Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 02-09 CCP Regular Session /g ot CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 9, 1987 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order i 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum m 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 Council member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Approval of Minutes - January 26, 1987 - Regular Session 7. Resolutions: *a. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1986 -B (Police • Department Remodeling Improvement Project No. 1986 -02) *b. Declaring Surplus Property -This resolution pertains to the chairs which are being replaced as approved in the 1987 budget. S. Ordinance: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapters 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 21, 23 and 34 Regarding Various License Fees -This item was first read on January 12, 1987, published in the City's official newspaper on January 22, 1987 and is offered this evening for a second reading. 1. Resolution Establishing a Schedule for Various License Fees 2. Resolution Amending City Council Resolution No. 86- 123 Regarding the Schedule for Planning & Inspection Department Fees 9. Planning Commission Items: (7:45 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 86045 submitted by Crown Coco, Inc. requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a convenience store /gas station on the old Arthur Treacher's site at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard. This item was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its January 29, 1987 meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 9, 1987 b. Planning Commission Application No. 86046 submitted by Crown Coco, Inc. requesting a variance from Section 35- 400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 10' rear yard building setback rather than the 40 ft. required by ordinance. This item was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its January 29, 1987 meeting. C. Planning Commission Application No. 86047 submitted by Crown Coco, Inc. requesting a variance from Section 35- 704 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required number of parking stalls for the convenience store /gas station proposed under Application No. 86045. This item was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its January 29, 1987 meeting. 10. Discussion Item: a. Mayor and Council Term Extensions under 1986 Charter Amendment b. Preliminary Discussion on Redevelopment Policy C. Biennial Planning Meeting - Tentatively Scheduled in April, 1987 *11. Licenses 12. Adjournment r f 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 JANUARY 26, 1987 CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Pro tem Rich Theis at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro tem Rich Theis, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, HRA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Gene Lhotka. OPEN FORUM Mayor Pro tem Theis noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro tem Theis inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested that items 7a and 7f be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Lhotka requested that items 7d and 7k be removed from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 12 1987 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Cc6ncilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the January 12, 1987 City Council meeting as submitted. The motion passed. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 87 -18 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR RECONDITIONING OF WATER TOWER NO. 1 (LOCATED AT 69TH AVENUE NORTH AND FRANCE AVENUE NORTH) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -02, CONTRACT 1987 -B The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 87 -19 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • 1 -26 -87 _1_ r RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ONE (1) ONE TON CREW CAB The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -20 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ONE (1) MIDSIZE PICKUP TRUCK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -21 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ONE (1) 11,000 GVW CAB AND CHASSIS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -22 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TWO (2) 28,000 GVW TRUCK CAB /CHASSIS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. REQUEST TO TABLE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A TRANSITION METHOD OF CITY COUNCIL TERMS UNTIL FEBRUARY 9 1987 There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to table further consideration of the adoption of a transition method of City Council terms until the February 9, 1987 City Council meeting. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: CIGARETTE LICENSE Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore Street NE Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Avenue North Mikros Engineering 3715 50th Avenue North FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Kid's Time Out 5611 Xerxes Avenue N. GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE Metropolitan Transit Commission 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 1 -26 -87 _2_ l Bill West Service Station 2000 57th Avenue North ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Earle Brown PTA /Judy Sodemann 6024 Camden Avenue North St. Gerards Church /Pat Hollenbeck 9600 Regent Avenue North NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE ARA Services 2830 North Fairview Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Bill's Vending Service 7317 West Broadway Brooklyn Center Service 6245 Brooklyn Boulevard Bro /Midwest Vending Company 8850 Wentworth Avenue South Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard Pilgrim Cleaners 5748 Morgan Avenue North Cook Paint 4800 North Lilac Drive Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore Street NE Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Avenue North Mikros Engineering 3715 50th Avenue North Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard J.R. Vending, Inc. 5312 Perry Avenue North Brooklyn Law Office 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 West 74th Street Hiway 100 North France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue N. Silent Knight Security Systems, Inc. 1700 Freeway Boulevard State Farm Insurance 5930 Shingle Creek Pkwy. NSI /Griswold Corporation 8300 10th Avenue North Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Boulevard Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Drive Travelers North 6601 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Precision, Inc. 3415 48th Avenue North Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Avenue N. Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle Ramada Hotel 2200 Freeway Boulevard Thrifty Scot Motel 6445 James Circle Bill West Union 76 2000 57th Avenue North Woodside Enterprises 11889 65th Avenue North City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek reek Pkwy. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore Street NE Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Avenue North Mikros Engineering 3715 50th Avenue North Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 West 74th Street Hiway 100 North France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue N. State Farm Insurance 5930 Shingle Creek Parkway y NSI /Griswold Corporation 8300 10th Avenue North Travelers North 6601 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Avenue North Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE 1 -26 -87 -3- c American Bakeries Company 4215 69th Avenue North RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Robert S. Bisanz Brookside Manor Apartments Dave Huang 6400 Girard Avenue North Stu Tufford 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #125 Renewal: Gary and Vicki Zimmerman 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #1 1500 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #2 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #3 5711 Morgan Avenue North Burger Brothers 5927 John Martin Drive Ideal Drug 6800 Humboldt Avenue North M & S Drug Emporium 5900 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Norden, Inc. 1325 Brookdale Center Snyder Brothers Drug Store 1296 Brookdale Center TAXICAB LICENSE Blue & White Cab Co. 2404 Sheridan Avenue N. Town Taxi 2812 University Avenue SE Yellow Taxi Service Corporation 3555 5th Avenue South The motion passed. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving an Agency Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. He noted that this resolution would approve an agreement with MN /DOT. The agreement states if the City becomes eligible for the use of federal aid funds for local road and bridge improvements, the MN /DOT Commissioner is authorized to act as the City's agent for the purpose of procuring those funds. He noted that individual projects would still require individual approval of the City Council. Mayor Pro tem Theis inquired if this was a typical agreement with MN /DOT where MN /DOT would have complete control. The Director of Public Works stated that MN /DOT would only be acting as an agent for the City in order to obtain federal aid for the City. He noted there were no specific projects in mind at this time. Councilmember Hawes stated that he had several concerns regarding the wording in a number of areas of this agreement. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the areas of concern, and the Director of Public Works concluded by noting that the Council would have final approval on all individual projects. He stated that the State would be acting on the City's behalf, but the City would actually initiate each project. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -23 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 -26 -87 -4- 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 Settling Condemnation Appeal and Special Assessments on the Soo Line Railroad Property. He noted adoption of this resolution would authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a negotiated agreement. This agreement would resolve the matter of compensation for right- of -way acquired in relation to the project and to the matter of special assessments for the benefits to the property. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the circumstances leading up to this agreement, and noted that the Soo Line Railroad has agreed to pay the connection charges when and if the property is developed versus a special P p ial assessment against the property. Mayor Pro tem Theis inquired if all other residential property owners were paying connection charges or special assessments. The Director of Public Works stated that the residential customers have been assessed for this project. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -24 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SETTLING CONDEMNATION APPEAL AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON THE SOO LINE RAILROAD PROPERTY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Appropriating Funds for the Completion of Projects Relating to Police Department Remodeling - Phase II Project. He noted this resolution provides funding to cover the cost of incidental items which were not contemplated within the original project budget. The Director of Public Works stated that the memorandum explaining these additions appears to be missing rom the agenda packet. g g p t. He explained that the major portion of this appropriation would be for one scanner motor with remote controls for the hallway booking camera. He noted the estimated cost of this item is $500. He stated that the other items were miniblinds for an office window and two other items which he could not'recall. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -25 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE COMPLETION OF PROJECTS RELATING TO POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING - PHASE II PROJECT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $1,200,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1987A. He then introduced Jerry Shannon from Springsted Inc., who is present this evening to answer any questions the Council might have. He noted there were two small changes which should be made to the resolution. He noted that the date of sale 1 -26 -87 -5- l would be February 23, 1987, and that the bonds themselves would be dated April 1, 1987 instead of March 1, 1987. Councilmember Lhotka stated there was a discrepancy between the resolution and the recommendations submitted by Springsted. He noted that the resolution states there is $1,725,000 in principal outstanding and that in the recommendation it is noted there is $1,825,000 outstanding. Mr. Shannon stated that he would have this discrepancy looked into. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the refunding of the bonds, and Mayor Pro tem Theis stated that he did not understand why the refunding should be done now instead of in 1990, since the City would still be paying 9 %. Mr. Shannon stated that if the refunding was not done at this time interest would be paid on a higher amount of bonds outstanding. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -26 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,200,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1987A The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING The City Manager noted that a public hearing regarding Improvement Project No. 1986 -05, Acquisition of Right -of -Way for Establishment of Grimes Avenue North between Lakebreeze Avenue and the South Line of the North One Half (N1 /2) of Section 10, T118, R21 had been continued from the January 12, 1987 City Council meeting. He noted that this continuation was to allow staff time to seek an extension on the options for the property. The Director of Public Works stated that Normandale Tennis Clubs would not extend the option, and noted that if the Council did not act at this time, Normandale Tennis Clubs would be enlarging g their parkin lot. g Mayor Pro tem Theis inquired if this project were not approved, could Joslyn legally use the land that leads out onto France Avenue as an entrance. The City Manager stated that he doubted if the City could deny Joslyn access from France Avenue. He noted that if the property was developed to the fullest it would mean approximately 2,000 to 2,500 cars per day. Councilmember Hawes inquired if the City Council did not approve this project, would Joslyn be able to demand that the City open up access from Twin Lake Avenue, Lakeview Avenue or Azelia Avenue. The City Manager stated that because of the placement of the slurry lurr y on the property for the contamination it would basically block Lakeview and Azelia Avenues. He noted that the Twin Lake Avenue area is very swampy. He added that by approving this project the City is buying a better alternative. Councilmember Scott stated it appears if the Council approved this project, Joslyn would most likely appeal the special assessment because of the lack of benefit to their property. She added that if Joslyn were to appeal and the courts ruled in Joslyn's favor, the City would be liable for payment of the project with no repayment coming from the property owner. The City Attorney noted that Councilmember Scott's statement was correct, and that if the 1 -26 -87 -6- assessment were appealed there would be a very costly court case which could run an additional $25,000 on top of the acquisition costs. Councilmember Scott inquired if the City is responsible to provide an access to the property. The City Attorney stated that if there was a need for an additional access in the future, the City could use condemnation proceedings to obtain property for an access and the owner would be responsible for repayment. Mayor Pro tem Theis opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Improvement Project No. 1986 -05. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. Mr. Mac Hyde, attorney representing Joslyn Corporation, came forward and stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Council might have. Councilmember Hawes inquired what the width of the access onto France Avenue is. The Director of Public Works stated that it is between 50 and 70 feet. Councilmember Hawes inquired if there were any weight restrictions on France Avenue and if this would help limit access to the property. The Director of Public Works stated there are no weight limits posted at this time, but the Council could impose a weight limit. He noted, however, that a weight limit would not affect the number of passenger cars entering the site. The City Manager noted that this was a difficult situation for both parties involved. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Improvement Project No. 1986 -05, Acquisition of Right -of -Way for Establishment of Grimes Avenue North between Lakeside Avenue and the South Line of the North One Half (N1 12) of Section 10, T118, R21. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve a Resolution Ordering Improvement Project No. 1986 -05. The Director of Public Works inquired if the assessment resolution should also be passed this evening. The City Attorney stated that if all costs for the project are known there would be no reason to wait on the assessment resolution. The Director of Public Works reminded Mayor Pro tem Theis that a roll call vote is required for this resolution. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing resolution, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Pro tem Theis, Councilmembers Hawes and Lhotka. The following voted against the same: Councilmember Scott. The motion failed. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 87003 SUBMITTED BY FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, 73.189 SO. FT. RETAIL STORE ON THE LAND PRESENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE OLD PLITT THEATRE DAYTON'S GARDEN STORE AND GAS STATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 87004 SUBMITTED BY FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES REQUESTING PRELIMINARY R.L.S. APPROVAL TO RESUBDIVIDE THE LAND EAST OF 1 -26 -87 _7_ THE SHINGLE CREEK CULVERT IN THE BROOKDALE COMPLEX INCLUDING THE SITE OF THE PLITT THEATRE, DAYTON'S GARDEN STORE AND GAS STATION The City Manager stated that both these items were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its January 15, 1987 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to pages four through eight of the Planning Commission's January 15, 1987 meeting minutes and the attached informational sheet. He briefly eviewed the two applications an d y PP transparencies pertaining to the site. He noted that this property is zoned C2 and this type of development is a permitted use in the zoning district. Councilmember Scott inquired if there would be a separate turn lane into the development, or if right turns would be made from the traffic lane. The Director of Public Works stated that the County prefers not to add an extra turning lane when the access is only a one way entrance. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the primary access to the site would be off of the Brookdale perimeter road. He added that the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission would be required to review this application at their February meeting. Councilmember Scott inquired if there would be any type of problem with traffic backing up across the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and County Road 10 because of incoming traffic to the new development. The Director of Public Works stated that this area could pose a number of problems, and that it would have to be very carefully reviewed. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that Application No. 87004 would create three tracts of land which would serve the following purposes. Tract A would be the easterly portion of the Dayton's parking lot and the adjacent perimeter road; tract B would be the proposed MainStreet site and tract C would be a portion of the southbound entrance ramp from County Road 10 to Highway 100. He noted there were a number of existing easements and that the City is presently planning a possible water main project through the MainStreet site (tract B). He stated that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of both 'applications, and a public hearing has been scheduled for Planning Commission Application No. 87004. The Director of Planning & Inspection briefly reviewed the 17 conditions which were recommended for approval on Application No. 87003. He then went on to review the five conditions recommended on Application No. 87004 and added that a public hearing has been scheduled this evening for this application. Mayor Pro tem Theis opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 87004 submitted by Federated Department Stores. Councilmember Lhotka inquired where the access points would be during the demolition of the current buildings. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the current access points would be maintained during demolition. Councilmember Hawes stated that he believes it should be the responsibility of the developers or the demolition crew to keep the streets clean in the area. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that this could be made a condition of approval. 1 -26 -87 -8- 1 The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that representatives of the applicant were present this evening and introduced Mary Senkus, an attorney with Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly. Ms. Senkus then introduced Ernie Koehler, Director of Architect and Planning for MainStreet; Tom Cagnolle; and Barb McGuire. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the different types of building materials used for this project and the criteria for site lighting in the development. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the City can only dictate site lighting requirements for those areas that abut residential areas. A discussion then ensued regarding the possibility of opening the creek area which lies underneath the parking lot to join up with the existing trail system. The City Attorney noted that the creek is basically a movable object and that the platting of the property is a key to ownership of the creek. Councilmember Lhotka suggested that Mayor Pro tem Theis poll the Council for their feelings on the issue. Mayor Pro tern Theis asked the Council for their opinions on the issue of opening the creek. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he was totally against this type of project. Councilmember Hawes stated that he does agree with the idea of opening the creek, but he is not sure that now would be an opportune time to do such a project. He stated he felt the issue must be carefully reviewed. Councilmember Scott stated that she felt the cost would be totally prohibitive and that the lengthy review process would not be fair to this applicant. Mayor Pro tem Theis stated that the ownership of the parcel is under the controls of Brookdale Center at this time, and that if any property sales are going to take place this would be a good time to approach the issue. Ms. Senkus stated that these delays could be a great hardship for her client, and noted that Federated Department Stores are only ground leasing one of the parcels not purchasing it. Mayor Pro tem Theis inquired how long it would take staff to project some cost estimates for addressing this issue and the ramifications. The Director of Public Works stated that within two weeks he could have a very rough estimate of the cost, but that it would take several months to develop a total concept for the project. The City Manager noted that this type of project would put Brookdale in the deficit position for parking requirements. The Director of Public Works added that the City does not have an easement for the creek bed. The City Manager stated that his rough estimate this evening would be five to ten million dollars. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that it would be possible for the acquisition costs to far exceed the project costs. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 87004 submitted by Federated Department Stores. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 87003, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building 1 -26 -87 -9- Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The new R.L.S. for the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The storm water purification and detention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 12. The on -site traffic control signery shall be provided in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 13. The location of hydrants and fire lanes on the property shall be subject to approval by the Fire Chief. 14. The plans shall be modified, prior to consideration by the City Council, in the following manner: a) The radius of the entrance drive off County Road 10 as it branches off the front of the building shall be increased (widened) to allow movement of a fire truck through this access to the front of the building. b) Additional trees such as Canada Red Cherries or Choke Cherries (not Russian Olives) shall be provided in the greenstrip adjacent 1 -26 -87 -10- to Highway 100 to provide better screening of the parking lot and loading dock area. c) An additional handicapped ramp shall be provided southeast of the southwest entrance to the building. d) A pedestrian walkway and widened greenstrip for snow storage shall be provided in the area of the first row of parking south of the main entrance drive. e) An additional parking lot light shall be installed at the southwest access to the site in order to provide lighting for both the access and the City's walkway. 15. Plan approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for up to 60 parking spaces (including those referred to in 14d above). The applicant shall execute an agreement prepared by the City Attorney to install said parking spaces upon a determination by the City that they are necessary for the proper functioning of the site. This agreement shall be filed with the title to the property at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 16. Storage of trailers on the site, other than at the loading dock is expressly prohibited. 17. Relocation of the access of County Road 10 is subject to review and approval by Hennepin County. 18. The applicant and his agents or assigns are responsible for the daily cleanup of spilled materials on City streets or private property, and the immediate removal of any material that may constitute a traffic safety problem, related to the demolition or construction associated with this project. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 87004, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall execute an easement for storm detention areas consistent with a drainage and utility plan approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to release of the final R.L.S. for filing. 4. The applicant shall update the following easements as necessary prior i 1 -26 -87 -11- to the issuance of building permits: a) a nonexclusive easement granting the Ground Round site (Tract A, R.L.S. 1430) parking rights to 71 stalls on the new Main Street site, in accordance with City ordinance requirements. b) ingress and egress easement over the perimeter road portion of the proposed Tract A to both the Main Street site and the Ground Round site. c) ingress and egress easement over the proposed Tract B to the Ground Round site. d) relocation of the Northwestern Bell easement. e) City water main proposed through the site. 5. The applicant shall provide topographic and utility information, for the proposed Tract A, including the size and the location of the existing Shingle Creek culvert, prior to final R.L.S. approval. - The motion passed. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:24 p.m. and reconvened at 9 :40 p.m. ON -SALE CLUB LICENSE - DUOOS BROTHERS AMERICAN LEGION POST The City Manager presented the next agenda item, that being, the consideration of a on -sale club license for the Duoos Brothers American Legion Post. He noted this item had been tabled at the January 12, 1987 Council meeting. He added that Mr. Gary Flakne, attorney for the Legion Post, was present this evening. Councilmember Scott inquired if the City staff had the names which coincided with the organizational chart. The City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Scott stated that she would like the Post to keep the City updated on any changes for the organizational charts. Mayor Pro tem Theis inquired as to the number of bartenders for the establishment. Mr. Flakne stated there would be one full -time bartender, one part -time and one person on call. Mayor Pro tem Theis inquired whether all the bartenders were investigated by the Police Department or only the full -time bartender. The City Manager stated that he was unsure of this. Mayor Pro tem Theis stated that he was much more pleased with the information submitted for this evening's meeting than items submitted in the past. Councilmember Lhotka stated that if the City Council does approve the on -sale club license for the Duoos Brothers this evening, it does not mean that the Post and its membership can slack off and go back to their old ways. The City Attorney stated that he would like to address the question raised regarding the bartenders. He noted that the bartenders will be under the supervision of the bar committee chairman. Mr. Flakne added that the chairman 1 -26 -87 -12- t Imo` will be at the Club daily to check the receipts. Mayor Pro tem Theis inquired if a background investigation would be done on the part -time bartenders. The City Attorney stated that according to City ordinance only the Manager of the establishment can be required to have a background investigation completed. However, he noted that the Police Department has conducted background investigations on the members of all the committees. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would hope that those members involved with the latest incident would not be involved in the management of the Club in the future. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve an on -sale club license for the Duoos Brothers American Legion Post effective January 27, 1987. The motion passed. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Center Mediation Project. Councilmember Hawes noted that he had removed this item from the consent agenda because of his close affiliation with the Mediation Project. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -27 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND BROOKLYN CENTER MEDIATION PROJECT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Hawes abstained from the vote. The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Quotation and Awarding Contract for One (1) Seven Gang Mower. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if this `mower would only be used at the golf course and the City Manager responded affirmatively. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -28 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ONE (1) SEVEN GANG MOVER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE CLASS A YEN CHING RESTAURANT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the on -sale intoxicating liquor license Class A for the Yen Ching Restaurant. The motion passed. 1 -26 -87 -13- . 1 ON -SALE SUNDAY INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE - YEN CHING RESTAURANT There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the on -sale Sunday intoxicating liquor license for the Yen Ching Restaurant. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:58 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 1 -26 -87 -14- 7o-.. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1986 -B (POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1986 -02) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1986 -B signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Gem Construction has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING, PHASE II IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -02 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Final Amount Original Contract $ 38,584 Change Order No. 1 5,162 Change Order No. 2 1.253 $ 44,999 2. The value of work performed is equal to the original contract amount plus the two approved Change Orders. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $44,999. 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 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: February 5, 1987 RE: Completion Police Department Remodeling Improvement Project No. 1986 -02, Contract 1986 -B Attached, for consideration by the City Council, is a resolution accepting the work performed in the Police Department Remodeling project. As you know, considerable problems developed during the course of this project, resulting in the need to issue two change orders. Change Order No. 1 covered work required in order to comply to Building Code requirements. Costs under this change order are detailed as follows: Additional masonry work $1,430 Additional gypsum board ceilings 1,111 Rolling fire shutter 1,437 Additional painting 296 Additional finish floor work 50 Insurance and Bond 165 Subtotal $4,489 Contract overhead and profit 673 TOTAL $5,162 Change Order No. 2 covered additional work items required by plan (and specification) changes resulting from "changed conditions" i.e. work scheduling requirements, physical plan changes required due to insufficient or inaccurate information regarding pre- existing conditions, and some additional work items. These are detailed as follows: February 5, 1987 Page 2 Furnish generator to maintain electrical service Add $464 continuity during relocation of transformer Add sprinkler head in closet due to addition of Add $190 closet doors by Addendum Provide new solid core wood door and hardware Add $371 into office area noted as "Office Manager" Re- finish existing wood doors Add $138 Cut down hollow metal door frame to fit under Add $ 90 lintel to room noted as "Fire Chief" Total $ 1,253 It is noted that, while the City's costs were increased by these change orders, the architect also assumed a large share of the responsibility for additional costs, i.e.: - construction costs charged to the City basically represent the additional costs which the City would have paid if the project had been designed that way originally. The architect assumed the responsibility for paying the additional costs incurred as a direct result of contract changes, to the extent that these costs were identifiable. - the City's payments for architect's fees have been limited to the amount originally specified by our contract with him, (i.e. #4,500.00) while his accrued charges to this project were more than double that amount. Despite the severe problems which occurred on this project, it is now completed and it represents a substantial improvement to the Police Department. Accordingly, I recommend approval of the final payment. Resp ctfully submitted, Sy K app Director of Public Works SK: jni 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 City property submitted by the City Clerk at the February 9, 1987 City Council meeting is hereby declared surplus property and is hereby authorized for public sale. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk ' The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being take n P g thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM is TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Patti Page, Administrative Aid DATE: February 5, 1987 SUBJECT: Surplus Property An appropriation was approved in the 1987 Budget for the purchase of new office chairs. These chairs have been ordered and should be delivered within 30 to 60 days. The old chairs should be declared surplus property so that I can start advertising for the sale of these chairs. An ad will be placed in the League of Minnesota Cities monthly publication and I will be notifying the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing group. I will also be contacting companies which buy used office furniture. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 9th day of February, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to various license fees. 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 CHAPTERS 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 21, 23 AND 34 REGARDING VARIOUS LICENSE FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapters 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 21, 23 and 34 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn center are hereby amended in the following manner: Section 1 -103. LICENSE FEES. The license fee for each dog license, each commercial kennel license, each private kennel license, each duplicate license, each renewal license, each impounding penalty, and the late penalty described herein shall be as set forth [in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances] by City Council resolution 1. Late Penalty If any license required hereunder is obtained while the dog is impounded by the City, or after the required licensing period has commenced, there shall be added to the regular license fee, a late license penalty as [provided in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances] set forth by City Council resolution provided, however, that any person who acquires a dog after the start of a license year, or any person who owns, keeps, harbors, or has custody of a dog at the time of becoming a resident of the City, shall be ;allowed 30 days to secure a license, without incurring any late license penalty. Section 1 -105 APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND ISSUANCE OF LICENSES. Applications for all licenses required by this ordinance shall be made to the City Clerk. 3. Replacement of Lost Dog License If any dog license tag is lost or stolen, the applicant may obtain a new tag by surrendering the license payment receipt and by paying the charge for a duplicate license as [provided in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances] set forth by City Council resolution 7. Renewal of License A copy of the private kennel license or commercial kennel license shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Inspection who shall maintain a register of kennel licenses. Subject to any time limitation set by the City Council, the license shall be valid for a period of one year and until October 1 of the then current calendar year, and shall be renewable on October 1 of each year thereafter by the City Clerk upon payment of a renewal license fee set forth [in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances] by Cif Council resolution only in the event no complaint regarding the kennel's operation has been received during the license year. In the event that no ORDINANCE NO. revocation of the license is made or contemplated b the City Council y y the license shall be renewable as set forth in this subdivision. Section 1 -117. REDEMPTION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS. Any animal may be redeemed from the pound by the owner upon payment of the following: 4. An impounding penalty as [provided in Chapter 23 of City Ordinances] set forth by City Council resolution [ Section 5 -501. SCOPE. The provisions of this ordinance contemplates a system of electrical circuits employing a direct circuit communications system (telephone lines) between signaling devices at the protected premises and signal receiving equipment located at the municipal Fire Department remote station. [ Section 5 -502. DEFINITIONS. As used herein, unless otherwise indicated, the following terms are defined as follows: a. Private Fire Alarm System Any fire alarm system owned and installed by any person, partnership or corporation and wholly used in or on the premises of the owner. b. Transmitting Communication Svstem The communications system which transmits a fire alarm signal from the protected premises to the municipal Fire Department. The system shall be leased from the Northwestern Bell Telephone Company at the expense of the protected premises. C. Remote Station The municipal Fire Department station at which signal receiving equipment is located and maintained by the City of Brooklyn Center. d. Person. Any person, partnership, firm or corporation. [ Section 5 -503. ESTABLISHMENT OF REMOTE STATION FIRE ALARM SYSTEM. There is hereby established a remote station fire alarm protective signaling system in the City of Brooklyn Center. The remote station shall be located in City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. [ Section 5 -504. CONNECTION TO REMOTE STATION FIRE ALARM SYSTEM. Any person desiring to connect a private fire alarm system to the municipal remote station shall: a. Submit for inspection by the City Manager and municipal Fire Chief full and complete plans of the private fire alarm system. b. Obtain from the City Manager a permit, after paying an annual permit fee at the rate of $12 per month for connection to the municipal remote station. [ Section 5 -505. OPERATION OF PRIVATE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM. All private fire ORDINANCE NO. alarm systems shall be installed, operated and maintained in full conformance with the current standards set forth by the National Fire Protection Association.] Section 7 -103 REFUSE HAULERS REGULATIONS. B. License Procedure. The provisions of Sections 23 -001 through 23 -013 of the City Ordinances, [including the license fee and penalty provisions thereunder,] shall apply to all licenses required by this ordinance and to the holders of such license. The annual license fee shall be as set forth by City Council resolution The term of each license hereunder shall be from July 1 through June 30. The applications for license or renewal of license shall 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 require. Applicants for licenses, after July 1, 1970, to provide routine weekly collection and removal of refuse from residences shall provide as required under this ordinance, complete collection of all refuse which normally results from day -to -day use of this type of property except furnishings, appliances, building or construction wastes and similar bulky wastes for which individuals must make special arrangements. The Health Authority may require vehicle inspection before processing the license application. Applications for license hereunder shall`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 such applicant meeting the requirements of this ordinance. Section 7 -205 LICENSE FEES. The annual license fee for a public swimming pool shall be as set forth [in Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution Section 7 -501 LICENSE REQUIRED. No person, firm or corporation shall hereafter engage in the business of cleaning or pumping cesspools or septic tanks within the City of Brooklyn Center unless they shall be licensed by the City Council which license shall be granted to any applicant therefor on compliance with the following: A. The applicant shall pay a [twenty -five dollar ($25)] license fee, as set forth by City Council resolution and licenses shall run from May 1 to April 30 of the following year. ORDINANCE NO. Section 7 -502 PERMIT REQUIRED. Before commencing nd cleaning or g g pumping operations of any cesspool or septic tank within the City of Brooklyn Center, a permit shall first be obtained from the City offices. A permit fee, [of three dollars ($3)] as set forth by City Council resolution shall be paid, and the permit shall state the premises at which the septic tank or cesspool is located and the estimated gallonage required to be discharged from said cleaning or pumping operations. The permit holder shall thereupon be authorized to discharge the contents from the pumping operations at a designated place lying within the City of Minneapolis. Section 7 -606, LICENSING REGULATIONS AND FEES. License application and possession is subject to provisions of Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances, Sections 23 -001 through Section 23 -013, The annual license fee for a lodging establishing shall be as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution Section 12 -902, LICENSE FEES. [The following]L[1]icense fees, as set forth by City Council resolution shall be due 60 days prior to the license expiration date; in the cases of new unlicensed dwellings, license fees shall be due upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy; in the cases of licensing periods of less than two years, license fees shall be prorated monthly. [1. For each single family dwelling rented, the biennial license fee shall be $12. [2. For the first unit rented within a two - family dwelling, the biennial license fee shall be $12, for the second unit $6. [3. For each multiple family dwelling, the biennial license fee shall be $15 per building, plus $4 per dwelling unit.] Section 21 -1,04. TAXICAB FEE. The applicant applying for a taxicab license shall pay an annual license fee [of $25] as set forth by City Council resolution for each vehicle to be so licensed. Section 23 -010 LICENSE FEES. The fees for the various licenses shall be as [hereinafter stated, not withstanding other ordinance provisions regarding the specific fee] set forth by City Council resolution Fee, (annual un- less otherwise [ Tyne of License Required by Section License Expires stated Cesspool Cleaning 7 -501 April 30 $ 25 Mechanical System 23 -1500 April 30 36 Housemoving 23 -1501 April 30 36 ORDINANCE NO. Pool & Billiards 23 -201 Dec. 31 25 /table Nursing Home 23 -1408 Dec. 31 35 /under 50 beds 50/50 or more Service Station 23 -402 Dec. 31 First Pump 40 Each Additional Pump 5 Cigarette 23 -101 Dec. 31 12 Lodging Establishment 7 -602 Dec. 31 33/1 -15 units 41/16 -35 units- 106/36-100 units 138/101 units or more Bakery Food Vehicle 8- 101.01 Feb. 15 25 /vehicle Catering Food Vehicle 8- 101.01 Feb. 15 First Vehicle 100 Each additional vehicle 10 Food Establishment 8- 101.01 March 31 Basic License * *100 ** *200 Each added facility 10 20 Itinerant Food Establishment 8- 101.01 Special First Day 25 Each additional day 10 Readily Perishable Food Vehicle 8- 101.01 Feb. 15 30 Readily Perishable Food Fleet 8- 101.03 Feb. 15 150 Vending Machine - Vendor 8 -Sec. 5 Feb. 15 Bulk Vendor 25 Nonperishable Vendor (excludes bottled & canned soft 8 plus $4 per drink vending machines) machine location Perishable or Readily 20 plus $7 Perishable Vendor per machine location ORDINANCE NO. Combination Perishable- 28 us a l nonperishable Vendor P p for priate :fee for each machine location Special Food Handling 8- 101.04 Feb. 15 30 Sign Hanger's License 34 -160.2 April 30 40 Motor Vehicle Dealer 23 -1202 April 30 Class A 150 Class B 75 Indoor Swimming Pool (privately owned) 7 -201 April 30 135 Outdoor Swimming Pool (privately owned) 7 -201 April 30 75 Burglar Alarm Permit Resolution 67 -341 May 15 5 /month Firm Alarm Permit 5 -501 May 15 12 /month Amusement Device 23 -2101 June 30 Operator 50 /machine Kiddie Ride 10 /ride Vendor 150 Garbage and /or rubbish Collection 7 -103 June 30 25 /company 15 /vehicle Dog License 1 -102 and License shall be Male or Female 1 -103 valid for the 5 duration of the Neutered Male effective period 3 of the dog's Spayed Female rabies vaccine 3 (upon pre - sentation of proof thereof) Delinquent Dog License 1 -103 N.A. 15 Duplicate Dog License 1 -103 N.A. 2 Commercial Kennel 1 -102 and October 1 (subject 50 together License & Renewal License 1 -103 to any time limita- with reimburse- tion set_by the ment for legal, City Council planning, engineering, • and admin- istration costs ORDINANCE NO. Private Kennel 1 -102 and October l (subject 30 together License & Renewal License 1 -103 to any time limita- with reim- tion set by the bursement for City Council legal, planning, engineering, and admin- istrative costs Impounding Penalty 1 -103 N.A. 25 Taxi 21 -102 Dec. 31 25 /vehicle Courtesy Bench 23 -901 Dec. 31 12 Bowling Alley 23- 209.01 Dec. 31 10 /alley Bulk Storage 23 -404 Dec. 31 5 Coin Operated Dry Cleaner 23 -1001 Dec. 31 25 Public Dance License 23 -301 Dec. 31 100 Christmas Tree Sales 23 -1301 Special p ial 30 Massage Parlors 23 -1706 Dec. 31 3,000 Masseur or Masseuse 23 -1707 Dec. 31 50 Saunas or Sauna Baths 23 -1604 Dec. 31 3,000 Rap Parlors, Conversation Parlors, Adult Encounter Groups, Adult Sensitivity Groups, Escort Services, Model Services, Dancing Services, or Hostess Services 23 -1804 Dec. 31 1,500 Gambling Devices 23 -1903 Dec. 31 Class A 5 Class B 25 Bingo 23 -603 Dec. 31 Class A 5 Class B 25 **with an approved and implemented Quality Assurance Plan as defined in Section 8- 100.30 **without a Quality Assurance Plan] ORDINANCE NO. Section 23-011. FEES PRORATED. Exce t for intoxicating t [ T ]he fee for initial licenses granted after the expiration date, set forth City Council resolution [in Section 23 -010] shall be prorated on a monthly basis, with the fee required being in the same proportion to the annual fee as the unexpired term of the license stands to the full license period, but in no instance shall the prorated fee be less than $5. Section 23 -012 LATE FEES. 23- 012.01. All licenses shall be renewed annually prior to the expiration date set forth [in Section 23 -010] by City Council resolution In the event the applicant fails to renew his license before it expires, a fee of 15 percent of the annual license fee for each week or portion thereof that the renewal is overdue shall be added to the license fee, to a maximum of 45 percent of the annual fee, provided, however, that the penalty clause shall not apply to construction licenses. CIGARETTES Section--23-103 LICENSE FEE. The fee for every such license shall be [twelve dollars ($12) per year or unexpired portion thereof] as set forth by City Council resolution Every such license shall expire on December 31 next after its issuance. POOL TABLES Section 23- 201-01 . LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall own or keep any Pool, billiard or bumper pool table that is used by the public or for which a charge is made for the use thereof within the limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, without first obtaining from the City Council of said City a license therefor. The annual license fee for a pool, billiard or bumper pool table shall be as set forth by City Council resolution [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances]. BOWLING ALLEYS Section 23-209.04 LICENSE FEE. The annual fee for each bowling alley or lane located in the property described in the application shall be as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution PUBLIC DANCING Section 23 -301 LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall conduct or permit public dancing in any public establishment within which intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating malt liquor is licensed to be sold or consumed unless a public dance license shall have been issued by the City Council. Licenses shall be issued for one (1) year periods expiring December 31. The annual fee for a public dance license shall be as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution FILLING STATIONS Section 23 -404 LICENSE FEE. The annual fee for each filling station license shall be as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by_City ORDINANCE NO. Council resolution and shall be paid to the clerk with the application for the license. The annual fee for the storage of such liquids as described in Section 23 -401 including the selling and dispensing the same by any other method than by pumps, shall also be as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution BICYCLES [ Section 23 -501 LICENSES REQUIRED. No person shall ride or use a bicycle upon any public street, highway, boulevard or alley in the City of Brooklyn Center unless the bicycle shall be registered and licensed in the name of the actual owner as herein provided.. [ Section 23 -502 INFORMATION REQUIRED. Every owner of a bicycle shall register with the City Clerk his name and address, the name of the manufacturer of his bicycle, its number, style and general description. The City Council can deputize other persons to issue licenses in receipt for payment of the license fees on behalf of the clerk. [ Section 23 -503 _FORM OF LICENSE. a. The City Clerk shall maintain at the City Hall suitable records of registrations under this ordinance. On receipt of the license fee herein provided for, he shall provide a suitable identification tag upon which shall be stamped or printed suitable distinguishing letters or numbers. The owner shall affix and keep affixed to the bicycle for which the tag is issued, the original identification tag, and shall keep such tag clean and visible at all times. The City Clerk may, in addition, cause to be imprinted or stamped on the bicycle a suitable registration number, and it shall be unlawful to remove or deface such number. b. No bicycle shall be registered which is in unsafe mechanical condition. The City Clerk shall have authority, upon the recommendation of the Juvenile Court of Hennepin County, to suspend the registration of, and remove the identification tag from, any bicycle operated contrary to any State law or City ordinance or operated while in unsafe mechanical condition, such suspension and removal to continue for a period not to exceed ten (10) days, provided that such registration shall not-be reinstated or such identification tag be replaced while such bicycle is in unsafe condition. Such suspension and removal shall be in addition to other penalties provided hereunder. [- Section 23 -504 FEE. The fee for the license required by this ordinance shall be two dollars ($2). Such license shall be valid as long as the bicycle remains _the property of the licensee. Whenever ownership is transferred to another resident of the City a new license shall be obtained by the transferee within five (5) days after transfer of ownership. ORDINANCE NO. [ Section 23 -505. LOSS OF LICENSE TAGS. Tags shall not be transferred from one bicycle to another and no person shall attach to any bicycle a tag which was not issued for such bicycle. Upon the loss of a license tag, the City Clerk upon satisfactory evidence of such loss and payment of a fee of seventy -five cents shall issue an appropriate new tag. It shall be unlawful for any unauthorized person to remove or destroy a license tag on a bicycle.] BINGO [ Section 23 -600 ADOPTION BY REFERENCE. The regulatory provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 349.11 to and including Section 349.23 are hereby adopted by reference as a Bingo Ordinance, regulating and strictly licensing the operation of bingo games by certain licensed organizations and are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein. [ Section 23 -601. LICENSE REQUIRED. No person, except a fraternal, religious, veterans or nonprofit organization governed by Minnesota Statutes Section 290.05, which organization has been in existence for at least three years, has at least 30 present, active members, who have been members for at least six months and whose conditions of membership are duly fulfilled, shall operate, conduct or participate in bingo or bingo occasions nor have any interest in the operation, conduct or participation in bingo or bingo occasions nor possess bingo cards, bingo numbers, bingo accouterments or bingo paraphernalia. No fraternal, religious, veterans or other nonprofit organization as described herein, shall operate, conduct or participate in bingo or bingo occasions or have any interest in the operation, conduct or participation of or in bingo or bingo occasions or possess bingo cards, bingo numbers, bingo accouterments or bingo paraphernalia without first being duly and lawfully licensed as set forth herein. There shall be a class A bingo license and a class B bingo license, eligibility for which shall be determined by the annual gross receipts, actual or projected, of the organization's bingo operation. A class A license must be' obtained by organizations whose annual gross receipts, actual or projected, as determined by the City Council are less than $1,500. A class B license must be obtained by organizations whose annual recei g actual ross is P or projected, as determined by the City Council are equal to or exceed $1,500. If the annual gross receipts of an organization holding a class A license exceed the maximum permitted under said class A license, that organization must then apply for, pay the fees for and be issued a class B license in the future. [ Section 23 -602. CONTENTS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE. Application for a license shall be made only n y the forms provided by the City Manager. Four complete copies of the application must be submitted to the City Manager's Office containing the address and legal description of the property to be licensed, the name, address and telephone number of the owner, lessee, if any, and the bingo manager whose name shall be set forth in the application and the name, address, and telephone number of at least two persons of good moral character who shall be residents of Hennepin County, who may be called upon to attest to the applicant's and manager's character. The application must also state whether the applicant and bingo manager have ever been convicted of a crime or offense other than traffic offense and, if so state complete and ORDINANCE NO. accurate information as to the time, lace and nature P of such crime or offense including the disposition thereof. The application further must list the names and addresses of all creditors of the applicant, owner, lessee, and bingo manager insofar as and regarding credit which has been extended for the purposes of constructing, equipping, maintaining, operating or furnishing bingo, bingo accouterments, bingo paraphernalia or bingo occasions. If the application is made on behalf of a corporation, joint business venture, partnership or any legally constituted business association, it shall submit along with its application, accurate and complete business records showing the name and addresses of all individuals having an interest in the business, including creditors furnishing credit for the establishment, acquisition, maintenance or furnishing of any bingo games, bingo occasions, bingo paraphernalia or their accouterments and, in the case of a corporation, the names and addresses of all officers, general managers, members of the Board of Directors as well as any creditors who have extended credit for the acquisition, maintenance of furnishing of bingo games, bingo occasions or bingo paraphernalia. [ Section 23 -603 LICENSE FEES, LICENSE INVESTIGATIONS AND LICENSE YEARS. The annual license fee for a class A license is $5 and the fee for investigation for the purposes of issuing this license is $5. The annual license fee for a class B license is $25 and the fee for investigation for the purposes of issuing this license is $50. The license fee and fee for the investigation of issuance of a license shall be paid when the application is filed. In the event that the application is denied or in the event that the license, once issued, is revoked, canceled or surrendered, no part of the annual license fee or fee for the investigation for the issuance of a license shall be returned to the applicant unless by expressed action of the City Council. Only one license shall be granted to each organization for each year. The licensee shall display the license in a prominent place on the licensed premises at all times. Bingo games, bingo occasions, bingo numbers, cards, accouterments and paraphernalia shall be kept, maintained, operated or conducted by licensed organizations only upon the premises which it owns or leases. A license, unless revoked, suspended or canceled, is for the calendar year or part thereof for which it has been issued. The fee for the investigation for issuance of a license must be tendered with each new application for a license and must also be paid at any time when there is a proposed change of ownership, change of bingo manager or reapplication for a license wherein additional or different parties other than the original licensee, parties and bingo manager are proposing to be licensed. All licenses granted herein are nontransferable. The City Council shall act upon a license application within 180 days from the date of application, but shall not issue a license until at least 30 days after the date of application. [ Section 23 -604. GRANTING OR DENIAL OF LICENSES. License application shall be reviewed by the Police Department, Planning and Inspection Department and such other departments as the City Manager shall deem necessary. The review shall include an inspection of the premises covered by the application to determine whether the premises conform to all applicable code requirements. Thereafter, licenses shall be recommended for approval or denial by the City Manager to the City Council subject to the provisions of this ordinance. Any appeal shall be before the City Council Licenses permitting the operation, ORDINANCE NO. conduct or use of bingo games or bingo occasions or the keeping g g g p g or possession of bingo numbers, cards, devices, accouterments or paraphernalia are nonrenewable and application must be made each year for a license, permitting and allowing the conduct or operation of bingo games and bingo occasions and the possession or use of bingo accouterments, paraphernalia, numbers and the like for the succeeding year. Licenses granted herein are nontransferable. [ Section 23 -605. CONDITIONS GOVERNING ISSUANCE. 1. No license shall be issued if the applicant or any of its owners, managers, employees, agents, or other interested parties are persons of bad repute. 2. Licenses shall be issued only if the applicant and all of its owners, managers, employees, agent or interested parties are free of convictions for offenses which involve moral turpitude or which relate directly to such person's ability, capacity or fitness to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of the licensed activity. 3. Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have not within one year, prior to the date of application, been denied licensure, have had a license revoked, canceled or suspended in or by any community or political subdivision or the State of Minnesota or whose owners, managers or interested parties have not been similarly denied, revoked or suspended. 4. Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have fully and truthfully answered all of the information requested in the application who have paid the license fee fully and the fee for investigation and have cooperated fully and truthfully with` the City in the review of the application. 5. Licenses may be granted only in complete conformity with all of the Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. 6. Licenses shall be issued only to a fraternal, religious, veterans or other nonprofit organization which organization has been in existence for at least three years and has at least 30 present, active members, whose membership dues are fully paid and who have been members for at least six months. 7. Licenses shall be granted only where the licensed premises meet the safety, sanitary and building code requirements of the City. 8. A license shall not be granted where the granting of a license would be inconsistent with the comprehensive development p plans with the Cit y i or would otherwise have a detrimental effect upon other property or properties in the vicinity. ORDINANCE NO. [ Section 23 -606. RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS. 1. The licensee, the bingo manager and other persons in its employ, agency, or persons with an interest in such business shall comply with all applicable ordinances, regulations and laws of the City of Brooklyn Center, the State of Minnesota and the United States government. 2. The applicant shall designate a person to be bingo manager who shall be responsible for the conduct of the business. Such person shall remain responsible for the conduct of bingo games, bingo occasions, bingo cards, numbers, accouterments and paraphernalia and their operation until another suitable person has been designated in writing as the bingo manager, an investigation fee and application for a change of manager has been filed and the proposed successor to the bingo manager shall have been approved. In all cases, the licensee shall properly notify the Police Department in writing of any such proposed change, indicating the address and name of the new bingo manager and the effective date of such proposed change. 3. The operation or conduct of bingo games or bingo occasions is not permitted between midnight and 8 :00 a.m. of the succeeding day. 4. The licensee, bingo manager or their agents, shall permit and allow the inspection of the premises and the operation of the bingo games and bingo occasions by any and all appropriate City officials. 5. Violation of the terms and provisions of this ordinance may be cause for `the revocation, suspension, cancellation or nonissuance of other licenses issued by the City to the licensee. 6. Upon demand by any police officer, any person employed in or by any licensed premises shall identify himself by giving his true legal name, correct address and furnishing suitable identification therefor. 7. No natural person under 18 years of age shall be employed in the operation of the bingo games or bingo occasions. [ Section 23 -607 REVOCATION, CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION OF LICENSE. The license may be revoked, suspended, canceled or nongranted by the City Council upon recommendation of the City Manager by showing that the licensee, its owners, bingo manager, employees or agents or any of its interested parties have engaged in any of the following conduct: 1. Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing of a license. ORDINANCE NO. 2. Habitual drunkenness or intemperance in the use of drugs, g including but not limited to use of prohibited substances defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 152 or Brooklyn Center Ordinances Chapter 19 -1120. 3. Conduct inimical to the interests of the public health, safety, welfare or morals. 4. Engaging in any conduct or being convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude or permitting or allowing others to so engage in said conduct or failing to prevent such conduct. 5. Failure to fully comply with any of the requirements of this ordinance or the failure to comply with any requirements of the laws or ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center, State of Minnesota or United States government. 6. Engaging in any conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal to issue a license under Section 23 -605. The licensee may appeal such suspension, revocation, cancellation or failure to license to the City Council. The City Council shall consider the appeal at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on or after 10 days from the service of the notice of appeal on the City Manager. At the conclusion of the hearing the Council may order: 1. A revocation, suspension or cancellation of or denial of the license. 2. That the revocation, suspension or cancellation of or failure to grant the license be lifted and that the certificate be 'returned to the licensee. 3. The City Council may base the revocation, suspension, cancellation or other action with regard to the license upon any additional terms, conditions and stipulations which they may, in its sole discretion, impose. [ Section 23 -608. SEPARABILITY. Every section, provision or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part to the extent that if any section, provision or part of the ordinance shall be held invalid, such holding shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part thereof. [ Section 23 -609. PENALTIES Whoever does any act forbidden by this ordinance or omits or fails to do any act required by this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction therefor, by lawful authority, be punished by a fine not to exceed $700 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or both, together with the costs of prosection. Each day that a violation exists constitutes a separate and distinct violation. ORDINANCE N0. [ Section 23 -610. LIABILITY FOR THE CRIMES OF ANOTHER. Every person who commits or attempts to commit, conspires to commit or aids and abets in the commission of any act constituting a violation of this ordinance or any act, which constitutes an omission and, therefore, a violation of this ordinance, whether individually or in connection with one or more persons or as a principal, agent or accessory, shall be guilty of such offense and every person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly or willfully induces, causes, coerces, requires, permits or directs another to violate any other provisions of this chapter is likewise guilty of such offense.] BENCHES ON PUBLIC WALKS AND WAYS Section 23 -901. LICENSE REQUIREMENTS Any person, firm or corporation desiring to place and maintain one or more courtesy benches for the convenience of persons waiting for street cars and buses at any place in the City of Brooklyn Center, upon the public streets of the City, may be granted a license therefor upon the following conditions: C. Each application shall be accompanied by an inspection fee [of two dollars ($2)] as set forth by City Council resolution, payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for each such bench. d. f I the application be granted, an additional license fee as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution shall be paid to the City of Brooklyn Center for each bench at the time the license is issued. COIN - OPERATED AND SELF - SERVICE DRY CLEANING MACHINES Section 23 -1003 LICENSE FEE. The annual fee for each license shall be [$25 per each calendar year] as set forth by City Council resolution and shall expire on the 31st day of December following date of issue. SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLES Section 23 -1206 LICENSE FEES. The fee for a Class A license shall be [$150 per year for each licensee] as set forth by Council resolution The fee for a Class B license shall be [$75 per year for each licensee] as set forth by City Council resolution SALE OF CHRISTMAS TREES Section 23 -1302 APPLICATION. The application for license for selling Christmas trees shall be made to the City Clerk and shall be accompanied by a seasonal fee as set forth [in Section 23 -010) by City Council resolution The license will expire on January 5 of the year following its issuance. A separate license shall be required for each place of sale. i NURSING HOMES AND BOARDING CARE HOMES ORDINANCE NO. Section 23 -1408 LICENSE FEES. The fee for a nursing ome or boarding g care home license shall be [$35 per year for those with less than 50 beds and $50 per year for those with 50 or more beds] as set forth by City Council resolution Section 23 -1500 MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall install, alter, reconstruct, or repair any portion of a building mechanical system consisting of heating, ventilating comfort cooling, or refrigeration equipment, including any gas piping incidental thereto, without first having procured a license therefor from the City of Brooklyn Center. Licenses shall be issued only to individuals or contractors who demonstrate an understanding of the laws and regulations and techniques relating to the installation and maintenance of building mechanical systems. The annual license fee shall be as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution Licenses shall expire on the last day of April each year. Section 23 -1501 HOUSE MOVING CONTRACTORS LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall move, remove, or raze any building within Brooklyn Center without first having procured a license therefor from the [City of Brooklyn Center] State of Minnesota [Licenses shall be issued only to individuals or contractors who demonstrate qualifications and knowledge regarding such work and who can furnish proof of insurance relating to such work. The annual license fee shall be as set forth in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances. Licenses shall expire on the last day of April each year.] a. Permit required. No licensed person within Brooklyn Center shall move, remove, or raze any building within Brooklyn Center without first applying for and obtaining a permit from the Building Official. The applicant for a permit shall furnish the Building Official such information as the Building Official deems necessary and shall conform to such reasonable regulations as the Building Official may establish. The application shall be accompanied by a permit fee [in the amount of $25] as set forth by City Council resolution SAUNAS OR SAUNA BATHS Section 23 -1604. LICENSE FEE, LICENSE INVESTIGATION AND LICENSE YEAR. The annual license fee and an investi ation fee for the Purposes of issuing _a license shall be as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution [and an investigation fee for the purposes of issuing a license is $1,500]. The license fee and fee for the investigation of the license shall be paid when the application is filed. In the event that the application is denied or in the event that the license once issued, is revoked, canceled or surrendered, no part of the annual license fee or fee for the investigation for the issuance of a license shall be returned to the applicant unless by express action of the City Council. A separate license shall be obtained each year for each place of business. The licensee shall display the license on a prominent place in the licensed premises at all times. A license, unless revoked, is for the calendar year or a part thereof for which it has been issued. The fee for the investigation for issuance of a license must be tendered with each new application for a license and must also be paid at any ORDINANCE NO. time when there is a proposed change of ownership or reapplication for a license wherein additional or different parties other than the original licensee and parties are proposing to be licensed. All licenses granted herein are nontransferable. MASSAGE PARLORS Section 23 -1706. LICENSE FEE, LICENSE INVESTIGATION FEE AND LICENSE YEAR. The annual license fee and an _ investigation fee for the purposes of issuing a license shall be as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution [and an investigation fee for the purposes of issuing a license is $1,500]. The license fee and fee for the investigation of the license shall be paid when the application is filed. In the event that the application is denied or in the event that the license, once issued, is revoked, canceled or surrendered, no part of the annual license fee or fee for investigation for the issuance of a license shall be returned to the applicant unless by express action, of the City Council. A separate license shall be obtained each year for each place of business. The licensee shall display the license on a prominent place in the licensed premises at all times. A license unless revoked, is for the calendar year or part thereof for which it has been issued. The fee for the investigation for issuance of a license must be tendered with each new application for a license and must also be paid at any time when there is a proposed change of ownership or reapplication for a license wherein additional or different parties other than the original licensee and interested parties are proposing to be licensed. A license for the operation of a massage parlor is nontransferable. MASSEUR OR MASSEUSE Section 23 -1707 CERTIFICATE FEE, CERTIFICATE INVESTIGATION FEE AND CERTIFICATE YEAR. The annual certificate fee and an investigation fee for the purposes of issuing a certificate shall be as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution and an investigation fee for the purposes of issuing a certificate is one hundred ($100) dollars]. The certificate fee and fee for the investigation of the certificate shall be paid when the application is filed. In the event that the application is denied or in the event that the certificate, once issued, is revoked, cancelled or surrendered, no part of the annual certificate fee or fee for the investigation for the issuance of a certificate shall be returned to the applicant unless by express action of the City Council. A separate certificate shall be obtained each year. The certificate holder shall display the certificate on a prominent place in the premises of the certificate holder at all times. A certificate, unless revoked, is for the calendar year or part thereof for which it has been issued. The fee for the investigation for issuance of a certificate must be tendered with each new application for a certificate and must also be paid at any time when there is a proposed change of ownership or reapplication for a certificate wherein additional or different parties other than the original certificate holder are proposing certification. A certificate permitting the holder thereof to practice massage is nontransferable. ! RAP PARLORS, CONVERSATION PARLORS, ADULT ENCOUNTER GROUPS, i ORDINANCE NO. "�■r ADULT SENSITIVITY GROUPS, ESCORT SERVICES MODEL SERVICES, DANCING SERVICES, OR HOSTESS SERVICE Section 23 -1804 LICENSE FEE, LICENSE INVESTIGATION AND LICENSE YEAR. The annual license fee and an investigation fee for the purposes of issuing, a license [is $1,500] shall be as set forth by City Council resolution [and the annual fee for the investigation for the purposes of issuing a license is $1,500]. The license fee and fee for the investigation of the license shall be paid when the application is filed. In the event that the application is denied or in the event that the license once issued is revoked, canceled or surrendered, no part of the annual license fee or fee for the investigation for the issuance of a license shall be returned to the applicant unless by express action of the City Council. A separate license shall be obtained each year for each place of business. The licensee shall display the license on a prominent place in the licensed premises at all times. A license, unless revoked, is for the calendar year or a part thereof for which it has been issued. The fee for the investigation for issuance of a license must be tendered with each new application for a license and must also be paid at any time when there is a proposed change of ownership or reapplication for a license wherein additional or different parties other than the original licensee and parties are proposing to be licensed. All licenses granted herein are nontransferable. GAMBLING DEVICES [ Section 23 -1900 ADOPTED BY REFERENCE. The regulatory provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 349.26, Minnesota Statutes Section 349.30 through and including Minnesota Statutes Section 349.39, Minnesota Statutes Section 609.75, and Minnesota Statutes Section 609.761, regulating and licensing the operation of certain devices by licensed organizations, are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth. [ Section 23 -1901 LICENSE REQUIRED. No person, except a fraternal, religious, veterans or other nonprofit organization covered by Minnesota Statutes Section 349.26, Subd. 9, which organization has been in existence for at least three years and has at least 15 present, active members, all of whose membership dues are fully paid and who have been members for at least six months, shall possess, keep, use, control or operate any gambling device or have any interest in the operation, possession, use or control of gambling devices or conduct or operate a raffle or have any interest in the operation or conduct of a raffle including possession of raffle apparatus or sale of tickets. No fraternal, religious, veterans or other nonprofit organization as described herein, shall possess, keep, use, control or operate any gambling devices or conduct or operate a raffle or have any interest in the operation or conduct of a raffle including possession of raffle apparatus or the sale of tickets without being duly and lawfully licensed as set forth herein. There shall be a class A gambling license and a class B gambling license, eligibility for which shall be determined by the annual gross receipts, actual or projected, of the organization's gambling operation. A class A license must be obtained by organizations whose annual gross receipts, actual or projected, as determined by the City Council are less than $3,000. A class B license must be obtained by organizations whose annual gross receipts, actual or projected, as determined by ORDINANCE NO. the City Council are equal to or exceed $3,000. If the annual ross receipts g p of an organization holding a class A license exceed the maximum permitted under said class A license, that organization must then apply for, pay the fees for, and be issued a class B license in the future. [ Section 23 -1902 CONTENTS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE. Application for a license shall be made only on the forms provided by the City Manager. Four complete copies of the application must be submitted to the City Manager's office containing the address and legal description of the property to be licensed, the name, address and telephone number of the owner, lessee, if any, and the gambling manager whose name shall be set forth in the application and the name, address and telephone number of at least t two ersons of o0 p good moral character who shall be residents of Hennepin County, who may be called upon to attest to the applicant's or manager's character. The application must also state whether the applicant and gambling manager has ever been convicted of a crime or offense other than a traffic offense and, if so, state complete and accurate information as to the time, place and nature of such crime or offense including the disposition thereof. The application further must list the names and addresses of all creditors of the applicant, owner, lessee, gambling manager insofar as and regarding credit which has been extended for the purposes of constructing, equipping, maintaining, operating or furnishing gambling devices or their accouterments. If the application is made on behalf of a corporation, joint business venture, partnership or any legally constituted business association, it shall submit along with its application accurate and complete business records showing the names and addresses of all individuals having an interest in the business, including creditors furnishing credit for the establishment, acquisition, maintenance or furnishing of any gambling devices, gambling paraphernalia or their accouterments and, in the case of a corporation, the names and addresses of all officers, general managers, members of the Board of Directors, as well as any creditors who have extended credit for the acquisition, maintenance or furnishing of gambling devices. All applicants shad furnish to the City, along with their application, complete and accurate documentation establishing the interest of the applicant and any other person having an interest in the operation, keeping, possession, use or control of gambling devices, raffle apparatus or raffle tickets. [ Section 23- 1903. LICENSE FEES, LICENSE INVESTIGATIONS & LICENSE YEARS. The annual license fee for a class A license is $5 and the fee for investigation for the purposes of issuing this license is $5. The annual license fee for a class B license is $25 and the fee for investigation for the purposes of issuing this license is $50. The license fee and fee for the investigation for issuance of a license shall be paid when the application is filed. In the event that the application is denied or in the event that the license once issued is revoked, canceled or surrendered, no part of the annual license fee or fee for the investigation for the issuance of a license shall be returned to the applicant unless by express action of the City Council. Only one license shall be granted to each organization for each year. The licensee shall display the license in a prominent place on the licensed premises at all times. Gambling devices, raffles and all apparatus related to either shall be kept, maintained, operated or conducted by licensed organizations only upon the premises which it owns or leases except that tickets for raffles may be sold off the premises. A license, ORDINANCE N0, unless revoked, suspended or canceled nceled is for the calendar year or part thereof for which it has been issued. The fee for the investigation for issuance of a license must be tendered with each new application for a license and must also be paid at any time when there is a proposed change of ownership, change of gambling manager or reapplication for a license wherein additional or different parties other than the original licensee, parties and gambling manager are proposing to be licensed. All licenses granted herein are nontransferable. The City Council shall act upon a license application within 180 days from the date of application, but shall not issue a license until at least 30 days after the date of application. [ Section 23 -1904 GRANTING OR DENIAL OF LICENSES. License application shall be reviewed by the police department, planning and inspection department and such other departments as the City Manager shall deem necessary. The review shall include an inspection of the premises covered by the application to determine whether the premises conform to all applicable code requirements. Thereafter, licenses shall be recommended for approval or denial by the City Manager to the City Council subject to the provisions of this ordinance. Any appeal shall be before the City Council. Licenses permitting the operation, use, keeping or possession of gambling devices or operation or conduct of raffles or the possession or keeping of gambling device paraphernalia or raffle apparatus are nonrenewable and application must be made each year for a license, permitting and allowing the operation, keeping, use or possession of gambling devices or raffles or raffle apparatus or any interest therein for the succeeding year. Licenses granted herein are nontransferable. [ Section 23 -1905 CONDITIONS GOVERNING ISSUANCE. 1. No license shall be issued if the applicant or any of its owners, managers, employees, agents or other interested parties are persons of bad repute. 2. Licenses shall` be issued only if the applicant and all of its owners, managers, employees, agents or interested parties are free of convictions for offenses which involve moral turpitude or which relate directly to such persons's ability, capacity or fitness to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of the licensed activity. 3. Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have not, within one year, prior to the day of application, been denied licensure, have had a license revoked, canceled or suspended in or by any community or political subdivision or the State of Minnesota or whose owners, managers, or interested parties have not been similarly denied, revoked or suspended. 4. Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have fully and truthfully answered all of the information requested in the application, who have paid the license fee fully and the fee for investigation and have cooperated fully and truthfully with the city in the review of the application. ORDINANCE NO. 5. Licenses may be granted only in complete conformity with all P y of the ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. 6. Licenses shall be issued only to a fraternal, religious, veterans or other nonprofit organization covered by the Minnesota Statutes Section 349.25, Sub. 9, which organization has been in existence for at least three years and has at least 15 present, active members whose membership dues are fully paid and who have been members for at least six months. 7. Licenses shall be granted only where the licensed premises meet the safety, sanitary and building code requirements of the City. 8. A license shall not be granted where the granting of a license would be inconsistent with the comprehensive development plans of the City, or would otherwise have a - detrimental effect upon other property or properties in the vicinity. [ Section 23 -1906 RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS. 1. The licensee, the gambling manager and other persons in its employ, agency, or persons with an interest in such business . shall comply with all applicable ordinances, regulations and laws of the City of Brooklyn Center, the State of Minnesota and the United States government. 2, The applicant shall designate one person to be gambling manager who shall be responsible for the conduct of the business. Such person shall be an active member of the licensee organization, or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member. Such person shall remain responsible for the conduct of the gambling devices, raffles, and their operation p on until any other suitable person has been designated in writing as the amblin manager, g g an investigation fee and nd application for a change of manager has been filed and the proposed successor to the gambling manager shall have been approved. The licensee shall promptly notify the police department in writing of any such change indicating the address and name of the new gambling manager and the effective date of such change. 3, The operation or conduct of gambling devices, raffles or the sale of raffle tickets is not permitted between midnight and 8:00 a.m. of the succeeding day. 4. The licensee, gambling manager or their agents, shall permit and allow inspection of the premises and the operation of the gambling devices and raffles by any and all appropriate city officials. ORDINANCE NO. 5. All licenses under which an licensed business . Y is permitted to be carried on upon the licensed premises shall be revoked if the intentional possession or willful keeping of any such gambling devices upon the licensed premises is established, notwithstanding that it may not be made to appear that such devices have actually been used or operated for the purpose of gambling. 6. Upon demand by any police officer, any person employed in or by any licensed remises shall 1 imself b g ivin g Y Y g g his true legal name, correct address and furnishing suitable identification therefor. 7. No natural person under 18 years of age shall be employed in the operation of gambling devices or raffles except that persons under 18 years of age may sell raffle tickets or chances. 8. The gambling manager shall give a fidelity bond in the sum of $10,000 in favor of the licensee conditioned upon faithful performance of his duties. Terms of the bond shall provide that notice shall be given in writing to the licensing authority not less than 30 days prior to its cancellation. The City Council may waive the bond requirement by including a wavier provision in the license but such action may be taken only by a unanimous vote. 9. Total prizes from the operation of paddlewheels, tipboards and pull -tabs (or ticket jars) awarded in any single day in which they are operated shall not exceed $1,000. Total prizes resulting from any single spin of a paddlewheel, or from any single seal of a tipboard, each tipboard limited to a single seal, _ or from a single pull -tab (or ticket jar), shall not exceed $150. Total prizes awarded in any calendar year by any organization from the operation of paddlewheels, tipboards and pull -tabs (or ticket jars) and the conduct of raffles, except as provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 349.26, Subdivision 15a, shall not exceed $35,000. Merchandise prizes shall be valued at fair market value. ( Section 23 -1907. REVOCATION, CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION OF LICENSE. The license may be revoked, suspended, canceled or not granted by the City Council upon recommendation of the City Manager by showing that the licensee, its owners, gambling manager, employees, agents or any of its interested parties have engaged in any of the following conduct: 1. Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing of a license. 2. Habitual drunkenness or the use of illegal drugs, including but not limited to the use of prohibited substances as defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 152 or Brooklyn Center ORDINANCE NO. 0 Ordinances 19 -1120. 3. Conduct inimical to the interest of the public health, safety, welfare or morals. 4. Engaging in any conduct or being convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude or permitting or allowing others to so engage in said conduct or failing to prevent such conduct. 5. Failure to fully comply with any of the requirements of this ordinance or the failure to comply with any requirements of the laws or ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center, State of Minnesota or the United States government. 6. Engaging in any conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal to issue a license under Section 23 -1905. The licensee may appeal such suspension, revocation, cancellation or failure to license to the City Council. The Council shall consider the appeal at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on or after 10 days from the service of the notice of appeal to the City Manager. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council may g y order; 1. A revocation, suspension or cancellation of the license or that the license not be granted. 2. That the revocation, suspension or cancellation be lifted and that the certificate be returned to the licensee. 3. The City Council may base the revocation, suspension, cancellation or, other action with regard to the license upon any additional terms, conditions and stipulations which they may, in their sole discretion, impose. [ Section 23 -1908. SEPARABILITY. Every section, provision or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part to the extent that if any section, provision or part of the ordinance shall be held invalid, such holdings shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part thereof. [ Section 23 -1909. PENALTIES. Whoever does any act forbidden by this ordinance or omits or fails to do any act required by this ordinance shall be guilty of a''misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof by lawful authority, be punished by a fine not to exceed $700 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Each day that a violation exists constitutes a separate and distinct violation. [Section 23 -1910 LIABILITY FOR THE CRIMES OF ANOTHER. Every person who commits or attempts to commit, conspires to commit or aids and abets in the commission of any act constituting a violation of this ordinance or any act, which constitutes an omission and, therefore, a violation of this ordinance, ORDINANCE NO. whether individually or in connection with one or more persons or as principal, agent or accessory, shall be guilty of such offense and every person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly or willfully induces, causes coerces, requires, permits or directs another to violate any of the provisions of this Chapter is likewise guilty of such offense.] ALARM SYSTEMS Section PERMITS AND EXEMPTIONS. 3. Process for Issuance of Permit. Upon receipt and determination of the fifth false police alarm report or the second false fire alarm report at an address, the Chief of Police, after review, may notify the City Clerk, who shall then assess the alarm user for an alarm user's permit. The assessment invoice shall be sent by certified mail. The alarm user must submit the required permit fee to the City Clerk within [ten (10)1 thirty (30) working days after receipt of the assessment invoice, in order to continue to use his alarm system. Any subsequent false police or fire alarm at that address shall automatically revoke that permit and the process must then be repeated. This process shall be repeated for each and every false alarm in excess of four (4) false police alarms and in excess of one (1) false fire alarm during each calendar year. Section 23 -2006 PERMIT FEES. 1. The fees for alarm user's permits shall be [fifty dollars ($50)] as set forth by City Council resolution for police alarm systems and [one hundred fifty dollars ($150)] for fire alarm systems. AMUSEMENT DEVICES Section 23 -2104 LICENSE FEE. A. The annual license fee for required licenses shall be as forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution Licenses shall be issued for an annual period from July 1 through June 30 for each year hereafter, provided, however, that the initial license fee for each applicant shall be prorated as of the date of the application therefor. Said application for license shall then be presented to the City Council for consideration, and if approved, the City Clerk shall issue the license to the applicant. B. At the time of application for an operator's license or vendor's license the applicant shall pay in full an investigation fee [in the amount of $100] as set forth by ORDINANCE N0, City Council resolution If at an time an additional investigation is required because of a change of ownership or control of a corporation or partnership previously licensed, the licensee shall pay in full an additional investigation fee as set forth by City Council resolution [in the amount of $50]. Investigation fees shall not be refunded. Section 34 -160 SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE 2. The fee for a sign hanger's license shall be as set forth [in Section 23 -010 of the City Ordinances] by City Council resolution and the license shall run from May 1 to April 30 of the following year. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) Member introduced the following resolution 0 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE FOR VARIOUS LICENSE FEES WHEREAS, Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances establishes fees to be charged for various licenses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it would be less cumbersome and a better method of ensuring a uniform fee structure to set forth these fees in a fee schedule; and WHEREAS, Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances has been amended to authorize the setting of various fees by City Council resolution rather than by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to adopt the following fee schedule LICENSE FEE Cesspool Cleaning $ 25 Mechanical System 45 Pool & Billiards 25 /table Nursing Home 35 /under 50 beds 50/50 or more Service Station First Pump 40 Each Additional Pump 5 Cigarette 15 Lodging Establishment 70/1 -15 units 95/16 -35 units 170/36 -100 units 200/101 units or more Bakery Food Vehicle 30 /vehicle Catering Food Vehicle First Vehicle 100 Each additional vehicle 10 i RESOLUTION NO. Food Establishment Basic License with approved & implemented Quality Assurance Plan as defined in Section 8- 100.30 $100 without a Quality Assurance Plan 250 Each Added Facility with Quality Assurance Plan 20 without Quality Assurance Plan 40 Itinerant Food Establishment First Day 30 Each Additional Day 15 Readily Perishable Food Vehicle 30 Readily Perishable Food Fleet 150 Vending Machine — Vendor Bulk Vendor 25 Nonperishable Vendor (excludes bottled and canned soft drink vending machines) 10 plus $5 per machine location. Perishable or Readily 22 plus $8 Perishable Vendor per machine location Combination Perishable- 28 plus appropriate nonperishable Vendor fee for each machine location. Special Food Handling 30 Sign Hanger's License 50 Motor Vehicle Dealer Class A 150 Class B 75 Indoor Swimming Pool (privately owned) 135 Outdoor Swimming Pool (privately owned) 75 . Police Alarm Permit 50 RESOLUTION NO. Fire Alarm Permit $150 Amusement Device Operator 50 /machine Kiddie Ride 10 /ride Vendor 150 Investigation Fee 100 Garbage and /or Rubbish Collection 35 /company 20 /vehicle Dog License Male or Female 5 Neutered Male (upon presentation of proof thereof) 3 Spayed Female (upon presentation of proof thereof) 3 Delinquent Dog License 15 Duplicate Dog License 2 Commercial Kennel 50 together with License and Renewal License reimbursement for legal, planning, engineering, & administration cost Private Kennel License and 30 together with Renewal License reimbursement for legal, planning, engineering, & administration cost Impounding Penalty 25 Taxi 25 /vehicle Courtesy Bench 12 Inspection Fee 5 Bowling Alley 10 /alley Bulk Storage 5 Coin Operated Dry Cleaner 25 Public Dance License 100 Christmas Tree Sales 30 RESOLUTION No. Massage Parlors $3,000 Investigation Fee 1,500 Masseur or Masseuse 50 Investigation Fee 100 Saunas or Sauna Baths 3,000 Investigation Fee 1,500 Rap Parlors, Conversation Parlors, Adult Encounter Groups, Adult Sensitivity Groups, Escort Services, Model Services, Dancing Services, or Hostess Services 1,500 Investigation Fee 1,500 Rental License Fees Single Family Dwelling 25 Two- Family Dwelling first unit 25 second unit 10 Multiple Family Dwelling per building 20 per dwelling unit 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above schedule of fees shall become effective on February 21, 1987. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoin g 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. MEMO 0 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Darlene Weeks, City Clerk SUBJECT: License Fee Increases DATE: January 6, 1986 The following license fees listed on the attached resolution are recommended for increase. Lodging establishment fees have remained the same since set in 1976 and rental license fees have remained the same since established in 1975. The last time licenses marked by an asterisk were raised was 1978. The Quality Assurance Plan setting food establishment fees was implemented in 1983 and have remained the same since then. The inspection fee for courtesy benches has been 2 for more $ than 10 years. License Present Fee Recommended Increase Cesspool Cleaning $20 $ 25 *Mechanical System 36 45 Cigarette 12 15 0 Lodging Establishment 33/1 -15 units 70 41/16 -35 units 95 106/36 -100 units 170 138/101 units or more 200 *Bakery Food Vehicle 25 /vehicle 30 Food Establishment without a Quality Assurance Plan 200 250 each added facility with Quality Assurance Plan 10 20 without Quality Assurance Plan 20 40 *Itinerant Food Establishment 1st day 25 30 Each additional day 10 15 *Vending Machine - Vendor Nonperishable Vendor 8 plus $4 /machine 10 plus $5/ machine location location Gerald G. Splinter -2- January 6, 1986 *Perishable or Readily 20 plus $7 /machine 22 plus $8 /machine Perishable Vendor location location *Sign Hanger's License 40 50 *Garbage and /or Rubbish Collection 25 /company 35 15 /vehicle 20 Courtesy Bench Inspection Fee 2 5 Rental License Fees Single Family Dwelling 12 25 Two- Family Dwelling first unit 12 25 second unit 6 10 Multiple Family Dwelling per building 15 20 per dwelling unit 4 5 The Police Department requests an additional change in Section 23 -2003 relating to alarm system permits and exemptions. The change is that the alarm user must submit the required permit fee to the City Clerk within thirty - -not ten -- working days after receipt of the assessment invoice in order to continue to use the alarm system. Q � a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 86 -123 REGARDING THE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FEES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted Resolution No. 86 -123 on August 11, 1986 which established new fees collected by the Planning and Inspection Department; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it would be less cumbersome and a better method of ensuring a uniform fee structure to set forth these fees in a fee schedule; and WHEREAS, City Ordinances have been amended to authorize the setting of various fees by City Council resolution rather than by ordinance; and WHEREAS, permit fees for Cesspool Cleaning and Housemoving are currently collected by the Planning and Inspection Department, but are not included in the Planning and Inspection Department Fee Schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the Planning and Inspection Department Fee Schedule by the addition of the following; 9. Miscellaneous Permit Fees Miscellaneous permit fees shall be collected at the time applications are executed according to the following: Fee (a) Cesspool Cleaning $18.75 (b) Housemoving Or Demolition $31.25 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above fees shall become effective on February 21, 1987. 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Darlene Weeks, City Clerk FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection SUBJECT: License and Permit Increases DATE: January 6, 1987 I recommend the following annual license fees be increased: Cesspool Cleaning - from $20.00 to $25.00 Mechanical Systems - from $36.00 to $45.00 Signhangers - from $40.00 to $50.00 Please be advised that the State of Minnesota now licenses Housemovers exclusively. The Housemoving License should, therefore, be deleted from the City's license schedule, however, the City still requires housemoving permits. Attached is a draft resolution amending City Council Resolution No. 86 -123 which, effective September 29, 1986, established new permit fees to be collected by the Planning and Inspection Department. The purpose of this draft resolution is-to include cesspool cleaning and housemoving permits in the Planning and Inspection Department Fee Schedule. These fee amounts will no longer be contained in City Ordinances. It is also recommended that these permit fees be increased as follows: Cesspool Cleaning Permit - from $3.00 to $18.75 Housemoving Permit - from $25.00 to $31.25 If you have any questions or comments or care to discuss this recommendation further, please contact ml John J. Sarna Minnesota District 58A House of Hennepin County Committees: Representatives Commerce and Economic Development = Appropriations Agriculture, Transportation and Semi -State Division February 9 1987 Mayor Dean Nyquist Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Re: Application of Crown Cocoa Inc. 6100 Brooklyn Blvd., Brooklyn Center Dear Mayor Nyquist: I am sorry to hear that Bob Mack has had major difficulties in establishing another successful business in Minnesota. His track record as a businessman is well known to me and has contributed much of value to consumers and employees. As the Chairman of the Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives, I have been long concerned with reducing barriers to the conduct of business and especially small business in the state of Minnesota. In learning more about his current application to the city of Brooklyn Center, it appears to me that he has acted in good faith in addressing each and every condition required by the city's planning commission. To have had his application rejected on more general grounds seems to be unfair and inappropriate. I hope you will vote to overrule the planning commission's recommendation and approve his application. I intend as Commerce Committee Chairman to explore further the question of whether the use of general special, use permit requirements is impeding the ability of small businessmen, like Bob Mack, in expanding and starting new, legitimate and needed businesses in this state. Sincerely, Q� ohn Sarna cc: Gene Lhotka Celia Scott Bill Hawes Rich Theis Reply to: ❑ 353 State Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 O (612) 296 - O 2837 Ulysses Street, N.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418 Home: (612) 781 -2482 CORRECTION The City Engineer added that the precise location of the watermain through the site was not yet known. He stated that the site needs a watermain loop to provide adequate pressure for the uses served in this area. He stated that a transmission main was presently used to provide adequate pressure. The City Engineer added that the project had been established by the City Council and that it would be desirable to coordinate this City project with the development. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Ms. Mary Senkus, an attorney with Oppenheimer, Wolff and Donnelly, explained to the Commission that Mainstreet is a division of Federated Department Stores and that representatives of Mainstreet had come to the meeting. She introduced Mr. David Pierson, Senior Vice President of MainStreet to explain more about Mainstreet. Mr. Pierson explained that there are 15 Mainstreet Stores in the Chicago and Detroit areas and that it is the fastest growing division of Federated Department Stores which includes a number of retail chains, including Bloomingdale' s. He stated that Mainstreet sells soft goods to middle income customers, primarily families with growing children. He also stated that 75% of the merchandise sold in the stores are national brands. Commissioner Bernards asked what the store hours and days would be. Mr. Peterson answered that they would be the same as BrookdaleI s hours. Mr. Bernards also asked who the traffic expert was for the project. He expressed concern regarding regulating speed on the Brookdale perimeter road and the possible need for traffic control signs on that road. Chairman Lucht suggested that Mainstreet plant something other than Russian Olives in the greenstrip adjacent to Highway 100. He pointed out that there are numerous Russian Olives already along the Brookdale site. He suggested Canada Red Cherries or Choke Cherries to distinguish the site somewhat from Brookdale. The Secretary asked the applicant whether he understood the recommended conditions. Mr. Ernst Koehler, Director of Architect and Planning for MainStreet responded in the affirmative and stated that they would comply. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 87004) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 87004, the preliminary R.L.S. for the property. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 87003 (Federated Department Stores Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 87003, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 1 -15 -87 -5- r MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JANUARY 29, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and City Engineer Bo Spurrier. Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioner Sandstrom was ' t illness and unable to attend this evening's meeting due o g � Commissioner Nelson had previously been excused from this evening's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 15, 1987 o�sioner referred to page 5, paragraph 3 of the January 15, 1987 Planning Commission minutes and stated that the concern he expressed was not regarding cars moving t g g ving into the site on the perimeter road, but rather his concern for regulating speed on the Brookdale perimeter road and the possible need for traffic control signs there. He requested the minutes to be so amended. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the January 15, 1987 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NOS. 86045, 86046, and 86047 (Crown Coco, Inc.) Following the Ch Toner Malecki e airman sex explanation, there was a motion b Commissioner g P � Y seconded by Commissioner Ainas to remove Application Nos. 86045, 86046 and 86047 submitted by Crown Coco, Inc. from the table. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary then proceeded to review the applications noting that Application No 86045 was a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a convenience store /gasoline station on the old Arthur TreacherIs site at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that this application had been tabled by the Planning Commission on December 11, 1986 with direction to the applicant to redesign the plans so as to eliminate the need for any variances. He noted that Application No 86046 a request for a rear yard setback variance and Application No. 86047, a request for a parking variance were being withdrawn by the applicant based on the newly submitted plan. The Secretary next reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86045 dated 1 -29- _ 87). The Secretary indicated that the public hearing on these applications had been continued by the Planning Commission and required notices had been sent. He pointed out, however, that notices sent to the members of the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group had been inadvertently forgotten and had not been sent. He stated that he had contacted Tony Kuefler, Chairman of the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group, and informed him that the matter would be back on the Commission's agenda this evening. He explained that Mr. Kuefler stated that he would contact other members 1 -29 -87 -1- of the Neighborhood Advisory Group, but would himself would be unable to attend. Mr. Kuefler had informed the Secretary that he still had the same concerns as expressed on December 11, 1986, that being concerned about traffic movements on Brooklyn Bouelvard; that no variances be granted for the use; and a major concern regarding outside storage being allowed. Mr. Kuefler had informed the Secretary that his overall concern regarding outside storage related to the image of Brooklyn Boulevard and that he would like to see no outside storage and display allowed at all. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Bernards, the Secretary stated that the question of one access to the site was not a major point raised during the Planning Commission's review of this plan on December 11, 1986. He pointed out, however, that the staff report given on that date did indicate the belief that two accesses to the site was a step backward in managing traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard and that Hennepin County would have to issue a permit for the proposed access arrangement. The Secretary stated further that no comments from Hennepin County regarding this matter had been received before December 11, 1986, and that it was not until the staff met with a representative of the County, a few days after the Commission's meeting that the matter came into focus. He noted that the applicant had been immediately advised of the concern and was requested to develop a plan with only one access to the site. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether they had anything to add to the application. He recognized Mr. John Finley, an attorney representing the Crown Coco, Inc. Mr. Finley pointed out that originally his client had submitted plans which would have required three variances from the City Ordinances. He noted that one had to do with the distance between accesses being 50 feet; another had to do with a parking variance; and finally the third variance had to do with the rear yard setback requirement. He explained that the variance involving less than 50 feet for the accesses had been withdrawn due to a redesign of the site. Mr. Finley next referred to the plan and noted that the staff had suggested moving the pump islands so that they were parallel to Brooklyn Boulevard rather than parallel to the proposed convenience store to help traffic movement on the site. He pointed out that this request had been complied with and that he thought traffic movement on the site is improved. He added that the radii on the two access points had also been modified, as was suggested by the staff, so that traffic entering the site from Brooklyn Boulevard would not be hindered. He pointed out that to have only one access would cause traffic congestion both on the site and entering and exiting the site from Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Finley next referred to the action taken by the Planning Commission to table this application on December 11, 1986 and the staff's recommendation contained in the December 11, 1986 Planning ommission Information Sheet. He reviewed each g of the 10 points contained in the information sheet which recommended d d s ecif' p is changes to the plan. He noted that the plan before the Planning Commission this evening has been redesigned to meet all of the recommended changes mentioned at the December 11, 1986 meeting. Mr. Finley stated that his client has done everything that the Planning Commission and the City staff wanted based on the information given back in December. He noted that it is only now that the staff is opposed to the plans on the grounds of two access points and that this matter had not been raised at the revious p meeting. He reiterated that his client has complied with all of the recommendations of the Commission and staff and that he finds no City ordinance requirement that would 1 -29 -87 -2- limit this site to only one access. He urged the Planning Commission to give a favorable recommendation to the proposed plans on the grounds that all concerns have been addressed and the fact that two access points will not cause further congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard and on the site. Commissioner Malecki inquired as to why - q 1 traffic would be allowed b the Y on Y one-way Y Y building. Mr. Finley responded that there would not be enough room for two -way traffic between the pump island and the building and that this area would be signed for one -way traffic only. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Bernards, the Secretary stated that the Zoning Ordinance limits the width of an access to 30 feet along the property line in commercial districts. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht noted that the public hearing for this matter had been continued from the December 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. He recognized Mr. Jerry Tachney, 3606 61st Avenue North. Mr. Tachney inquired as to the hours of operation and the number of days a year it would be open. Mr. Finley responded that the operation would be a 365 day a year, 24 hour a day operation. Mr. Tachney inquired uired as to why the community, and the neighborhood in particular, would need such an operation. He was opposed to the application. Chairman Lucht next recognized Mr. Martyn Bialke, of 6036 Ewing Avenue North, He stated that the development of this site as proposed by the Crown representatives would cause more noise, there would be motor bikes, and a young crowd at the site causing disruption and noise 24 hours a day. He inquired as to who would control these problems and also the proposed one -way traffic on the site. He also was opposed to the application. Following further comments and clarifications, Chairman Lucht inquired if anyone else wished to be heard regarding the matter. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING 3 tion by Commissioner Malecki and seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearings on Application Nos. 86045, 86046 and 86047. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Malecki, referring to the floor plan, inquired as to what the fast food counter involved. Mr. Finley responded that this would be an area to sell pop and other take out items. He noted that they do not propose to sell sandwiches or other food items requiring that they be heated by a microwave or other type oven. Chairman Lucht commented that the major concerns regarding Brooklyn Boulevard are traffic and the potential for traffic congestion on that roadway. He stated that he believed this proposal would cause traffic congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard. He pointed out that he is not particularly happy with the sites on both sides of this site having new access points, but noted they are already in existence and the situation should not be worsened. Commissioner Bernards inquired if the proposed gasoline station /convenience store was a use consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary responded that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that this site as well as the adjoining areas be utilized for service /office rather than general commerce uses. He pointed out that the proposed use is a special use in the C2 zoning district and, as such, must 1 -29 -87 -3- meet the Standards for Special Use Permits to be allowed. The Secretary further pointed out that a recent State Statute states that where there is conflict between a municipality's Com r Comprehensive Plan and the existing rdinance that the g , existing Zoning Ordinance would prevail. g A Commissioner Bernards commented that recent revisions were made to the Westbrook Mall site to allow an access to Brooklyn Boulevard from that site. He pointed out that in that situation a driveway to the First Brookdale Bank was closed and a new access to Westbrook Mall was created. He noted the distinction between that situation and what was proposed by the applicant in this case. The Secretary commented extensively regarding the review process. He stated the question of one or two accesses was'not a major issue prior to the December 11, 1986 Commission meeting. Most of the staff's review centered around the requested setback and parking variances as well as the pump island location and traffic flow on the site. He noted that it wasn't until after December 11, that the two access question came into focus. He questioned the logic implied by the applicant that the two accesses should not now be an issue because the applicant had met all the points of concern previously put forth. The Secretary added that the access is a legitimate concern and that because it wasn't mentioned as a major point previously, does not mean that it is too late to bring the subject to the Commission's attention. He added that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a finding be made that all of the Standards for a Special Use Permit are met, before a site can be devoted to such a use. He stated that it is the staff's recommendation that the two accesses would lead to further congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard, that Standard (d) of Section 35- 220, Subdivision 2 cannot be met and, therefore, the application should be denied. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86045 (Crown Coco, Inc.) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to recommend to the City Council that Planning Commission Application No. 86045 submitted by Crown Coco, Inc. be denied on the grounds that allowing two access points to this site for the proposed use will add to congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard and that Standard (d) of Section 35 -220 Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance cannot be met. A lengthy discussion ensiled among the Planning Commission following the motion. Commissioner Malecki inquired of the Commission if the motion meant that the Planning Commission would recommend the application favorably if only one access were provided. She noted her concern that the proposed use may well be in conflict with other Standards for Special Use Permits and that she does not favor recommending approval of the use even if there were only one access. Commissioner Wallerstedt noted that her main concern was regarding the number of accesses. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had the same concerns as Commissioner Malecki regarding hat would be communicated to the applicant g pp by this recommendation. He indicated that he did not feel a gasoline station at this particular site was appropriate. If it were an appropriate use, then two accesses rather than one might be better. Commissioner Malecki commented further noting that during the public hearing neighbors concerns over noise were related. She stated that she has concern whether Standard (b) of Section 35 -220 could be met by this applicant as well. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas and seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to amend the previous motion to recommend to the City 1 -29 -87 -4- Council that Planning Commission Application No. 86045 be denied on the basis that the proposal is in conflict with the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in Section 35 -220 Subdivision 2, particularly Standards (b), (c) and (d). Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion unanimously. Commissioner Lucht suggested that the Commission acknowledge the withdrawal of Planning Commission Application Nos. 86046 and 86047. While this matter was being discussed, Mr. Finley requested the Commission to take action on the two variance requests stating that as long as the Planning Commission was recommending denial of the special use permit and the accompanying site plan, the applicant would like to keep their option open by keeping the variance requests active. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86046 (Crown Coco, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Planning Commission Application No. 86046 involving a rear yard setback variance on the grounds that the Standards for Variances contained in Section 35 -240 Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86047 (Crown Coco, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Planning Commission Application No. 86047, a request for a variance from the City's parking requirement, on the grounds that the Standards for Variances contained in Section 35 -240 Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Wallerstedt seconded by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Chairman 1 -29 -87 _5_ Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86045 Applicant: Crown Coco, Inc. Location: 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 2,688 sq. ft. convenience retail store with gas pumps at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard, the site of the old Arthur Treacher's restaurant. This application was tabled by the Commission on December 11, 1986 with direction to the applicant to redesign the plans so as to eliminate the need for any variances. The applicant has resubmitted a new plan calling for a smaller building (reduced from 4,000 sq. ft. to the present 2,688 sq. ft.), adequate parking and required setbacks and reoriented gas pump islands. Therefore, Application Nos. 86046 (rear yard setback variance) and 86047 (parking variance) are being withdrawn and should be acknowledged by the Commission. Attached are copies of the Planning Commission minutes and the information sheet for Application No. 86045 from December 11, 1986 for the Commission's review. The applicant's representative, Mr. John Finley, has submitted a letter dated January 21, 1987 (attached) outlining the proposed changes and setting forth their argument for the plan. Access /Parking The proposed site plan makes no significant change in the access from that presented on December 11. The plan calls for closing the single access currently serving the Arthur Treacher's site and opening two accesses, approximately 59' apart. The existing access lines up directly with 61st Avenue on the opposite side of Brooklyn Boulevard. The current alignment was designed this way when the Arthur Treacher's site was developed, replacing a gasoline station with two accesses that previously existed. More discussion of the proposed access arrangement will be made later in this report when dealing with the Standards for Special Use Permits. The parking requirement for this 2,688 sq. ft. convenience store is 25 spaces based on the retail parking formula. The proposed plan shows 25 spaces around the perimeter of the site and at least one space at the pump island. The spaces numbered 9 and 10 on the site plan should be eliminated to provide an appropriate turn around for cars backing out of the spaces numbered 8 and 11. Also, the plan does not provide for the required 15' greenstrip at the northwest corner of the site, northerly of the north access. Providing the required greenstrip would eliminate one stall in that location. Elimination of these 3 parking stalls, however, could be accommodated by acknowledging 3 parking stalls at the pump islands. Acknowledging these stalls would be consistent with the criteria used in past approvals such as at the convenience store /gas station and 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The pump island location has also been altered from the plan reviewed on December 11, so they are parallel to Brooklyn Boulevard rather than the store. Only one way traffic would be allowed between the store and the first pump island. Landscaping /Screening The new plan calls for retention of the 32 existing cedar trees along the north and east property lines and the retention of an existing hedge along the south property 1 -29 -87 _1_ Application No. 86045 continued line. In addition, 2 red maples are proposed in the Brooklyn Boulevard greenstrip, one north of the northerly access, the other south of the southerly access. Two Japanese Lilacs are proposed for the center island greenstrip between the two accesses. The plan notes that any existing trees damaged or destroyed during construction will be replaced. An open area to the east and north of the building will be sodded. Underground irrigation is required and noted in all landscaped areas. A six foot high screen fence on top of a retaining wall along the east property line is shown. Currently the retaining wall is giving way and the fence is also in need of repair. Both are required to be repaired or replaced consistent with the recommendations of the City Engineer ngineer and Building Official. Drainage /Utilities The drainage plan calling for surface drainage to Brooklyn Boulevard consistent with the existing site and other business in the area is apparently acceptable. No storm sewer would be required at this time because it would require tying into storm sewer on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard. However, if Brooklyn Boulevard is ever reconstructed and storm sewer provided on the east side, all surfacing draining properties, such as this one, will be required to hook up to storm sewer. Building /Canopy The proposed building elevations now call for brick on all four walls with a 4' high white metal facia extending out 5' along the front elevation. Elevations show the wall heights to be 20' except for a portion of the west (or front) elevation which shows a wall height of 16' . Further clarification of this "break" would be in order. The canopy extends from the roof line at a height of 20' . It would be a 4' wide white metal band with 2" red vertical stripes at the top and bottom and would contain lighting for the pump island area. It should be noted that signs, other than directional type signs, are not permitted on the canopy per the sign ordinance, except in lieu of permitted freestanding signs. The canopy would cover the entire pump island area by extending approximately 100' out from the building on the north and approximately 83' on the south in a trapezoid fashion. There is a 5' concrete walk proposed along the west and south sides of the building and a 6' high brick trash enclosure with a wooden gate indicated at the southeast corner of the building. Although signery is not part of site and building plan review, it should be understood that the freestanding sign shown on the site plan exceeds the size allowed by the Sign Ordinance for a building of this size. The maximum size freestanding sign permitted would be 112 sq. ft. and at a height no greater than 24' measured from the first floor building elevation. _ Special Use Permit Gasoline service stations are special uses in the C2 zoning district. As such they are subject to the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in Section 35 -220 (copy attached). The report presented to the Planning Commission on December 11 outlines the staff's analysis as to how this proposed use complies with those standards. Our concern then was primarily with standard (d) which requires that "adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets." It was pointed out then that the addition of another access drive is certainly a step 1 -29 -87 -2- I I Application No. 86045 continued backward for managing traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. It is the staff's opinion that the potential for conflicts between vehicles entering and exiting this site and other sites in the vicinity will certainly increase with two driveways to the site relative to what would be the case with only a single driveway. It should be noted that already on the commercially zoned (Cl and C2) property along the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard in this area there are six driveways ( including the one at Arthur Treacher's) serving four commercial sites. In driving Brooklyn Boulevard these driveways come almost one right after another and it is confusing at best for a driver trying to decide which one to turn into. The addition of one more will further complicate this rather than improve it. As was mentioned earlier, when the Arthur Treacher's site was developed only one access, directly across from 61st Avenue North was allowed. This was considered an improvement over the then existing situation. Going back to two access drives will only add to congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard in this area. The City has long had the policy of reducing the number of accesses on Brooklyn Boulevard and to encourage the sharing of access. The staff strongly believes that the City should start from the premise that only one access to this site, where it is currently situated, should be granted for development or redevelopment to allow for the proper functioning of Brooklyn Boulevard and that any use of the property will have to operate within this constraint. Uses which cannot survive with one access are too intense for development on the site and will only add to an already bad situation. The argument will most certainly be made that to limit this site to one access will prohibit the gasoline operation from functioning properly and will, in all likelihood, mean it can't or won't be built. That is probably true and is indicative of the fact that use should, therefore, not be allowed. Mr. Finley, in his letter, notes that the properties on either side of this site have two accesses and there had been no requirements made to limit accesses in the past. It should be pointed out that the Amoco operation has been there since 1958 and also has a distance between driveways of 120' , much greater than that proopsed on the site under consideration. The Burger King operation has been there since 1965 and is a one -way drive through that limits to some extent potential congestion because of that type of traffic flow. On the other hand, the fact that we are stuck with these two sites having two accesses should not be an argument that we continue to make site design decisions that will compound a problem rather than reduce or eliminate it. The proposal before the Planning Commission is redevelopment of the site. With redevelopment should come improvement not a worsening of the situation. Following the Commission's December 11, 1986 tabling of this application we had an opportunity to review the situation with a member of Hennepin County's staff. (Hennepin County issues access permits for Brooklyn Boulevard, a County Road) The matter was studied and the undesireability of providing another access to the site was determined and later conveyed to the applicant. Mr. Finley cites a January 8, 1987 memo from Vern Genzlinger, Director of Public Works and Assistant County Administrator saying that after discussion the County would agree to issue a permit for two entrances on Brooklyn Boulevard for Crown Oil. He states that the County has, therefore, withdrawn their objections to the two entrances. It is our understanding that it is the County's position that they will not take the lead in this issue and that they will accept the recommendations of the City of Brooklyn Center regarding this matter. 1 -29 -87 -3- Given the above considerations, it is the staff's belief that to permit two access points at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard would add to congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard. Therefore, we recommend denial of Application No. 86045 on the grounds that it is in conflict with Standard (d) of Section 35 -220 Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the granting of Special Use Permits. The public hearing has been continued to this evening's Commission meeting and notices have been sent. 1 -29 -87 -4- �I 1111 _.. __ ��r ►�. �i�� �� ��c� � C2 41 CD L 63RD gill MENEM IN 11��1 C2 0 1 ■ �II� � a. •� 111 • 111 ' : ►� .,�� �� ������ l • •�•- .� �= iii ,a � :.�. �� 11 11 �� ■ �� X111 //� ,� 11 1 WIN MINE • ®� �� .1 n 1 11 11 A� ®••� 11 1�■ 11 M 11 11 ng IMM M I�i 11 11 MEN mm He ■� �� �� 11 1 11 11 �1 "� � " r� IIi 1111 11Ii111 - - �._�� w�■ .1 11 11 11 It M= Mal M� .s a VIP �t �h w 1 Y� • 7z6H — '– - 1� pp 1 0 1 • I _ _ 0 - N F — 1i Je ui iJ 0 � � � � 0.l d���• 1� I 1 N ., � r •o 1 • � 1 �n •S / > ° a+ s U a •:4 .i ,n -• '�P� �_1:� €5i... Hi +may � ��•� _ ... � r " f - -. �. _... . �. �� ._.� ,�e+o, .c" o'� L LL ._ "� � _ w u. LV �\ 1/� J I G� i Y N l ; 06 Janua ;6, 107 FROM THR OFFICE off' ' THE CITY roER SUBJECT: Mayer and Council Terms xtans.ons under 19$6 Charter Axendaent To the Honorable Xayor and city Council: Your staff has had suf ficient time to do a tho ro ug h , ..ant� �f options for djusting the terms of office the, 19a�6 :tea "rtes amendment passed by ;the citizens of Brookl yn -Cent Allin . for . even -year elections: In reviewing the :options . ros ib lilies with our City attorneys., they have narro%4 4 to. thre basic alternatives: 1. Allow the Charter nduent to 'salvf- ute , Vr this option the City Council w6u d � a no further, action and allow .`the Charter ` The term of office transition is described attached table. 2* The Council mould cahocsse a t.X �siti6n . of terms "; system " and adopt it 'by City, ordinance prodedu , 3. City Council .: coin€ ch a transition of term syat ex , pass it on to the Garter Commis tom its ati+ and the 'Charter Comission return an approves transition syste to the, City : cou ricill for Saga, es , Charter amendment " by ordinance t,. (re�ir unanizous.vota, for passage) From my paint o f v i ev it a ars if the Cha►ar" amen nt can 3be self - executing. it Should lea. our -City° attcrne a :hava toad any cf the above Op acceptable.., are It is may" par' ozal reco th the Council cho tc al low tie ; Chia star tea Sal f - execute, the farm extensions neoess to ary wing them i ine with the aVen- �year election Charter b h , Attached please , find a ;a . le which, ind tes the "thr nits eta transition" of .t erms.. ayst"s which the . Council" previously ' . ` considered. have ad d a fourth alt ate which = LS-) ,tae Charter amendment with terms lf- executing. Y wi1 note 'it: ;eel executing alternate is - similar to al ternates .11 ahii Attached .also pleas® find 'at December 30 . 19-86 ra m °'row our City attorneys. Had your City staff completed a' morn thorough R 3 R t f s review of this t At th tip d"d , the it Cour i,1 And � �tsica , "' h �► t» +� r�`+ could have been Olio, tad. I apolog za f+ ► rr�c - a� � Rasp 1� tt g city �•i�:: • - j .r• tj s ' c 9� L k � F <, lea 4 k } i TRANSITION ELECTION ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATE I 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Mavor X 0 0 0 O Hawes X O 0 O Lhotka X Scott X O 0 0 0 O Theis X O p O ALTERNATE II 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Mayor X O 0 O Hawes X 0 0 0 o X 0 0 Scott X O 0 O Theis X O 0 O ALTERNATE III 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 '1996 1997 1998 Mayor X >O p 0 Hawes X 0 0 O Ihotka X >O p 0 _ Scott X 0 0 O Theis X O p O . 1986 CHARTER ANENNDMENT WITH TERMS SELF- EXECUTING . 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Mayor X O p O Hawes X 0 0 0 Lhotka X 0 0 O Scott X O 0 O Theis X 0 0 O w X - indicates term expiration under existing Charter provision O - indicates term expiration under proposed Charter amendment - indicates extension of current term 0 - indicates a transitional two year term a a ♦ y y '• r t TO: BROOKLYN CENTER CITY MANAGER, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: FROM THE OFFICE OF LEFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ DATE: DECEMBER 30, 1986 RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1986 CHARTER AMENDMENT The Charter Chance. On November 4, 1986, the voters of Brooklyn_ Center approved a charter amendment requiring the regular- municipal election. to occur in November of even numbered years and requiring the term of the Mayor to be extended from two years to four years • and the term of council members to be extended from three years to four years. The charter amendment contained no details describing the method of implementing these charter changes. The Charter Should Be Self Executin Before discussing the implementation, it is important to note a - P that a charter is a fundamental document establishing the form of government of a city. A charter is a process by which local governments can formulate and amend their own form of government. The charter is to city government what the Minnesota Constitution is to state government. It is the policy of both the Minnesota Constitution and the Minnesota State Legislature that charter cities be self governing to a very great extent. Several principles result from the charter city's special status: 1. The legislature does not control the content of charters or the details of their implementation; Z. The charter itself normally contains implementing language; 3 • We look first to the charter itself for direction in ,f,.�.... �. implementing the charter or its amendments. •,:' _.•;,- � • • 1' ..►.;� . � c'fC:c "��i.. .. _rte t: .s �. wsiL•u.:i..�Fita.•4.} ^ t��Y L t J r- .fr1t. y.. ... _ .....a...o..t�� .. "s Scope Of This Memo There are three different ways to implement the charter amendment. 1 . A second charter amendment prepared by the Charter Commission and approved by the unanimous vote of the City Council by ordinance. 2. An ordinance adopted by majority vote of the City Council pursuant to Section 12.12 of the City Charter. 3. No action necessary; the charter and its amendment are effective and self executing. - Each - of :these -three methods is a reasonable legal interpretation of the charter and existing law. Methods 2 and 3 carry some - risk of challenge. It.is my opinion that any of the three methods would survive a challenge. IMPLEMENTATION TATION BY CHARTER AMENDMENT Implementation By Charter Is The Bulletproof Method Based -_.. upon the " P three basic principles -_ P p outlined in the nevi us o sect' P on, we have recommended that a charter amendment adopted by ordinance be used to implement the details of the transition to the new charter provisions. (We have assumed, for purposes of this section, ;that. - the - :charter _amendment is_. not . -self executing) Although it is cumbersome, it is legally foolproof, and not subject to any kind of rational nal cha llenge. It is, of course, the most conservative viewpoint; it takes time and the cooperation of the Charter Commission; but it gets the job done with no risk. There is no risk because the charter controls the entire procedure. 2 .. .. .. l;(r 4- ♦".•,J4 ,.►s!�,g.. - s . !' a't '�.c • .' ' ', .lr�j r � - �. . ° t 2 . IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHARTER PROVISIONS BY ORDINANCE A Second Alternative; Implementation By Ordinance. As we have indicated, the charter amendment contained no details describing-.the method of implementing _the charter changes However, looking to the body of the charter itself, the very last paragraph contains the following language. Section 12.12. ORDINANCES TO MAKE CHARTER EFFECTIVE The council shall by ordinance make such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and make effective the provisions of this charter. (Emphasis supplied) For purposes of this discussion, we again assume that the charter amendment is not self executing. Under any possible scenario, one or more of the terms of office of members of the City Council or the Mayor will in an * odd numbered year and one or more such terms - - - terms will need to be extended. Under Section 12.12 of the charter, the council, by ordinance, would extend the terms of the council member or members which are necessary to make all of the end -in an even numbered year. Thus the - City Council would "carry out and make effective" the charter amendment. This procedure is subject to challenge. In my opinion, the challenge would not be successful, based largely on the further discussion in Section 3 of this memo. However, there is an argument to be made and it goes like this: 1. There is no Minnesota case specifically stating that a City Council can extend the terms of offi ordinance, ce by 2. Cases from other jurisdictions §12.114, N.10) state that a city council does 3 .. � .. :. - .a._, � �C_w:� .^1... .. : ✓ � ..c .!C`fw'!�PA''wS`�.:��.� .• ;.- �`��r�ia�iC the authority to alter the terms of office unless authorized by the charter 3. There - is no specific authority in the charter for the extension of .terms of. office; 4. The making of "regulations" authorized by Section 12.12 of the charter cannot be used to alter a term of office which is specifically determined in the.charter; - 5. _.The making of "regulations" under Section 12.12 refers to such matters as setting up departments of - administration pursuant to Section 6.03 of the charter, and similar matters. While it is unlikely that such would ultimately be successful in the court _ room, _ the argument is available to someone who might disagree with the Council's decision so there is some risk that a legal challenge would be commenced. -- 3. _NO ACTION NECESSARY: THE CHARTER IS SELF EXECUTING Charter Amendment Took E ffect December 4, 1986. The first - _ legal principal to determine and apply is the rule establishing the eff e ct ive date of new charter provisions approved by the voters. Neither the charter nor the amendment sets an effective date. We look next to the statute and find that Minn Stat. §410.12 Subd. 4 provides that "The amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment." Looking further in the statute we find that Minn Stat §410.11 provides "The charter shall take effect 30 days after election, or at such other time as is fixed in the charter. . . ." Therefore, the new charter amendments clearly took effect on December 4, 1986. Existing Terms Of Office Are Automatically Extended The second legal question g q ti.on is: What legal effect does the amended '' .. :'3Y . � :•y �'� _". H••y . ......Tf'�'.t.e 4 *.�.+�.1ih• : w.i'."X. - � _ •._ charter have on existing terms of office for the Mayor and council members?* Looking first to the charter and the amendment, we find that neither contains any language which is of assistance on this question. The statute, however, in Minn Stat §410.11 provides "The charter shall take effect 30 days after the election, or at other time as is fixed in the charter, and shall then supersede all other charter provisions relating to such city." (emphasis supplied) While this particular section of the statute appears to apply to the adoption of a new charter, it is equally applicable to charter amendments and is obviously designed, by its language, ( "supersede all other charter Provisions") to be used in cases where an existing charter provision is being supplanted by new charter provision. While there are no Minnesota cases deciding this question, it has come up in several cases in half a dozen other states and these courts have held that the existing terms of council members are adjusted by the new charter provisions. McQuillan Municipal Corporations 512.113 and the cases cited at Note 5. There is support in Minnesota cases for the proposition that exis ._ . min . . g terms of office may be altered by charter amendments. See Woodbridge v City of Duluth 140 N.W. 182 (1913) and Van Cleve V. Wallace, 13 N.W.2d 467 (1944). There is also support for this proposition in the Brooklyn Center Charter itself, at section 12.08 which provides that present officers of the City continue in office until their successors are chosen and qualify. In the Woodbridge case a new charter abolished the entire 16 member city council of Duluth and replaced it with a 5 member rjy't 5 ter... commission but provided for the election of the 5 commissioners several months after the new charter took effect. The Minnesota Supreme Court held: 1. That the new charter indeed took effect 30 days after the y election; 2. That the 16 member council would hold over in their terms until the 5 commissioners had been elected and qualified for office. I a copy of the Woodbridge for its instructive discussion of some very basic principles of charter law which are found on page 183 of that case. Summarized, these principles are as follows: 1. The legislature favors placing all questions concerning self government in the hands of the municipalities; 2. On the date the charter amendments become effective, the old charter provisions become functus officio and have no further effect; 3. A charter should be construed so that no gap in governmental functions occurs; 4. Questions involving fundamental governmental forms .should be decided on practical and broad considerations rather than technicalities; 5. The charter is an expression of the will of the voters and, (unless specifically prohibited by the legislature) the charter itself should be looked to for the expression of the will of the eo P le. P Based on these principles, we conclude that: On December 4, 1986, the present term of Mayor was extended from 2 years to 4 years, therefore ending in 1989; the term of Council Member Hawes was extended from 3 years to 4 years ending in 1988; the term of Council Member Lhotka was extended from 3 years to 4 years ending in 1989; the term Of Council Member Scott was extended from 3 6 years to 4 years ending in 1990; and the term of Council Member Theis was extended from 3 years to 4 years ending in 1988. Extended Terms Ending In Odd Numbered Years Hold Over Until The Next Election. The third question is when do we hold an election for the seats of the Mayor and Council Member Lhotka, which end in an odd numbered year ? - We have seen that the new'- charter provisions took effect on December 4,1986 and that they supersede the pre- existing charter provisions. Therefore, elections must be held in even numbered years. The terms of the Mayor and one Council Member end in an odd numbered year. Looking first to the charter, we find language which suggests that the election for a particular office must occur` in the. final year of the term of that office. Section 3.01. COUNCIL MEETINGS. On the first business day Of January following a regular municipal election the Council shall meet at the usual place and time for the holding of Council meetings. At this time, the newlv elected members of the Council shall assume their duties. (Emphasis supplied). It could be argued that "newly elected" simply means "previously elected" and the election for a term beginning in 1990 could occur at the regular election in the fall of 1988. Such a procedure, however, would be overly technical, illogical and impractical, and therefore in violation of the common sense rules laid out in Woodbridge vs. City of Duluth supra It would also be in violation of the universal election practices of the State of Minnesota. Finally, it would violate the principle established through 20 years of existing practice under the present City charter. 7 Council Members Hold Office Until Successors Are Chosen. Looking further through g the charter document itself, we find at Section 12.08 the provision which requires that "The present Officers of the City shall continue in their respective offices and functions until their successors are chosen and qualify, and shall continue to govern the City in the usual manner." Thus, it is - clear that the voters, through the charter, have determined that terms of office which end in an odd numbered year shall be extended to include the following even numbered year during which an election can be held to fill that office for the subsequent term. This provision is in accord with the Woodbridge case, with Van Cleve vs. Wallace, and with dozens of other states that have considered the question. See McQuillan Municipal Corporations §12.110 Based upon these considerations, the transition to even year elections and the lengthening of the terms of the members of the City Council and the Mayor was complete upon adoption of P the charter amendments by the voters and the passage of 30 days thereafter. No further action by the City Council would be required. We have stated that all three of these methods is a reasonable interpretation of the charter and applicable law. Method 2 and, to a slightly greater extent, method 3, carry some risk that they will be challenged because they are based on principles of legal interpretation gleaned from the charter, the statutes, and cases from the Supreme Court while method 1 is entirely controlled by the charter. However, it is unlikely that 8 a challenge to method 2 or 3 would be successful. The r' .._ isk is that of nuisance litigation. g ion. The City Council is in the best position to know if an citizen en or rou of voters g P is interested in making such a challenge. 9 I ' 'I j1 � I y Fi If - 182 i , 140 NORTHWESTERN REPORTER (Mir owners i necessarily follows. The term brought by him as a P g taxpayer of Duluth, 1 "indorse" has a well- defined meaning, and a an Injunction restraining the city officers frc I ' : ftnding of indorsement imports everything (1) issuing $100,000 of water and light bond t necessary to pass the legal title from the (2) from extending a certain sewer; and r indorser to the indorsee. 14 Enc. of Plead. from purchasing an automobile for the fl �! and Pr. 520; Snelgrove v. Branch Bank of department Mobile, 5 Ala. 295; Pryce v. Jordan, 69 Cal. On December 3, 1912, the city of Dulut r' ! 569, 11 Pas 185; Higgins v. Bullock, 66 Ill. which theretofore had been operating and 37; Rubelman v. McNichol, 13 Mo. App. 584; a home rule charter, with a mayor and i' Brooks v. Edson, 7 Vt. 351; Perkins Doe & city council of 16 aldermen, aving the usu �y Co. v. Bradley, 24 Vt 66; Myers v. Farm - powers, adopted a charter a commissic ers' State Bank, 53 Neb. 824, 74 N. W. 252; form of government, whereby its powers we Downer v. Read, 17 Minn. 493 (Gil. 470). vested in a mayor and four commissioner [!l] 9. The question whether the plaintiff who were to constitute the city council. U is an indorsee for value within the law mer- der this charter, however, these officers we chant is not important in this case. The de- not to be elected until April 1, 1913, at fense In this case is predicated on a settle- were not to take office until April 14th; " ' 3 ment made after the indorsement of the pa- being provided that "until April 14, 1913, r + { per. Had plaintiff been a mere assignee 12 o'clock noon, and no longer, the office ` 1 without indorsement its rights could not be holding office at the time this charter tak { prejudiced by any acts of defendants done effect shall continue in office." On Januai after plaintiff'a rights had accrued. It is 6, 1913, the new charter having come into o { only where a defense arises before the in- eration the said council of 16 assum g t dorsement that the question whether the act under the same, 13 members being pre plaintiff is an indorsee for value within the ent and all voting therefor, resolved: (: law merchant becomes material. To issue $100,000 of water and light bond i t Judgment affirmed. which had previously been duly authorize J i j under the old charter, and which, by t'- C i ' terms of their authorization, were require ( I to be sold before 1 April 2 to e. P 1913 j WOODBRIDGE v. CITY OF DULUTH et al. tend a sewer, the cost thereof to O be assesse i 4 ` • (Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 7, 1913.) against the property specially benefited ther by; and on the same date an ordinance wi y (Syllabus by the Court.) presented for its first reading, providing f. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 149 Coknus- the purchase of an automobile for the fl. SION C HAaTEa— ADOPTION — POWERS OF OLD department Thereafter the council procee Under the provision of the commission ed to take the steps necessary to the actor charter of the city of Duluth, adopted December plishment of these purposes, whereupon t 8, 1912, and going into effect 30 days there- plaintiff instituted this action, setting up, after, that the officers of the city, holding office ' at the time such charter takes effect, shall con- appropriate allegations, in his complaint t tinue in office until the commission thereby facts substantially as above stated, togeth provided for shall be elected and take office, the with the formal allegations usually inCOrs city council chosen under the former charter, and holding over under the new by virtue of rated in the co m p laint in an action for i '• �l �` ' P j such provision, had the power to order the is- junction. The parties stipulated that a co, } i sue of city bonds authorized under the former of the commission charter should be certi l charter, and likewise to order the extension of 1 a sewer, and to provide for the purchase of ea np as a part of the record, to be consider automobile for the fire d there being by this court; and we will treat it as thou; P g involved in such matters only the ordinary re- it were incorporated in the. complaint T sponsibilities incident to the administration of material provisions of this charter are, municipal affairs. substance, as follows: The c ity council sh: [Ed. Note. —For other cases, see Municipal y i ` t Corporations, Cent. Dig. If 327 -332; Dec. Dig. consist of a mayor and four commissione; t ! i 149. wh6 shall be vested with all the legislati [ I and executive authority of the city; th Appeal from District Court, St Louis being required to devote their entire to County; Homer B. Dibell, Judge. to the city during business hours, and to Action by Dwight E. Woodbridge against ceive $4,000 per year for their services T the City of Duluth and others From an or- ° , mayor shall s a member of the hounds, e der sustaining a demurrer to the complaint may vote as such, and is to be the preside plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. thereof, but 13 to have no veto. He Is ma Charles E. Adams, of Duluth, for appel- the chief executive of the city; but the t lant H. A. Carmichael and William P. Ear- powers of t ecutive and administrative rison, both of Duluth, for respondents. c it y are distributed among the members the commission in a certain manner not & i PHILIP E. BROWN, J. Appeal by the essary here to detail. The manner of mP Plaintiff from an order sustaining a general ing local improvements is provided for; t ' demurrer to his complaint, in as action commission being authorized, by a four -dit 'For other cues see same topic and sectlon NUMBER In Dec- Dig. A Am. Dip Key -No, series ! Rep'r lades r. � 3 \f h� s (Minn. Binn.) WOODBRIDGE Y. CITY OF DULUTH 183 axpayer of Duluth, for vote, to order the construction of any side- ment; :witness the legislation to that end. - a g a the city officers from walk or sewer, etc., which it deems necessary Furthermore, it is undesirable and out of t water and light bonds; for public convenience or safety, and may accord with judicial determination, from -the certain sewer; and (3) cause the cost thereof to be assessed against earliest times, that oui • automobile for the fire the property special benefited thereby. a e . allowed to exis °mss Finally it is provided, as noted above; that o ernment or than e o fficers.. It 18 ns : art: 4, 4 36, provides that r ^• °r" ,, •]2, the city of Duluth, the officers of the city, holding office at the truce d been operating under time of the taking effect of the new charter, a charter,. ratified. by the electors of a mu- with a mayor and a shall hold office until April 14th, the date f of nicipality. becomes effective "at the end of ermen, having the usual the incoming of the commission thirty days thereafter," and that, by virtue carter for a commission The old charter, which we have designated of this provision, the home rule charter bad ,vhereby its powers were as the home rule charter, was different from become functus officio on January 6th, when ind four commissioners, the new charter, which we have called the the course of action here complained of was c _ - ite the city counciL Un- commission charter, in many respects, the inaugurated; but it is equally true that on i :ever, these officers were salient points of difference, here that date there was no council or commis- material, _ :util April 1, 1913, and being that under the former the city was dl- Sion or other constituted municipal officers five until April 14th; it vided into eight wards, two aldermen being other than those, including the council of "until April 14, 1913, at chosen from each ward, and these constitute old 16, chosen under the o charter, and holding 3 no longer, the officers ed the city council, of which the mayor was over-under the express provision of the new. �.�.: _• %_ time this charter takes not a member, but over whose enactments It is unthinkable that the people of the city 1n office." On January he had the power of veto; the council had should be, without government from the time no executive p owers and, besides the mayor, when the commission charter took effect to rter having come into op f undi of 16, assuming to there were a city Berk; s city treasurer. and the time when, under its provisions, the coon- - 13 members being pees- other officers; and, except in certain instanc- cil of five should take charge; and the char -} therefor, resolved: (1) es not here material, a local improvement, ter in terms undertakes to provide against d water and light bonds, such as the construction of a sewer, could this very contingency. Moreover, it is un- _ n duly authorized not be ordered, except upon a petition Sled reasonable to assume that officers must be, ; (2) to ex- t. of the property owners. elected under a charter before it has gone 1 ; tion, which, n, were required the by a certain per cent. No claim is made of any irregularity in into .)feet, especially where the charter ex - any of the proceedings dings complained of, other pressly provides otherwise. So we must con- April 1, 1913 t� ost thereof 3 be assessed than such as may inhere in the differences elude that the people of Duluth realized that y specially benefited there- between the provisions of the two charters for a brief period its affairs would have to me noted above; nor is it urged that any stat- be conducted by officers more or less differ - me date an ordinance was reading, providing for utory provisions have been violated. Broad- ent, both in number and denomination, from z _n automobile for the fire b stated, the plaintiff's sole claim is that the those to be chosen under the new charter, .ncil pro council of 16 had no power over the matters and to whom the municipal affairs were ulti- e after the cou oce - ne the ou the o c ed - with which they undertook to deal, and par - mately. to be committed. And as the Legisla- purposes, whereupon the ticularly that, if it should be deemed that Lure, who undoubtedly have power to regn- this action, setting up, by power was granted to them to administer the late such a situation as the one here present- tions, in his complaint the ordinary affairs of the city until the incom- ed, have failed to speak thereon, in whom as above stated, together ing of the commission, the matters in ques- should the power be deemed to be vested to illegatious usually incorpo- tion did not come within this category, but provide the method of conducting the city Taint in an action for in were matters extraordinary, which should government during the time intervening be- rties stipulated that a copy have been left to be dealt with by the latter. fore the incoming of the new officers? We charter should be certified This claim does not impress us as force - think the answer to this question must be: considered Yul. We are of the opinion that the sev The electors of the municipality, to whom all he record, to be c d we will treat it o though eral affirmative acts of the council, which ultimate powers in local affairs have been .ted in the.. complaint. The form the basis of the plaintiff's alleged griev- committed, subject only to limitations ex- ms of this charter are, in ance, involve merely the ordinary responsi- pressly declared, none of which are here ma- owa The city council shall bilities incident to the administration of the terial —and the charter itself must be deemed or and four commissioners, affairs of the municipality, and which call to be the due expre ssion of the will of these re ted with all the legislative for the exercise of discretion on the part of electors t hat 4e_ administration of all ordi- uthoritp the duly constituted of the city ; they and acting authorities, nary affairs of the city overnment shall be :o devote their entire time both as to the necessity of and time for, comm ed to the old officers until the ual- g business hours, and to re- taking action. ca year for their services. The The question to be determined Is thus re- Questions involving government must not member of the council, and duced to this: Did the old council, proceed- be determined along technical lines. Prac- h, and is to be the president Ing in the manner, as regards mode of pro- tical and broad con siderations should control. o have no veto. He is made cedure and constitution of the council, as The matter of formal differences between the he ex- they would have done under the old charter, administration of the city's affairs under the ive of the city • but t trative powers h the except that there was no petition of erty owners for the sewer, the prop- two charters is not important, and the ques - mong the members of have the power to tion presented. both to us and to the people rtain manner not nee- act in the premises.? It requires no discus- of the city, is how to work out the the shoe s h o 4 3etaiL The manner of mak- don to demonstrate that in recent years the tration of its public affairs during short cements is provided for; the Legislature has favored placing, in the bands period intervening between the passing of the ig authorized, by a four - fifths of municipalities, all questions, subject to old government and the full and complete in- _ few exceptions, concerning their self- govern- auguration of the new. '( Ago Key -No. Series t Rep's indexes ! 7";e+' v -' s� ».:ti,- ,;H _- ,_•� r• -' >:Y nr.a- � =;fir _ �. 140 NORTHWESTERN REPORTER• _ We. find no ground warranting us in de- him not to make fast time- There was Sri. Glaring that the method adopted was illegal, deuce that at some time daring the drive the or that the acts complained of were nnau- driver was warned not to drive so near the - I thorized. Commonwealth V. Wyman, 137 Pa. edge of the road. Further than that no one -•;. 508, 21 Alt. 389, supports the views we have of the party. exercised any direction over t expressed to a very considerable extent. him.' They drove to Osceola, Wis- On th ` Order affirmed._ .. return trip the car ran over an embankment, ! L` ® —• -� - r; ,, _. , and overturn ed, causing ylaintiff the injury complained of. The jury found for plaintiM -i'MEXERS r TRI - STATE AUTOMOBILE CO Defendant appeals from an order denying an - j == (Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 7, 1913.) alternative motion for judgment or for a ' � -, • - -• �� new trial. 1By11abue by the Court.) - •� Two questions are rase ou this a MASTER AND SERVANT (� 330• id h ppeal a 3 ) — Nsara- k f Y OENCE OF SERVANT— EVIDENCE Defendant contends: (1) There is no evl. !' The driver of an automobile drove over an dente that the driver was negligent. (2) It embankment on the left side of - the road. It he was negligent, defendant is not respond I { was broad daylight The road was hard, dry, ble therefor. 1 _ and smooth, and wide enough for two vehicles. �1) L There was There was no obstruction, and no other vehicle ample P evidence o the ! 1 y' c On the road. The car was in good condition. negligence of the driver. He was travelint ppp There was evidence that he bad at times before at. a moderate rate of { been driving carelessly and too near the edge speed on a hard, x i of the road. It was a hot day, and the driver's smooth, dry, road, wide enough for two ants explanation was that he was taken with a pe. mobiles to pass each other. It was broad ! i _• Mod of dizziness which came on suddenly, and daylight. on a bright, hot day. The tar lasted but amoment. - Held, that the question and Its machinery were in good rondition, :r of his negligence was for the jury, and that The driver permitted the car to roll over an 3 - the evidence was sufficient to sustain their find- _ ing that he was negligent - embankment on the left side of the road - (Ed. Note, —For other cases, see blaster and There wasp evidence that he had been driving _ : Iry ]nt, Cent. Dig, if 1270 -1272; Dec. Dig. 6 carelessly at times, that he had been can. �, tioned before about going near the edge of 2. MASTER A ND SERVANT Q 301) — N EarS- the road and also about going too fast. The <}ENCE OF SERVANT— IN JURT To TM RD PER - #! ( ( SONS. �, _ _ r -. - driver's explanation of the cause of the as t . } Where a dealer in automobiles and own- cident fa not very Satisfactory. He said: + er of a garage lets a car for hire and furnishes It was a "sort of a period of dizzineaa, , driver, and the hirer exercises no control or which I don't suppose I would ever realise g supervision over the driver, except to direct find out what it was it Mr. Walker hadn't ! to him where to go, and what route to take and to caution him against improper driving, the called my attention to it, but I don't remem• owner is responsible for the negligence of the ber anything outside of the last I remem ! ` i driver, and the hirer may recover from the her I was looking owner in damages for an injury caused by the ng ahead at the road ,and r• driver's negligence. from that time on until the accident occur- d. Note. —For otber cases, see Master and red it was blank to me. I don't know how 341 (E �� t, Cent Dig. if 1210 - 1216; Dec. Dig. 4 far. It might have been 30 feet. It might have been five feet." He admitted that be Appeal from District Court, Hennepin had been all right Immediately before and , County; Homer B. Dibell Judge. that he was all right immediately after the Action by J. Edward Meyers against the occurrence. Defendant contends that be Tri -State Automobile Company. Verdict for must have been overcome by exhaustion and iI Plaintiff. From an order denying motion beat. Clearly the evidence did not establish for judgment or for new trial, defendant ap- any such theory as a matter of law. Tak- yeah Affirmed. ' t Ing all the evidence together, it was clearly h Edmund A. Prendergast, Henry C. Plan- sufficient to Sustain the finding of the jury nery, and Brown & Guesmer, all of Mines that the driver was negligent. olls, for appellant. Larrabee & Davies and [Z) 2 Defendant contends that it is not Jay W. Crane, all of Minneapolis, for re- liable to plaintiff for the negligence of the spondent. driver; that its only duty was to use reason. able care in the selection of a driver. This H,ALLAM, J. Plaintiff and one Walker 1s not the ordinary rule where one person 1 +� hired of defendant an automobile, with a is injured by the negligence of the servant driver, to take a country trip. Defendant of another. The general rule In tort actions was a dealer In automobiles, and did not Is that: "Tbe principal is liable for the acts ! ordinarily let its vehicles for hire. The car and negligence of the agent in the course of used on this occasion was a two-seated live his employment. • • • So long as be I passenger car. It was in good condition. stands in the relation of principal or master r! The driver was a generally competent driv- to the wrongdoer, the owner is responsible r I er. Plaintiff sat in the rear seat with some for his acts." Hunt, J, in Railroad Co. Y I ! ladies. Walker Sat in the front seat beside Harming, lei Wall. 649, 657 (21 L- Ed. 2201. i the driver. He directed the driver where to and that is any given case "that person Is { j go, and what road to take, and cautioned undoubtedly liable who stood In the reladoa ! ; *For other eases see same j •. � : . i t and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. !Ana, Dls. KeyNa Satfu k Bap'r Iadssr 1 I , MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, HRA Coordinator' DATE: February 6, 1987 1, SUBJECT: Potential Redevelopment Areas in Brooklyn Center Monday evening the Council will be discussing economic development. It is the intent of the discussion to provide staff with some initial direction for the completion of an economic development policy. I have identified eight (8) locations (see attached map) throughout the City that I believe could require an active role on the part of the HRA to realize their development or redevelopment. If the Council agrees that the redevelopment of these sites is of major interest to the City, I would propose that staff would be directed to enter into initial discussions with prospective developers for each of the respective sites knowing that there is a role that the City /HRA is willing to take in the development of the parcels, however, the extent and nature of our participation would have to be defined. Timing and circumstance would dictate when staff would talk to or solicit development for the various areas. The first area is the R -7 property on Shingle Creek Parkway immediately south of the library. Under normal circumstances, that parcel could accommodate in excess of 300 units. However, soil conditions on the site severely limit placement of a building on the property. I believe that this parcel will not be developed without some significant help from the HRA. Soil corrections could make this project unfeasible. This parcel should be considered for low income housing (elderly or otherwise). Timing on our part is, in part, dictated by the Earle Brown Commons project. It would not be in our interest or a developers to assist this development now. We would want to give the Earle Brown Commons time to establish its market before we assist its competition just a block or so away. The second site is the area around 50th and France Avenue North. It includes the Joslyn Pole Yard, the railroad property to the north, Murphy's Warehouse and the industrial property on the east side of France. Everyone is aware of the pole yard problems. The railroad property in conjunction with the warehouse leaves a large parcel of land suitable for some type of development. The major problem here might be one of land assembly and perhaps use. The east side of France is typified by an old, deteriorating industrial area. Again the major problem here might be one of assembly. I see no immediate timetable for this area. Across Highway 100 is the third area. At some point in time, we should anticipate a deterioration of this area. The type and level of assistance in this area is unknown. I see this as an area of the City that has a potential to become a problem in say ten (10) to fifteen (15) years. The Northbrook commercial area (east of Highway 100) is the fourth area. I would anticipate that we will see a major renovation if not a total reconstruction of this area in the relatively near future (10 years). We have Memo to G. Splinter February 6, 1987 Page 2 seen a turnover in business in the shopping center, and we are aware that some businesses in the area are having a hard time. A total redevelopment of the area will probably require our help. The fifth area is bounded by Willow Lane on the east, Camden on the West, I- 694 on the south and 66th Avenue on the north. There are a number of problems in this area, however, the primary emphasis would be on land assembly. This area represents a unique opportunity for the community. It represents the gateway Brooklyn okl Center nter and northwest est Hennepin County because of its location at the junction of I -94 and I -694 I believe � that the City should strive for an intense development that makes a statement about Brooklyn Center. It is probably one of the most important areas to be redeveloped in the City. A large hotel and/or office e develo menu would p probably be most appropriate. Also, the Willow Lane Apartments are located P in the area An overall plan for the area should address the apartment complex and the motel adjacent to the apartments. The sixth area represents an area of undeveloped land and of excess freeway right-of-way. g The Housing Y g has been discussing the acquisition of these ro erties P p The project would be to assemble the land, replat and subdivide into single family lots. Approximately thirty plus lots could be developed. The time frame for this development would be approximately five PP y (5) years dependent upon MNDOT's releasing sin of the g excess land. The seventh area is all along Brooklyn Boulevard. There are more than a few areas, such as 69th Avenue and the Boulevard, that may require our participation. Economics makes this area difficult to assist. The eighth area is Malmborg's. It holds the potential for a residential (multifamily) development that could address some of Brooklyn Center's future housing needs. I g see no timetable on this area. I hope to cover each of these areas in greater detail Monday evening. Please note that we are not proposing projects but rather trying to identify potential future projects so that we might be better prepared to deal with them as they arise. I r� IYN WYYYLIW if -'� Al >O /r/ M AAN �'•{�� 1 � _ — � 6.116, Alkohl �, - .,r YwY s L-�Jl__.Js ©oo ' �� LL�'] C , .rww.w El 1 .y° a Y Y r "'° � , �.t Y.... tl '� •'�!� • LJ' � E It �! • F�� � t. Yfl� I E � _r�1 ® v � � III • ur 717E — 9 J • •w mn ntF l Flf inIs f F t f t ! F f F fs 't iFlff3 rF.l YY f I/ ! � I7 ° N• Ytw�� /� � Il�lii�����l �I3�ii�: �' fEfFdtl ���Ifl l�i�li�il lil �t:�iiltii4�1���I�i�I'tf: "Fl�f tsfe.Y -E MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, HRA Coordinator DATE: January 26, 1987 SUBJECT: Minnesota Star City Program The Star City Program is intended to help participating cities develop organizational, marketing and problem solving skills necessary for the successful implementation of an economic development strategy. The primary thrust of the program is to better position a community to attract new business and expansions of existing ones. In order to receive a Star City designation from the State, a community is required to complete eleven (11) tasks that are primarily organizational or planning in nature. The cost, apart from staff time, is dependent upon the degree of sophistication or professionalism a community elects to exercise as they complete the projects. As noted in the State's brochure, some communities have completed the tasks for less than $1,000. However, the use of consultants and /or professionals can significantly increase the cost. I would estimate that our budget would be approximately $8,000 and would take about one (1) year to complete. As I have noted, there are eleven (11) tasks to be completed. The first step is to organize a committee to complete the tasks. The committee is generally made up of members from a cross section of the community. While the scope of authority of the committee varies from community to community, they generally haw several characteristics in common. The often serve as a liaison son the "community" between y and business. They try to find solutions to problems businesses have in the community. They often act as an advisory group to the Planning Commission and City Council on zoning matters. Their primary function is to collect data and promote the community's advantages to commercial and industrial business. A second task is to create a Local Development Corporation. Under Minnesota law, the Local Development Corporation (LDC) can be a legal _entity (nonprofit). While the organization or committee established b . s done b the Council i resolution, 1 y lution, it could be advantageous to have a committee with certain corporate authority. They have powers to make loans, buy and sell real estate, raise capital, all to facilitate economic development. The downside being the complexity of maintaining the corporation and the expense. They are also autonomous and can act independent of the City. The third step is the completion of a community profile. It is a data summary document that Brooklyn Center has completed in the past and filed with the State. However, the document would have to be updated. The fourth task is perhaps the most beneficial to Brooklyn Center. The community must draft a five -year plan for economic development. The five -year plan provides a framework for economic decision making. The plan should provide guidance on when specific policy decisions are made, such as how much I e Memo to G. Splinter January 26, 1987 Page 2 subsidy to provide, or how much control to exercise. It also provides a framework to make things happen as opposed to reacting to events after the fact. The fifth task is a one -year plan. While the five -year plan outlines goals and policies, the one -year plan creates specific activities to be undertaken towards the realization of the five -year plan. For example, the five -year plan may call for the _community to exercise control over the development of a general area. The one -year plan might call for the acquisition of a specific parcel of land within that area. To retain the Star City status the community has to submit a one -year plan to the State each year. The sixth task is to develop a slide presentation. The intent is to provide a brief community story on slides. It is a basic marketing tool. This is an area where a community could expend a great deal of money, although with slight modification, the All America City slide presentation would suffice. The seventh task is a -labor survey. A labor survey would provide prospective businesses with a rather detailed analysis of our labor force, including number of workers, sex, age, occupational classifications and distributions, race, unemployment, cost of labor, educational levels, income and so forth. This is a planning tool that would be very beneficial to the City /HRA when we are involved in redevelopment projects. This could be one of the more complex and time consuming tasks to be completed. The eighth task is a capital improvement plan. The capital improvement plan is also five (S) years in duration. The primary focus of this plan or analysis should be on market conditions that affect cost and timing of a capital improvement. Developed in conjunction with the economic development plan, capital improvements results in expenditures for long -term investments such as land acquisition, site development, street, sewer, water and other assets. A capital improvements plan would require: project descriptions (i.e., identification of sites and work), a schedule of expenditures, and funding sources. A fact brochure is the ninth task. While Brooklyn Center in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce ublish p ed a Brooklyn Center brochure, it is time to update that piece. Again, this is an area where a large sum of money be g y spent. It would also be necessary to keep it current which indicates an ongoing expense. Perhaps one of the single most important factors of economic development is the retention of existing businesses. The tenth task is the development of an annual business survey. The intent of the survey is to identify potential "exit" businesses and the reasons for leaving. The survey data should assist in responding to specific business needs. Areas that would be reviewed would include zoning, permits, g p its,. fees, public safety or other areas of concern to local business. The program should provide an early warning for the City of those businesses contemplating a move from the City. Hopefully it would allow the City /HRA the opportunity to assist such business if possible and retain them within the community. Memo to G. Splinter January 26, 1987 Page 3 The eleventh and final task is the preparation of a realistic assessment of industries and businesses offering the greatest potential for locating in Brooklyn Center. A mock presentation (marketing) of a site is made to an industrial client by the City's marketing team as a part of Star City approval. Assessing the value of the Star City Program for Brooklyn Center is somewhat of a mixed review. As a concept the program is directed more towards the needs of a developing community as opposed to a redeveloping community. It is also more rural than urban in approach. However, some aspects of the program would be beneficial to Brooklyn Center and should be given serious consideration. The five -year development plan is a worthwhile and a timely objective for Brooklyn Center. As you are aware, the HRA is taking an ever increasing role in the development /redevelopment of Brooklyn Center. It would be timely to establish a set of goals and objective priorities. With such a plan, the HRA could formulate strategies if necessary, establish control of sites, and lessen the potential economic burdens for the City /HRA associated with specific developments. Towards that end, the HRA annual budget could partially fill the role of the annual plan. I have reservations about creating a permanent committee per the requirements of the Star City Program. It has been my experience that volunteer committees function best when given a specific project and upon completion of that project disband. It is difficult to retain interest on the part of volunteers without a specific task to perform. When volunteer committees lose interest, it is very difficult to reestablish that motivation again. The State offers forty hours of free technical assistance in developing a Star City Program. Most of the assistance is in the form of organizing the initial effort and from then on providing computer assistance for such tasks as the demographic and labor force profile. It is my recommendation that a committee with representation from the Housing Commission, the Planning Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, and perhaps others interested be formed to make recommendations to the City /HRA relative to an economic development policy for Brooklyn Center. While the State program does have merit, I believe that we would be more successful if we developed a policy and implementation strategy that fits Brooklyn Center's needs as opposed to adopting a somewhat uncompromising State program. Brooklyn Center should not hesitate to take from the State program those items that are of benefit to the community while pursuing its own course. DRAFT PURPOSE STATEMENT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BIENNIAL PLANNING PROCESS The purpose of a biennial planning meeting is to provide a forum for the members of the Brooklyn Center City Council, advisory committees and commissions, and City staff to review and further develop the long—term agenda for the City. The following benefits should grow out of this meeting: 1. A usable, updated Comprehensive Plan. 2. An "anticipatory" response to change in the coming decades. 6 � 3. A periodic exercise in identifying community problems and concerns in their earliest stages of development. 4. An effective network of communication among the community and its City Council, advisory bodies and City staff for formulating the City's long -term agenda. 5. A periodic opportunity to evaluate the progress made on addressing issues and the mechanisms in place for dealing with problems and concerns. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on February 9, 1987: CIGARETTE LICENSE Duke's Standard 6501 Humboldt Avenue N. Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 West 74th Street 1 Ryan Construction 6200 Shingle Creek Pkwy. (J City Clerk ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Orchard Lane PTA /Dawn Kiefer 6218 Kyle Avenue N. Sanitarian MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LICENSE Brookdale Ford 2500 County Road 10 City Clerk NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Canteen Company of MN, Inc. 6200 Penn Avenue S. FMC 1800 Freeway Boulevard Medtronics 6700 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Canteen Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Route Hoffman Engineering 6350 James Avenue N. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Drive Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 West 74th Street Ryan Construction 6200 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Northern States Power 4501 68th Avenue North Service America Corporation 7490 Central Avenue NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Donaldson's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Twin City Vending Co., Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 Builders Square 3600 63rd Avenue N. Group Health, Inc. 6845 Lee Avenue N. Sears Brookdale Center �(, qLwylgla Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Canteen Company of MN, Inc. 6300 Penn Avenue S. FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Canteen Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Route Ault, Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Hoffman Engineering 6350 James Avenue N. Minnesota Vikings Food Service, Inc. 5200 West 74th Street Ryan Construction 6200 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Service America Corporation 7490 Central Avenue NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Donaldson's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Twin City Vending Co., Inc. 1065 East Highway 36 Builders Square 3600 63rd Avenue N. Earle Brown Farm Ind. Park 6100 Summit Drive Sears Brookdale Center 2 Sanitarian &k— POOL AND BILLIARD TABLE LICENSE Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Drive City Clerk READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Tombstone Pizza Corp. P.O. Box 7000 Sanitarian SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Best Products Co., Inc. 5925 Earle Brown Drive Fun Services, Inc. 3615 59th Avenue N. Maid of Scandinavia Co. 3244 Raleigh Avenue Total Petroleum, Inc. 6830 Brooklyn Boulevard Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: D. K. Weeks, City Clerk