to rezone a sliver of land lying easterly of 6550 West River Road from its
current R -5 (Multiple Family Residence) to C -2 (Commerce District). The purpose of
the rezoning is to slightly expand the C -2 District to better accommodate a proposed
gas station /convenient store /car wash on the site of the existing Atkins Mechanical
building and vacant land to the south.
This application was first reviewed by the Planning Commission at its February 16,
1989 meeting at which time the Commission reviewed the requested rezoning and opened
a public hearing on the matter for review and comment. As with all rezonings, the
Planning Commission tabled the matter and referred it to the appropriate
neighborhood advisory group, in this case the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group
for additional review and comment. A meeting of the neighborhood group was first
scheduled for March 14, 1989 at the Brooklyn Center High School. Due to inclement
weather no advisory group members showed up but a number of neighbors (approximately
15 -20) did and discussion of the proposal took place. Notes from that meeting are
attached for the City Council's review as well as other information.
A subsequent meeting of the neighborhood advisory group was scheduled for March 21,
1989 at the City Hall. Minutes of that meeting are attached. Following much
discussion by the neighborhood advisory group and people who were in attendance,
including the applicant, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group unanimously
advised against the proposed zoning to C -2. Instead, they recommended that the
city initiate a rezoning of the entire block from 65th to 66th Avenues North and from
Willow Lane to West River Road to C -1. The neighborhood group believed that a
rezoning to C -1 would result in the best land use buffer between the residences along
Willow Lane and Highway 252 to the west. They also believed that a development such
as a service station was too intense and may well have an adverse impact including
traffic flow, noise, litter, etc. on the neighboring single family residential
property.
Planning Commission Application No. 89006 - E & H Properties
• The Planning Commission met again on April 13, 1989 to continue their public
hearing, take into consideration the Northeast Neigborhood Advisory Groups'
recommendation and to deliberate and make a recommendation regarding the requested
rezoning application. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council
that the E & H rezoning proposal be set aside for the time being and that the City
Council institute a moratorium for up to 6 months which would prohibit all
construction on property containing a single family home at 6626 West River Road and
all of the land south of 66th Avenue to Interstate 694 between Willow Lane and
Highway 252. The reason for the moratorium would be to allow the City to undertake a
land use study regarding the property in this area for the purpose of determining the
best land use of the property for future development. Additional traffic analysis
may also be warranted to indicate how traffic would access this area without
adversely impacting the single family residential property along the east side of
Willow Lane.
The Planning Commission information sheet which was reviewed with the Planning
Commission on April 13, 1989 indicates a number of issues which the staff believes
need to be studied before a determination regarding the best land use classification
for the property can be determined. Those issues relate to R -5 zoned property which
contains a single family residential home which was acquired by the Highway
Department for the construction of Highway 252. It is anticipated that within the
relatively near future the Highway Department will choose to dispose of this
property. The existing single family home is a nonconforming use due to the R -5
zoned property. This R -5 zoning provided a buffer between a gas station located on
the northeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North and the single family
• residential property to the north and east of this site. The major question is what
is the best land use for this property. Indications are strong that a single family
residential use of the property maybe the best.
Concerns and questions have also been raised regarding the best land use, for all
parties concerned, of the property currently owned by Mr. Atkins and also the
property immediately to the south (the Brookdale Motel and an 18 unit apartment
complex) . Short, Elliot, Hendrickson has provided a brief traffic study regarding
various possible uses of the property and the traffic impacts at 66th Avenue and
Highway 252. Concerns again have been expressed regarding the desirability of a
gas station /convenient store /car wash at this location. Recommendations from the
neighborhood advisory group are that the property should be rezoned to C -1 only to
allow service office development rather than the general commerce development
allowed under the C -2 zone. The desirability of additional, or even existing, R -5
development has also been raised. Thus the recommendation to include the land now
occupied by the Lyn River Apartment (zoned R -5) into the moratorium as well.
We believe these questions to be signficant enough to warrant taking time out to
study these issues and in the meantime limit development in this area. However, the
staff does not recommend that all development of the property under consideration be
prohibited during the time of moratorium. We believe that service office
development which can be comprehended under existing C -2 or as a special use under
the R -5 zoning should be allowed to be developed during the time of study. We do not
believe that development of parcels as C -1 would have an adverse effect on the area
or complicate the study.
It should be noted that an attorney representing E & H Properties has submitted a
letter to the City noting that the applicant wants to withdraw their rezoning
application. They believe the rezoning is unnecessary for their purposed use of
the land.
-2-
Planning Commission Application No. 89006 - E and H Properties
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge the applicants withdrawal of
Planning Commission Application No. 89006. Discussion by the City Council and
reaction to the Planning Commissions' recommendation for a moratorium and land use
study should be undertaken by the City Council. Again, the staff would recommend
the implementation of a moratorium, however, not to the same extent as the Planning
Commission has recommended. If the City Council concurs, direction to the staff to
prepare the necessary resolution and ordinance amendment to establish a moratorium
would be in order.
•
-3-
y
AM
T r`,
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTERIN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESTOA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 13, 1989
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman
Pro tem Molly Malecki at 7:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Pro tem Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas,
Bertil Johnson and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and
Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Pro tem Malecki
noted that Chairman Nelson had called to say that he could not attend and was
excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 30, 1989
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the
minutes of the March 30, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in
favor: Chairman Pro tem Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, and
Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 89006 (E and H Properties)
Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of
business, a request to rezone a sliver of land east of 6550 West River Road from R5 to
C2 to allow the construction of a service station /convenience store /car wash as a
development on the C2 zoned land. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff
report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89006
attached).
Commissioner Sander arrived at 7:39 p.m.
The Secretary also explained to the Commission the various development scenarios
contained in the traffic study by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson. He also discussed
the possibility of rezoning a portion of the R5 lot north of 66th to 0 -1 which would
allow the service station to be built south of 66th.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether there would be any other access to the area
other than at 66th. The Secretary responded that there would be no other exit off to
Highway 252 to this area other than at 66th.
Chairman Pro tem Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr.
Hal Pierce, an architect representing the developer, E and H Properties, explained
that they had come to the City just wanting to straighten out the zoning line to allow
better access to 66th. He stated that further study of the area was unnecessary and
that nothing has changed relative to this property other than there is more traffic
on Highway 252 than when the area was last studied.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89006)
Chairman Pro tem Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked
whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Jim
Neuberger, of 6546 Willow Lane, stated that all of the neighbors in the area were
4 -13 -89 -1- —
against the proposed rezoning. He stated that the rezoning would allow for a bigger
service station and the neighborhood is opposed to that. He presented the
Commission with a petition signed by people in the neighborhood opposing the
proposed rezoning. Commissioner Sander asked Mr. Neuberger whether the
neighborhood was opposed to a rezoning of the area to C1. Mr. Neuberger responded
that the neighborhood would be agreeable to a rezoning of the area to C1, but are
opposed to any expansion of the C2 zone and to the proposed service station.
Mr. Sam McGee, of Fina Oil, briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that the
rezoning would allow for better screening of the service station site. He stated
that, with the existing zoning line, there would be no room on the site to provide
buffering and screening. He explained that Fina has a standard 50' x 50' building
and uses the same size canopy. He stated that the building and the canopy would not
be smaller if the site were smaller. He stated that the reason for the rezoning was
primarily to improve circulation on the site and to provide better screening.
Mrs. Ann Zitzloff, of 207 73rd Avenue North, stated that cars are coming down West
River Road and Willow Lane to avoid the stoplights on Highway 252. She complained
about the traffic levels and was concerned that the new service station would
encourage this type of traffic. She noted that there was a proposed bike path along
West River Road and wondered how this would be tied into the park system. She
concluded by asking what the City plans to do with West River Road. She stated that
plans for West River Road need to be completed before a rezoning is approved.
Mr. Hal Pierce asked what the speed limit was on West River Road. The Secretary
answered that, to his knowledge, it was 30 miles per hour.
Mr. Rick Jewitt, of 6552 Willow Lane, stated that the applicants wanted to line up
the driveway with the median opening on 66th. He pointed out that the plan as shown
does not quite do this and that people would not be able to make a left turn easily
onto 66th, exiting the gas station. He also noted that there is a bus stop on the
north side of 66th. Mrs. Zitzloff pointed out that the bus stop is a school bus stop
and that it is on a dangerous curve.
Mr. Neuberger asked whether the City regulates the number of pumps at the service
station site. The Secretary responded that the number of pumps would be limited
indirectly by regulations regarding setbacks and parking and concerns regarding
traffic flow on the site. He stated that there was no absolute ordinance limit on
the number of pumps. Mr. Neuberger noted that the applicant had argued that the
extra land in the rezoning was needed for access at first, but that now it is needed
for a buffer. The Secretary stated that the details of the site development plan
have not been formally submitted and may change from the concept plans shown by the
applicant. He stated that what is known at present is that the access has to be on
66th across from the median opening. Mr. Neuberger asked whether the access on 66th
would allow for two-way raffic in and out. Mr. Pierce
y o the architect answered in
the affirmative. Mr. Neuberger stated that he thought this would complicate the
functioning of that access drive.
Mrs. Zitzloff asked whether hazardous chemicals from the site would be drained into
the Mississippi River. The Secretary answered that any spills on the site would be
governed by regulations instituted by the State. He stated that a drainage plan
would have to be approved as part of the site and building plan proposal. Mr. Sam
McGee stated that they would be installing state -of -the art overfill containment
manholes which would handle almost all conceivable spills. He stated that it would
have to be a major spill to overfill the capacity of the manhole. He stated that it
4 -13 -89 -2-
should be a very safe facility.
Mr. Arlo Johnson, the owner of the Brookdale Motel to the south of the proposed
service station site, stated that he had no objection to rezoning Mr. Atkins'
property to Cl, but would very much oppose the rezoning of his property to C1. He
stated that he had a five year plan for upgrading the motel and that he did not want it
to become a nonconforming use.
Commissioner Ainas asked Mr. Johnson whether he would object to rezoning the block
between 65th and 66th to Cl. Mr. Johnson explained that he was located within that
block and would be opposed to rezoning the entire block. Chairman Pro tem Malecki
asked Mr. Johnson whether he objected to rezoning the sliver of land to C2 as
proposed by the applicant. Mr. Johnson responded in the negative. He stated that
the rezoning would be acceptable to him.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pro tem Malecki asked whether anyone present had any other additional
comments. No one spoke. She called for a motion to close the public hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public
hearing on the rezoning proposal. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Pro tem Malecki asked the Commission whether they had any comments.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he originally had no objection to rezoning of the
sliver of land, but stated that he felt the City should hold off until at least the
upper part of the block was rezoned to C1 . Chairman Pro tem Malecki asked whether
Commissioner Ainas was in favor of a proposed moratorium. Commissioner Ainas
responded in the affirmative. He stated that the study should last at least 60 days
and that a land use study is needed apart from a traffic study.
Commissioner Johnson asked whether the City could live with a high traffic generator
on the southeast corner of 66th and Highway 252. The Secretary responded that the
traffic study submitted indicates that the intersection can handle the additional
traffic whatever development scenario actually takes place. He noted that there is
a considerable range in the average daily trips for the service station as opposed to
apartment development. He stated that, although the intersection could handle
most any development scenario, there were significant differences in the amount of
traffic generated by the different scenarios. He stated that the biggest impact
would be as a result of a service station or a convenience food restaurant. He
stated that office development has much less of a traffic impact than C2
development.
Commissioner Bernards stated that he had seen traffic impact studies and
projections before. He stated that he felt the study submitted is conservative as
to the level of traffic in the area. He wondered what traffic levels would be on
Highway 252 and on 66th five to ten years from now. He asked how long the Highway
Department could hang on to the construction office on West River Road. The
Secretary answered that the MN /DOT generally does not want to sit on property any
longer than necessary. He stated that the construction office would be sold
eventually and that, likely, someone would like to rehab the home and use it for a
single- family home. He also stated that it was likely that the property would be
subdivided. He pointed out that, under the R5 zoning, the house could not be reused
as a single- family dwelling. He stated that the R5 zoning would probably lead to
the house being removed and the property developed for apartments.
4 -13 -89 -3-
The Secretary went on to state that he believed the R5 zoning of that single - family
residence was now inappropriate. He stated he believed the R1 zoning made the most
sense. He added that, if all the property were zoned R1, this would have an impact
on the service station proposal, in that service stations cannot abut R1 property
across the street. He added that the City could acquire a portion of the property
and use it for buffer and zone it 0 -1 to allow the service station. The Secretary
stated that a moratorium would be instituted in order to study these kinds of issues
that affect development in the area. He noted that the moratorium would have no
impact on the motel or the apartment building although it might impact the Lyn River
apartment development if the owner of the property wishes to rehabilitate those
buildings. He stated that a moratorium would allow study of the area to determine
what is in the best interest of the City and of all people in the neighborhood. He
noted that the neighborhood advisory group had recommended C1 zoning on the entire
block between 65th and 66th west of Willow Lane. He stated that this was one
possibility to look at.
Chairman Pro tem Malecki asked what would be involved in the study. The Secretary
answered that it would be a land use study and traffic generation would also be
looked at. He stated that a study might recommend that the City get involved and
possibly acquire properties for development and /or redevelopment. He stated that
the study might also conclude that the zoning should be left as is. Commissioner
Sander asked how much time would be involved. The Secretary answered that the state
statute allows for a moratorium for up to 12 months which can be extended an
additional 18 months. He explained that the City would have to prepare a request
for proposal and distribute it to planning consultants. He stated that he felt the
study could be completed certainly within a year and probably less. Commissioner
Ainas stated that he felt the moratorium should be no more than 120 days.
Commissioner Sander pointed out that she lives in this area of the City and that she
drives through the area every day. She stated that she felt the application should
not be approved at this time.
MOTION RECOMMENDING MORATORIUM AND STUDY (Application No. 89006)
There was a motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend
to the City Council that they institute a moratorium on all construction of up to six
months for a land use and traffic study including the single - family home at 6626 West
River Road and the land south of 66th Avenue North to Interstate 694 between Willow
Lane and Highway 252.
Commissioner Johnson noted that the moratorium would include the land presently
zoned R5. He asked what would be done with this land. The Secretary answered that
the moratorium would halt improvements to the Lyn River Apartments. He stated that
it would not be appropriate to use public funds to upgrade an apartment development
that was about to become nonconforming.
Voting in favor of the motion to recommend a moratorium and study of the area at 66th
and Highway 252 were: Chairman Pro tem Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas,
Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
a) Group Home Study
The Secretary noted that the City's consultant, Donn Wiski, was unable to make the
evening's meeting, but invited the Commission to make any comments or questions if
4 -13 -89 -4-
they had them. The Secretary noted that there is a bill before the legislature on
the spacing and deconcentration of group homes. He stated that provisions of the
bill might affect the City's ordinance requirements. He noted that the bill
provides that correctional residential facilities be allowed in the same districts
as hotels.
The Secretary went on to state that he would recommend that the City Council extend
the moratorium on group homes. He noted that the report by Peter Patchin regarding
property value impacts had shown that there is no measureable adverse impact on
neighboring properties from group homes. He explained that Donn Wiski is working
on proposed regulations, including spacing, and a limit on size of facilities. He
noted that state law mandates that facilities with up to 16 clients must be allowed
as a permitted use in a multiple- family zone. The question, he stated, was whether
the City should allow more clients. When does a facility become an institutional
use, he asked. He noted that 16 clients is sort of a magic number for receiving
funding.
Chairman Pro tem Malecki stated that she had read the portions of the report so far
distributed and was impressed with the readability and quality of the work.
Commissioner Bernards inquired as to Public Storage. The Secretary answered that
that application been denied by the Council, but that Councilmember Gene Lhotka had
asked to consider language which would allow single - family homes to expand in the C1
zone.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he was concerned that the lawsuit now directed at
the neighborhood near the proposed Kelly House might stifle public comment on such
facilities in the future. The Secretary pointed out that the suit was originally
brought by the neighborhood group against Kelly- Norton and that a countersuit had
been pursued at that time. He stated that, just because applicants must come before
public bodies in public hearings, does not give citizens a right to make libelous
statements about an applicant.
b) PUD Ordinance
The Secretary asked whether there were any comments on the draft PUD Ordinance that
had been distributed. Commissioner Ainas stated that he would like to see a
provision requiring that the value of construction be related somehow to the value
of the land. He stated that he did not want to see the City waste resources on cheap
developments.
There followed a brief discussion regarding the service station at 69th and Brooklyn
Boulevard which was allowed to have truck rental last year. The Secretary stated
that he has an inspector working on preparing a report on compliance with the
conditions of that approval. He stated that violation of the conditions would be a
misdemeanor and that he would not be opposed to issuing a tag if the conditions are
not complied with.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission.
The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
Chairman Pro tem
4 -13 -89 -5-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 89006
Applicant: E and H Properties
Location: 6550 West River Road
Request: Rezoning
Application No. 89006 is a request by E and H Properties (Howard Atkins) to rezone
from R5 to C2 a narrow strip of land east of the existing C2 district at the southeast
corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The purpose of the rezoning is to
slightly expand the C2 district to better accommodate a proposed gas
station /convenience store /car wash on the site of the existing Atkins Mechanical
office building and the vacant land to the south. (see map attached.)
This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its February 16, 1989
meeting, at which a public hearing was opened. The Commission tabled the matter
after taking public comment and referred it to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory
Group for review and comment. A meeting of the neighborhood group was scheduled for
March 14th at the high school. However, none of the advisory group members
attended, though a number of people from the neighborhood near the subject property
did show up despite inclement weather. Notes of that meeting are attached for the
Commission's consideration. A subsequent meeting of the neighborhood advisory
group was held on March 21, 1989 at City Hall. Two members and Planning Commission
liaison Ella Sander attended. (Minutes of that meeting are also attached for the
Commission's review.)
After considerable discussion and input from people in the immediate neighborhood
of the proposed gas station and the applicant, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory
Group unanimously advised against the proposed rezoning to C2. Instead, they
recommended that the City initiate a rezoning of the entire block from 65th to 66th
and from Willow Lane to West River Road to C1. (The block is presently zoned R5 on
the eastern half and C2 on the western half.) Under such a zoning, the existing
Atkins Mechanical building would be a conforming use except for the outside storage
that exists now, but the Brookdale Motel and the 18 -unit apartment building on the
south half of the block would become nonconforming. The Neighborhood Group
believed that a rezoning to C1 would result in the best land use buffer between the
residences along Willow Lane and Highway 252 to the west. Many concerns were raised
about the possibility of a gas station /convenience store /car wash development,
including traffic flow, noise, litter, etc.
Staff have requested Short - Elliott- Hendrickson to perform a brief traffic study of
the proposed development scenario (a service station and 12,000 sq. ft. of office)
and other possible developments scenario for the land owned by Mr. Atkins and in some
cases the land down to 65th Avenue North as well (see study attached) . The study
indicates that a service station and 12,000 sq. ft. of office or a convenience food
restaurant and 12,000 sq. ft. of office on Mr. Atkins property would generate
considerably more daily trips to and from the property than would office development
of the entire block. One thing to bear in mind is that nearly all of the office
traffic would be new traffic to area roadways (primarily Highway 252) whereas, a
service station or convenience food restaurant would draw considerably from
existing traffic on area roadways (approximately 50 %). Apartment development
would generate by far the least amount of traffic, both in terms of total daily trips
and peak hour trips. Although the service station and convenience food restaurant
scenarios generate considerably more traffic, it does not appear that there would be
a breakdown in the flow of traffic on 66th or in the intersection with Highway 252.
4 -13 -89 -1-
r
Application No. 89006
There are a number of planning concerns relating to the parcels both developed and
undeveloped between Willow Lane and Highway 252. These include the following:
-The Highway Department owns the house at 6626 West River Road and has
used it in recent years as a construction office during construction
of Highway 252 and the widening of the 694 bridge over the Mississippi
River. The property is presently zoned R5. It was formerly a buffer
parcel around the Quick Six gas station on the northeast corner of
66th and West River Road. Office use of the property is allowed by
special use permit in the R5 zone, but the single - family use was
nonconforming and cannot be resumed after a lapse of two years. Now
that this residence is served by a frontage road and does not directly
abut the highway, we believe it may be appropriate to downzone the
property to Rl so that the single - family residence use may be resumed
and to foreclose the possibility of apartment development off Willow
Lane. If the entire L- shaped parcel were downzoned to R1, there
would be abatement across 66th with the service station site and this
R2 abutment would disallow a service station on 66th. (Service
stations are not permitted to abut R1, R2, or R3 zoned property either
at a property line or a street line.) The City could down zone a
portion of this property to 0 -1 (open space) and avoid the zoning
conflict if a service station were allowed. A long -term decision on
the zoning of this property should probably be made before any service
station is built which could quickly become a nonconforming use.
-The Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group recommended rezoning the
entire block between 65th and 66th to C1. As mentioned earlier, this
would make both the motel and the 18 unit apartment building
nonconforming. Neither of these properties is maintained well at
present and the City does have some concern that they are having and
may have some adverse impact on the single- family development on the
east side of Willow Lane. Redevelopment to office use would probably
provide a more attactive buffer between Willow Lane and Highway 252,
though it would also involve an increase in traffic over present
levels. One concern with such a redevelopment would be access. If
the motel /apartment building properties were developed separately
from the Atkins property, access would almost certainly have to be
granted off Willow Lane. This would mean commercial traffic on
Willow Lane, especially during the morning and evening peak hours.
Such traffic is something the neighborhood would like to avoid, but it
probably can't be avoided without tying the motel and apartment
properties to Mr. Atkins property. Nevertheless, we would agree
with the neighborhood group's recommendation to the extent that it
would probably be irrational to leave the motel site zoned C2, if the
Atkins property were zoned entirely C1.
-The owner of Lyn River apartments is exploring the possibility of
rehabilitating that complex (south of 65th and west of Willow Lane)
with money from Hennepin County. The concept proposed thus far would
reduce the number of apartment units from 84 to 63, but would remodel
the buildings so that a third of the units would be three - bedroom
units, a third would be two - bedroom, and another third one - bedroom.
4 -13 -89 -2-
Application No. 89006
This would exceed the 10% limit on three- bedroom apartments. In our
preliminary discussions with the owner, we have indicated that the
Planning Commission has recently recommended retaining the 10%
limit. The City Council has yet to render a judgment because the
applicant in that case failed to attend the Council meeting. It may
be that, instead of rehabilitating the Lyn River complex, the City
would prefer to see an extension of C1 zoning all the way down to the
freeway. If this were done and the property were redeveloped, there
would certainly be an increase in traffic on Willow Lane unless these
parcels also were combined with the Atkins property and access were
limited to 66th Avenue North. Such an arrangement would almost
certainly lead to significant back -ups on the site during the 4 -6 p.m.
peak hour period. Some congestion on 66th might also result in the
morning and evening peak hours.
Because of the questions surrounding this neighborhood at this time, staff believe
that it may be appropriate to declare a moratorium on all non - office development in
this area and have a land use and traffic study performed to guide the City's
deliberation on rezoning of land in this neighborhood. Accordingly, we recommend
that Application No. 89006 be tabled and a motion forwarded to the City recommending
a limited moratorium and study.
4 -13 -89 -3-
}
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP
Douglas Peter 566 -8558
Douglas Baker 561 -5814
Curtis Danielson 561 -8268
Steve Boone 560 -8601
Ray Haroldson 561 -2092 \
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspect.iolh
DATE: March 3, 1989
SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 89006
The Planning Commission considered the above natter at a public hearing on February
16, 1989 and has referred this rezoning request to the Northeast Neighborhood
Advisory Group for review and comment. The application has been submitted by E and
H Properties (Howard Atkins of Atkins Mechanical) which requests rezoning from R5 to
C2 of a small sliver of land to the east and south of the Atkins Mechanical building.
The land in question is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by vacant R5
property to the east, by an 18 unit apartment building and the Brookdale Motel on the
south, and by vacant C2 land and Atkins Mechanical on the west.
The purpose of the rezoning is to slightly expand the existing C2 district for
development as a Fina service station /car wash /convenience store. The expanded C2
district will make the site more rectangular, will allow for a more efficient site
layout, and will allow for an access drive lined up with the median opening in 66th
Avenue North. The Comprehensive Plan actually recommends that all the land over to
Willow Lane be developed with commercial retail. However, the Planning Commission
is recommending that the neighboring R5 land be rezoned to C1 (service /office) so
that Pn office development can buffer the service station from the residential
neighborhood across Willow Lane. The applicant's architect has prepared a
conceptual plan showing that an office building can still be built on the remaining
land to the east. The Neighborhood Advisory Group should evaluate both the
proposal for C2 zoning of the sliver of land and the Planning Commission's
recommendation to rezone the R5 land to C1.
The applicant has submitted a written statement (attached) in which he asserts that
the proposed rezoning is consistent with Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached) .
The Neighborhood Advisory Group is reminded that all rezoni.ngs must be consistent
with the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines and this should be the
major consideration when reviewing the proposed rezoning.
The following information is enclosed for review:
1. The Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No.
89006 and minutes of the February 16, 1989 Planning Commission
meeting pertaining to Application No. 89006.
t ' Z
2. Section 35 -208 of he City's Zoning Ordinance which is the 0
• Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines.
Page 2
March 3, 1989
3. A map of the area showing the location of the property to be
rezoned in relation to other lots, roads, etc. There is also a
survey of the property indicating the land to be rezoned.
4. A copy of Sections 35 -322 and 35 -320 regarding uses allowed in the
C2 and C1 zoning districts.
5. Table 14 and Figure 15 of the City's Comprehensive Plan which list
recommended Land Use Revisions.
6. Correspondence from Howard Atkins addressing the Rezoning
Evaluation Guidelines.
7. A site plan of the proposed Fina service station /car
wash /convenience store.
The Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday,
March 14, 1989 and will be held in the faculty lounge at Brooklyn Center High School .
The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. (You go in the main doors, turn right, go almost
to the end of the hall and the faculty lounge is on the right. There will be someone
at the school to direct people to the meeting.) The Planning Commission would
appreciate your written comments and /or recommendation within thirty days. If you
• have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thank you for your participation.
i
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 89006
Applicant: E and H Properties
Location: 6550 West River Road
Request: Rezoning
The applicant requests approval to rezone from R5 to C2 a small sliver of land at the
southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North. The land is located to the
east of the present C2 zoning district, adjacent to the Atkins Mechanical site. It
is bounded by 66th Avenue North on the north, by vacant R5 zoned land on the east, by
an 18 unit apartment building on the south, and by vacant C2 land and Atkins
Mechanical on the west. The zoning line presently angles southeastward at the
southeast corner of the Atkins Mechanical site. The proposed rezoning would draw
the zoning line directly from the northeast corner of the Atkins Mechanical site to
the southeast corner of the vacant C2 land south of Atkins Mechanical (see area map,
attached).
Background
The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to square out the C2 district at the
southeast corner of 66th Avenue North and Highway 252 and thereby simplify
development of the C2 land for a gas station /convenience store /car wash. The
squared out district will also make access to 66th easier and allow for left turns
out of the site onto 66th. A replat of the property is also required to put all of
the C2 land into a single parcel and to complete the transfer of land from the R5 to
the C2 zoning district.
• Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines
All rezoning requests are evaluated under a set of guidelines contained in Section
35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). Mr. Howard Atkins of E and H Properties
has submitted a letter (also attached) in which he briefly addresses the guidelines.
Mr. Atkins' arguments and staff comments follow below:
a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
Atkins: "Present zoning line between C2 and R5 is irregular. Straightening
out the C2 zone line will make development of the site more efficient and will
align access with new median opening."
Staff: Placing the access to the gas station in such a location as to put it
beyond (eastward of) the median in 66th Avenue North is appropriate. An
efficient site layout is also generally a public benefit, but this case
certainly has private benefits as well by allowing more retail space and more
maneuverability for cars on the site. To the extent that an "efficient"
layout increases traffic, noise, glare from headlights, etc. the more concern
there is that there might be some detriment to neighboring properties.
b) Is the proposed rezoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding
land use classifications?
Atkins: "The proposed straightening out of the C2 zone is entirely compatible
with surrounding land use."
2 -16 -89 -1-
Application No. 89006 continued
Staff: The straightening of the zoning line is not so much the issue as is the
ultimate use of the property. Service stations and car washes are not
permitted to abut Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property. The proposed development will
not abut Rl, R2, or R3 land, but the land which will serve as a buffer is vacant
and does little to separate the service station from the single- family
residential neighborhood on the east side of Willow Lane. tae anticipate some
neighborhood opposition to the development. If an office development were
proposed concurrently on the R5 land to the east of the site, (which should
perhaps be zoned to C1) this might go some distance in providing an effective
buffer to the service station.
c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for
development of the subject property?
Atkins: "Yes. Proposed use is a service station which is permitted in the C2
zone."
Staff: Service stations are comprehended in the C2 zone by special use permit
and are subject to the standards for special uses contained in Section 35 -220
of the Zoning Ordinance.
d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in
the area since the subject property was zoned?
Atkins: "There have been no physical or zoning classification changes since
the subject property was zoned."
Staff: There has certainly been an upgrading of Highway 252 in this area which
has no doubt raised the value of real estate at the intersection of 66th and
Highway 252. Another physical change, which surely contributes to the
service station proposed, is the elimination of two gas stations at this
intersection as a result of the reconstruction of Highway 252 and the frontage
road entrance to West River Road. Superamerica, at the southwest corner of
the intersection, has been doing well and has plans to expand its site in the
near future. The City's Zoning Ordinance does not require developers to prove
with a market analysis that a business will be successful, nor can the City
protect existing businesses from competition by discriminatory zoning
actions. Nevertheless, we certainly hope that this intersection will not be
home to four gas stations as it was atone point in the 1970's. Such an outcome
would probably result in the failure of one or more stations and lead
ultimately to redevelopment as in the case of the existing Atkins Mechanical
office on the subject site.
e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public
purpose evident?
Atkins: "Not applicable."
Staff: Not applicable.
2 -16 -89 -2-
Application No. 89006 continued
f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions for the proposed zoning districts?
Atkins: "The subject property will comply fully with development
restrictions for the C2 zoning district."
Staff: The plans we have seen thus far comply with ordinance requirements.
No variances are sought and none are recommended.
g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the
present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography
or location?
Atkins: "The subject property is suited for uses permitted in the present
zoning district; however, straightening out the zoning line will align the C2
property with the proposed access road and new median opening on 66th Avenue
North."
Staff: Perhaps one consideration should be whether the land remaining in the
parcel to the east will be sufficient for construction of a development that
will screen and buffer the gas station from the residential neighborhood to the
east. We have seen no plans for that parcel as yet, but we believe it is at
least feasible to design such a development, though it will likely be tight,
given the lack of width of the parcel. The Commission may wish to ask the
applicant to submit at least a concept plan for the remaining R5 parcel. Our
understanding at this time is that the applicant intends to develop it
ultimately for office use. Again, consideration of a rezoning from R5 to C1
may well be in order, as a service /office use appears to be a more desirable
buffer than multiple residential use of the property.
h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted
by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the
proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community?
Atkins: "The rezoning will not result in the expansion of the zoning
district. We are merely attempting to straighten out the present zoning
line."
Staff: It seems obvious that the rezoning action would result in a slight
expansion of the C2 zoning district. This is not in conflict with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan Revisions map at figure 15 of the
Comprehensive Plan includes all of the vacant land surrounding the Atkins
Mechanical site (including the R5 land) in area #3. Table 14 (attached with
figure 15) lists the recommended use of this land as "commercial retail." A
rezoning of all the land zoned R5 at the southwest corner of 66th and Willow
Lane to C2 could, therefore, be comprehended. We would not recommend such a
rezoning today. One reason for the Plan recommendation may have been to
eliminate the R5 zoning and thereby potential apartment development. The
Northeast Neighborhood of the City (in which this land is situated) has the
2 -16 -89 -3-
Application No. 89006 continued
highest concentration of multiple family dwellings in the City; yet the
Comprehensive Plan recommends that the northeast neighborhood be
predominantly single - family residential. We presume that the Plan
recommendation was intended more to preclude apartment development than to
place commercial retail development across the street from single - family
homes. We would recommend that the R5 land be rezoned to C1 to allow for office
development. This would be in keeping with the Plan and would provide some
buffer between the C2 and R1 zoning districts.
i) Does the proposal demonstate merit beyond the interests of an owner or
owners of an individual parcel?
Atkins: "Straightening out the zone line as proposed will promote better
traffic flow by allowing direct access to new median opening."
Staff: We agree that an access to the C2 property should be to the east of the
median in 66th Avenue North to allow for left turns directly onto westbound
66th without making U -turns or turning around in people's driveways on Willow
Lane. Also, the R5 zone does not allow as an accessory use "any business or
industrial accessory use." We have considered access drives serving
commercial uses to be an example of such an accessory use disallowed under
Section 35 -314 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). We, therefore, would
recommend avoiding some sort of cross - access arrangement where the service
station traffic would cross over a residentially zoned parcel to exit onto 66th
Avenue North. Of course, if this property (the R5 property) were zoned Cl,
such a conflict would not arise. (The Commission may wish to expand this
application to include a rezoning of the R5 land to Cl, thus insuring that an
office development will ultimately be built between the C2 district and Willow
Lane). At any rate, we would agree that there is merit to at least some
expansion of the C2 district boundary.
Procedure
As the Commission is aware, the normal procedure with rezoning applications is to
open the public hearing, take comments from the neighborhood and then table the
matter, referring it to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group (in this case,
it would be the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group) for review and comment. In
this case, due to the slight area of land involved, the Commission may wish to waive
the review of the neighborhood group although this is not recommended. In any case,
tabling of the application is in order as no development plans or preliminary plat
have yet been submitted to flesh out the rezoning proposal.
As we have discussed briefly in our analysis of the proposal, the Commission may wish
to consider jointly a rezoning of the remaining R5 land to Cl. We believe the
neighborhood would prefer to see an office development as a buffer to the service
station rather than an apartment building. The applicant's future plans presently
lean in this direction and it would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's
recommendation for the area. If a companion rezoning to C1 were pursued, a referral
to the neighborhood group might be more appropriate.
2 -16 -89 -4-
11. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property,
improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the
performance guarantee.
12. The property owner shall enter in an Easement and Agreement for
Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage
Systems.
13. Site lighting shall conform with the requirements of SEction 35-
712 of the Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to this end, the plans
shall be revised, prior to issuance of building permits to
eliminate the tilt of the north and south lamps on all four light
poles on the site.
14. One on -site hydrant shall be required in a location to be approved
by the Fire Chief.
15. The landscape plan shall be revised, prior to consideration by
the City Council to indicate berming in the greenstrips adjacent
to Freeway Boulevard and James Circle to provide parking lot
screening. The landscape plan shall be further revised, prior
to the issuance of permits, to indicate additional plantings as
requested by the Planning Commission and City Council in keeping
with community standards.
16. Building permits shall not be issued for the project until the
plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No.
88024 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed
with Hennepin County.
Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards Ainas and
/ Sander. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 89006 (E and H Properties)
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for rezoning
approval of a small sliver of land at the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th
Avenue North from R5 to C2. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report
(see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89006, attached).
Commissioner Sander asked whether the rezoning to C2 would allow something to be
built on the property, that the property was essentially unbuildable now. The
Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that some development could be
built on the existing C2 land, but that the site design could be more efficient if
some additional land were rezoned to C2. He stated that without the rezoning it was
possible that some of the traffic exiting the site would wind up going down to Willow
Lane to turn around to make their westbound movement onto 66th Avenue North. He
stated that moving the zoning line would allow better use of the median opening in
66th. Commissioner Sander stated that she did not want to see traffic from this
development going down Willow Lane. The Secretary answered that the City could
refuse to allow access from the easterly parcel to Willow Lane. He stated that the
R5 parcel, in this case, would have to serve as a buffer between the service station
use and the residential neighborhood to the east. He stated that the staff wanted
the applicant to show that an office development would fit in this location. He
added that the City staff detects that the neighborhood would prefer an office
development as a buffer rather than apartments and that perhaps the land should be
rezoned to Cl to lock in this development option.
2 -16 -89 -?-
Chairman Nelson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Howard
Atkins, owner of the property in question, stated that his intention was to build a
12,000 sq. ft. office building on the land to the east of the service station site.
He introduced architect Hal Pierce to show the Planning Commission some possible
development layouts for the easterly property. Mr. Pierce then showed the Planning
Commission potential site layouts for offices, apartments, and a day care center.
During the Planning Commission's discussion, a neighbor who attended the meeting,
stated that he objected to the traffic and noise from the Superamerica station
across Highway 252. He stated that the service station development proposal would
bring it closer to Willow Lane by developing the land east of Highway 252 for a
service station. Chairman Nelson asked what was the feeling on the possibility of
rezoning of the R5 land to Cl. An unidentified neighbor stated that there was an
office development proposed two years ago and now a gas station is proposed. He
stated that he wanted a buffer building to be constructed before a gas station. The
Secretary stated that the City does not have the power to force one building to be
built before the other. Mr. Howard Atkins explained that development of the
easterly property depends on the sale of land adjacent to Highway 252 for a gas
station.
The Secretary indicated that there appears to be some concern about screening the
gas station site. Commissioner Sander asked about screening of the gas station
site from the office building. The Secretary explained that screening is not
required between C2 uses and C1 uses, but that it would be appropriate to provide
such screening anyway, especially if the office building is not built right away.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89006)
Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether
anyone wished to formally present their views. Mr. Jim Neuberger of 6546 Willow
Lane expressed concern regarding traffic and noise from a 24 hour gas station and
convenience store. He stated that the rezoning would only help the gas station and
not the neighborhood. Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Neuberger if he had any problem
rezoning the vacant land to the east from R5 to C1. Mr. Neuberger responded that he
had no problem with such rezoning.
Chairman Nelson noted the entrance to the site would probably be off the Highway 252
frontage road and that most cars would exit onto 66th. The Secretary stated that
the rezoning to C2 would help improve the access to 66th and may prevent movements
down to Willow Lane. Mr. Neuberger stated that Superamerica is already a headache
with the noise and litter and traffic that comes from that site. He stated that
another gas station on the east side of Highway 252 would present even more problems.
Mr. Richard Jewitt, of 6552 Willow Lane, complained about problems with
Superamerica and the decline of property values and crime that has been prevalent in
the area recently. He stated he was concerned about a decline in his own property
values and yet he understood the fact Mr. Atkins has the right to develop his
property. He stated he did not know what the best answer was. He complained that,
at present, he cannot let his son play in the street in front of his house because of
the traffic coming down to Willow Lane. He stated that he felt the new gas station
would increase traffic on Willow Lane. He expressed his concern that he would be
unable to sell his home and cited the example of another home in the area that has
been for sale for a couple of years and has not been able to sell. He stated that the
rezoning presents an issue of residents versus a commercial business.
Chairman Nelson then asked the Planning Commission for their comments.
Commissioner Malecki stated that the Commission needs more input from neighbors in
the area. She urged that the application be tabled and referred to the Northeast
2 -16 -89 -4-
Neighborhood Advisory Group. Commissioner Ainas recommended that the rezoning
include the rezoning of the R5 land to C1. Commissioner Malecki stated there were
really two questions to look at. One was the rezoning of land to C2 for the service
station site; the other was to look at the desirability of rezoning the R5 land to C1
whether or not the rezoning to C2 took place.
ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 8 (E and H Properties)
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application
No. 89006, continue the public hearing, and refer the application to the Northeast
Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to evaluate rezoning of the R5 land to C1. Voting in favor:
Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Sander. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
Following the vote, one of the neighbors asked whether the advisory group would be
told that it is a gas station that is proposed. The Secretary stated that the
advisory group would be aware of the gas station proposal, but that the rezoning
really has to be decided on the merits of the basic use of the land. He explained
that a gas station is already allowed in the C2 zoning district which covers most of
the land for the proposed service station site. The rezoning of a small portion of
the property to C2 is one of the questions that needs to be addressed.
APPLICATION NO. 89007 (Maranatha Place)
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance
approval to place an identification sign for Maranatha Place apartments on a
retaining wall on the Maranatha Care Center property to the east. The Secretary
reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information
Sheet for Application No. 89007 attached). The Secretary added that the nursing
home is allowed a 36 sq. ft. sign already.
Chairman Nelson then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. David
Viland, the administrator of the Maranatha Care Center, showed the Planning
Commission a site plan of the entire care center and apartment complex and the
location of the proposed sign and the location of the driveway serving both aspects
of the development. He explained that construction of the Maranatha Place
apartments required soil corrections and 6,000 yards of fill to be disposed of. He
explained that the fill was used to create a bermed area in front of the care center
and that the retaining wall would help to buttress that berm. Commissioner Malecki
asked whether the retaining wall would be brick. Mr. Viland responded in the
affirmative.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether the sign variance would set a precedent for
other apartment complexes in the City. The Secretary stated that he did not think
so because of the unique circumstance of the care center and the apartment complex
being attached and being one continuous use. The Secretary added that the
Commission could look at an ordinance amendment on multiple - family signery. He
stated that the limit for this particular building is rather stringent, limiting it
to only a 10 sq. ft. sign on the wall of the building. In response to another comment
from Commissioner Bernards, the Secretary agreed that the sign was aesthetically
attractive and should not be any detriment to surrounding properties.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89007)
Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether
anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he
called for a motion to close the public hearing.
2 -16 -89 -5-
Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES.
1. Purpose
The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com-
prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through
uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this
Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution
No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation
policy and review guidelines.
2. Policy
It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning
proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning
decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and
does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning
principles.
3. Procedure
Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured
against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be
weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City.
4. Guidelines
(a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
(b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with
surrounding land use classifications?
(c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be
comtemplated for development of the subject property?
(d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification
changes in the area since the subject property was zoned?
(e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a
broad public purpose evident?
(f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions for the proposed zoning districts?
(g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted
in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con-
figuration, topography or location?
(h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district,
warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of
developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the
best interests of the community?
(i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of
an owner or owners of an individual parcel?
Q
L
- _ _ I
COL'FAX �x D Lnn
'C m _ BRYAN
- - --
;u rn X
BR ANT
n - �..
ALDRICH
m _ -
-
D GAMDEN QR , - -
AVE:. N. -- --.. -- �:- -,
z�°„ CA MDEN ' - -'' 5 TH ST. N.
z Z
R E '
- - . �C ?
WES RIVER
_ •
_ 400240 ** — E
OR
LLOw L.A.
=
�•� - - _\~ ` ISLAND
ko b
DUR A M
a ° , z (CITY OF BROOKLYN PA F; .
z Z
01 - -J
01 N
D D m < m ��- m-- - rn
< r m !'� A m --- z �..
l., _ z z
35 -316
2. Special Requirements
a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances.
Special 35 -320. C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses
The following service /office uses are permitted in the Cl district,
provided that the height of each establishment or building shall not
exceed three stories, or in the event that a basement is proposed,
x three stories plus basement:
a. Nursing care homes, (at not more than 50 beds per acre), maternity
care homes, child care homes, boarding care homes, provided,
however, that such institutions shall, where required by state law,
or regulations of the licensing authority, be licensed by the
appropriate state or municipal authority.
b. Finance, insurance, real estate and investment office.
C. Medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic and optometric offices.
d. Legal office, engineering and architectural offices, educational
and scientific research offices (excluding laboratory facilities),
accounting, auditing and bookkeeping offices, urban planning agency
offices.
e. Religious uses, welfare and charitable uses, libraries and art
galleries.
f. Beauty and barber services.
g. Funeral and crematory services.
h. Photographic services.
i. Apparel repair, alteration and cleaning pickup stations, shoe
repair.
j. Advertising offices, provided that the fabrication of signs shall
not be a permitted use.
k. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services office,
adjustment and collection service offices.
1. Duplicating, mailing and stenographic service offices.
M. Employment agency offices.
n. Business and management consultant offices.
o. Detective and protective agency offices.
35 -320
p. Contractor's offices.
q. Governmental offices.
r. Business association, professional membership organizations, labor
unions, civic, social and fraternal association offices.
s. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when
located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory.
Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the
following:
1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading.
2. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
3. The compounding, dispensing or sale (at retail) of drugs,
prescription items, patent or proprietary medicines, sick room
supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to any of the
foregoing when conducted in the building occupied primarily by
medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or optometric
offices.
4. Retail food shops, gift shops, book and stationery shops,
tobacco shops, accessory eating establishments, sale and
service of office supply equipment, newsstands and similar
accessory retail shops within multistory office buildings over
40,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area, provided: that there is no
associated signery visible from the exterior of the building;
there is no carry -out or delivery of food from the lot; and the
total floor area of all such shops within a building shall not
exceed 10% of the total gross floor area of the building.
t. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses as
determined by the City Council.
U. Financial institutions including, but not limited to, full - service
banks and savings and loan associations.
v. Drop -in child care centers licensed by the Minnesota Department of
Public Welfare u
rsuant to a valid
P license application, provided
that a copy of said license and application shall be submitted
annually to the City.
2. Special Requirements
a. See Section 35 -411 of these ordinances.
35 -320
3. Special Uses
a. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with
the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701.
b. Group day care facilities provided they are not located on the same
property as or adjacent to a use which is not permitted to abut R1,
R2, R3 zoned land and provided that such developments, in each
specific case, are demonstrated to be:
1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with
those uses permitted in the Cl district generally.
2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to
those uses permitted in the Cl district generally.
3. Of comparable intensity to permitted C1 district land uses with
respect to activity levels.
4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be
within the capacity of available public facilities and will not
have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate
neighborhood, or the community.
5. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a
danger to children served by the day care use.
and further provided that the special requirements set forth in Section
35 -411 are adhered to.
C. Instructional uses for art, music, photography, decorating, dancing
_� and the like and studios for like activity.
Section 35 -321 C1A SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses (No height limitation)
a. All of the permitted uses set forth in Section 35 -320 shall be
permitted in a building or establishment in the C1A district.
2. Special Requirements
a. See Section 35 -411 of these ordinances.
3. Special Uses
a. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with
the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701.
b. All of the special uses set forth in - Section 35 -320 shall be
allowed by special use permit in the C1A district.
Special 35 -322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses
a. The retail sale of food.
b. Eating establishments, provided they do not offer live
entertainment and further provided that the category does not
permit drive -in eating places and convenience -food restaurants.
C. The following uses:
1. The retail sale of heating and plumbing equipment, paint,
glass, and wallpaper, electrical supplies, and building
supplies.
2. The retail sale of tires, batteries and automobile accessories
and marine craft accessories.
3. The retail sales of apparel and related accessories.
4. The retail sale of furniture, home furnishings and related
equipment.
5. The retail sale of miscellaneous items such as the following:
Drugs and proprietary items
Liquors
Antiques and secondhand merchandise
Books and stationery
Garden supplies
Jewelry
Flowers and floral accessories
Cigars and cigarettes
Newspapers and magazines
Cameras and photographic supplies
Gifts, novelties and souvenirs
Pets
Optical goods
Sporting goods and bicycles
d. Service /office uses described in Subsection (b) through (u) of
Section 35 -320.
e. The following repair /service uses:
1. Electrical repair service shops.
t
2. Household appliances, electrical supplies, heating and plumbing
equipment.
3. Radio and television repair service shops.
4. Watch, clock and jewelry repair service shops.
35 -322
5. Reupholstery and furniture repair shops.
6. Laundering, dry cleaning and dyeing.
7. Equipment rental and leasing services.
f. The following medical and health uses:
1. Hospitals, not including animal hospitals.
2. Medical laboratories.
3. Dental laboratories.
g. The following contract /construction uses:
1. Building construction contractors' offices.
2. Plumbing, heating and air conditioning contractors' offices.
3. Painting, paper hanging and decorating contractors' offices.
4. Masonry, stone work, tile setting and plastering contractors'
offices.
5. Carpentering and wood flooring contractors' offices.
6. Roofing and sheet metal contractors' offices.
7. Concrete contractors' offices.
8. Water well drilling contractors' offices.
h. Educational uses.
i. Accessory uses, incidental to the foregoing principal uses when
located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory.
Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the
following:
1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading.
2. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
3. Outside display and sale of merchandise provided that an
administrative permit is first obtained pursuant to Section 35-
800 of these ordinances.
j. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses, as
determined by the City Council.
35 -322
k. Drop -in child care centers licensed by the Minnesota Department of
Public Welfare pursuant to a valid license application, provided
that a copy of said license and application shall be submitted
annually to the City.
2. Special Reauirements
a. See Section 35 -412 of these ordinances.
3. Special Uses
a. Gasoline service stations (see Section 35 -414), motor vehicle
repair and auto washes provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3
district, including abutment at a street line; trailer rental in
conjunction with these uses, provided that there is adequate
trailer parking space.
b. The sale or vending at gasoline service stations of items other
than fuels, lubricants or automotive parts and accessories (and
other than the vending of soft drinks, candy, cigarettes and other
incidental items for the convenience of customers within the
principal building) provided adequate parking is available
consistent with the Section 35 -704, 2 (b) and 2 (c).
c. Drive -in eating establishments and convenience -food restaurants
provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3 district including
abutment at a street line. (However, convenience food restaurants
without drive -up facilities and located within the principal
structure of a shopping center of over 250,000 sq. ft. of gross
floor area shall be considered a permitted use.)
d. Eating establishments offering live entertainment; recreation and
amusement places such as motion picture theaters and legitimate
theater; sports arenas, bowling alleys, skating rinks, and
gymnasiums, all provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3
district, including abutment at a street line.
e. The sale of motor vehicles at retail.
f. The out -of -door display and sale of marine craft at retail.
g. Transient lodging.
h. Animal hospitals.
i. Public transportation terminals (excluding truck terminals).
j. Clubrooms and lodges.
k. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with
the principal use, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701.
35 -322
1. Sauna establishments and massage establishments, provided they do
not 'abut any residential (R1 through R7) district, including
abutment at a street line.
M. School bus garage facilities provided all storage, including
vehicles, and minor servicing and minor repair shall be conducted
wholly within an enclosed building and further provided it does not
abut any residential (Rl through R7) districts, including abutment
at a street line.
n. Amusement centers provided the property on which the amusement
center is to be located is not within 150 feet of any residentially
zoned (Rl through R7) property.
o. Automobile and truck rental and leasing.
p. Tennis clubs, racket and swim clubs and other athletic clubs,
health spas and suntan studios.
q. Group day care facilities provided they are not located on the same
property as or adjacent to any use which is not permitted to abut
R1, R2, or R3 zoned property and provided they are not located in a
retail shopping center; and further provided that such
developments, in each specific case, are demonstrated to be:
1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with
those uses permitted in the C2 district generally.
2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as with
those uses permitted in the C2 district generally.
3. Of comparable intensity to permitted C2 district land uses with
respect to activity levels.
4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be
within the capacity of available public facilities and will not
have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate
neighborhood, or the community.
5. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a
danger to children served by the day care use.
Furthermore, group day care facilities shall be subject to the special
requirements set forth in Section 35 -412.
TABLE 14
Land Use Plan Revisions
Location
Number Recommended Land Use
la. Mid- Density Residential or Public Land
lb. Mid- Density Residential
2. Single - Family Residential
3. Commercial Retail
4. Commercial Retail
5. Mid- Residential
6a. Light Industrial, Service /Office and Commercial
6b. Light Industrial
6c. Mid- Density Residential
7a. Single - Family Residential
7b. Public Open Space
8. Multiple - Family Residential
9. Commercial /Retail
10. Commercial /Retail
11. Mixed Use Development (Including High - Density, High -Rise
Residential, Service /Office and General Commerce)
12. Mid - Density Residential /High Density Residential
13. Mid- Density Residential
14. Single- or Two - Family Residential
15. Public Open Space
16. Public Open Space
17. Mid- Density Residential
18. Light Industrial
19. Commercial
20. Low- Density Residential
21. Service /Office
22. Low - Density Residential
23. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
24. Service /Office
25. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
26. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
27. Service /Office /Mid- Density Residential
28. Service %Office /Mid - Density Residential
29. Commercial Retail
30 Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office
31. Service /Office /Mid - Density Residential
32. Mid - Density Residential /Service /Office
33. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office
34. Mid- Density Residential
35. Commercial Retail
36. Mid- Density Residential /Service /Office
37. Mid- Density Residential
38. Single- Family Residential
39. Service /Office
40. Commercial Retail
41. Service /Office
42. Mid- Density Residential
98
II i `' -' " ,f �•. / � ' ��
__. .
I I J I " i -1•i.��
j i r
NA
i 1C1 1
i�� j ..-f' [ `l��I' + `l(E `�[ 1�� r _ U J a.�
if I ][ 11 y (u 1[ ;;.1 -; J[ I'�' r -
' I if !'1 � , ,� fi'1 .,• ;;7 _ (:. [�... IM! s lid I � mn li-r% �:�71:1[1�1 � �{ iy � –.
[ �Il.. �l l[.L}.i � {_1 I�C
r( IF- •A
_1d JL
.!
a 't :,'��
(�. �� \ \• , . E_.. � JC if .,;;.:_
dACI
E� ll I ICS 1L -
11 rT I I I it r . <, , +. n
11I + I I�,� l}� lip <'i 1'J,il' l •►, r I V \ ?� ! k. ,I
//0
J �\x.
(�, �� � �,' �. � /,� � , , a.. .;. '. ,•. �;'� !�ll "( "III l,° ..r/ �,^ � %I� ,{- .'� . � ``:: � �_.
[ +
n ... r
I
�. .,� r 'III 1111 � ��.� � ::'�� ; ' 1. '" °•� •���'� I f " �' f _ � ._�
5.., 'I ' I ; ' 'i!i.l I '_�I: ;'a' M. !L !I� I: !•�i Y ,.,... 1=..a
i MMIT
P
IPl [ 12 ! M F ill - — _
.... ��, �,.,5 ��Y 7 i I � 1� .rte .�.�...� Ono
ly'...� Zhne, �' . L�
• ` +'' 4 r
I'
: ei
CY) - El l II - - %f Q
LL
' I '' :.L. I ' � • �?��' 1111 � J � 1 �� /�'"'�� �
a
January 26, 1989
City of Brooklyn Center
Planning Department
Attn: Mr. Gary Shallcross
RE: E & H Properties
C 2 Land Development
66th Ave. No. & Highway 252
Gentlemen:
Guidlines for Rezoning
(a) Clear & public need present zoning line between C2 and R5
is irregular. Straightening out the C2 zone line will make
development of the site more efficient and will align access
with new median opening.
(b) The proposed straightening out of the C2 zone is entirely
compatable with surrounding land use.
(c) Yes; proposed use is a service station which is permitted
in C2 zone.
(d) There have been no physical or zoning classification changes
since the subject property was zoned.
(e) Not applicable
(f) The subject property will comply fully with development
restrictions for the C2 zoning district.
(g) The subject property is suited for uses permitted in the
present zoning district; however, straightening out the
zoning line will align the C2 property with the proposed
access road and new median opening on 66th Ave. North.
- continued -
City of Brooklyn Center
Letter of 1 -26 -89
Page 2
(h) The re- zoning will not result in the expansion of the
zoning district. We are merely attempting to straighten
out the present zoning line.
(i) Straightening out the zone line as proposed will promote
better traffic flow by allowing direct access to new
median opening.
Respectfully submitted,
E & H Properties
Howard J. Atkins
• • •'• ' `
` ` "' • f " " "`•' ` t 1 PRE LIMINARY PLAT OF
YIMN[30 f1 , � 1 1. •• � • S ! •
•' ----- �1 ` ' E AND H PROPERTIES ADDITION
S 1' AYENUE I • n• 'wwr t 1 1 prtYUlo Jtwttt '
1 �! -••"- =_ .... ri w OWNER/SUBDIVIDERS-
~'`' " .rra "r •a E AND H PROPERTIES
ADDRESS
West River Road 8 66th Ave. N.
/ w'" `.' �\ • ' / TCA • /140USr . 1 ; •� / •. `� 1 � ; � x i �� '•. i i. ':. '
( , t ►" n { 1. 1 ItYL itlTYl .....
tD
.♦ 1 ' T� _ r . i1 • t 1 :'�Y \ ` EWL T2 Jn
i . ; :l. aw'i' r � � » 1 , � 1 -.:� '. �`..wrl'.•'•r"o y sr..: _ � w ..`•'..
fl ZDN D C -. ) �� s ' ' ,� 31 - d ! em s "i.,. .'.::':.'W.r.. �. « ' i'.. :..• •'••`. •.
!A to ht 1 ✓. •r 1w .. f, t M /. nr• 1.'11.r h.w nw Ir«r to arm
I V• .. ' 1� �, i M w� yr 7f Iwl N ur• tn. 1 w 1, Ir.. trrrl, M r [rw�r M/r•
� G / 4• r y�':.. �.. � •} •�w r-. ur .r srr .w••.. •.. au.
` J f/ r / • 1 � ^ y 1 � �. — .-•- -{ � w.•... _ _ w. rr r w n. ..wv. f+w.h.r w Tr. + o..Y. r•r.
r ` j I �J i ' l [3.•" I ' `iJ { ` 5
��_77„// • ' w.rnr.rrrwwwh rr r.rr ..-.. wau r.•...brr
J
2 1 - AREA: 87,6847 st
•� I I //, �r.YJ /ur �F - •t +�' p;� .I i 1 � 'k• 1 lOwt /EN1 2.0 OCfOS
R 1 .
.31Y!!".1�`_1 - � � l/ 1 >t'; t sf s I.rl 'r..•r
I'- LD O;IE W Z0 ►'� t r �� r
:I t
W i I { + C- -� ►.�•— •� w..., 1 w•rr a•il+t ..• »ar '•7...... MTIKt L W� ►Mf y,
l 1 SITE
Moog
t[i}•OS4w to rrtPt _ t �•
t 1 • I _ � T. " CJ �; • •- C' � �� �, t , BROOKLYN CENTER
'• "� ` "" ' AfERlLA 4 ASSOCIATES. INC.
_• •••• - - -�• rte. ,. V MN.Mt hR R.rV M
• • 1 w . a•rr,•.•.•, •r..rn, M
i
- - ---------
LAND'St SE TBAC K LI NE
j� /
KMDM SETBACK LINE
1
f 1
r =
/ N
/ D
3
DRSVE-UP
s
-- Par- aIR/VAC.
1 S a
I '
� 1
0
E f
I� I 50' X 50' �
CONVENIENCE STORE
3 /
I — DUTAPSTER AND
SCREEN
� I
TANKS I MUTUAL" ACCESS
I l 3
NOTES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TO CONSIDER
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 89006
MARCH 14, 1989
BROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL
No one from the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group attended the meeting.
Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren introduced himself at
approximately 7:40 p.m. and also introduced Howard Atkins, the applicant, Hal
Pierce, the architect, and Planner Gary Shallcross. He briefly explained the
function of the Neighborhood Advisory Groups was to review rezonings and
Comprehensive Plan amendments. He stated that rezonings are evaluated based on a
set of guidelines set out in the Zoning Ordinance and were not necessarily a vote of
the neighborhood.
Mr. Warren reviewed with those present (approximately 15 to 20 neighbors of the
subject property at 66th and West River Road) a map of the neighborhood showing
streets and parcels in the area. He pointed out the area that is proposed for
rezoning by Mr. Atkins. He next showed the neighbors a reduced site plan of the
proposed gas station site that had been supplied by Fina. He also pointed out the
parcel to the east of the proposed gas station site and stated that it would serve as
some sort of buffer between the C2 parcel on the west and the residential homes on the
east side of Willow Lane. Mr. Warren explained that one of the concerns with the
proposed use was traffic movements to and from the gas station parcel. He stressed
that there would be no access onto Willow Lane and that one of the purposes of the
rezoning is to allow for a freer access onto 66th at the median opening.
There followed a lengthy discussion amongst the neighbors, the applicant and Mr.
Warren regarding the proposed rezoning. Neighbors expressed concerns regarding
traffic, noise and garbage generated by gas stations. Some stated that there is
already disturbance from the Superamerica station on the other side of Highway 252.
Planning Commissioner Ella Sander, who was also present, explained that the
existing parcel is already zoned C2 and that a gas station is permitted in that
zoning district.
There was some discussion of the buffer parcel to the east of the proposed gas
station. Mr. Hal Pierce, an architect retained by Mr. Atkins, showed a building
elevation for an office building that he said could be built on the buffer parcel.
Mr. Warren explained that the property is presently zoned R5 and that multi- family
dwellings at a density of up to 16 units per acre was permitted in the R5 zone. He
noted that, while office developments are also allowed by special use permit in the
R5 zone, there was no way to prevent an apartment development without rezoning the
property to C1. He stated that the Planning Commission had referred the question of
rezoning this parcel also to C1 to serve as a buffer between the single- family homes
and the service station use.
Complaints were expressed regarding crime in the neighborhood and traffic problems
associated with West River Road. One of the neighbors asked whether the outside
speakers at the Superamerica station could be controlled. He stated that they
could be heard across Highway 252 in the residential neighborhood along Willow Lane.
It was suggested by some of the neighbors that the proposed gas station provide
effective screening of the site from the residential neighborhood to the east. Mr.
Warren stated that the City could require screening as an appropriate element in a
site and building plan approval.
3 -14 -89 -1-
There were different opinions expressed as to what the neighborhood's position
should be on the rezoning. One gentleman felt that it was best to deny the rezoning
and make it as difficult as possible for the gas station to locate at 66th and Highway
252. Another gentleman stated that it was likely to be built anyway and that it
might be more beneficial to the neighborhood to exact certain conditions on
screening and other operational elements of the plan. Mr. Warren noted that the car
wash would have to be part of the principal building and could not be a separate
building on the site.
There followed a discussion of problems in the neighborhood including truck traffic
from the highway construction project and problems with the apartment buildings.
The meeting ended at about 8:50 p.m.
to
to 3-14-89 -2-
MEMORANDUM
TO: NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP
Douglas Peter 566 -8558
Douglas Baker 561 -5814
Curtis Danielson 561 -4247
Steve Boone 560 -8601
Ray Haroldson 561 -2092
Ella Sander 566 -0460
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection CL
DATE: March 16, 1989
SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 89006
This memo is to advise you that we have scheduled another meeting of the Northeast
Neighborhod Advisory Group for Tuesday, March 21, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall
Council Chambers (note: the meeting will not be at the high school as we had
previously planned because the high school will be closed for spring break) . No
members of the advisory group attended the March 14th meeting at the high school and
so we were unable to conduct any business. Many people from the neighborhood near
the proposed gas station site did come, despite the weather, and we did hold a
discussion of the proposed rezoning. Notes of that discussion are attached for
your review.
We are not transmitting again all of the materials you received earlier regarding
the rezoning request. If you no longer have those materials, you can pick them up at
the Planning and Inspection Department between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays or
we can deliver another packet to you. If you have any questions regarding the
rezoning proposal or if you find you cannot attend the meeting, please contact
either myself or Planner Gary Shallcross at 561 -5440. Your participation is
greatly appreciated.
• � 1 4 � r � ` � �� �D J
6518 Willow Lane
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
March 15, 1988
Mr. Ronald A. Warren
Planning Commission Secretary
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Dear Mr. Warren:
We had planned to attend your hearing the evening of March 14th
concerning the proposed rezoning of property at 6550 West River
Road, but were unable to attend due to the winter storm.
Please advise us if the meeting has been rescheduled so that we
can participate.
We wish to go on record as objecting to the proposed rezoning
of that land, based on our position that a FINA station there
would reduce the value of our river - front home.
We realize that a Phillips station was once located at the
current site of Atkins Engineering, Inc.; and we would not
object if the Atkins building again functioned as a similar
service station. However, that is very different from the type
of establishment now being proposed.
We are already subject to the noise coming from the speaker
system at Super America on the other side of Highway 252, plus
some of their trash that blows in our direction. The problem
will be compounded with a 24 hour station that even offers more
services -- as proposed by FINA. There would be much
additional noise, air, and light pollution.
We have noticed that vehicles leaving the Amoco car wash at
65th Avenue and Humboldt track a lot of water that freezes on
the highway. This problem will be compounded on West River
Road, where there is a fairly steep slope that must be climbed
at the intersection with Highway 252.
A few years ago when I had dealings with the Brooklyn Park
Planning Commission, Minnesota Law stated that rezoning must be
based on either an error in previous zoning or a change in
conditions that justify rezoning. It is our position that
neither situation currently exists.
We would be prepared to financially support any neighborhood
group that might be formed to take this matter to court --
should that become necessary.
Thank you for considering our position.
Cordially,
% . r , , _ <, {fir � �' ":. ✓'L �.�--
Phillip Dahlen Margaret Dahlen
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
MARCH 21, 1989
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting was called to order by Director of
Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren at approximately 7:43 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Steve Boone and Planning Commissioner Ella Sander. Committeemember Ray Haroldson
arrived later at approximately 8:00 p.m.
BACKGROUND DISCUSSION ON REZONING PROPOSAL
Mr. Warren briefly gave the members present a background on the proposed rezoning.
He noted that there had been a neighborhood meeting on March 14 which had not been
attended by any of the neighborhood advisory group members due to a snowstorm that
made travel inadviseable. He showed the committeemembers an area map of the
proposed rezoning and a plat survey showing in greater detail the area to be rezoned.
He stated that the Planning Commission had asked the neighborhood group to address
the additional question of what to do with the R5 property to the east of the C2
zoning district. He stated that the easterly parcel would serve as a buffer to the
C2 property. He stated that the Planning Commission had considered the possibility
of rezoning that parcel to C1 to lock in an office development as a buffer to the C2
use to the west.
Mr. Boone asked whether there was a site plan for an office development. Mr. Howard
Atkins and his architect Hal Pierce submitted to the advisory group a rendering of a
12,000 sq. ft. office building to be built on the easterly parcel. He stated that
there would be no access onto Willow Lane. Mr. Pierce noted that there would be
parking located under the building. Mr. Boone asked what the height of the office
building would be relative to the service station. Mr. Pierce stated that the
service station would probably be about 14 ft. high. He noted that the office
building could not exceed 35 ft. because it is located in the Critical Area zone of
the Mississippi River. He stated that, although the office building is located on
lower ground, the height of the office building would be adequate to buffer the
service station. He stated that a C1 use would probably be abetter neighbor than an
R5 use.
Mr. Boone asked what the likelihood was of the office building being built. Mr.
Atkins explained that they wanted the building at least 50% leased before they
constructed it. He stated that there would be approximately 2,000 sq. ft. leased by
Atkins Mechanical and 2,000 sq. ft. by the architect, but that this would only be
about 1/3 of the 12,000 sq. ft. office building. Mr. Boone noted that the neighbors
wanted an office development to serve as a buffer, but questioned how realistic it is
that the office building would be built.
Mrs. Sander asked about the possibility of rezoning the land in question to C2 after
the office development was constructed. Mr. Warren pointed out that if the service
station is built within the existing property, they probably would not be interested
in more land later on.
- -
3 21 89 -1-
Mr. Boone stated that Atkins Mechanical has been a good neighbor and that he trusted
Mr. Atkins to have honorable intentions. He stated that the overall proposal with
the office building as a buffer would seem to make sense. Mrs. Sander asked whether
the service station would be able to access onto 66th without the rezoning. Mr.
Warren stated that it would be a little more difficult. He showed the members a
drawing of the median opening in 66th. He noted that some of the old right -of -way,
north of the Atkins Mechanical property, has been vacated.
Mr. Boone expressed some concern regarding water from the car wash getting out on
66th and freezing in the wintertime. He also expressed a concern for pedestrian
traffic from the bus stop. Mr. Warren showed a preliminary site plan of the service
station layout. He noted that there would be no access to Willow Lane, but added
that the staff had been asked to consider closing off 65th Avenue North to the south
so that people would not be able to exit the service station and go around the block
to Willow Lane. Mr. Boone expressed some concern with the traffic from the service
station and the office building using a single curb cut onto 66th. Mr. Warren noted
the connection of the two sites at the south end on the preliminary plan. He stated
that the City would have a problem if traffic began going around the block onto
Willow Lane and suggested that 65th might be closed to prevent such traffic
movement. He stated that the City would have to look at providing access to
emergency vehicles in such an event.
Mrs. Sander expressed concern about cars making a 180 degree turn from going
northbound on Highway 252 to southbound on the frontage road. She expressed
concern regarding the possibility of rear end accidents. Mr. Boone noted that
there is already traffic exiting the highway at 66th and that there would be
additional traffic brought on by the service station. He stated that he thought the
C2 zoning was appropriate, but that the site must be properly designed. He stated
that the City would have to look closely at how traffic would flow through the site.
Mr. Warren noted that the C2 zoning allows a variety of commercial uses, some of
which generate a lot of traffic. He stated that office development has peak traffic
flow in the morning and early evening, but not on weekends. Mr. Boone noted that the
station would cater to evening traffic. Mr. Warren pointed out that the property in
question was bound to generate more traffic when it was fully developed. He pointed
out that it was only 1/4 developed at present.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT
Mr . Boone then opened the meeting up to comments from the neighborhood. A number of
concerns were expressed by people in the neighborhood. Traffic on 66th, on West
River Road, and even possibly on Willow Lane was a concern. Someone mentioned noise
from the SA station across the highway and the expectation that there would be more
noise from a Fina station on the east side of the highway. Concern was expressed
regarding a school bus stop in the area and how that would relate to other traffic
already using West River Road and perhaps generated by the gas station. The feeling
was expressed that another gas station would not serve the local neighborhood and
that another convenience store was not needed. One neighbor expressed concern
regarding a 24 hour a day operation with a car wash, semi trucks, speakers at the gas
pumps, traffic, etc.
Mr. Boone stated that he understood the concerns of the property owners, but noted
that the owner of the subject property has rights as well. He noted that a gas
station is already allowed under the existing zoning.
Mrs. Sander asked what the purpose of the meeting was. Mr. Warren stated that the
Purpose was for the neighborhood group to advise the Planning Commission on the
rezoning proposal. He pointed out that the easterly parcel should also be
3 -21 -89 -2-
y
considered for a rezoning, possibly to C1, to assure office development rather than
multiple- family. Mr. Warren stated that the City would review the site plan and
take the concerns of the neighbors into account, but that the City could not
ultimately deny the use of the property. Mr. Warren also stated that the City staff
have not encouraged the property owner to develop the property for a gas station.
He said that he was actually somewhat opposed to that use, although it is allowed as a
special use in the existing zoning.
Mr. Boone asked what ability the City had to restrict the hours of operation and
prohibit diesel pumps and other matters. Mr. Warren stated that the gas station
would be subject to the standards for special use permits contained in the Zoning
Ordinance. He noted that these standards have to do with traffic impact, the impact
on other public facilities and on the neighborhood. He stated that he really did
not know at this point whether the proposal would be considered to meet those
standards. He stated that just because there was going to be more traffic on 66th is
not necessarily a reason to deny a development proposal. He stated that
development would obviously bring more traffic. Mr. Boone expressed concern
regarding the flow of traffic through the site and how that might impact the
neighborhood.
One neighbor present asked why all of the property could not be zoned C1 for a
service /office development. Mr. Warren responded that the City could initiate
such a rezoning. He explained that it would have to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. ,. He noted that the Plan presently calls for the whole area to be
zoned C2. He stated that an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan might be in order
for a C1 zoning. He also stated that such a rezoning would have to be evaluated in
light of the rezoning evaluation guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance. The neighbor
pointed out that office development would only bring car traffic rather than trucks
and that there would be less noise, especially during the evening hours. She asked
about the possibility of a stoplight at the median opening. Mr. Warren stated that
there was no plan for a stoplight at the median opening. He stated that traffic
would probably be handled by putting a stop sign at the driveways entering 66th to
control access onto 66th.
One neighbor expressed a concern regarding the 24 hour operation and the possibility
of U turns down on Willow Lane. Mr. Boone pointed out that a gas station is already
allowed in the C2 zone. He pointed out that the C1 zoning on the easterly portion
would buffer the C2 development and that the rezoning of a sliver of land would allow
more rational use of the property. One neighbor stated that the City should look at
the effect of the gas station on the neighborhood. He pointed out that there would
be problems and asked how the City would deal with them. Mr. Boone responded that
the City is using either a C1 or R5 zoning district to serve as a buffer between the
neighborhood and the gas station. Mr. Atkins stated that the purpose of the
rezoning is not to make a larger gas station, but to allow for better access onto 66th
and better traffic flow on the site. Mr. Pierce, the architect for the conceptual
office building, stated that the site is larger than Fina usually has. He stated
that the purpose of the rezoning is to try to make two parcels that are more workable
than with a jogged zoning line. Mr. Warren explained that the rezoning to C1 is
partially because the City does not normally allow commercial and residential
developments to share access. He explained that, if the R5 property were developed
for apartments, it would be sharing access with a commercial use which is not
permitted under the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Warren listed some options for the neighborhood advisory group. He stated
that, regarding the rezoning of the sliver of land, the group could recommend in
3 -21 -89 -3-
favor of or against or express no opinion. He also noted that the group could
recommend a rezoning of the buffer parcel from R5 to C1. He also stated that the
group could recommend doing nothing. He added another option might be that the
group could recommend that the City initiate a rezoning of the entire property to C1.
Mr. Haroldson stated that he had managed a service station at one time and that
trucks don't usually go off the beaten path to get fuel. He stated that if there
were diesel pumps, it would probably be for cars. People from the neighborhood
pointed out that trucks presently use the Superamerica station on the other side of
Highway 252. Mr. Haroldson noted the traffic problems already on 66th and stated
that he did not think people will go out of their way to stop at the gas station. He
stated that he felt the station would probably be used more by the neighborhood than
by through traffic. People from the neighborhood disagreed. Mr. Haroldson stated
that he could not see the economic logic of putting a gas station on the southeast
corner of Highway 252 and 66th, but added that the owner has rights to develop the
property. He also told the neighbors that the City Council tends to listen to
neighbors and encouraged them to come out to the public hearing.
Mr. Boone stated that he felt the R5 property should be rezoned to C1 and that he was
not excited about a service station. He stated that the City Council should deal
with the concern of traffic impact and how to manage the traffic flow in reviewing
the development plan.
Mr. Pierce stated that Fina has an option on the land at present. One neighbor
accused the City of being dishonest about the proposal. Mr. Warren responded he did
not believe the City was being dishonest about the proposal. He pointed out that
various options are being discussed. He added that the City could choose to rezone
the property to C1 rather than C2. He pointed out that staff have in no way
encouraged the use of the property for a gas station, in fact, they have been more
discouraging. He also pointed out that no development plans have even been
submitted nor formal approval of the gas station has been sought. He added that
staff have set up meetings to get neighborhood comment on the proposed rezoning and
to seek input and comment and he believed the entire matter has been open and above
board.
ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATION
Mrs. Sander stated that she would recommend that all of the property between Willow
Lane and Highway 252 be rezoned to C1. Mr. Boone stated that he concurred with that
recommendation. He stated that an office use would be the best for the property
considering traffic ingress and egress and the impact on the neighborhood. He
stated that he was concerned regarding the traffic flow through the site and the
impact on the neighborhood. He also recommended rezoning land all the way down to
65th, including the motel. Mr. Atkins stated that, as an owner he had an interest in
retaining the current C2 zoning.
Mr. Haroldson stated that he agreed with the recommendation to rezone all the land to
C1. He stated that he did not want to see more apartment buildings nor a gas
station.
Mr. Warren concluded that the neighborhood group recommends a denial of the rezoning
and an alternate rezoning proposal from the City to rezone the entire block to C1.
He noted that the motel and the existing apartment building would become
nonconforming if such a rezoning were eventually approved. The neighborhood group
agreed with this conclusion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:43 P.m.
Chairman
3 -21 -89 -4-
y e
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
66TH AVENUE NORTH AT TRUNK HIGHWAY 252
APRIL 11, 1989
SEH FILE NO.
i
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
C
DATE: 4111197 REG. NO: 9089
_
A. INTRODUCTION
The proposed development area is located in Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota. The site, located in the southeast quadrant of
the intersection of 66th Avenue North with Trunk Highway
252, is bounded to the west by a frontage road, to the east
by Willow Lane, and to the south by 65th Avenue. The site
location and surrounding roadway network are shown on
Drawing No. 1.
The most current traffic volumes indicate that the
northbound volume on Highway 252 near the site is
approximately 23,300 vehicles per day, the southbound volume
on Highway 252 is approximately 22,200 vehicles per day, the
two -way volumes on 66th Avenue west of Highway 252 is
approximately 7,600 vehicles per day, the two -way volume on
66th Avenue east of Highway 252 is approximately 3,000
vehicles per day, and the two -way volume on nearby West
r
River Road is approximately 1,000 vehicles per day.
Directional distributions of traffic near the site will vary
depending on the type of land -use on the site. Drawing No.
2 shows an area map with current average daily traffic (ADT)
on area roadways.
B. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
As shown on Drawing No. 2, the site has been broken down
into three separate parcels. Parcel 1, which is
approximately one acre in size, currently contains a
contracting business that is expected to be phased out if
redevelopment of the parcel is approved. Access to this
parcel is via _66th Avenue to the north and the frontage road
to the west.
Parcel 2, which is also approximately one acre in size, is
currently undeveloped. Access to this parcel will be via
66th Avenue.
- 1 -
Parcel 3, which is nearly three acres in size, currently
contains an older motel on the west side of the parcel and
an apartment on the east side of the parcel. However,
should redevelopment of the parcel occur, it is expected
that both of these inplace developments would be removed.
Access to this parcel is via Willow Lane, 65th Avenue, and
the frontage road, but may be limited to Willow Lane and /or
the frontage road in the future.
Development to the east and south of these three parcels
consists solely of inplace single - family residential units
and apartments.
C. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
Five distinct scenarios have been proposed for the three -
parcel site.
Scenario 1 includes a Fina Oil Station on parcel 1 and a
12,000 square foot general office building on parcel 2. The
Fina station is expected to consist of an approximately
2,500 square foot convenience store with a six pump gas
island and possibly a car wash. The office building would
be expected to consist of a mixture of tenants common to a
general office.
Scenario 2 consists of a 35,000 square foot office building,
which would be built on parcels 1 and 2. The tenant mix
would be expected to be similar to that of scenario 1 for a
general office building.
Scenario 3 consists of a three story - 16 unit apartment
building, which would be built on parcel 2.
+ Scenario 4 consists of a fast food restaurant, which would
be built on parcel 1. Based on average sizes of fast food
- 2 -
restaurants, as surveyed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual,
the restaurant would be expected to be about 3,000 square
feet in size. It would also most likely contain a drive -
through window for customer service.
Scenario 5 consists of a 65,000 square foot general office
building that would be built on all three parcels. Tenant
mix would be as expected for a general office.
D. TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
Trip generation values and passer -by trip assumptions are
based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, using average values or regression
equations to obtain estimated trip generation for each land
use. Traffic distributions for each scenario, as shown on
Drawings 3 -7, have been estimated using directional
distributions based on the type of land use and on current
traffic volumes on the area roadways, and the "closeness" to
a major roadway.
Scenario 1
Approximately 2,700 trips per day will be produced by the
Fina Station and approximately 300 trips per day by the
office building. Approximately 50% of the Fina traffic is
expected to be pass -by traffic (on area roadways already)
and thus will not add any additional trips to area roadways
other than those directly surrounding the site. Thus,
approximately 1,700 new vehicle trips will be created on
area roadways each day by Scenario 1 development.
It is expected that about 210 of the total number of trips
(new and pass -by) will occur in the a.m. peak hour, while
approximately 230 will occur in the p.m. peak hour.
Directional distribution (trips to and from the site) during
the peak hours is expected to be nearly equal in each
direction. Approximately 400 trips per day will be
3 -
i generated from the neighborhood north of the site on West
River Road. Drawing No. 3 shows the estimated total (and
new) number of trips to and from the site daily and during
a.m. and p.m. peak hours for the surrounding roadways from
scenario 1 development.
Scenario 2
Approximately 625 new trips will be added to area roadways
due to the presence of the office building. Approximately
80 of these trips will occur during both the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours with heavy directional distributions to the site
in the morning (87% in, 13% out) and away from the site in
the evening (16% in, 84% out). Impacts on local
neighborhood roadways, such as Willow Lane and West River
Road, is expected to be minimal, as shown on Drawing No. 4.
Scenario 3
-� The apartment building is expected to create approximately
100 new trips per day with nearly 10 of these trips
occurring during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic
effects on area roadways, especially West River Road and
66th Avenue, should be minimal. Drawing No. 5 shows
anticipated distributions of traffic to and from the site
daily and during peak hours. These volumes do not reflect
any change in use for parcel 1.
Scenario 4
Approximately 1,900 trips per day will be produced by the
fast food restaurant. Of this total, nearly 55% of these
trips will already be on area roadways (pass -by trips).
Thus, approximately 850 new trips will be added to the
existing amount of traffic in the area.
Approximately 170 of the total number of trips produced by
the fast food restaurant will occur in the a.m. peak hour,
while approximately 180 of these trips will occur in the
4 -
.S
p.m. peak hour. Peak hour directional distribution to and
from the site is expected to be nearly 50 -50.
Major impacts to area roadways by the fast food will be on
Highway 252, while a somewhat lesser amount of traffic will
be generated by the local neighborhoods, as shown on Drawing
No. 6. This figure does not reflect any development on
parcel 2.
Scenario 5
Nearly 1,000 new trips will be added to area roadways by the
proposed office building. Of this total, approximately 140
of these trips will occur during both the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours, with a heavy inbound flow during the a.m. peak hour
(87% of the total) and a heavy outbound flow during the p.m.
peak hour (84%). Drawing No. 7 shows that the increase in
traffic on the neighborhood roadways, such as West River
Road and Willow Lane, should be minimal, while increases on
the outer - linking roadways will be higher. Removal of the
existing motel and apartment building will remove little
traffic from area roadways.
E. SUMMARY
Drawing No. 8 summarizes the anticipated impacts on area
roadways of each of the development scenarios. In most
cases, traffic impacts on neighborhood roadways should be
somewhat minimal, while roadways such as Highway 252 will
feel most of the impact.
It is anticipated that 65th Avenue, between Willow Lane and
the frontage road, will be closed in the future. If it is
closed, it is expected that there would be no effect on area
roadways from any of the development scenarios. Access to
and from each of the parcels is expected to be via 66th
Avenue and the frontage road, with the residentially
developed Willow Lane also possibly being used.
- 5 -
u j
Z rr0001�ME lA = I b 4 i A Y
Y �y
> 72-d AYI Z < Z > 72^4 AYf a
'k I 72M A < >• 72 MO AIR M I 631/
4` + 7 T Z Arr u l.1
'7 Q
N c 3
LL
< W < ~ yt M 70TH A YE M h
i M )T H< E > n Z ® ac r. WAYpjvER E l
LOk! i AY 3 Rv� «6 < a6CM [Y[wCR[EM > el
�-
G Z LA C RD. CM CRS A"
69T ,� Z E IT "SO" $c�
SHINGLE 66TH LA 0 ZSZ ar usE
aS
67TX LA 64 H� < AY[ M RO
pt M ~O x t N O y , CH11R� S ST
67TH �+ t 1> 31 1/2
67TH AVE M O A E. 11 # �� 1< WAY
m z b
Z sAo T(m � d . <
T R uj
TeX KX Q u ` i Z
65TH O 0 x
RF E Y BLVD V O ssT>, Z r - '- 2
- -—
V, g i w w rL -1 V IE
LA-
)Park r r q- a
. Olt
63 LA N A�
+ AMOE y
62NDAIEJN. s a° Jy
o +` 61 T A E. N. \moo
PROJECT LOCATION < J 33Rp wAr e�0
Y _'� �'P�`a� ego: 6 TH A E. N. u o
Z c
y <
uj
A � T H Q �
z .Z Q 3164 RAY
z TH
YE. z G
Z Z z H
CL
10 TH AN w 7
R. > _ 27---
T H = ° O
L O i N
55THw V '�, e►
H ATE. N. uj
r%u > > c� >
D Y N ® + H
J
Sl W v n I
cn < N .
AV FILE N0.
DEVELOPMENT LOCATION
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA oRC '+o
ENCENEFRSI ARCHITECTS 1 oIANNERS
Z �
N -1
m
v
r Igo()
a °
66
0
�..— 760
PARCEL 2
N PARCEL 1
N
tT
v
�L
N
W
N -n
un
�
Z S tn
m
o PARCEL 3
NOTE:
xxxx= CURRENT AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC ON ROADWAY
65th Ave.N
T
N
u
N
FILE
w PARCEL LOCATION /AREA ADT'S 'v0.
Idow
- ENGINEERS•ARCMIrEC BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 2.
N
s
N
� N
f Q
N �
\ (n
OD \
00 m
cp
7 j L11 v
J m
0
66th AVE. 296/19/30)
180/11/16
(103/6/10)
180/15/13 _� 524/32/46
(102/10/8) (305/19/31) 57/3/4
(31/2/3)
w cn
P.
j
N A
W % Lo
f% — DEVELOPMENT
o w LOCATION La J
NOTES:
000 /00 /00= ESTIMATED TOTAL
ADT /A.M.PEAK /P.M.PEAK TRIPS
GENERATED BY SCENARIO 1
DEVELOPMENT
(INCLUDES NEW AND PASS -BY TRIPS)
r
(000 /00 /00) =NEW TRAFFIC GENERATED O
ON AREA ROADWAYS BY SCENARIO 1
DEVELOPMENT -DOES NOT INCLUDE �A
PASS -BY TRIPS Z Z
•N �
LE
s SCENARIO 1
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 3
ENCiNEERS 8 ARCNITEGr51 PLANNERS
Z
�N
N
N N
cT j w <
rn
D
66th AVE. 125/4/28
41/1/9
41/9/2 41 /9/2
128/5/28
-
6/0/1
rn
� J
f
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION
NOTE:
000 /00 /00= ESTIMATED TOTAL
ADT /A.M.PEAK /P.M.PEAK TRIPS r
r
GENERATED BY SCENARIO 2 O
DEVELOPMENT
•y r
Z
N
E No
SCENARIO 2
R,
ENC7NEER5 /Af7CNITECTSIPUNNEQS BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 4
Z
N
m
W C
m
0
66th AVE. 20/3/2
�- 6/1/0
6/0/1 -►
1 20/3/2
1/0/0
s
0
0
0
DEVELOPMENT
W LOCATION
NOTE:
000 /00 /00= ESTIMATED TOTAL
ADT /A.M.PEAK /P.M.PEAK TRIPS r
GENERATED BY SCENARIO 3 O
DEVELOPMENT
• r
N z
N
SCENARIO 3
EWINEERS 6 AaCN,TEC*S.OIANNER5 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 5
s
�N
N
i► J
Q� A
A N
�W
�I J
! � A
�N AA N m
v?
!� �
0 :33
�! W
-' m
0
66th AVE. 328/29/30
145/13/13)
114/10/11
(5115/5)
114/10/11 328/29/31
(51/5/5) (150/13/14) 38/3/3
(17/1/1)
VW
NA
! W ...
DEVELOPMENT
wdo LOCATION
NOTES: N
- J
000 /00 /00= ESTIMATED TOTAL
ADT /A.M.PEAK /P.M.PEAK TRIPS
GENERATED BY SCENARIO 4
DEVELOPMENT
(INCLUDES NEW AND PASS -BY TRIPS
x-
(000 /00 /00) =NEW TRAFFIC GENERATED r
ON AREA ROADWAYS BY SCENARIO 4 0
DEVELOPMENT -DOES NOT INCLUDE ::E
PASS -BY TRIPS Z Z
N
lamw SCENARIO 4
ENCiNEER'S /A�fCHiTECTSIDIANMj BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 6
N
s �
m
cn
j
� i
m
0
66th AVE 199/7/46
�---
65/2/15
65/16/3
204/7/48
-�
10/1/2
1
Q
N
\
Q
DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION
NOTE
000 /00 /00=ESTIMATED TOTAL
ADT /A.M.PEAK /P.M.PEAK TRIPS
GENERATED BY SCENARIO 5 r
• r
DEVELOPMENT p
Z r
Z
N
�7 L E NO
SCENARIO 5
,. ENGINEERS /ARCMITEC BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 7
DESCRIPTION
TRIP
m SCENARIO PARCEL 1 PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3 ADT A.M.PEAK IN /OUT P.M.PEAK IN /OUT
t TYPE
i EXISTING OFFICE TECH) T OTAL(est) 120 13 11/2 14 2/12
'1
e
EXISTING OTEL/API TOTAL(est ) 210 18 4/14 22 15/7
1 FINA OFFICE TOTAL 2980 212 119/93 234 107/127
N
1 FINA OFFICE NEW 1692 132 79/53 142 60/82
U) 2 OFFICE OFFICE TOTAL 624 81 70/11 82 13/69
-A
c 3 APT'S TOTAL 98 9 2/7 11 7/4
m
O
O m 4 FAST FOOE TOTAL 1900 168 84/84 180 92/88
0
m�
Z n0 4 FAST FOO NEW 854 76 38/38 80 41/39
Z = r 5 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE TOTAL 994 138 120/18 138 22/116
A C7 -
o M
> �
Z M NOTES:
c Z "TOTAL" INCLUDES NEW AND PASS -BY TRIPS GENERATED
M "NEW" INCLUDES NEW TRIPS GENERATED ONLY
m A.M.PEAK HOUR IS ESTIMATED TO BE APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 7 AND 8 A.M.
ol P.M.PEAK HOUR IS ESTIMATED TO BE APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 5 AND 6 P.M.
o� rn
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTERIN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESTOA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 13, 1989
CITY HALL
APPLICATION NO. 89006 (E and H Properties)
Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of
business, a request to a sliver of land east of 6550 West River Road from R5 to
C2 to allow the construction of a service station /convenience store /car wash as. a
development on the C2 zoned land. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff
report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89006
attached).
Commissioner Sander arrived at 7:39 p.m.
• The Secretary also explained to the Commission the various development scenarios
contained in the traffic study by Short - Elliott Hendrickson. He also discussed
the possibility of rezoning a portion of the R5 lot north of 66th to 0 -1 which would
allow the service station to be built south of 66th.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether there would be any other access to the area
other than at 66th. The Secretary responded that there would be no other exit cff to
Highway 252 to this area other than at 66th.
Chairman Pro tem Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr.
Hal Pierce, an architect representing the developer, E and H Properties, explained
that they had come to the City just wanting to straighten out the zoning line to allow
better access to 66th. He stated that further study of the area was unnecessary and
that nothing has changed relative to this property other than there is more traffic
on Highway 252 than when the area was last studied.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89006)
Chairman Pro tem Malecki then opened the meeting g ra
whet public c h
r a P hearing and nd
anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. asked
Neuberger, of 6546 Willow Lane, stated that all of the neighbors in the area were
I
•
against the proposed p se
d rezoning. He stated that the r ezoning would allow for
service station and the neighborhood is a bigger
opposed to that. at. He presented the
Commission with a
petition signed by people in the neighborhood
ro o P eighborhood opposing
p sed rezoning. PP g the
Proposed
g. Commissioner Sander asked Mr. Neuberger whether the
neighborhood was opposed to a rezoning of the area to C1. Mr. Neuberger responded
that the neighborhood would be agreeable to a rezoning of the area to C1, but are
opposed to any expansion of the C2 zone and to the proposed service station.
Mr. Sam McGee, of Fina Oil, briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that the
rezoning would allow for better screening of the service station site. He stated
that, with the existing zoning line, there would be no room on the site to provide
buffering and screening. He explained that Fina has a standard 50' x 50' building
and uses the same size canopy. He stated that the building and the canopy
be smaller if the site were smaller. He stated that the reason for the rezoning was
primarily to improve circulation on the site and to provide better screening.
Mrs. Ann Zitzloff, of 207 73rd Avenue North, stated that cars are coming down West
River Road and Willow Lane to avoid the stoplights on Highway 252. She complained
about the traffic levels-and was concerned that the new service station-would
encourage this type of traffic . She noted that there was a proposed bike path along
West River Road and wondered how this would be tied
into the
concluded by asking what the City plans to do with West River the system. She
p lans for West River Road need to be completed before a rezoning he stated that
approved.
Mr. Hal Pierce asked what the speed limit was on West River Road. The Secretary
• answered that, to his knowledge, it was 30 miles per hour.
Mr. Rick Jewitt, of 6552 Willow Lane, stated that the applicants wanted to line up
the driveway with the median opening on 66th. He pointed out that the plan as shown
does not quite do this and that people would not be able to make a left turn easily
onto 66th, exiting the gas station. He also noted that there is a bus stop on the
north side of 66th. Mrs. Zitzloff pointed out that the bus stop is a school bus stop
and that it is on a dangerous curve.
Mr. Neuberger asked whether the City regulates the number of pumps at the service
station site. The Secretary responded that the number of pumps would be limited
indirectly by regulations regarding setbacks and parking and concerns regarding
traffic flow on the site. He stated that there was no absolute ordinance limit on
the number of pumps. Mr. Neuberger noted that the applicant had argued that the
extra land in the rezoning was needed for access at first, but that now it is needed
for a buffer. The Secretary stated that the details of the site development plan
have not been formally submitted and may change from the concept plans shown by the
applicant. He stated that what is known at present is that the access has to be on
66th across from the median opening. Mr. Neuberger asked whether the access on 66th
would allow for two -way traffic in and out. Mr. Pierce, the architect, answered in
the affirmative. Mr. Neuberger stated that he thought this would complicate the
functioning of that access drive.
Mrs. Zitzloff asked whether hazardous chemicals from the site would be drained into
the Mississippi River. The Secretary answered that any spills on the site would be
• governed by regulations instituted by the State. He stated that a drainage plan
would have to be approved as part of the site and building plan proposal. Mr. Sam
McGee stated that they would be installing state -of -the art overfill containment
manholes which would handle almost all conceivable spills. He stated that it would
have to be a major spill to overfill the capacity of the manhole. He stated that it
should be a very safe facility.
Mr. Arlo Johnson, the owner of the Brookdale Motel to the south of the proposed
service station site, stated that he had no objection to rezoning Mr. Atkins'
property to Cl, but would very much oppose the rezoning of his property to C1. He
stated that he had a five year plan for upgrading the motel and that he did not want it
to become a nonconforming use.
Commissioner Ainas asked Mr. Johnson whether he would object to rezoning the block
between 65th and 66th to Cl. Mr. Johnson explained that he was located within that
block and would be opposed to rezoning the entire block. Chairman Pro tem Malecki
asked Mr. Johnson whether he objected to rezoning the sliver of land* to C2 as
proposed by the applicant. Mr. Johnson responded in the negative. He stated that
the rezoning would be acceptable to him.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pro tem Malecki asked whether anyone present had any other additional
comments. No one spoke. She called for a motion to close the
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close l the e public
hearing on the rezoning ublic
g proposal. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Pro tem Malecki asked the Commission whether they had any comments.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he originally had no objection to rezoning of the
sliver of land, but stated that he felt the City should hold off until at least the
upper part of the block was rezoned to C1. Chairman Pro tem Malecki asked whether
. Commissioner Ainas was in favor of a proposed moratorium. Commissioner Ainas
responded in the affirmative. He stated that the study should last at least 60 days
and that a land use study is needed apart from a traffic study.
Commissioner Johnson asked whether the City could live with a high traffic generator
on the southeast corner of 66th and Highway 252. The Secretary responded that the
traffic study submitted indicates that the intersection can handle the additional
traffic whatever development scenario actually takes place. He noted that there is
a considerable range in the average daily trips for the service station as opposed to
apartment development. He stated that, although the intersection could handle
most any development scenario, there were significant differences in the amount of
traffic generated by the different scenarios. He stated that the biggest impact
would be as a result of a service station or a convenience food restaurant. He
stated that office development has much less of a traffic impact than C2
development.
Commissioner Bernards stated that he had seen traffic impact studies and
projections before. He stated that he felt the study submitted is conservative as
to the level of traffic in the area. He wondered what traffic levels would be on
Highway 252 and on 66th five to ten years from now. He asked how long the Highway
Department could hang on to the construction office on West River Road. The
Secretary answered that the MN /DOT generally does not want to sit on property Iny
longer than necessary. He stated that the construction office would he sold
eventually and that, likely, someone would like to rehab the home and use it for a
single- family home. He also stated that it was likely that the property would be
subdivided. He pointed out that, under the R5 zoning, the house could not be reused
as a single - family dwelling. He stated that the R5 zoning would probably lead to
the house being removed and the property developed for apartments.
The Secretary went on to state that he believed the R5 zoning of that single- family
residence was now inappropriate. He stated he believed the R1 zoning made the most
sense. He added that, if all the property were zoned R1, this would have an impact
on the service station proposal, in that service stations cannot abut R1 property
across the street. He added that the City could acquire a portion of the property
and use it for buffer and zone it 0 -1 to allow the service station. The Secretary
stated that a moratorium would be instituted in order to study these kinds of issues
that affect development in the area. He noted that the moratorium would have no
impact on the motel or the apartment building although it might impact the Lyn River
apartment development if the owner of the property wishes to rehabilitate those
buildings. He stated that a moratorium would allow study of the area to determine
what is in the best interest of the City and of all people in the neighborhood. He
noted that.the neighborhood advisory group had recommended C1 zoning on the entire
block between 65th and 66th west of Willow Lane. He stated that this was one
Possibility to look at.
Chairman Pro tem Malecki asked what would be involved in the study. The Secretary
answered that it would be a land use study and traffic generation would also be
looked at. He stated that a study might recommend that the City get involved and
Possibly acquire properties for development and /or redevelopment. He stated that
the study might also conclude that the zoning should be left as is. Commissioner
Sander asked how much time would be involved. The Secretary answered that the state
statute allows for a moratorium for up to 12 months which can be extended an
additional 18 months. He explained that the City would have to prepare a request
for proposal and distribute it to planning consultants. He stated that he felt the
study could be completed certainly within a year and probably less. Commissioner
Ainas stated that he felt the moratorium should be no more than 120 days.
Commissioner Sander pointed out that she lives in this area of the City and that she
drives through the area every day. She stated that she felt the application should
not be approved at this time.
MOTION RECOMMENDING MORATORIUM AND STUDY (Application No. 89006)
There was a motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend
to the City Council that they institute a moratorium on all construction of up to six
months for a land use and traffic study including the single - family home at 6626 West
River Road and the land south of 66th Avenue North to Interstate 694 between Willow
Lane and Highway 252.
Commissioner Johnson noted that the moratorium would include the land presently
zoned R5. He asked what would be done with this land. The Secretary answered that
the moratorium would halt improvements to the Lyn River Apartments. He stated that
it would not be appropriate to use public funds to upgrade an apartment development
that was about to become nonconforming.
Voting in favor of the motion to recommend a moratorium and study of the area at 66th
and Highway 252 were: Chairman Pro tem Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Ainas,
Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
We, the undersigned, do hereby object to the proposed Fina Service
Station be constructed on the property owned by Aitkins, including
the small protion of land adjacent which is proposed for this
construction site. We propose this land be rezoned to C -1.
NAME ADDRESS
LU
t�
Y
L
,f
ele 6 4,10 C R
� 6 y
l r
r
1 � r
f
L
j
t
I
e
t�
t � v
n '
L .
L
/FIE
GREEN, MERRIGAN, JOHNSON & QUAYLE
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
KENNETH W. GREEN 800 TITLE INSURANCE BUILDING
L T. (MIKE) MERRIGAN 400 - 2NO AVENUE SOUTH
LEE N. JOHNSON MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55401
(612) 339.9060
MICHAEL D. OUAYLE
DUDLEY R. YOUNKIN
April 17, 1989
Planning Commission
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Attn: Ronald A. Warren
Planning Commission Secretary
Re: Application No. 89006
Applicant: E & H Properties
• Location: 6550 West River Road
Request: Rezoning
Dear Mr. Warren:
The undersigned represents the above -named applicant. I have just been made
aware of the series of events occurring between my client and staff since their initial
contact with you in November of last year, and culminating in the action of the Planning
Commission Thursday, April 13, 1989, adopting your staff plan. The rezoning of this
sliver of land, as you well know, is unnecessary to the proposed use of the land.
Therefore be advised that my client, E & H Properties, applicant above named,
does hereby withdraw their application for the rezoning of this sliver of land as of
this time. Copies of this letter of withdrawal are being forwarded to all council members.
Very truly ours,
*V.eNrC
LTM:mjb
cc: Council Members, Brooklyn Center
E & H Properties
M3A
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 4/24/89
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
APPOINTMENT OF CITY ATTORNEY AND PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
DEPT.
Signa >r - title
* * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ,
The city council and administrative staff were informed within the last week or so that Charlie
LeFevere would be leaving the law firm of LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien, and Drawz to go with
the law firm of Holmes and Graven. Currently the LeFevere Lefler law firm is designated by city
council motion as the city attorney and prosecuting attorney. Charlie LeFevere is the lead counsel
and contact person for City of Brooklyn Center with the LeFevere Lefler firm and the lead
prosecutor is Steve Tallen. The result of Charlie LeFevere's leaving the LeFevere Lefler firm
requires the City of Brooklyn Center to react quickly to designate a transition and /or permanent
change in the legal representation area.
The city council, under the city charter, is responsible for the appointment of the city attorney and
prosecutor. In the past the city council has sought recommendations from the staff because of the
close working relationship between the administrative staff and the city attorney and prosecutor's
office. It is the staff's perspective that at least two issues are involved in the current situation:
1. To avoid delay and confusion in the handling of important legal business, the
council must act quickly to clarify who is responsible for what legal services.
2. The city council has discussed on a number of occasions in recent years the
feasibility of sending out requests for proposals for legal services. At times there
has been discussions regarding splitting prosecution from general legal counsel
work and the potential for hiring full -time attorneys to do various aspects of the
city's legal work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The city staff recommends the transfer of the general legal counsel business to Holmes and Graven so
that it could follow with Charlie LeFevere. Your staff has a high degree of confidence in Mr.
LeFevere and recommends the general counsel business stay with Charlie at his new location at
Holmes and Graven. The Holmes and Graven firm has an excellent reputation and has been used by
the city in a number of HRA and EDA projects and situations. It should also be understood that two
other attorneys in the LeFevere Lefler firm are transferring over to Holmes and Graven. They are
John Dean and Ron Batty. The EDA coordinator and the city planning department have used both
Mr. Dean and Mr. Batty on various occasions, and they are currently working on city projects.
There are a considerable number of ongoing legal cases and files being handled by the firm of
LeFevere Lefler. Charlie LeFevere is heavily involved in most of these cases and will be leaving that
firm. I have reviewed with all the city department heads the various alternatives and have the
following recommendations:
1. The city council Monday evening should pass a motion appointing the law firm of
Holmes and Graven as the city attorney and Charlie LeFevere as the lead counsel
and representative of that law firm for Brooklyn Center. This motion should
include a statement that the city council would annually review the legal fees of
the firm and should the city council and city staff perceive a need for specialized
legal services, an understanding should exist that the city could seek other
attorneys on those occasions.
2. A motion should be made to appoint the law firm of LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy,
O'Brien and Drawz as the prosecuting attorneys for the City of Brooklyn Center
and Steve Tallen as the lead counsel and contact for prosecution purposes.
3. The city council by motion should authorize the city manager to make the final
decision on the division of cases between the LeFevere Lefler law firm and the
Holmes and Graven law firm during the transition period on a case -by -case basis.
This approval will allow the city manager to review the various cases currently
being handled by the legal staff and determine whether it is more economical and
legally feasible to keep certain ongoing case files with the LeFevere Lefler firm
rather than transfer them to Holmes and Graven firm.
If the city council wishes to seek request for proposals for prosecution services or other legal
services, a separate motion directing the staff to prepare and distribute an RFP for these services
would be in order.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4 -24-89
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
UPDATE OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY REGARDING RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
DEPT. APP
S' nature - tle
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _)
Enclosed please find copy of a communication from Senator Luther and attached copy of S. F. 235
which establishes requirements to prevent overconcentration of residential treatment facilities. Also
attached for your information is a copy of a request for council action form you acted on at your
January 3, 1989, meeting relating to lobbying services for Boland & Associates. Your action at your
first meeting in January related to your authorization for the mayor and manager to sign a lobbying
agreement with a consortium of communities in the amount of up to $10,000. This action was subject
to the agreement of at least two other communities to join in this lobbying effort. As of this time
two other communities have not chosen to join in this lobbying effort.
I have received an inquiry from Hennepin County, who is lobbying this legislation, as to whether or
not the city council would wish to join with them and use a portion of the $10,000 to assist them in
a lobbying effort with Boland & Associates for the remainder of the legislative session.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is my recommendation the city council should authorize the mayor and manager to sign an
agreement of up to $4,000 to join Hennepin County in a lobbying effort at the end of this session to
seek legislation in this area which would allow more local citizen input into the licensing process for
state residential treatment facilities. I also believe the lobbying should be directed at eliminating the
current conflict in the law in which the cities are placed in a very difficult position having narrowly
defined responsibilities in the zoning area with little public input opportunity in the licensing area.
r
WILLIAM LUTHER
Assistant Majority Leader
Senator 47th District
205 State Capitol
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Telephone: 296 -8869
April 10, 1989 Senate
State of Minnesota
Mr. Gerald Splinter
Brooklyn Center City Manager
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Jerry:
Enclosed is a copy of Senate File 235 which establishes
requirements to prevent overconcentration of residential
facilities. I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks.
SixTGe ely,
i
f
Wi iam P. Luther
Assistant Majority Leader
WPL:rh
enclosure
k& 2 COMMITTEES . Rules and Administration, Vice Chairman . Elections and Ethics, Vice Chairman
��
-Finance . Commerce *judiciary
r
1
PRINTED
SENATE PAGE NO. 118
STATE OF MINNESOTA � ���
SEVENTYSIXTH LEGISLATURE • • NO.
1ntro by LantrY and 1i�1111.
Read First Time Jan. 26, 1989, and Referred to the
Committee on Health and Human Services.
Committee Recommendation. To Pass as Amended.
Committee Report Adopted Mar. 13, 1989.
Read Second Time Mar. 13, 1989.
1 A bill for an act
2 relating to health, human services, and corrections;
3 establishing requirements to prevent overconcentration
4 of residential facilities; requiring county plans for
5 the dispersal and downsizing of facilities in
6 overconcentrated areas; limiting municipal zoning
7 .
restrictions on certain residential facilities,
8 ro o i
p p s ng coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes,
9
chapters 24
p 5A and 462; repealing Minnesota Statutes
10 1988, sections 245A.11; and 462.357, subdivisions 6a,
11 7, and 8.
12 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
13 Section 1. [245A.111] (OVERCONCENTRATION AND DISPERSAL OF
14 RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS.]
15 Subdivision 1. (DEFINITIONS.] For purposes of this
• 16 section, the following terms have the meanings given them:
17 (a) (STATE- LICENSED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY.] "State- licensed
18 residential facility" means a program or facility licensed by
19 the commissioner of health, the commissioner of human services,
20 or the commissioner of corrections to provide lodging in
21 conjunction with monitoring, supervision, treatment,
22 rehabilitation, habilitation, education, or training of the
23 residents in the facility. "State- licensed residential
24 facility" does not include:
25 (1) a foster care program operated in the
permanent
26 residence of the license holder, or in which a client or the
27 client's guardian owns, rents, or leases the home;
28 (2) a motel, hotel, or board and lodging facility licensed
1
SF235 FIRST ENGROSSMENT (REVISOR ] LH 50235 -1
1 by the commissioner of health, unless the facility receives more
2 than 50 percent of its residents under a contract or other
3 arrangement with the state or a local Government human services
4 agencv to provide lodging for people who are mentally ill or
5 chemically dependent, or who have other human services needs;
6 (3) a hcsnit?1 or nursina hn7rp jir e.1 nl•, hr, hha
— - - - -
7 commissioner of health;
8 (4) a regional treatment center operated by the
9 commissioner of human services;
10 (5) a municipal, county, or regional jail, workhouse or
11 juvenile detention facility, or a state correctional program
12 operated by the commissioner of corrections;
13 (6) semi - independent livinq services for persons with
14 mental retardation or related conditions or mental illness, if
15 the license holder has no financial or ownership interest in the
16 housing used by persons receiving the semi - independent living
17 services;
1 8 (7) a residential school operated by the commissioner of
19 education; or
20 (_8) a facility described in section 256B 431, subdivision
21 4, paragraph (c).
22 (b) [FREESTANDING FOSTER CARE PROGRAM.] "Freestanding
23 foster care orogram" means a foster care program that is
24 licensed by the commissioner of human services and that is not
25 o2erated in the permanent residence of the license holder.
26 (c) [OVERCONCENTRATED AREA.] "Overconcentrated area" means
27 a municipality or planning district with more than one percent
28 of its population residing in state - licensed residential
29 facilities. If a municipality has planning districts the
30 concentration percentage is determined for each district and not
31 for the municipality as a whole Municipal population is
3 2 determined using the figures reported annually by the state
33 demographer.
34 (d) [NURSING HOME.] "Nursing home" has the meaning given in
35 section 256B.421, subdivision 7.
36 Subd. 2.
(REQUIREMENTS FOR SITING OF RESIDENTIAL
2
C_
SF235 FIRST ENGROSSMENT [REVISOR ] LH 50235 -1
1 PROGRAMS.] (a) In order to protect residents of state - licensed
2 residential facilities from the potential detrimental impact of
3 an overconcentration of facilities and to preserve the character
4 of residential neighborhoods, the follcwinq requirements apply
5 to the locations of state - licensed residential facilities:
6 (1) for faciliti other than freestanding foster care
7 programs, the facility must not be located within 450 feet of an
8 existing freestanding foster care orogram or within 1,320 feet
9 of another state - licensed residential facility or a facility
10 described in subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (8)•
11 (2) for freestanding foster care programs, the program must
12 not be located within 450 feet of an existinq state - licensed
13 residential facility, including another freestanding foster care
14 program, or a facility described in subdivision 1, paragraph
15 (a), clause (8);
16 (3) the facility must not be located within an
17 overconcentrated area; and
18 (4) if the facility will be located in a multiple- family
19 dwelling and does not have exclusive use of the dwelling, a
20 total of no more than 25 percent of the units or the floor area
21 in the building may be used by the facility. In the case of
22 two- to four - family dwellings, if the facility does not have
23 exclusive use of the dwelling, no more than one of the units may
24 be used by the facility.
25 (b) At the joint request of a county and a city or town,
26 the licensinq commissioner may waive one or more of the
27 requirements of paragraph (a) if the commissioner is satisfied
28 that the waiver will not be detrimental to the residents of
29 affected facilities. A city or town may not submit a request
30 for a waiver under this naragraph unless the local governing
31 body has approved the recuest using the procedures for granting
32 conditional use permits.
33 Subd. 3. [INITIAL LICENSES.] The commissioner of human
34 services, the commissioner of health, and the commissioner of
35 corrections shall not issue an initial license to an applicant
36 for licensure as a state-licensed residential facility unless
3
G
SF235 FIRST ENGROSSMENT [REVISOR ] LH 50235 -1
1 the facility satisfies the requirements of su ^division 2
2 Subd. 4. [DISPERSAL OF OVERCONCENTRATED PROGRAMS.] (a) By
3 July 1, 1990, every county shall report to the commissioner of
4 human services on the number, location, and tvpe of
5 state - licensed residential facilities located in the county and
6 the extent to which the Pxistinn lnrar= -,F h F ac :'
7 satisfy the requirements of subdivision 2 If the existinq
8 locations of facilities do not satisfy the requirements of
9 subdivision 2, the county shall submit with the report a plan
10 for the dispersal, downsizing, and future siting of
11 state - licensed residential facilities. A county may prepare a
12 joint Dian with other contiguous counties In developing the
13 plan, the counties shall solicit the participation of license •
14 holders, local zoning and land use planning authorities
15 consumers, advocacy groulos, and the general public. The plan
16 must be designed to achieve the objectives of this section and
17 must include:
i8 (1) specific target neighborhoods, data describing the
19 extent to which each of the target neighborhoods is
20 overconcentrated, and the addresses and licensed capacity of
21 facilities in the target neighborhoods;
22 (2) a description of the specific actions the county will
23 take to bring the county's state - licensed residential facilities
24 into full compliance with subdivision 2 by January 1, 1996, •
25 including changes in client placement policies and procedures,
26 the levels of concentration that will be achieved, timelines for
27 achieving target levels of concentration and the agency or
28 agencies that will be responsible for carrying out each action
29 (3) identification.of priority areas for the siting of new
30 facilities, including a description of the existing level of
31 concentration in priority areas and the level of concentration
32 that will exist after full implementation of the plan;
33 (4) specific plans for community and neighborhood education
34 and public relations efforts to ease siting of facilities;
35 (5) a mechanism for soliciting and recording complaints
36 about state - licensed residential facilities to be used in making
4
SF235 FIRST ENGROSSMENT (REVISOR ] LH 50235 -1
1 decisions about dispersal downsizing and the awarding of
2 county contracts, including samples of forms that will be used,
3 methods for collecting information and the objective criteria
4 that will be used in decision making;
5 (6) plans for the coordinated develo ment of related
6 services. including projections of services that wall be ne P:?Qfj.
7 a description of existing services in the priority areas for
8 siting new facilities, timelines for developing needed services
9 a description of the methods that will be used to develop
10 services, and the agency or agencies that will be responsible
11 for developing needed services;
12 (7) the annualized, detailed costs of implementing the plan
13 on forms provided by the commissioner
14 (8) a statement of the standards and criteria that will be
15 used to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the dispersal
16 plan;
17 (9) provisions to ensure that no person in a state - licensed
18 residential facility will be displaced as a result of the plan
19 until a relocation plan has been implemented that provides for
20 an acceptable alternative placement; and
21 (10) for counties required to submit plans, an annual
22 report on the county's progress toward substantial compliance
23 with the plan which is due on July 1 of each year following July
24 1, 1990.
25 (b) By September 1, 1989, the commissioner must provide
26 counties with planning quidelines for preparing the plans and
27 reports. The commissioner shall approve plans and reports
28 required under paragraph (a) if they conform with the
29 requirements of paragraph (a), they are prepared using forms and
30 in a manner prescribed by the commissioner, and the commissioner
31 determines that the plan will achieve the objectives of this
32 section. The guidelines must be developed in consultation with
f t.
33 the commissioners of health and corrections. The commissioner
34 of human services shall provide copies of all plans and reports
x./30 35 received under this subdivision to the commissioners of health
36 and corrections. The commissioner of human services may not
5
_r
G:
SF235 FIRST ENGROSSMENT [REVISOR i LH 50235 -1
1 approve a county plan unless the olan has been approved by the
2 commissioners of health and corrections. "Within 90 days after
3 receivinq a plan or report, the commissioner shall certify
4 whether the plan or report satisfies the requirements or this
5 section.
6 (c1 Thy ccmnissinner rnly nraar n, ;��•, ar nr
7 submitted a plan or report required under paragraph (a) to nav a
8 fine. The commissioner shall notify the affected county of the
9 order to pay the fine. The notice must be in writing and
10 delivered by certified mail or oersonal service to the chair of
11 the county board of commissioners or county human service
12 board. The notice must state the reasons for orderinq the
13 fine. The notice must inform the county of the right to - a
14 contested case hearing under 1 T
chapter
�4. T he count may a n neal
peal
15 the commissioner's order by notifying the commissioner, by
16 certified mail, within ten calendar days after receiving the
17 commissioner's order.
18 (d) After January 1, 1991, the commissioner may order a
19 county to pay a fine if the county does not have an approved
20 plan. The notice and appeal provisions of oaragraph (c) apply
21 to orders issued under this paragraph
22 (e) After July 1, 1991, the commissioner may order a county
23 to pay a fine if the commissioner determines that the county has
24 failed to make good faith efforts to implement the plan The S
25 notice requirements of paragraph (c) apply to fines ordered
26 under this paragraph. The notice must state the reasons for the
27 commissioner's determination and must identify the specific
28 actions the county must take to implement the plan The notice
29 must also include a timetable that sets deadlines for each
30 required action that must be taken by the county to implement
31 the plan. If the county fails to meet a deadline set in the
32 commissioner's notice, the commissioner may order the county to .
33 pay an additional fine. The appeal provisions of paragraph (c)
34 apply to fines ordered under this paragraph
35 (E) The amount of the fine to be imposed by the is
36 commissioner under this section for noncompliance is ten percent
6
SF235 FIRST ENGROSSMENT [REVISOR ] LH 50235 -1
1 of the county's annual allocation under chapter 256E the
® 2 community social services act, or $10,000, whichever is less
3 (g) After January 1, 1991, the commissioner may develop or
4 arrange for the development of a plan for any county that does
5 not have an approved plan, and may impose the plan upon the
6 ccu nt y . The `hal ca1 `h ac -- -
- ot v'i `
7 development of the plan and withhold an equivalent amount from
8 the community social services act funding or state
9 administrative aids for any county affected by the plan
i
10 (h) After January 1, 1991, the commissioner of human
11 services, the commissioner of health, and the commissioner of
12 corrections shall not issue or renew a residential facility
13 license unless the county has certified that issuing or renewing
14 the license is consistent with the county's plan developed under
15 this subdivision. If the county is not required to have a plan,
16 it must certify that the facility meets the standards outlined
17 in subdivision 2. The county shall respond to a commissioner's
18 request for certification within 15 calendar days after
19 receiving the request.
20 (i) The commissioner may not order a county to pay a fine
21 under paragraph (e) for failure to implement a plan unless the
22 legislature has taken action regarding the costs of implementing
23 the plan. Beginning January 1, 1991, the commissioner shall
24 provide an annual report to the legislature on the estimated
25 costs to the state, counties, and providers of implementing
26 county plans, including recommendations regarding appropriations
27 of money and other legislative action that will be needed for
28 full implementation of the plans by the deadlines established in
29 this section.
30 Subd. 5. [RELOCATION PLANS FOR DISPLACED RESIDENTS.] No
31 2erson in a state - licensed residential facility may be displaced
�? 32 as a result of this section until a relocation plan has been
33 implemented that provides for an acceptable alternative
34 placement.
c
35 Subd. 6. [INITIAL LICENSES ISSUED BEFORE REPORTS AND PLANS
36 ARE SUBMITTED.] For the period beginning on the effective date
7
e-;
SF235 FIRST ENGROSSMENT [REVISOR j £H 50235 -1
1 of this section and ending June 30, 1990, if the licensing
2 commissioner notifies a municipality under section 2,
3 subdivision 3, of a pending application for an initial license
4 for a residential program proposed to be located in the
5 municipality and the municipality does not provide the
6 commissioner with inform that shows that the facility o:nuld
7 violate the requirements of subdivision 2, the commissioner ma
8 issue an initial license without further verification that the
9 requirements of subdivision 2 are satisfied
10 Sec. 2. [462.3575) [REQUIREMENTS FOR HUMAN SERVICES,
11 HEALTH, AND CORRECTIONAL RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS.]
12 Subdivision 1. [HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS.] (a) It is the
13 policy of this state that persons in need of residential
14 services from programs licensed by the commissioner of human
15 services should not be excluded from the benefits of normal
16 residential surroundings by municipal zoning ordinances,
17 comprehensive municipal plans, regional development plans, or
18 other land use plans or regulations
19 (b) A residential program licensed by the commissioner of
20 human services with a licensed capacity of six or fewer persons
21 is a permitted use of property in districts where one and
22 two - family dwellings are allowed The program must not be
23 subjected to conditional or special use requirements for the
24 purposes of zoning and other land use plans or regulations A
25 town, municipality, or other local government authority may only
26 impose conditions or requirements on the property that apply to
27 all one- or two - family properties in that zoning district
28 (c) A residential program licensed by the commissioner of
29 human services with a licensed capacity of 16 or fewer persons
30 is a permit -ted use of property in districts where multiple
31 family dwellinqs are allowed The program must not be subjected
32 to conditional or special use requirements for the purposes of
33 zoning and other land use plans or regulations A town
34 municipality, or other local government authority may only
35 impose conditions or requirements on the property that apply to
36 all multiple- Eamily properties of similar size in that zoning
8
I __
SF235 FIRST ENGROSSMENT (REVISOR. -] LH 50235 -1
1 district.
2 (d) Nothing in this section requires local governments to
3 allow one- or two - family dwellings in multiple-family districts.
4 Subd. 2. [CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS.] A residential program
5 licensed by the commissioner of corrections with a licensed
6 rana!41p of 50 or fewer residents i s a ne-r-mittA use of nrnparty
7 in zones in which a hotel or motel is allowed and is not subject
8 to conditional or special use requirements for the purposes of
9 zoning and other land use plans or regulations, provided the
10 program is not located within 750 feet of any residential use of
11 property. A town, municipality, or other local government
12 authority may only impose conditions or requirements on the
13 program that apply to similar uses in the zoning district.
14 Subd. 3. (NOTIFICATION OF MUNICIPALITIES.] The
15 commissioner of human services, the commissioner of health, and
16 the commissioner of corrections shall notify a municipality of a
17 pending application for an initial license or license renewal
18 for a residential program located within the municipality. The
19 notice must be provided at least 45 days before the license is
20 issued or renewed and must solicit the written comments of the
21 municipality regarding the appropriateness of the zoning
22 district, distance or concentration issues arising under section
23 1, and other matters of concern to the municipality. This
24 subdivision does not limit the authority of the commissioner to
25 issue or renew a license if at least 45 days' notice was
26 provided.
27 Subd. 4. (CONCILIATION CONFERENCE.) An applicant or
28 license holder who has been denied a conditional or special use
29 2ermit to operate a residential program licensed by the
30 commissioner of health, the commissioner of human services, or
31 the commissioner of corrections, or who believes that the zoning
32 or land use planning authority or other local government
33 authority has imposed conditions on the use of property in
34 violation of this section, may request a review of the decision
t, 35 by submitting a written request for review to the local
36 government authority within ten days after the date of receiving
9
SF235 FIRST ENGROSSMENT (REVISOR ] LH 50235 -1
1 notice of the authority's action to recruire or to deny a permit
2 or to impose conditions on the use of property. Upon receipt of
3 the request for review, the local government authority shall
4 notify the approoriate licensing commissioner of the request and
5 schedule a conciliation conference. The local government
• - Alt hi, .., w,. ,. �.pl l , i. ^�i �-: �ha :r_r.l ^t nr 1 �-!-:=
7 county, and the commissioner of the time date and location of
8 the conciliation conference. The conference must occur within
9 30 days after receipt of the request for review. The
10 commissioner shall assign a trained conciliator to be present at
11 the conciliation conference and assist in the resolution of the
12 dispute without judicial review. Within five days after the
13 conciliation conference the local government authority must
14 give the applicant or license holder, the county, and the
15 commissioner written notice, by certified mail, of the final
16 action it will take, when the action will be taken, and the
17 applicant or license holder's right to appeal the final action.
18 Sec. 3. (REPEALER.)
19 Minnesota Statutes 1988, sections 245A.11; and 462.357,
20 subdivisions 6a, 7, and 8, are repealed.
10
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/3/89
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
LOBBYING SERVICES - BOLAND & ASSOCIATES
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
AL � M °`
f
fr .e
r ,-{
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attache
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached,
HISTORY
The City of Brooklyn Center currently has ongoing two studies —one relating to the property value
impact of residential facilities and a study to evaluate our ordinances as it relates to these
"residential facilities ". The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities is also evaluating and reviewing
the issue of the siting process and licensing process of state and county agencies. There is also
ongoing a legislative audit analysis of residential facilities and a similar type audit by Hennepin
County. In discussions we have had with both sides of this issue, it seems apparent that the existing
processes from a municipal standpoint, from a citizen standpoint, and from an applicant standpoint,
has precipitated considerable conflict and has not served any of the parties very well.
Boland & Associates is currently attempting to put together a group of municipalities in a lobbying
effort which will, 1 believe, assist in clarifying and handling some of the conflict problems that exist
in this current situation. Your staff believes that in working with a lobbying group such as this and
the AMM and other interested parties, that we can come to a consensus on legislation which will
assist in handling some of the conflict involved in these siting situations in a more appropriate
manner for all concerned.
From your staff's point of view, much of the conflict in the current situation arises out of the fact
that the state licensing procedure simply does not have adequate opportunity for public input. As a
result, during these siting processes citizens use the special use or zoning processes of the city for
public input in the licensing area, and the city council simply does not have the authority in the
license area. I am sure you are aware of other issues which need to be addressed in this process,
but from your staff's point of view, this is the most critical one.
Boland & Associates have provided me with the attached document which describes their legislative
issues program. 1 believe subscribing to this service offers the best opportunity for the City of
Brooklyn Center to have an impact in this area, and the best opportunity for us to influence the
legislature to modify the licensure process and open it up for public input and information. I believe
it will be critical for this group to work with the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities,
Metropolitan Council, and others in the field, to attempt to get quality legislation clearing up some
of the conflict situations in this process. I understand proposed legislation in this area will involve a
possible allocation plan for these facilities in the metro area. Monitoring this process will be critical
to suburban interest.
RECOMMENDATION
Attached please find a copy of a resolution which authorizes the mayor and manager to contract with
Boland & Associates for lobbying services in this area, providing that at least two additional
communities to Brooklyn Center are enrolled in this lobbying effort. This resolution also appropriates
$10,000 for this purpose from the contingency fund to the city council contractual services account
for payment purposes.
Boland & Associates
2443 E. Larpenteur Ave., Suite 110
Maplewood, MN 55109
(612) 777 -3388
To: City Council Members
County Commissioners
Other interested organizations
Subject: Legislative issues concerning the mentally ill.
Action Item: Plan of action and budget for the 1989 Minnesota
State Legislative session.
The attached position statement and legislative proposal addresses
the issue and the need for action at the Municipal, County, Regional
Council, State Legislative, and Congressional levels of government.
The main thrust has to be at the Minnesota State Legislature where
the overiding laws governing the care of the mentally ill exist.
This issue has attracted much attention in the recent past because of
some incidents involving residents of group homes. Also the
legislature is actively pursuing a course of removing clients from
state facilities. Many people feel that there has not been adequate
public debate on this change of emphasis. Therefore, we feel that it
is necessary to bring this proposal before the legislature during
this session. We need the involvement of municipal and county
governments, various state and county agencies, municipal and county
organizations, and concerned community citizens for assistance in
arriving at an appropiate consensus conclusion.
We have been working on this issue for over one year and have
developed many contacts that are concerned about the future of the
treatment of the mentally ill in Minnesota. Now we need your
financial support to properly carry this momentum to the legislature.
The budget for this action is provided below. We need your commitment
as soon as possible but in any event no later than Sept. 30, 1988.
Two Consultants for nine months at $7,000 per month equals $63,000.It
is our desire to obtain these funds from six groups at a rate of
$10,000 per group. If funds are obtained from additional sources,
refunds will be provided to all contributors.
We desire that these services be performed on a contractual basis.
We would be pleased to make a formal presentation if you so desire.
If you have any questions or desire additional information, please
feel free to call us.
Sincerely yours,
Ron Christensen Fhnoland
i
Boland & Associates
2443 E. Larpenteur Ave., Suite 110
Maplewood, MN 55109
(612) 777 -3388
Boland & Associates in cooperation with a number of cities,
counties, and other public agencies proposes to put together
legislation that would more clearly define the issue of Group Home
Siting.
It is our contention that the responsibilities and rights of the
local communities must be clearly spelled out in legislation to ensure
peaceful siting of Group Homes. It must be made clear that the cities
are willin to accept such facilities. What we propose is to develop
legislation that would clearly spell out each cities' obligations in this
area as well as provide them the necessary laws to site such facilities
in their communities that best serve the needs of both the community
and the residents of the Group Homes.
One possible avenue would be to include such provisions in their
Comprehensive Plans now reviewed by the Metropolitan Council.
Boland &
Associates recognizes the sensitivity and intensity of
the problem but feels that there is common ground that can be
reached to solve both the needs of the Group Home and the cities of
the metropolitan area.
What follows is a more detailed proposal of what we feel is
necessary to accomplish this task.
Y '
I
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR HOUSING AND CARING FOR THE MENTALLY ILL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
When legislation was first enacted in 1975, the focus was on the
mentally n ally handica ed and the
desire PP r to bring them back into the
mainstream
o society ociet b having y y ing them live in truly residential
settings.
The residents of the communities where group omes were proposed to
P P P
be sited actively opposed d lacin
Y P� these facilities '
P i in the residential
1
neighborhoods. This led to the need for state legislation that was
enacted to allow 5 or fewer persons to reside in homes that were
located in Single Family zoning areas.
Communities like Brooklyn Center, where one of the first group homes
for the Mentally Handicapped was located, were concerned about the
qualilty and types of care that these residents would receive. Once
it was determined that there would be "live in" care provided by
persons that were trained to provide the assistance and counseling
that the residents would need, city officals and neighborhood
residents became more comfortable with the concept of mainstreaming
the mentally handicapped. Other information that was helpful in
aleviating the various concerns was statistics on the numbers of
mentally handicapped that were related to citizens that were living
in the various communities. Some of these mentally handicapped
persons were actually living in the communities with their relatives.
Since 1975 the focus has changed dramatically. In addition to the
mentally handicapped, now the mentally ill (drug and alcohol
dependent) many with addictions that cause violent behavior are being
housed in residential settings. Most of them are now being housed in
multi - family facilities with fewer and less qualified care providers.
What has been an effort to move these individuals out of the "Public
Institutions" has just become a process of placing them into "Private
Institutions" that are only partially refurbished apartment
buildings.
There is a valid concern about the quality of the care that these
highly vulnerable residents are receiving in these new settings. It
is often stated there is not sufficient funding to meet the needs of
these clients. These statements are made by both county and state
employees and also the relatives of the residents of these
facilities.
There is also a valid concern about the safety of the communities.
The supreme court has ruled that these clients can not be forced to
take their medications. One of the basic aspects that permitted the
mainstreaming of these individuals was the fact that new medications
were developed that could control their behavior. If they are not
taking their medications their behavior is not under control.
r
In addition to the state law, court decisions have pre - empted the
ability of local units of government to have any reasonable control
on the proper siting of these treatment facilities. Also, they have
no control on the amount or quality of the staffing that is to be
provided for the care of the clients.
Cities like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth and Moorhead, etc, where
there are public housing projects, are required by federal law to
permit mentally ill persons the opportunity to apply for housing in
these projects even if the buildings are primarily for the housing of
elderly residents. This has caused a great deal of fear and concern
by the elderly residents. There are very little if any support
services for the mentally ill in these buildings and there is no
control on the behavior of the mentally ill. Therefore, the help and
assistance that the mentally ill need is not available as it is in
the state operated facilities.
While being required by HUD to house these mentally ill residents
with special needs, there is no funding provided by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to assist the local Housing Authorities
with the necessary funding to meet the added expenses. The PHA's have
to depend on the counties and the state for whatever financial
assistance they can obtain.
Another social problem that has developed when existing apartment
buildings have been converted to group homes is the eviction of the
current residents. Many of these residents could be receiving housing
assistance with a Section 8 Certificate or Voucher. Many of them are
residing in these types of apartments because that is all that is
available to meet the requirements of rental rates that do not exceed
the Fair Market Rental Rate that is the maximum permited by HUD. With
a shortage of affordable rental units these Section 8 renters may
have difficulty finding decent, safe, and appropiate housing. Most
Section 8 renters are single parent families with children. These
children then become displaced. This is a definate case of one social
Policy conflicting with another with nobody seeming to care or to be
giving it any consideration.
SUMMARY
While state and federal laws have mandated that local units of
government and public housing authorities can not discriminate
against the mentally ill, there are no provisions or guidelines for
cities to use in determining what is appropiate. There is no
asssurance that sufficient funding will be available to provide
proper care to meet the needs of the mentally ill.
Also, the issue of what happens to those other residents that are
displaced and have to relocate must be considered as part of the
issue.
Audits should be performed to determine the success or failure of
group homes.
Legislation should be enacted to assure proper siting and.
performance,
STATE LEGISLATURE
The State Legislature must take a very serious look at the state
facilities along with the issues concerning group homes. Many of
these facilities are providing care for the mentally ill and
chemically dependent. There is a high need for much open debate on
the issue of the state facilities filling the needs of caring for
some classifications of the mentally ill and chemical dependent that
should not be placed in group homes. There are also the issues of the
proper levels of funding and the qualifications of the persons
providing the care services. Also, the relative capabilities of staff
and facilities between the state and private operators must be
identified. Both public and private facilities must have to meet the
same standards.
At the state legislature, changes in the Minnesota Comprehensive
Mental Act should provide for the following:
*Classification of the various types or degrees of mental
illness and addictions.
*Standards for the proper facility size for the various
classifications and addictions
*Definition of a multiple step process that may lead to
mainstreaming for the different classifications and addictions.
*Standards for Group Home siting that includes: Space
requirements for living, sleeping, food service, counseling,
medical, recreation (both inside and outside) etc.
*Staffing requirements that would have to be maintained.
This should include both numbers and qualifications of staff.
*Limits on the amount of income that operators receive.
*Limits on the purchase price of buildings and equipment to
prevent the operators from passing on excessive prices to
the taxpayers.
*Establish a program of audits for both financial and
operations aspects. Establish legislative oversight to
insure that these audits are actually being performed.
*Provide for relocation of persons that are displaced by
these programs. Special consideration should be given
to persons that are receiving housing assistance.
* Municipalities should be required to revise their
comprehensive zoning plans to provide for group home siting
guidelines. These plans should consider the proximity to
schools, parks, types of residential housing, etc.
*The municipalities p and the counties should be notified about
the possible siting f a
9 Group Home within their boundaries
before a property is leased or purchased. This will permit
review in accordance with the comprehensive zoning plans.
These programs should be fully funded by the State of Minnesota. They
should not be passed on to the municipalities and the counties as
unfunded mandates.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
The Metropolitan Council and other regional development commissions
should be involved in the siting process. They have a logical role in
the planning and appeal process. The Metropolitan Council has
experience in allocating subsidized housing in the metropolitan area.
The regional commissions could review the comprehensive zoning plans
of the municipalities to determine if they are adequate in permiting
a fair and appropiate distribution of group homes. The regional
commissions could also serve as arbitrators when differences between
the other parties develop. If needed, they could establish regional
policies to deal with group homes. It seems that group home concerns
are regional in nature.
The counties are responsible for administering the programs both for
funding allocations and review of the operations. The municipalities
are responsible for police and fire protection and for providing
other services. Both the municipalities and the counties are also
responsible for the concerns of its residents that are not residing
in the group homes. Often times these varied responsibilities create
a conflict of interest for the agencies involved. The regional
commissions may be the most logical level of government to deal with
these conflicts when they arise.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Congressional laws should permit some control by municipalities on
which persons are to be admitted to federally subsidized housing.
Mixing the mentally ill and chemically dependent with the elderly
does not make any sense.
Many of our mentally ill citizens are also chemically dependent, in
fact, many of them are mentally ill because of their chemical
dependence. Chemical dependence is a nationwide health problem. The
federal government should develop a treatment process for dealing
with the mentally ill and chemically dependent. It would be more
efficient for the federal government to develop a program rather than
have each state working independently.
I
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
CONTRACT FOR LOBBYING SERVICES THAT WOULD CLEARLY
DEFINE GROUP HOME SITING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center does deem it necessary to contract for the services of a
lobbying group for services relating to the issue of group home
siting and to put together legislation that would more clearly
define the issue of group home siting; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to enter into a contract with
Boland & Associates for these services providing two additional
communities are also enrolled in this lobbying effort; and
WHEREAS, the cost of these services is $10,000; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed the appropriation for these
services be transferred from the Contingency Account to the City
Council Contractual Services account.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are
hereby authorized to execute a contract with Boland & Associates
for lobbying services, provided two additional communities also
enroll in this lobbying effort.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $10,000 be transferred from
the Contingency Account (01- 4995 - 440 -80) to the City Council
Contractual Services account (01- 4429 - 020 -11).
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 4 -24-89
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
1988 -1989 POLICE CONTRACT
DEPT. APP
S gnature itle
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Last week we received the arbitration award from Joseph Bard relating to the 1988 -1989 police
contract. Attached please find a table summarizing the police arbitration award.
In summary, the arbitrator ruled a 3.6% base wage increase for 1988 and a 3.8% base wage increase
for 1989. He increased the specialist pay amounts in the 1987 contract from $110 per month to $115
per month for 1988 and 1989. In the insurance area, the arbitrator ruled a maximum employer
• contribution for 1988 of $185 per month and a maximum contribution for 1989 of $215 per month.
The attached contract implements these changes and is recommended for your approval. In addition to
the arbitrated changes, both parties have agreed to a modified pay range step system which increases
the starting rate of patrol officers to more accurately reflect the starting level of pay of other
suburban police departments. It also allows for up to $20 per month of the employer's contribution
to be used for dental insurance purposes as is the case in 1989 for all other organized and
nonorganized employees.
The contract negotiating process and arbitration process was an extended one which, I believe, both
parties will work very hard to avoid during the next contract negotiating session. We remain hopeful
that prior to negotiations the next time around, legislative action will eliminate the conflict between
the pay. equity act requirements and state laws requiring arbitration of police contracts.
The only issue that complicates the pay plan for the city with regard to this arbitration award is the
fact that the award sets the maximum employer contribution for police officers at $215 per month for
1989 where the Local 49 bargaining unit and nonorganized employee contribution has been set at $205
per month. This $10 per month differential would represent a departure from our longstanding
practice of keeping the employer insurance contribution the same for all city employees for Brooklyn
Center.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff's recommendation that the city council pass a motion authorizing the mayor and
manager to sign the attached 1988 -1989 police contract and amend the 1989 pay plan to increase the
1989 employer contribution for the Local 49 bargaining unit and nonorganized employees to a rate of
$215 per month. We make this recommendation to be consistent with our past practices and to avoid
I
potential conflicts in meeting IRS Section 89 requirements and comparable worth problems. The
estimated cost increase to the city for this recommendation would be between $8,000 and $10,000
annually.
S
(APOLAR) SUMMARY OF POLICE ARBITRATION AWARD
1988/1989
1. Duration - should there be a one or two year contract?
Two ear contract effective Jan 8 3
Y e uary 1, 19 8 through December 1, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Wages - establish rates 1988.
1988 = 3.6% base wage increase over 1987 rate.
----------------------------------------------
3. Wages - establish rates 1989.
1989 = 3.8% base wage increase over 1988 rate.
----------------------------------------------
4. Specialist Pay - amount of pay.
Increased to $115 per month for calendar years 1988 and 1989.
-------------------------------------------------------------
5. Shift Differential - amount.
.No change from 1987 contract.
6. Insurance - employer contribution.
1988 = $185 per month maximum. 1989 = $215 per month maximum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7. Holidays - number of holidays.
No change from 1987 contract.
8. Holidays - premium pay.
No change from 1987 contract.
9. Court Time - time of hours.
No change from 1987 contract.
10. Court Time - circumstances for payment.
No change from 1987 contract.
11. Vacation - additional days on schedule.
No change from 1987 contract.
12. Vacation - accrual.
No change from 1987 contract.
13. Equal Paychecks - 26 -80 hour pay periods.
No change from 1987 contract.
14. Longevity - modify language.
No change from 1987 contract.
15. Educational Incentive - modify language.
No change from 1987 contract.
16. Uniforms - modify language.
No change from 1987 contract.
11. Holidays - designation of holidays for new employees.
- No change from 1987 contract.
18. Compensatory Time - delete 13.8.
No change from 1987 contract.
19. Overtime - delete 13.9.
No change from 1987 contract.
20. Wage Classification - delete 2(A) nonexistent position.
No change from 1987 contract.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police �
DATE: April 19, 1989
SUBJECT: Labor Contract Police Department 1988 -89
Attached please find four (4) copies, signed by the union, of the
1988 -89 police contract between the City of Brooklyn Center and Law
Enforcement Labor Services, Local #82. The contract has been
proofread both by the union and the police department staff and all
concur that it reflects the settlement awarded by Joseph L. Bard
on April 10, 1989.
There is one exception which has been agreed upon by the
administration and local #82. The pay steps for new officers have
been increased. The starting wage is increased from 65% to 72% of
top patrol. The six month step is increased from 70% to 79% of top
patrol. The twelve month step is increased from 80% to 86% of top
patrol. The twenty -four month step is increased from 90% to 93%
of top patrol. The thirty -six month step is the top patrol step.
These steps were upgraded to make them compatible with the starting
steps in communities similar to us. The top position reflects what
was listed in Joseph L. Bard's arbitration award.
MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, LOCAL NO. 82
ARTICLE I PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is entered into as of January 1, 1988 between the
City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter called the EMPLOYER, and Law
Enforcement Labor Services, Local No. 82, hereinafter called the
UNION.
It is the intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT to:
1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes
concerning this AGREEMENT'S interpretation and /or
application; and
1.2 Place in written form the parties' agreement upon terms and
conditions of employment for the duration of this AGREEMENT.
ARTICLE II RECOGNITION
2.1 The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the exclusive
representative, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 179.71,
Subdivision 3, for all police personnel in the following job
classifications:
Sergeant
Police Officer
2.2 In the event the EMPLOYER and the UNION are unable to agree
as to the inclusion or exclusion of a new or modified job
class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of
Mediation Services for determination.
ARTICLE III DEFINITIONS
3.1 UNION: Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local No. 82.
3.2 UNION MEMBER: A member of Law Enforcement Labor Services,
Local No. 82.
3.3 EMPLOYEE: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining
unit.
3.4 DEPARTMENT: The City of Brooklyn Center Police Department.
3.5 EMPLOYER: The City of Brooklyn Center.
1
3.6 CHIEF: The Chief of the Brooklyn Center Police Department.
3.7 UNION OFFICER: Officer elected or appointed by Law
Enforcement Labor Services, Local No. 82.
3.8 INVESTIGATOR /DETECTIVE: An employee specifically assigned
or classified by the EMPLOYER to the job classification
and /or job position of INVESTIGATOR /DETECTIVE.
3.9 OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of
the EMPLOYER in excess of the employee's scheduled shift.
3.10 SCHEDULED SHIFT: A consecutive work period including rest
breaks and a lunch break.
3.11 REST BREAKS: Period during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which
the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible
for assigned duties.
3.12 LUNCH BREAKS: A period during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during
which the employee remains on continual duty and is
responsible for assigned duties.
3.13 STRIKE: Concerned action in failing to report for duty, the
willful absence from one's position, the stoppage of work,
slowdown, or abstinence in whole or in part from the full,
faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment
for the purposes of inducing, influencing or coercing a
change in the conditions or compensation or the rights,
privileges or obligations of employment.
ARTICLE IV EMPLOYER SECURITY
The UNION agrees that during the life of this AGREEMENT that the
UNION will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any
strike, slowdown or other interruption of or interference with
the normal functions of the EMPLOYER.
ARTICLE V EMPLOYER AUTHORITY
5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to
operate and manage all manpower, facilities, and equipment;
to establish functions and programs; to set and amend
budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to
establish and modify the organizational structure; to
select, direct, and determine the number of personnel, to
establish work schedules, and to perform any inherent
managerial function not specifically limited by this
AGREEMENT.
2
5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically
established or modified by this AGREEMENT shall remain
solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify,
establish, or eliminate.
ARTICLE VI UNION SECURITY
6.1 The EMPLOYER shall deduct the wages of employees who
authorize such a deduction in writing an amount necessary
to cover monthly UNION dues. Such monies shall be remitted
as directed by the UNION.
6.2 The UNION may designate employees from the bargaining unit
to act as a steward and an alternate and shall inform the
EMPLOYER in writing of such choice and changes in the
position of steward and /or alternate.
6.3 The EMPLOYER shall make space available on the employee
bulletin board for posting UNION notice(s) and
announcement(s).
6.4 The UNION agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless
against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments
brought or issued against the EMPLOYER as a result of any
action taken or not taken by the EMPLOYER under the
provisions of this Article.
ARTICLE VII EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
7.1 DEFINITION OF A GRIEVANCE
A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to
interpretation or application of the specific terms and
conditions of this AGREEMENT.
7.2 UNION REPRESENTATIVES
The EMPLOYER will recognize REPRESENTATIVES designated by
the UNION as the grievance representatives of the bargaining
unit having the duties and responsibilities established by
this Article. The UNION shall notify the EMPLOYER in
writing of the names of such UNION REPRESENTATIVES and of
their successors when so designated as provided by 6.2 of
this AGREEMENT.
7.3 PROCESSING OF A GRIEVANCE
It is recognized and accepted by the UNION and the EMPLOYER
that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided
is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the
EMPLOYEES and shall therefore be accomplished during normal
working hours only when consistent with such EMPLOYEE duties
and responsibilities. The aggrieved EMPLOYEE and a UNION
REPRESENTATIVE shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time
without loss in pay when a grievance is investigated and
3
presented to the EMPLOYER during normal working hours
provided that the EMPLOYEE and the UNION REPRESENTATIVE have
notified and received the approval of the designated
supervisor who has determined that such absence is
reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs
of the EMPLOYER.
7.4 PROCEDURE
Grievances, as defined by Section 7.1, shall be resolved in
conformance with the following procedure:
Step An EMPLOYEE claiming a violation concerning the
interpretation or application of this AGREEMENT shall,
within twenty -one (21) calendar days after such alleged
violation has occurred, present such grievance to the
EMPLOYEE'S supervisor as designated by the EMPLOYER. The
EMPLOYER - designated representative will discuss and give an
answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar
days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and
appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth
the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based,
the provision or provisions of the AGREEMENT allegedly
violated, the remedy requested, and shall be appealed to
Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the EMPLOYER -
designated representative's final answer in Step 1. Any
grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the UNION
within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived.
Step 2. If appealed, the written grievance shall be 0
presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER -
designated Step 2 representative. The EMPLOYER - designated
representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER'S Step 2
answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after
receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved
in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar
days following the EMPLOYER - designated representative's
final Step 2 answer. Any grievance not appealed in writing
to Step 3 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall
be considered waived.
St— eP- If appealed, the written grievance shall be
presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER -
designated Step 3 representative. The EMPLOYER - designated
representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER'S answer
in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of
such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3
may be appealed to Step 4 within ten (10) calendar days
following the EMPLOYER- designated representative's final
answer to Step 3. Any grievance not appealed in writing to
Step 4 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be
considered waived.
4 0
Step 4. A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed to
Step 4 by the UNION shall be submitted to arbitration
subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor
Relations Act of 1971. The selection of an arbitrator shall
be made in accordance with the "Rules Governing the
Arbitration of Grievances" as established by the Public
Employment Relations Board.
7.5 ARBITRATOR'S AUTHORITY
A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify,
nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms
and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall
consider and decide only the specific issue(s)
submitted in writing by the EMPLOYER and the UNION,
and shall have no authority to make a decision on any
other issue not so submitted.
B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions
contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or
varying in any way the application of laws, rules, or
regulations having the force and effect of law. The
arbitrator's decision shall be submitted in writing
within thirty (30) days following close of the hearing
or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever
be later, unless the parties agree to an extension.
The decision shall be binding on both the EMPLOYER and
the UNION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's
interpretation or application of the express terms of
this AGREEMENT and to the facts of the grievance
presented.
C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services
and proceedings shall be borne equally by the EMPLOYER
and the UNION provided that each party shall be
responsible for compensating its own representatives
and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim
record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record
to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both
parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings
the cost shall be shared equally.
7.6 WAIVER
If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set
forth above, it shall be considered "waived ". If a
grievance is not appealed to the next step within the
specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it
shall be considered settled on the basis of the EMPLOYER'S
last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance
or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, the
UNION may elect to treat the grievance as denied at that
5
step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step.
The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual
written agreement of the EMPLOYER and the UNION in each
step.
7.7 CHOICE OF REMEDY
If, as a result of the written EMPLOYER response in Step 3,
the grievance remains unresolved, and if the grievance
involves the suspension, demotion, or discharge of an
employee who has completed the required probationary period,
the grievance may be appealed either to Step 4 of Article
VII or a procedure such as: Civil Service, Veteran's
Preference, or Fair Employment. If appealed to any
procedure other than Step 4 of Article VII, the grievance
is not subject to the arbitration procedure as provided in
Step 4 of Article VII. The aggrieved employee shall
indicate in writing which procedure is to be utilized - -Step
4 of Article VII or another appeal procedure - -and shall sign
a statement to the effect that the choice of any other
hearing precludes the aggrieved employee from making a
subsequent appeal through Step 4 of Article VII.
ARTICLE VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE
This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United States, the
State of Minnesota and the City of Brooklyn Center. In the event
any provision of the AGREEMENT shall be held to be contrary to
law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final
judgment or decree no appeal has been taken within the time
provided, such provisions shall be voided. All other provisions
of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The
voided provision may be renegotiated at the written request of
either party.
ARTICLE IX SENIORITY
9.1 Seniority shall be determined by continuous length of
service in all of the job classifications covered by this
AGREEMENT. Employees promoted from classifications covered
by this AGREEMENT to a position outside the bargaining unit
will continue to accrue seniority under this AGREEMENT until
the completion of their promotional probationary period or
for no longer than twelve (12) months. The seniority roster
shall be based on length of service in all of the job
classifications covered by this AGREEMENT. Employees lose
seniority under this AGREEMENT under the following
circumstances: resignation, discharge for cause, or
transfer or promotion to a classification not covered by
this AGREEMENT after completion of the promotional
probationary period or for no longer than twelve (12) months
after transfer or promotion.
6
9.2 During the probationary period a newly hired or rehired
employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the
EMPLOYER. During the probationary period a promoted or
reassigned employee may be replaced in his previous position
at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER.
9.3 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis
of seniority. Employees shall be recalled from layoff on
the basis of seniority. An employee on layoff shall have
an opportunity to return to work within two years of the
time of his layoff before any new employee is hired.
9.4 Senior employees will be given preference with regard to
transfer, job classification assignments and promotions when
the job - relevant qualifications of employees are equal.
9.5 Senior qualified employees with more than eighteen (18)
months of continuous full -time employment will be given
shift assignment preference. Except as noted in the
preceding sentence, shift assignments shall be bid on the
basis of seniority at least annually and after any permanent
change in the work schedule. Employees will not be subject
to shift rotation more often than every four (4) months.
9.6 One continuous vacation period shall be selected on the
basis of seniority until May 15 of each calendar year.
ARTICLE X DISCIPLINE
10.1 The EMPLOYER will discipline employees for just cause only.
Discipline will be in one or more of the following forms:
a. oral reprimand;
b. written reprimand;
C. suspension;
d. demotion; or
e. discharge
10.2 Suspension, demotions and discharges will be in written
form.
10.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of
discharge which are to become part of an employee's
personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signature
of the employee. Employees and the UNION will receive a
copy of such reprimands and /or notices.
10.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files
at reasonable times under direct supervision of the
EMPLOYER.
7
10.5 Discharges will be preceded by a five (5) day suspension
without pay.
10.6 Employees will not be questioned concerning an investigation
of disciplinary action unless the employee has been given
an opportunity to have a UNION representative present at
such questioning.
10.7 Grievances relating to this Article shall be initiated by
the UNION in Step 3 of the grievance procedure under ARTICLE
VII.
ARTICLE XI CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
Employees shall have the rights granted to all citizens by the
United States and Minnesota Constitutions.
ARTICLE XII WORK SCHEDULES
12.1 The normal work year is two thousand and eighty (2,080)
hours to be accounted for by each employee through:
a. hours worked on assigned shifts;
b. holidays;
C. assigned training;
d. authorized leave time
12.2 Holidays and authorized leave time is to be calculated on
the basis of the actual length of time of the assigned
shifts.
12.3 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be
interpreted to be a guarantee of a minimum or maximum number
of hours the EMPLOYER may assign employees.
ARTICLE XIII OVERTIME
13.1 Employees will be compensated at one and one -half (1 -1/2)
times the employee's regular base pay rate for hours worked
in excess of the employee's regularly scheduled shift.
Changes of shift do not qualify an employee for overtime
under this Article.
13.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable.
13.3 Overtime refused by employees will for record purposes under
Article 13.2 be considered as unpaid overtime worked.
13.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation overtime
hours worked shall not be pyramided, compounded or paid
twice for the same hours worked.
8
13.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest six (6) minutes.
13.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call backs
if requested by the EMPLOYER unless unusual circumstances
prevent the employee from so working.
13.7 When uniformed patrol employees have less than twelve (12)
hours of duty free time between assigned shifts they will
be compensated at a rate of one and one -half (1 -1/2) times
the employee's regular base pay rate for the next shift.
For purposes of this article, shift extensions, elected
overtime, voluntary changes of shifts, City contracted work,
training, and court time are considered as duty free time.
13.8 As an option to monetary compensation for overtime a
uniformed patrol officer may annually elect compensatory
time off at a rate of one and one -half (1 -1/2) time, and an
employee qualifying for investigator differential on a long-
term basis may annually elect compensatory time off at a
rate of straight time plus one -half (1/2) hour monetary
compensation. An employee's compensatory time bank shall
not exceed forty hours at any time during a calendar year.
On or about December 1
of each year the City ill a off
Y pay
by check the balance of compensatory time accumulated by
each police officer. No compensatory time will be
accumulated or used during the month of December. Special
overtime duty assignments made available to all positions
by the Chief of Police at the police officer's rate of
compensation will not be eligible for compensatory time.
Compensatory time off shall be granted only at the
convenience of the EMPLOYER with prior approval of the
EMPLOYER - designated supervisor.
13.9 Employees given less than 16 hours notice of a scheduled
duty change other than their regularly scheduled work period
shall be compensated at one and one -half times the
employee's regular pay rate for hours worked outside of the
scheduled work period.
ARTICLE XIV COURT TIME
An employee who is required to appear in Court during his
scheduled off -duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours'
pay at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the employee's base pay
rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled
shift for Court appearance does not qualify the employee for the
two (2) hour minimum. Employees shall not be required to work
Office or street duty to qualify for the two (2) hours minimum.
9
ARTICLE XV CALL BACK TIME
An employee who is called to duty during his scheduled off -duty
time shall receive a minimum of two ( 2 ) hours' pay at one and
one -half (1 -1/2) times the employee's base pay rate. An
extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for duty
does not qualify the employee for the two (2) hour minimum.
ARTICLE XVI WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION
Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to assume the full
responsibilities and authority of a higher job classification
shall receive the salary schedule of the higher classification
for the duration of the assignment.
ARTICLE XVII STANDBY PAY
Employees required by the EMPLOYER to standby shall be paid for
such standby time at the rate of one hour's pay for each hour on
standby.
ARTICLE XVIII UNIFORMS
The EMPLOYER shall provide required uniform and equipment items.
In addition, the EMPLOYER shall pay to the uniformed officers a
maintenance allowance of $85.00 per year. Plainclothes officers
shall be paid a clothing allowance of $275.00 per year.
ARTICLE XIX INJURY ON DUTY
Employees injured during the performance of their duties for the
EMPLOYER and thereby rendered unable to work for the EMPLOYER
will be paid the difference between the employee's regular pay
and Worker's Compensation insurance payments for a period not to
exceed ninety (90) working days per injury, not charged to the
employee's vacation, sick leave or other accumulated paid
benefits, after a three (3) working day initial waiting period
per injury. The three (3) working day waiting period shall be
charged to the employee's sick leave account less Worker's
Compensation insurance payments.
ARTICLE XX LONGEVITY AND EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE
Effective July 1, 1978 the following terms and conditions are
effective:
20.1 After four (4) years of continuous employment each employee
shall choose to be paid three percent (3 %) of the employee's
base rate or supplementary pay based on educational credits
as outlined in 20.6 of this ARTICLE.
10
20.2 After eight (8) years of continuous employment each employee
shall choose to be paid supplementary pay of five percent
(5 %) of the employee's base rate or supplementary pay based
on educational credits as outlined in 20.6 of this ARTICLE.
20.3 After twelve (12) years of continuous employment each
employee shall choose to be paid supplementary pay of seven
percent (7 %) of the employee's base rate or supplementary
pay based on educational credits as outlined in 20.6 of this
ARTICLE.
20.4 After sixteen (16) years of continuous employment each
employee shall choose to be paid supplementary pay of nine
percent (9 %) of the employee's base rate or supplementary
pay based on educational credits as outlined in 20.6 of this
ARTICLE.
20.5 Employees may choose supplementary pay either for length of
service or for educational credits no more often than once
every twelve (12) months.
20.6 Supplementary pay based on educational credits will be paid
to employees after twelve (12) months of continuous
employment at the rate of:
Educational Credits Stated Percentage
in Terms of College pay
Quarter Credits Increment
45 - 89 3%
90 - 134 5%
135 - 179 7%
180 or more 9%
Not all courses are to be eligible for credit. Courses
receiving qualifying credits must be Job related. (Thus,
a 4 -year degree is not automatically 180 credits - -or a 2-
year certificate is not automatically 90 credits.) Job -
related courses plus those formally required to enter such
courses shall be counted. If Principles of Psychology (8
credits) is required before taking Psychology of Police Work
(3 credits) , completion of these courses would yield a total
of 11 qualifying credits. C.E.U.'s (Continuing Education
Units) in job- related seminars, short courses, institutes,
etc. shall also be counted.
The EMPLOYER shall determine which courses are job- related.
Disputes are grievable based on the criteria outlined in the
award of Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services Case No. 78-
PN- 370 -A.
11
ARTICLE XXI WAIVER
21.1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices,
policies, rules and regulations regarding terms and
conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with
the provisions of this AGREEMENT, are hereby superseded.
21.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the
negotiations which resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the
unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and
proposals with respect to any term or condition of
employment not removed by law from bargaining. All
agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are
set forth in writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated
duration of this AGREEMENT. The EMPLOYER and the UNION each
voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet and
negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of
employment referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT or with
respect to any term or condition of employment not
specifically referred to or covered by this AGREEMENT, even
though such terms or conditions may not have been within the
knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties
at the time this contract was negotiated or executed.
ARTICLE XXII DURATION
This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of January 1, 1988, and
shall remain in full force and effect until the thirty -first day
of December, 1989.
IN WITNESS THERETO, the parties have caused this AGREEMENT
to be executed this day of April 1989.
FOR THE CITY OF FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR
BROOKLYN CENTER: SER VICES 82:
W1_ Z
�_ F 6t
12
APPENDIX A
1. WAGE RATES - 1988
Police Officer
After 36 months of continuous employment . . . $2,767.00 per
month
After 24 months of continuous employment 93% of After 36
months rate
After 12 months of continuous employment 86% of After 36
months rate
After 6 months of continuous employment 790 of After 36
months rate
Starting rate 72% of After 36 months rate
Sergeant . . . $310.00 above the After 36 months rate for
police officer
2. a. Employees classified or assigned by the EMPLOYER to the
following job classifications or positions will receive
one hundred fifteen dollars ($115.00) per month or one
hundred fifteen dollars ($115.00) prorated for less
than a full month in addition to their regular wage
rate:
Investigator (detective)
School Liaison Officer
Juvenile Officer
Dog Handler
Paramedic.
b. Employees classified by the EMPLOYER to the following
job classification will receive fifty dollars ($50.00)
per month or fifty dollars ($50.00) prorated for less
than a full month in addition to their regular wage
rate:
Corporal.
3. a. The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of one
hundred eighty -five dollars ($185.00) per month, per
employee, for calendar year 1988 for general health,
life, long -term disability, including dependent
coverage.
b. If for 1988 the unit employees vote to use fifteen
dollars ($15.00) of the one hundred eighty -five dollars
A -i
then such fifteen dollars ($15.00) can be used to bid
out a dental insurance program, provided that the
bidding process would be in compliance with State law
and that this would not otherwise be precluded by State
law.
A -ii
1. WAGE RATES - 1989 APPENDIX A
Police Officer
After 36 months of continuous employment . . . $2,872.00 per
month
After 24 months of continuous employment 93% of After 36
months rate
After 12 months of continuous employment 86% of After 36
months rate
After 6 months of continuous employment 79% of After 36
months rate
Starting rate 72% of After 36 months rate
Sergeant . . . $310.00 above the After 36 months rate for
police officer
2. a. Employees classified or assigned by the EMPLOYER to the
following job classifications or positions will receive
one hundred fifteen dollars ($115.00) per month or one
hundred fifteen dollars ($115.00) prorated for less
than a full month in addition to their regular wage
rate:
Investigator (detective)
School Liaison Officer
Juvenile Officer
Dog Handler
Paramedic.
b. Employees classified by the EMPLOYER to the following
job classification will receive fifty dollars ($50.00)
per month or fifty dollars ($50.00) prorated for less
than a full month in addition to their regular wage
rate:
Corporal.
3 • a. The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of two
hundred fifteen dollars ($215.00) per month, per
employee, for calendar year 1989 for general health,
life, long -term disability, including dependent
coverage.
b. If for 1989 the unit employees vote to use twenty
dollars ($20.00) of the two hundred fifteen dollars
is ($215.00) per month, per employee, of health and life
insurance for dental insurance for all unit employees,
A -iii
then such twenty dollars ($20.00) can be used to bid
out a dental insurance program, provided that the
bidding process would be in compliance with State law
and that this would not otherwise be precluded by State
law.
A -iv
APPENDIX B
This supplementary agreement is entered into between the City of
Brooklyn Center and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local No. 82
for the period beginning January 1, 1988 and ending December 31,
1989.
ARTICLE B -I DEFINITIONS
1. REGULAR PAY RATE: The employee's hourly or monthly pay
rate, including educational incentive pay, and
excluding any other special allowance.
ARTICLE B -II VACATIONS
1. Permanent full -time employees shall earn vacation leave
with pay as per the following schedule:
0 through 5 years of service - eighty (80) hours per
year (accrued at 3.08 hours per pay period)
6 through 10 years of service - one hundred twenty
(120) hours per year (accrued at 4.62 hours per pay
period)
eight (8) additional hours per year of service to a
maximum of one hundred sixty (160) hours after fifteen
(15) years of service (accrued at the following rates:
11 years - 4.92 hours per pay period
12 years - 5.23 hours per pay period
13 years - 5.54 hours per pay period
14 years - 5.85 hours per pay period
15 years - 6.15 hours per pay period
2. Employees using earned vacation leave or sick leave
shall be considered working for the purpose of
accumulating additional vacation leave.
3. Vacation may be used as earned, except that the
EMPLOYER shall approve the time at which the vacation
leave may be taken. No employee shall be allowed to
use vacation leave during his initial six (6) months
of service. Employees shall not be permitted to waive
vacation leave and receive double pay.
4. Employees with less than five (5) years of service may
accrue a maximum of one hundred twenty (120) hours of
vacation leave. Employees with more than five (5) but
less than fifteen (15) consecutive years of service
(uninterrupted except for layoff not exceeding two (2)
years duration in any single layoff period) may accrue
a maximum of one hundred sixty (160) hours of vacation
leave. Employees with fifteen (15) consecutive years
B -i
or more of service (uninterrupted except for layoff not
exceeding two (2) years duration in any single layoff
period) may accrue a maximum of two hundred (200) hours
of vacation leave.
5. Employees leaving the service of the EMPLOYER in good
standing, after having given the EMPLOYER proper notice
of termination of employment, shall be compensated for
vacation leave accrued and unused.
ARTICLE B -III SICK LEAVE
1. Sick leave with pay shall be granted to probationary
and permanent employees at the rate of eight (8) hours
per month or ninety -six (96) hours per year (computed
at 3.69 hours per pay period) of full -time service or
major fraction thereof, except that sick leave granted
probationary employees shall not be available for use
during the first six (6) months of service.
2. Sick leave may be used only for absence from duty
because of personal illness, legal quarantine, or
because of serious illness in the immediate family.
Immediate family shall mean brother, sister, parents -
in -law, spouse, children, parents of the employee.
Sick leave may be used for the purpose of attending the
funeral of the immediate family members plus brothers -
in -law, sisters -in -law, grandparents, grandparents-in-
law, and grandchildren of the employees.
3. Sick leave shall accrue at the rate of eight (8) hours
per month or ninety -six (96) hours per year until nine
hundred sixty (960) hours have been accumulated (shall
be computed at 3.69 hours per pay period) and at the
rate of four (4) hours per month or forty -eight (48)
hours per year after nine hundred sixty (960) hours
have been accumulated (shall be computed at 1.85 hours
per pay period). Employees using earned vacation or
sick leave shall be considered to be working for the
purpose of accumulating additional sick leave. Workers
Compensation benefits shall be credited against the
compensation due employee's utilizing sick leave.
4. In order to be eligible for sick leave with pay, an
employee must:
a. notify the EMPLOYER prior to the time set for the
beginning of their normal scheduled shift;
b. keep the EMPLOYER informed of their condition if
the absence is of more than three (3) days
duration;
B -ii
C. submit medical certificates for absences exceeding
three (3) days, if required by the EMPLOYER.
5. Employees abusing sick leave shall be subject to
disciplinary action.
ARTICLE B -IV SEVERANCE
1. An employee shall give the EMPLOYER two (2) weeks
notice in writing before terminating his employment.
2. Severance pay in the amount of one -third (1/3) the
accumulated sick leave employees have to their credit
at the time of resignation or retirement, times their
respective regular pay rate, shall be paid to employees
who have been employed for at least five (5)
consecutive years. If discharged for just cause,
severance pay shall not be allowed.
ARTICLE B -V HOLIDAY LEAVE
1. Holiday leave shall be granted for the following
holidays:
New Year's Day Columbus Day
Presidents' Day Veterans' Day
Memorial Day Thanksgiving Day
Independence Day Christmas Day
Labor Day and two (2) floating
holidays
2. Employees shall receive compensatory time off for each
of the earned and accrued holidays. Such time off
shall be taken as soon as practicable before or after
the holiday for which it is accrued and as approved by
the EMPLOYER.
3. An employee who works on New Year's Day, Independence
Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day,
Memorial Day, Veterans' Day or Presidents' Day shall
receive time and one -half (1 -1/2) his regular pay rate
for all hours worked in addition to straight
compensatory time off for the holiday.
4. Except as provided in B -V paragraph 3 above, overtime
pay shall not be authorized for employees for hours
worked on holidays when such work is part of the
planned schedule.
ARTICLE B -VI LEAVES OF ABSENCE
1. In cases of demonstrated need and where sick leave has
not been abused, the EMPLOYER shall grant to employees
a leave of absence without pay for extended personal
B -iii
illness after the accumulative sick leave has expired.
Such leaves of absence shall not exceed ninety (90)
calendar days. Upon granting such unpaid leave of
absence the EMPLOYER will not permanently fill the
employee's position and the employee's benefits and
rights shall be retained.
2. An employee called to serve on a jury shall be
reimbursed the difference between the amount paid for
such service (exclusive of travel and expense pay) and
his compensation for regularly scheduled working hours
lost because of jury service.
3. Employees ordered by proper authority to National Guard
or Reserve Military Service not exceeding fifteen (15)
working days in any calendar year shall be entitled to
leave of absence without loss of status. Such
employees shall receive compensation from the EMPLOYER
equal to the difference between his regular pay and his
lesser military pay.
4. Employees called and ordered by proper authority to
active military service in time of war or other
properly declared emergency shall be entitled to leave
of absence without pay during such service. Upon
completion of such service, employees shall be entitled
to the same or similar employment of like seniority,
status and pay as if such leave had not been taken,
subject to the specific provisions of Chapter 192 of
the Minnesota Statutes.
ARTICLE B -VII AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
1. The EMPLOYER shall implement the terms of this
AGREEMENT in the form of a resolution. If the
implementation of the terms of this AGREEMENT require
the adoption of a law, ordinance or charter amendment,
the EMPLOYER shall make every reasonable effort to
propose and secure the enactment of such law,
ordinance, resolution or charter amendment.
ARTICLE B -VIII FALSE ARREST INSURANCE
1. The EMPLOYER will provide each employee and pay 100%
of the premium due thereon, with false arrest insurance
provided, however, that the EMPLOYER will not be
obligated to contribute to the purchase of coverage for
any punitive damage claims which may constitute a
portion of such false arrest insurance. In the event
that separate coverage cannot be obtained (i.e., for
false arrest insurance coverage not including punitive
damage claims) then the EMPLOYER shall not be obligated
to pay for any premium which may become due for such
insurance. In that event, the UNION may on behalf of
B -iv
its members obtain quotes for such insurance, including
insurance containing separate coverage for punitive
damage claims arising out of false arrest, and the
EMPLOYER shall make contribution to the purchase of
such insurance as shall be otherwise required according
to the first sentence of this Article.
ARTICLE B -IX SENIORITY
1. The EMPLOYER shall recognize seniority as the primary
factor when authorizing holiday leave and compensatory
time leave.
2. No time shall be deducted from an employee's seniority
accumulation due to absences occasioned by an
authorized leave with pay, any military draft or
government call up to Reserves or National Guard, or
for layoffs of less than two (2) years in duration.
3. There shall be an initial probationary period for new
employees of twelve (12) months.
4. The EMPLOYER shall give the UNION and the employees at
least two (2) weeks written notice in advance of any
layoff.
5. The EMPLOYER shall recognize reverse seniority by
classification as the primary factor when calling off -
duty employees to duty and when considering scheduled
duty changes if such employees are qualified.
ARTICLE B -X TRAINING
1. The EMPLOYER shall reimburse each employee who is
required to maintain a license as a law enforcement
officer under Minnesota Statutes, Section 626.84, et
sea ., for actual expenses of tuition, meals, travel,
and lodging incurred in meeting the continuing
education requirements of the Minnesota Police Officers
Standards and Training Board, not to exceed 48 hours
of such training every three years. The EMPLOYER need
not make such reimbursement for attendance at a course
located more than 60 miles from the City of Brooklyn
Center and such reimbursement shall not exceed similar
allowances for state employees. If the EMPLOYER
provides in- service training to its employees which
meets the continuing education requirements of the
Minnesota Police Officers Standards and Training Board,
and if the EMPLOYER provides its employees with an
opportunity to attend such in- service training courses,
s,
to the extent that such opportunity is provided to each
employee, the obligation of the EMPLOYER to reimburse
such employee for expenses incurred in attending
continuing education courses shall be reduced.
B -v
2. The EMPLOYER shall pay each employee his regular salary
while attending continuing education courses whether
or not such courses attended are in- service training
courses or courses iven b instructors g y other than the
EMPLOYER. The obligation of the EMPLOYER to pay such
salaries shall not exceed a total of 48 hours every
three years.
B -vi
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on April 24, 1989:
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Green Mill Inn, Inc. 5540 Brooklyn Blvd.
Yen Ching Mandarin Restaurant 5900 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Sanitarian
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Brookdale Unocal 5710 Xerxes Avenue N.
Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6844 Shingle Creek Pkwy. i
Builders Square 3600 63rd Avenue N.
Sanitarian
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Horwitz Mechanical, Inc. 5000 N. County Road 18
Randy Lane & Sons 1501 West Broadway
Marsh Heating & A/C 6248 Lakeland Ave. N.
Midwestern Mechanical Corp. 9103 Davenport St. NE
Realistic Heating & Cooling Inc. 10604 Radisson Road NE
Thrane, Inc. 4921 Xerxes Ave. S.
Building Official
MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP �
Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd.
City Clerk
RENTAL DWELLINGS
• Initial:
Donald Steen 7025 Drew Ave. N.
Renewal:
James and Bobbie Simons 6109 -11 -13 Beard Ave. N.
Thomas B. Egan 5239 -41 Drew Ave. N.
Henry W. Norton 5240 Drew Ave. N.
Terry L. Hartmann 6827 Fremont Place
M. B. L. Investment Co. 3613 47th Ave. N.
Donald E. Sobania 3701 47th Ave. N.
Donald Wilson /Michael Boyle 3713 47th Ave. N.
L. H. Hanggi 3725 47th Ave. N.
James M. Krzesowiak 3007 51st Ave. N.
J. J. Barnett 2926 68th Lane
J. J. Barnett 2930 68th Lane
J. J. Barnett 2934 68th Lane 1I
J. J. Barnett 2938 68th Lane 1�( 1 � 1 �1 f'N�
Director of Planning
and Inspection
SIGN HANGER
Ace Signs of Albert Lea RR #3, Box 1
Midway Sign Company 444 North Prior Avenue C
Building Official A)<—
SWIMMING POOL
Days Inn
Y 1501 Freeway Boulevard
Garden City Court Apartments 3407 65th Avenue N.
Sanitarian
GENERAL APPROVAL: /l,
D. K. Weeks, City Clerk