Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 10-05 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OCTOBER 5, 1987 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 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. qu 6. Recess to Economic Development Authority Meeting 7. Reconvene City Council Meeting 8. Approval of Minutes: *a. September 1, 1987 - Regular Session *b. September emb p er 9, 1987 Special Session *c. September 14, 1987 - Regular Session *d. September 16 1987 - Special Session 9. Resolutions: *a. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Shade Trees (Order No. DST 10/05/87) *b. Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for and Execute a Grant Agreement with the Metropolitan Council -1988 Entertainment in the Parks C. Adopting the 1988 Budget *d. Authorizing a Tax Levy for 1988 Budget Appropriations e. Approving a One -Third Mill Levy for the Purpose of Defraying the Cost of Operation, Pursuant to the Provisions of MSA 462.411 through 462.711, of the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year 1988 *f. Authorizing the Execution of Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Cooperation Agreement - Community Development Block Grant Program CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 5, 1987 g. Resolution Approving Preliminary Layott Plan for Improvement of County Road 10 between Northway Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway h. Resolution Approving Proposal for Engineering Service Relating to Relocation of Storm Sewer between Lots 46 and 47, Block 6, Pearson's North Point 3rd Addition -The house located at 5806 Halifax Avenue North is located on top of the existing storm sewer. It is recommended that a study be completed to evaluate the feasibility for relocating this facility, and to develop a preliminary plan and cost estimate. 10. Ordinance: a. Vacating Portions of the Public Utility Easements Located on Lots 46 and 47, Block 6, Pearson's North Point 3rd Addition -The houses located at 5806 and 5812 Halifax Avenue North intrude into the existing public utility easements. This ordinance, vacating the portions of the easement located under those intrusions, is offered this evening for a first reading. It is anticipated that, by the time of the second reading, other matters relating to resolving the conflict between these houses and the City's storm sewer will be ready for consideration by the City Council. 11. Planning Commission Items: (8 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 87020 submitted by LaCasita Restaurant requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to build a solarium addition to the restaurant at 2101 Freeway Boulevard. -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 24, 1987, meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 87021 submitted by Firestone Car Rental, Inc. requesting special use permit approval to conduct a car rental operation at the Firestone Service Center 5445 Xerxes Avenue North. -This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 24, 1987, meeting. C. Planning Commission Application No. 87012 submitted by Bill Kelly House requesting a special use permit to operate a residential treatment facility for mentally ill and chemically dependent adults at 5240 Drew Avenue North. — This item was originally considered by the Planning Commission at its July 16, 1987, meeting and tabled. It was also considered and tabled at the August 13, 1987, meeting. This item was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its September 3, 1987, meeting. A public hearing was opened at the September 14, 1987, City Council meeting and continued to this evening's meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- October 5, 1987 12. Request for an Executive Session of the City Council to Cover Lescault vs. City of Brooklyn Center Lawsuit and Local 49 Local Issues Negotiations *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Reverend Erickson of Brooklyn United Methodist Church. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested item 8b be removed from the consent agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 24 1987 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the August 24, 1987, City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -172 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 9/1/87) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: 9 -1 -87 -1- AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR LICENSE Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. Davanni's 5937 Summit Drive Green Mill Inn, Inc. 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard Metropolitan Transit Commission 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Master Mechanical, Inc. 9864 James Circle SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Scenic Sign Corporation Box 881 The motion passed unanimously. The Finance Director presented a brief slide show in conjunction with the Proclamation Declaring September 17 through September 23, 1987, as Constitution Week. PUBLIC HEARING ON ANNUAL CITY BUDGET The City Manager stated this evening an overview of the annual City budget will be presented to the City Council, and the public hearing can be continued to September 9, 1987. He noted there are two major problems which staff has had to deal with regarding the proposed 1988 budget, those being the levy limit base and the fact there would be no state aid to communities. The Finance Director began the overview by reviewing aspects of the proposed budget g t and then proceeded to discuss revenues and other funding sources. He stated at the September 9, 1987, special City Council meeting, individual departmental budgets would be reviewed. Councilmember Lhotka inquired where the City stands with regard to the appeal which was submitted for the levy limit base. The Finance Director stated the City has not received the final word yet on the appeal but several communities have already been rejected. He noted that two communities have received a definite yes to allow them to levy an additional amount equal to the amount that had been funded from reserves in 1987. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the annual City budget. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. There being none he entertained a motion to continue the public hearing to September 9, 1987. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to continue the public hearing on the annual City budget to September 9, 1987. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding Requirements for Nursing Homes. He stated this item was first read on August 10, 1987, published in the City's official newspaper on August 20, 1987, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He stated this ordinance would address certain zoning issues which relate to nursing homes. 9 -1 -87 -2- Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding Requirements for Nursing Homes and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember. Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding Requirements for Nursing Homes. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 87 -11 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR NURSING HOMES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 Regarding Nursing Homes and Boarding Care Homes and a Housekeeping Change to Section 23 -901. He noted this ordinance was first read on August 10, 1987, published in the City's official newspaper on August 20, 1987, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He noted this ordinance would remove the requirement for City licensing of nursing homes. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 Regarding Nursing Homes and Boarding Care Homes and a Housekeeping Change to Section 23 -901 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 Regarding Nursing Homes and Boarding Care Homes and a Housekeeping Change to Section 23 -901. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 87 -12 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 REGARDING NURSING HOMES AND BOARDING CARE HOMES AND A HOUSEKEEPING CHANGE TO SECTION 23 -901 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. He stated staff is requesting deferral of this item until September 14, 1987, because the final plat has not et p y been filed. 9 -1 -87 -3- There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to continue the public hearing for An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land until September 14, 1987. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating Part of the Utility and Drainage Easement in Lot 3, Block 1, Donnays Brook Lyn Gardens 4th Addition. He noted this ordinance is offered this evening for a first reading. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Vacating Part of the Utility and Drainage Easement in Lot 3, Block 1, Donnays Brook Lyn Gardens 4th Addition and setting a public hearing date for October 12, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. PROCLAMATION Councilmember Theis introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption: PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 17 -23, 1987, AS CONSTITUTION WEEK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1987 -20 (Rehabilitation of Well Houses No. 5 and No. 6) and Approving Agreement with Roger Johnson - Richard Smith Architects, Inc. to Provide Professional Services Relating to this Project. Councilmember Hawes inquired if the engineering input mentioned in the August 26, 1987, letter from Roger Johnson - Richard Smith Architects, Inc. was the same item which was mentioned in the August 20, 1987, letter. The City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if Roger Johnson - Richard Smith Architects, Inc. looked at the buildings before placing a not -to- exceed limit on their quote. The City Manager responded affirmatively. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -173 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -20 (REHABILITATION OF WELL HOUSES NO. 5 AND NO. 6) AND APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH ROGER JOHNSON - RICHARD SMITH ARCHITECTS, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO THIS PROJECT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS PROPOSED NEW CHARITABLE GAMBLING REGULATIONS The City Manager noted in 1986 the City Council approved the operation of two locations for charitable gambling within the City of Brooklyn Center to be operated by the Lions Club of Brooklyn Center. He stated the City Council had 9 -1 -87 -4- instructed staff to watch these two operations carefully in an attempt to develop charitable gambling regulations. He noted the proposed charitable gambling ordinance would limit locations to organizations which are based in Brooklyn Center. He noted 90% of the profits must go to charitable organizations and that only pull tabs would be allowed. He added that only one license for each organization would be approved, however, the Lions Club has been grandfathered in to allow for the continued operation of two locations. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what the penalties are for misusing the operation of a charitable amblin location. The City Manager stated the maximum penalty g g It Y g P Y is set by the legislature for a misdemeanor. Councilmember Theis inquired why the City could not make violation of this particular ordinance a gross misdemeanor. The City Attorney stated the City cannot enact an ordinance which would declare penalties for gross misdemeanors. Councilmember Theis stated he was concerned with creating a monopoly by allowing the Lions Club to operate in two establishments. Mayor Nyquist inquired if the grandfather clause would govern the actual location or the number of locations allowed for the Lions Club. The City Manager stated the ordinance could govern the number of locations versus the actual location itself. He noted the proposed ordinance governs the actual location. He added in the case of the Lions Club, it may be better to overn the actual number of locations instead g t ad of the actual location itself. Mayor Nyquist recognized Bob Spies, representing the Lions Club. Mr. Spies stated he would like to thank the City Council for allowing them to continue to have two licenses and stated the Lions Club would favor the concept of two licenses rather than noting specific sites. He stated the organization will provide monthly reports to the City and added the basic concept for the Lions Club is to serve the community. He noted by allowing charitable gambling, the Lions Club has been given the opportunity to provide more to the community. He went on to briefly review the profits and expenditures generated by the charitable gambling pull tabs. There was a general consensus among Councilmembers to have the proposed ordinance amendments presented for a first reading on September 14, 1987. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:34 p.m. and reconvened at 8 :53 p.m. APPOINTMENT TO CONVENTION BUREAU There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to appoint Councilmember Rich Theis to the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau. The motion passed unanimously. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES POSITION PAPERS The City Manager briefly reviewed the Regional Meeting Issue Papers prepared by the League of Minnesota Cities. He went on to review each issue and the following votes were cast in support or opposition of the issues: 9 -1 -87 -5- TAX INCREMENT FINANCING i There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to oppose any changes by the legislature which would diminish the City's authority. The motion passed unanimously. VOTING EQUIPMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to oppose legislation making current voting equipment obsolete. The motion passed unanimously. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION DAY There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to support the continuance of opposition to a local government election day. The motion passed unanimously. LAND USE LEGLISLATION There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to oppose a separate Board of Adjustments. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to oppose the change in the definition of undue hardship. The motion passed with Councilmember Hawes opposed. There was a general consensus among Councilmembers that the requirement for a comprehensive plan does not affect the City of Brooklyn Center. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to oppose the prohibition of conditional zoning. The motion passed unanimously. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to oppose metro sales tax. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to oppose the gas tax increase. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to support the MVET transfer /dedication. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to oppose the jurisdictional reassignment. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to oppose changing the 62/29/9 allocation formula. The motion passed unanimously. 9 -1 -87 -6- HOMESTEAD CREDIT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to oppose any changes to the current homestead credit program or a new homestead credit program. The motion passed unanimously. LEVY LIMIT LEGISLATION There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to support the league's decision to make removal of levy limits an "A" priority. The motion passed unanimously. CITY SERVICE CHARGES FOR TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to support allowing cities to be able to voluntarily impose service charges on tax exempt property. The motion passed unanimously. RELATIVE TAX BURDEN FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF PROPERTY The City Manager stated he would like to have the City Assessor work on this portion of the voting card. LOCAL OPTION TAXES There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes to support the idea of local option taxes. The motion died for lack of a second. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to oppose the league's support of local option taxes. The motion passed with Councilmember Hawes opposed. APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY COMMITTEES FOR THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would like to volunteer to be on the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) for the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to appoint Councilmember Lhotka to the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee for the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to appoint the City Manager to the Technical Advisory Committee for the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority. The motion passed unanimously. A discussion then ensued regarding the necessary appointments to the Corridor Advisory Committee and possible membership on this committee: There was a general consensus among Councilmembers that a notice should be put in the official newspaper requesting interested parties to contact the City for appointment to the Corridor Advisory Committee. 9 -1 -87 -7- ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:55 p.m. City Clerk Mayor I 9 -1 -87 -8- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Nyquist reconvened the public hearing on the 1988 annual City Budget. Councilmembers began review of the 1988 revenues for the City. A brief discussion then ensued regarding levy limit adjustments and the possible use of the fund balance in lieu of raising taxes. Councilmember Theis inquired if staff was expecting the liquor store earnings to drop in 1988. The Finance Director stated staff does not believe the liquor store earnings will be down, but there is a need to purchase new cash registers for all three stores. Mayor Nyquist proceeded with the review of the appropriations budget and began with the City Council Budget, et Unit No. 11. The City Manager stated he is g a y g recommending $9,000 be left in this budget for the senior transportation portation program; however, he stated he believes there may be a better alternative to this program. A brief discussion then ensued regarding other possibilities for a senior transportation program. The City Manager stated he would urge the Council to consider raising the Council salaries before they become too far out of balance with other cities. He noted the effective date of these salary ncreases would not be January 1 y y > 1988 but he would have the City Attorney check to find out the actual effective date. The City Council next reviewed the Charter Commission Budget, Unit No. 12. The Council had no questions at this time. The Council proceeded to review the City Manager's Office Budget, Unit No. 13. The City Manager stated he cut the request for the cable broadcast equipment but noted he had left the requests for other improvements such as sound system improvement and lighting improvements in this year's budget. He noted these two items should be taken care of before the City Council considers broadcasting any type of meetings on cable TV. Councilmember Lhotka stated he does not believe any meetings should be broadcast until the City has a larger viewership. 9 -9 -87 -1- Councilmember Hawes inquired regarding the large salary increase for the Personnel Coordinator. The City Manager noted this salary increase is due to the comparable worth study. He noted the full amount would not actually be given in 1988, and the increase must be staged throughout the four -year period. A discussion then ensued regarding the comparable worth implementation plan and the effects it could have on different department budgets. The Finance Director noted that everyone except twelve people, seven full -time and five part -time, have been taken care of by the 1987 increase. Councilmember Theis stated he felt the 1987 implementation increase and the January 1988 implementation increase were too close together. He stated he was under the impression the 1988 implementation would occur one year after the 1987 increase. The Council next reviewed the Elections and Voter's Registration Budget, Unit No. 14. He noted 1988 would be a presidential election year and the cost has increased over the 1987 budget. Mayor Nyquist inquired if the new voting machines would cut the cost per election. The City Manager stated eventually the new voting machines would lower the cost for each election, but since 1988 would be the first year under the new system it will require additional training hours to make sure all the judges are confident and capable to cover all bases for the election. The Council had no questions on the Assessing Department Budget, Unit No. 15. The Council went on to review the Finance Department Budget, Unit No. 16. It was noted there were rather large increases for two positions within the Finance Department Budget. The City Manager stated these were due to the comparable worth study. The Council proceeded to review the Independent Audit Budget, Unit No. 17. The Finance Director stated he had budgeted an amount which would allow for the City to continue with the resent auditors. . e P H stated if the Council did wish to look for a new auditor, an additional 4 00 0 $ 0 would be needed. Councilmember Lhotka inquired how many firms could submit a proposal for the Independent Audit. The Finance Director stated there would be approximately six firms who could handle the City's audit. Mayor Nyquist inquired what the advantages would be of switching auditors. Councilmember Theis stated it is generally not a good business practice to stay with the same auditor year after year. By changing auditors periodically, the City would get a different perspective from each firm. Councilmember Lhotka stated he agreed with Councilmember Theis' comments but stated he did not really want to spend the additional money. The City Manager stated the City Council could leave the Independent Audit Budget, Unit No. 17 as is. He stated staff could solicit proposals from interested firms, and if the Council so wished the additional money could be taken from the contingency account to cover a new auditing firm. There was a general consensus among Councilmembers that staff should solicit proposals from auditing firms who have municipal and LOGIS experience. It should be noted to these firms it is the Council's intent to stay with the firm for three years if a reasonable dollar figure can be agreed upon for years two and three. 9 -9 -87 _2_ Councilmember Scott arrived at 8:05 p.m. The Council then reviewed the Legal Counsel Budget, Unit No. 18. The Cit Manager stated one reason the budget has increased over 1987 is because the City must now prosecute certain gross misdemeanors which used to be handled by the County Attorney's office. The Council proceeded to review the Government Buildings Budget, Unit No. 19. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what the line item for protection service (object No. 4398) was for. The City Manager noted this item is for monitoring of alarm services such as fire sprinkler systems. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why there was a separate line item for janitorial services. The City Manager stated the City contracts out the cleaning of the police department with a private service. He stated in the past, City employees attempted p ed to clean and maintain the police department, but with the police department open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, it was very difficult to fit all the necessary cleaning into the City's employees time. The City Manager went on to review the present number of employees in this department. Councilmember Lhotka left the table at 8:18 p.m. The City Manager continued review of this department budget and briefly outlined some of the building costs which are anticipated for 1988. Councilmember Lhotka returned to the table at 8:20 p.m. Councilmember Theis inquired regarding the lunch room remodeling. The City Manager stated this remodeling proposal surfaced partially because of the OSHA inspections and also because of the need for additional storage space in the kitchen area. The City Council next reviewed the Data Processing Budget, Unit No. 20. Councilmember Theis inquired why there was such a difference in costs for the micro /disk drive equipment outlined for the various departments. The Finance Director stated the micro /disk drive proposed for the community center was actually a complete desk top publishing unit, while the others are basic disk drive units. The Council continued their review of the 1988 budget by proceeding to the Police Department Budget, Unit No. 31. Councilmember Lhotka stated it appears to him that no one in administration is sure of what is actually taking place with the personnel in the police department. He stated he doesn't understand why it takes such a long period of time to discover these discipline problems and other areas of concern. The City Manager stated the problems in the police department have never actually been looked at on a shift to shift basis. He noted there has been an increased amount of activity during the period of midnight to 6 a.m. A discussion then ensued regarding the problem areas within the police department personnel and how this proposed staffing change will eliminate some of these problems. 9 -9 -87 -3- RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8 :55 p.m. Councilmember Theis stated in reviewing the budget it appears Capital Outlay items have been decreased for 1988, but he is very concerned with all the additional personnel being requested. He noted it appears many people will be added who will be working for the City for a number of years to come. The City Manager briefly reviewed the net increases for each department due to added personnel. Councilmember Lhotka stated it seems the City has eliminated a number of positions over the past years but now the trend is going in the opposite direction. The City Manager stated he and the department heads are now finding areas where the City cannot operate efficiently with less personnel. Councilmember Theis inquired which is the biggest problem for the police department, the lack of a third captain or extra clerical personnel. The City Manager stated if Councilmember Theis is asking him to choose between the third captain or the added clerical staff, he would have to consult with the Police Chief on this. He stated he feels there is an equal need for both areas. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if the police department would actually need a captain or if other administrative personnel could handle the position. The City Manager stated staff feels uniformed control is necessary for the dispatching area in the police department. Councilmember Scott noted there has been a large increase in the training budget for the olic p e department. The City Manager stated the department has requested several eo le be sent to training P P sessions for specialized areas. Councilmember Theis inquired what the difference was between the legal fees S noted in the police department budget and the actual legal budget itself. The City Manager stated the legal fees 'requested in the police department budget are for expert witness fees, lie detector tests, and interview boards. The City ouncil reviewed the Fire Department Y nt Bud et P , Unit No. 32. The Cit g Y Manager noted the major change to this budget is the recommendation to create a full -time fire chief position. Councilmember Lhotka inquired how man cities q Y have a full -time fire chief with a volunteer force. The City Manager noted the City of Brooklyn Center is about the only department of this size who does not have a full -time fire chief. There was a brief discussion regarding the fire fighter's pension. The City Council went on to review the Planning and Inspection Department Budget, Unit No. 33. The City Manager noted a request has been made to upgrade the current part -time clerical position to a full -time receptionist. He noted P this de _ department gets the most walk-in traffic of any department in the City. He stated at this point the part -time position works approximately two - thirds of the day and it is recommended the position be upgraded to a full -time position. Next, the Council reviewed the Emergency Preparedness Department Budget, Unit No. 34. The City Manager noted it is very doubtful the City will receive any federal matching funds for Emergency Preparedness Expenditures in 1988. 9 -9 -87 -4- Councilmember Lhotka inquired why this is kept separate from the police department budget. The City Manager stated in the past it was kept separate because of the federal funding the City received. The City Council went on to review the Animal Control Budget, Unit No. 35. The City Manager noted this budget anticipates approximately the same level of services as those performed in 1987. He noted the costs for these services are much lower than when the City contracted with MAPSI and the service is much better. The Council proceeded to the Engineering Division Budget, Unit No. 41. The City Manager noted this budget proposes the elimination of one engineering technician III position and one secretary position and replacing them with one administrative aid and one receptionist. He noted this reorganization would also eliminate the part -time clerical position which was funded in the 1987 budget. The Council then reviewed the Street Maintenance Budget, Unit No. 42. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why the sealcoating program is being upgraded. The City Manager stated the proposed sealcoating program would last longer and bind better. He noted over a period of time the City will actually spend less on sealcoating. He noted this item has been proposed in past years and he has always cut it out of the budget. Councilmember Theis questioned the expenditure of $100,000 for a new loader. The City Manager stated this proposed piece of equipment would actually replace two pieces of equipment that now exist in the street department. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the current uses of the present equipment and the uses for the proposed loader. There was a motion by Councilmembet- Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to continue the public hearing on the 1988 annual City Budget to September 14, 1987. The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 9 -9 -87 -5- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:07 p.m. a ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Reverend Zeimes of Brooklyn United Methodist Church. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Lhotka requested item 7b be removed from the consent agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -174 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST 9/14/87) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE Daisy Mae Dog Grooming 6830 Humboldt Ave. N. Pet Centers, Inc. Brookdale Center 9 -14 -87 -1- GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE Gallagher's Service, Inc. 1691 91st Ave. NE Gordon Rendering P. 0. Box 12785 ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. Realty World TCF Realty 4175 West Broadway Willow Lane Elementary School 7020 Perry Ave. N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Consumer Vending Service 3014 Lyndale Ave. Target Stores 6701 Parkway Circle PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Consumer Vending Service 3014 Lyndale Ave. Target Stores 6701 Parkway Circle RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Earle Brown Commons 6100 Summit Drive N. Renewal: Glenn Iverson 5900 Aldrich Ave. N. James Sautter 5933 Aldrich Ave. N. Howard and Harriet Oien 5809 Brooklyn Blvd. RFCI 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. Bob Van Moorlehem 6261 Brooklyn Drive Paul A. Dorfman 5245 Drew Ave. N. Helene Ebhardt 5639 Girard Ave. N. Michael L. Goodwin 5006 Howe Lane Lewis and Vivian Hedlund 5316 Russell Ave. N. Fred and Judie Swenson 5340, 44 Russell Ave. N. Thomas Howe and Bill Howe 3129 49th Ave. N. Thomas Howe and Bill Howe 3135 49th Ave. N. Charles W. Fyksen 904 53rd Ave. N. Nell Davis 3827 69th Ave. N. Gary W. Anderson 5413 70th Circle The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - JODY'S SECOND ADDITION The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the general location of the lot and noted two residential lots would be created out of one oversized lot. He noted preliminary approval was given in July and that approval of the final plat is recommended subject to two conditions which he reviewed for the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the final plat subject to the two conditions reviewed by the Director of Public Works for Jody's Second Addition. The motion passed unanimously. i s 9 -14 -87 -2- RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract No. 1987 -L (Camden Avenue Sidewalk, Improvement Project No. 1987 -10). The Director of Public Works briefly explained this project and noted there had been an error in developing the original engineer's estimate which resulted in the $6,000 difference between the engineer's estimate and the bid price. He went on to review the proposed driveway treatments and noted a concrete apron would be installed on all driveways whether they were constructed mainly of bituminous or concrete. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why the property owner, who had a bituminous driveway, would have a concrete apron installed. The Director of Public Works stated if the treatments were not consistent, it could appear that some property owners were being given a better treatment than others. Councilmember Hawes inquired if it would be possible to change the plans to allow for replacement according to the present driveways. He stated it would seem reasonable that those property owners who now have a concrete driveway would have the concrete replaced above the sidewalk and from the sidewalk to the curb, and those property owners who have a bituminous driveway would have bituminous installed above the sidewalk and from the sidewalk to the curb. The Director of Public Works stated this could done and noted a change order agreement would have to be executed to allow for this change. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka directing staff to prepare and execute a change order agreement which states an all bituminous driveway will be replaced with bituminous in lieu of the concrete as specified in the specifications. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0, 87 -175 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1987 -L (CAMDEN AVENUE SIDEWALK, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1987 -10) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1986 -K (Centerbrook Golf Course Building, Improvement Project 1985 -23, Phase II). Councilmember Lhotka inquired what the change order agreements were for. The Director of Public Works stated the change order agreements covered things such as floor tile and impervious material on the walls of the concession area in the golf course building, rain gutters, alarm system, and doors on the Little League concession building. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -176 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1986 -K (CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE BUILDING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1985 -23, PHASE II) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. 9 -14 -87 -3- PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 87018 SUBMITTED BY CSM REQUESTING A DETERMINATION THAT DANCE STUDIOS ARE ALLOWED IN THE CIA ZONING DISTRICT The City Manager noted this item was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at its August 27, 1987, meeting. However, he stated an ordinance amendment was recommended for this item. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to page eight of the August 13, 1987, Planning Commission minutes and also to pages two and three of the August 27, 1987, Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheets. He briefly reviewed the application and noted the applicant has stated a dance studio is similar to other uses allowed in the CIA district. The applicant has also stated this would be a destination type business not a drop -in business. He noted a public hearing is not required for this application but the applicant is present this evening. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the proposed ordinance amendment would cover both Cl and CIA zones. He added if the amendment is approved, instructional uses would still have to apply for a special use permit. Councilmember Hawes inquired if gyms and fitness centers would fall under this category. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated these type of uses have their own category. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to deny Planning Commission Application No. 87018 submitted by CSM requesting a determination that dance studios are allowed in the CIA zoning district. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Certain Instructional Uses in the C1 and CIA Zones. The motion passed unanimously. Public Works Coordinator Joe Oster entered the meeting at 7:43 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 87019 SUBMITTED BY JOE MAAS REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE LAND AT 4010 65TH AVENUE NORTH AND 6501 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BY SHIFTING THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE 30' EASTWARD The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its August 27, 1987, meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages one and two of the August 27, 1987, Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheet with those minutes. He noted the subdivision would transfer 30' feet of land from 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard to 4010 65th Avenue North so that 4010 65th Avenue North would meet the density requirements of a four -plex. He noted the building at 4010 65th Avenue North was originally proposed as a three -plex with a recreation room and laundry area. However, he stated these common rooms have been converted illegally to a fourth dwelling unit by the existing property owner, Joe Hamm. He reminded Council that the rental license for this building has been revoked. He stated the perspective buyer, Mr. Maas, has proposed to add approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of land so that density requirements for a four - plex are met. He noted two additional parking stalls would be required for the lawful changeover to a four -plex. 9 -14 -87 -4- i The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application subject to five conditions which he reviewed for the Council. He stated a public hearing has been scheduled for this evening and notices have been sent. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if a sixth condition should be added requiring the changeover to a four -plex. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated this could be added as a sixth condition or attached to one of the other recommended conditions. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 87019 submitted by Joe Maas. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 87019 submitted by Joe Maas. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 87019 submitted by Joe Maas requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide the land at 4010 65th Avenue North and 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard by shifting the common property line 30' eastward subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Easements for drainage and utility shall be revised to take into account the existing overhead power line and the relocation of the common property line. 4. The applicant shall enter into a performance agreement with a supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) to assure completion of two additional parking stalls and relocation of the trash enclosure on the site. The guarantee shall not be released until the fourth unit in the building is established as a full one bedroom unit. 5. Approval of this application authorizes the applicant to construct a two -car garage on the site in lieu of providing two additional open off - street parking spaces. Plans for the garage are subject to review and approval by the Building Official and the City Engineer. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. He noted this item would change the zoning classification to allow for the Maranatha addition. He stated this item was first read on July 27, 1987, published in the City's official newspaper on August 6, 1987, and was offered for a second reading on 9 -14 -87 -5- August 24, 1987. He pointed out a public hearing was opened on August 24, 1987, and has since been continued because the final plat has not been filed. The City Manager stated the final plat has still not been filed, but staff is recommending approval of this second reading. He assured the Council a building permit would not be issued until a final plat is filed. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing regarding An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and secondc`U. by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 87 -13 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding Charitable Gambling. He noted this item is offered this evening for a first reading. Councilmember Theis stated he had some concerns with regard to item No. 3 under Section 23 -1902. He stated he would like a further explanation of "lawful purposes ". The City Manager stated the Council could approve this ordinance for a first reading this evening and change the wording before the second reading. He noted the next item on the agenda, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Liquor License Establishments, is presented in conjunction with this ordinance. He stated either both ordinances should be passed for a first reading or denied the first reading this evening. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding Charitable Gambling and setting a public hearing date for October 26, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Liquor License Establishments and setting a public hearing date for October 26, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on proposed assessments for 1986 and 1987 diseased shade tree removal costs. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. 0 9 -14 -87 -6- There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on proposed assessments for 1986 and 1987 diseased shade tree removal costs. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -177 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COST TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIES NO. 10600 AND NO. 10601 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on proposed assessments for public utility hookups. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on proposed assessments for public utility hookups. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -178 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ON CERTIFY ING ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUPS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIES NO. 10602 AND NO. 10603 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on proposed assessments for delinquent public utility accounts. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on proposed assessments for delinquent public utility accounts. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -179 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY NO. 10604 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on proposed assessments for delinquent weed destruction accounts. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to . speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. 9 -14 -87 -7- There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on proposed assessments for delinquent weed destruction accounts. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -180 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT WEED DESTRUCTION ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY NO. 10605 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on proposed assessment for 69th and 70th street improvement project No. 1986 -10. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on proposed assessment for 69th and 70th street improvement project No. 1986 -10. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -181 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -10 TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY NO. 10606 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on proposed assessment for Earle Brown Farm Commons utility system improvement project No. 1986 -20. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on proposed assessment for Earle Brown Farm Commons utility system improvement project No. 1986 -20. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -182 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -20 TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY NO. 10607 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. i 9 -14 -87 -8- Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on proposed assessment for Earle Brown Farm storm sewer improvement project No. 1986 -08. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on proposed assessment for Earle Brown Farm storm sewer improvement project No. 1986 -08. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -183 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resoluti' and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -08 TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY NO. 10608 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on proposed assessment for hazard abatement at 5126 Drew Avenue North. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on proposed assessment for hazard abatement at 5126 Drew Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -184 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE COST OF HAZARD ABATEMENT TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY NO. 10620 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :26 p.m. and reconvened at 8:39 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 87012 SUBMITTED BY BILL KELLY HOUSE REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY FOR MENTALLY ILL AND CHEMICALLY DEPENDENT ADULTS AT 5240 DREW AVENUE NORTH Mayor Nyquist y yq briefly explained the procedure which would be used for this evening's public hearing regarding this planning commission application. He noted the Director of Planning and Inspection would give a brief overview of the application, there would be time for Councilmember questions and then the public hearing would be opened. He stated the Council has complete copies of all Planning Commission minutes regarding this item and all other information prepared for this application. He stated if anyone in the audience has new or additional comments they should come forward at the public hearing. He stated after the public hearing, the Council would give its consideration on the matter. 9 -14 -87 -9- The Director of Planning and Inspection stated' this application was considered by the Planning Commission at its July 16, 1987, August 13, 1987, and September 3, 1987, meetings. He noted that a memorandum has been prepared listing the 48 items of information which have been submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review. He then went on to discuss the planning application. He noted this group care home would be for 23 mentally ill and chemically dependent patients. It would be located at 5240 Drew Avenue North and this property is zoned R5. He noted group homes are allowed under a special use permit in the R5 zone. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the present location of the Bill Kelly House is 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South. He stated it has been at this location for the last five years. He noted all clients would be between the ages of 20 and 50 years old, unemployed, and have extensive histories of hospitalization and chemical dependency programs. He added the Bill Kelly House is licensed as a Rule 36 facility by the State Department of Human Services. He went on to review the proposed building remodeling and the staff suggestions which were made for certain site improvements. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated it appears the major concerns of the residents in the area are decreasing property values, safety, and proper maintenance of the group home. He went on to briefly review the report and comments that were submitted for the August 13, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. He stated the public hearing was then continued to the September 3, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. The Director of Planning nd Inspection b g n riefl reviewed the minutes P y n s and informational sheet and other items which were submitted for the September 3, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. He stated the two key issues which came out of this meeting were the adverse effects on property values and safety issues if the group home were approved. He stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application by a five to one vote. Councilmember Lhotka left the table at 9:26 p.m. Mayor Nyquist stated after reading the August 7, 1987, letter from the City Attorney to the Director of Planning and Inspection, he was uncertain of the legislature's intent pertaining to issues on page three of the letter. Councilmember Lhotka returned to the table at 9:28 p.m. The City Attorney stated that additional conditions can be added for residential facilities but noted these are only applicable for facilities allowing 7 to 16 people. Councilmember Theis inquired if the City has more latitude for placing restrictions on larger facilities. The City Attorney stated regulation by the City is limited both by the doctrine of state preemption and constitutional guarantees of due process of law and equal protection. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 87012 submitted by Bill Kelly House. The Mayor recognized Felix M. Phillips, attorney for the Bill Kelly House. Mr. Phillips stated the Bill Kelly House has a good track record at its present facility in Minneapolis. Mayor Nyquist inquired of Mr. Phillips if he had seen the pictures 9 -14 -87 -10- taken of the Bill Kelly House at its present location. Mr. Phillips stated he has seen the pictures of the present location but noted the owners do not attempt to maintain the property as it should be. Mr. Phillips stated evidence has shown there are more police calls for the proposed location at 5240 Drew Avenue North than there are at the present location. Mayor Nyquist recognized Henry Norton, administrator of the Bill Kelly House. Mr. Norton stated one of the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood appears to be the safety issue. He stated there has never been any incident where a neighbor has been harmed in any way, either verbally, physically, or property wise by a resident of a Rule 36 facility. He stated another issue which was brought up was the safety of the children from t � surrounding neighborhood attending the school and playground. Mr. Norton noted at the present location, residents of the facility use the same church facilities as a preschool program during the same hours as the preschool program. He stated there have been no incidents at the church and his program has the approval of the pastoral staff. He stated the residents and clients of this facility are not dangerous people, they are only sad, depressed, and lonely. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what type of criteria is used when looking for a new location. Mr. Norton stated he looks for a newer building, safe area for his clients, green space for recreational facilities, adequate room for clients and residents, and a low concentration of group homes. Councilmember Theis inquired what type of recreational facilities Mr. Norton has planned for the proposed location. Mr. Norton stated there would be a volleyball net, basketball backboard, and one to two picnic tables. He stated there is a half -time recreational director who will take clients away from the facility for other recreational activities. Councilmember Hawes stated he would like Mr. Norton to comment on two recent occurrences of residents walking away from group care facilities and harming someone else. He noted earlier in the year a six year old girl was killed by someone who walked away from this type of facility. And more recently, a resident walked away from Eden House and killed a Robbinsdale woman. Mr. Norton stated in both of these cases the residents did not reside in a Rule 36 group home. Councilmember Theis stated Mr. Norton had indicated earlier that no neighbors have ever been harmed by a Rule 36 resident. Mr. Norton responded affirmatively. Councilmember Theis inquired where Mr. Norton draws this information from. Mr. Norton stated this information is taken from data pertaining to Rule 36 homes. Councilmember Scott inquired if staff members or other residents have been injured within the facility. Mr. Norton stated occasionally there are squabbles within the building. Councilmember Scott stated the Council has a copy of the police calls made to the Re -entry House, and there are a number of pages within the report regarding injuries to staff and other residents of the facility. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Lyonel Norris, staff attorney for the Minnesota Mental Health Law Project. He briefly reviewed a 1985 study which was conducted and published in the May 1985, American Journal of Psychiatry. He also noted the two cases cited by Councilmember Hawes did not involve residents who were mentally ill. He noted in these particular cases these people were in the facilities because of placement there by legal jurisdiction. He reminded the City Council that the City Assessor clearly pointed out there appears to be no diminished values on property surrounding similar facilities. He stated it appears the Council seems intent on blatant speculation. 9 -14 -87 -11- Mayor Nyquist then recognized Richard Ellis, director of Bill Kelly House. Mr. Ellis stated that mental illness varies in all cases and went on to review the admitting and discharge criteria. Mr. Ellis stated in order for a client to be admitted to the Bill Kelly House, the drug abuse problem cannot be a current problem, nor will a client be admitted if he has any type of assault history within the past six months, nor will a client be admitted if he is harming himself or others. Mr. Ellis stated the discharge criteria for the Bill Kelley House is as follows: if a resident harms someone else, the resident is immediately discharged; if the chemical problems reoccur and the resident cannot stop using drugs, they will be discharged. Councilmember Scott inquired if all Rule 36 homes operate under the same set of rules. Mr. Ellis responded affirmatively. Councilmember Scott inquired if 'a11 Rule 36 homes would discharge a resident because of assault. Mr. Ellis stated all Rule 36 homes would not necessarily discharge a resident because of assault. He noted each facility has a target population which it works with. Mr. Ellis pointed out the target population which Bill Kelly House works with are people ages 18 to 60 with a primary diagnosis of mental illness and chemical abuse /dependency. Councilmember Theis inquired if the Council were to approve this application, could Bill Kelly House representatives change the target population without any Council input. Mr. Ellis stated items of this nature must be approved by the State and County licensing board. He added he believes the special use permit is being approved for the type of facility they are representing themselves to be. The City Attorney stated he does not believe such a representation by the applicant would hold the Bill Kelly House to a particular target population. Councilmember Hawes stated he was very concerned with the safety of students and residents in the neighborhood. A discussion then ensued regarding the possible outcome of different situations which could occur in the neighborhood. Councilmember Theis inquired if Mr. Ellis would be willing to add a condition to the special use permit regulating changes in the admittance and discharge criteria and target population. Mr. Ellis stated he would have to seek legal counsel on this issue before committing himself. He added he believes the City is in the business to grant special use permits, not to set license procedures. Mayor Nyquist asked for a clarification regarding the assault history within six months. He inquired if this meant the client was convicted of an assault or had assaulted someone. Mr. Ellis stated the client would not have to be convicted of an assault for it to appear on the complete health and mental history which is taken on each client. Councilmember Lhotka asked Mr. Ellis to explain a typical day at the Bill Kelly House. Mr. Ellis briefly described a typical day at the Bill Kelly House noting the curfew times for week nights and weekends. He stated clients do have free time to spend as they wish. Mayor Nyquist recognized Susan Lentz, attorney with the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis. She reminded the City Council that the City Attorney has stated that substantial and credible evidence must be presented in order to legally deny this application. She went on to review various State and Supreme Court decisions regarding denial of this type of application. She pointed out the State Human Rights Act protects people with disabilities against discrimination. A discussion then ensued regarding the definitions of mental retardation and mental illness for purposes of the State Statute. Councilmember Scott stated that she disagrees with Ms. Lentz in that mental retardation and mental illness 9 -14 -87 -12- are not the same condition. Ms. Lentz stated she did not intend to say they are the same disability but for legal definition they are very much the same for purposes of human rights and discrimination. Councilmember Theis inquired as to the size of the largest facility which the State could mandate the City to accept. Ms. Lentz stated a Rule 36 facility would be the largest under the State Statute and the maximum capacity of this facility is 25 people. Councilmember Theis inquired if it would be possible for two such facilities to end up being next to each other because of the State mandate. Ms. Lentz stated if there was a Rule 36 facility within a specific neighborhood and a second facility applied for a special use permit, the City could deny this special use permit. She noted the State would most likely not license the second facility because they do not want to promote a concentration of facilities but rather a residential setting. She noted the State does have some restrictions against proximity of facilities. Mayor Nyquist recognized Pat Buegenstin, a representative for the Alliance for Mentally Ill in Hennepin County. She stated she has two mentally ill young adult children. Mayor Nyquist left the table at 10:55 p.m. Ms. Buegenstin stated on behalf of the mentally ill population throughout Hennepin County and throughout Minnesota she would urge the City Council to approve the Bill Kelly House application. Councilmember Lhotka recognized Bernie Ackerson, 3713 53rd Place. Mr. Ackerson stated he received a letter in August from Commissioner John Derus, Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. In this letter, Mr. Derus states he agrees with Mr. Ackerson that this is not the best site for this type of facility. Mr. Ackerson stated after receiving the letter he called Mr. Derus on the phone and at that time Mr. Derus stated he has enough support from the Board of Commissioners to cut the funding din for the Bill Kelly 1 e House. Y Mayor Nyquist returned to the table at 10:58 p.m. Mr. Ackerson stated he feels there has been conflicting verbage from Henry Norton and other representatives of the Bill Kelly House this evening. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Gerry Olderberg who stated she has worked for the Bill Kelly House in south Minneapolis and also lives in south Minneapolis. She stated south Minneapolis is very concentrated with treatment facilities and that she and her neighbors have never had any problems with residents. She noted residents of the Bill Kelly House do not hurt others but rather are hurt by people outside the facility. Mayor Nyquist recognized Jill Sherritt, 5237 Drew Avenue North. Ms. Sherritt stated she is here representing the neighborhood and stated she is quite concerned with misrepresentations that have come about this evening. She noted earlier in the evening Mr. Ellis gave a brief description of a typical day at Bill Kelly House. She noted Mr. Ellis stated between 9:30 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. the residents would be in a class, but on the day that she and Mr. Roche visited the home they observed many different activities other than the classroom 9 -14 -87 -13- 1 setting. She stated she feels the representatives of the Bill Kelly House are not being very straight forward regarding the facts of the home and the residents. Ms. Sherritt stated the neighborhood believes the City needs to conduct a good thorough study on the possibility of decreasing property values. She stated the neighborhood is also very concerned regarding the safety in such a congested area. Ms. Sherritt stated the citizens in her neighborhood are demanding a one -year moratorium on this issue to allow for a thorough safety study and property value survey. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Ron Christenson, representing the Board of Directors of the Citizens for Better Government. He went on to review the concerns of the Board of Directors noting that current residents of the apartment building would be evicted to make room for the future group home residents. He cited the safety concerns of the neighborhood due to applicants and the County not wanting emergency vehicle to use sirens or other warning sounds when responding to calls at the group homes. He pointed out this could be a very large hazard especially to children who would not know a fast oncoming emergency vehicle was entering the neighborhood. He requested the City Council to give careful consideration to these concerns and the other items listed in his memorandum prior to any final decision. Mayor Nyquist recognized Susan Lentz who reminded the City Council that neighborhood hostility is not a definitive reason to deny the special use permit. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Phillip Roche, 5301 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Roche stated he does not believe anyone from the neighborhood wants to appear uncaring. He noted there are several concerns which the neighborhood has and feels these should be addressed before a final decision is made. Mayor Nyquist recognized Norma Nelson, 3519 53rd Place, who inquired about the rights of American people. She inquired who was going to protect the residents in the neighborhood who have been taxpayers for many years. She stated the neighborhood needs the City Council's help. Mayor Nyquist then recognized a resident from 5142 France Avenue North. This resident stated in both instances cited earlier by Councilmember Hawes the facilities in question were listed on the Rule 35/36 facility listing provided by the County. He inquired who provides the maintenance services for the current Bill Kelly House. Mr. Norton stated there is a maintenance man who presently mows the lawn and the lease agreement states the landladies paint and maintain the house. Councilmember Hawes stated he feels the doors of the apartment building should be monitored 24 hours a day. He stated if the doors are not monitored, a safety hazard could be created for residents of the neighborhood as well as residents of facility. Councilmember Theis stated he would like someone to elaborate on the statement that there is not enough funding to allow for more staff. Mr. Norton stated he would like to address Councilmember Hawes' comment. He stated there is a buzzer system on the doors at the present house in south Minneapolis and noted this would also be installed at the proposed location. He stated the staff of the Bill Kelly House has the same safety concerns as the Council. 9 -14 -87 -14- Councilmember Lhotka inquired what type of regulations or restrictions are placed on the upkeep of the building. Mr. Norton stated the building is inspected by the City and also by the Health Department. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the statement that emergency vehicles turn off their sirens when responding to a call at this type of facility. The City Manager stated he would like to check into this matter further. Mayor Nyquist noted he would like to make a couple of statements regarding this issue. He noted in all the years he has been on the City Council he has never had an applicant who has handled an application as poorly from the start as this one has been handled. He pointed out the representatives from Bill Kelly House keep reiterating how they want to be good neighbors to the neighborhood surrounding them, yet in letters that have been received by staff and Council they call the neighbors ignorant. He noted this is not very neighborly conduct and quite frankly he is appalled by the whole situation. He stated he would strongly urge the Bill Kelly House representatives and the neighbors of the area to sit down with the Mediation Project and discuss the strong feelings they have regarding this issue. Councilmember Lhotka stated he was not prepared to make a decision on this issue this evening. Councilmember Theis stated there were a number of items which he would like addressed by the City staff, legal counsel, and Bill Kelly House representatives. He noted there were approximately twelve items which concerned him, and he briefly outlined each item. Mayor Nyquist stated he would like a copy of the present lease agreement between the Bill Kelly House and the landladies in south Minneapolis. Councilmember Scott stated she resents being told by the State, attorneys, and the applicant that the City Council has absolutely no control over this type of situation. She stated letters should be sent to the legislature asking for more clarity in the law. She added she also resents being contacted at home and being called names over the phone. She stated she is more than willing to listen to anyone who is reasonable but refuses to listen to anyone who becomes unreasonable and abusive. Mayor Nyquist asked the City Attorney to comment on the one -year moratorium issue. The City Attorney stated he would like to do a complete analysis on this moratorium issue. The City Manager noted there were 37 days left for the City Council to make a final determination. He noted if a moratorium is established the time period is interrupted. Councilmember Lhotka noted the next regularly scheduled Council meeting is October 12, 1987. He inquired if it would be possible to hold a special meeting before that date to get some answers to the questions raised this evening. Councilmember Theis stated he would not be present at the October 12, 1987, meeting and would like to hold a special meeting to discuss these issues. The City Manager suggested the Council reschedule the October 12, 1987, Council meeting to October 5, 1987. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to reschedule the October 12, 1987, City Council meeting to October 5, 1987, at 7 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 9 -14 -87 -15- Councilmember Scott stated she would like written confirmation from Commissioner Derus regarding his phone conversation with Mr. Ackerson. A brief discussion then ensued relative to closing the public hearing or continuing the public hearing to October 5, 1987. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to continue the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 87012 submitted by Bill Kelly House until October 5, 1987. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to hold a special session of the City Council on September 16, 1987, to discuss the 1988 annual City Budget. The motion passed unanimously. NORTHWEST CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to appoint Jayne Kuhar, Bob Ellingson, Todd Paulson, and Gayland Halter to the Northwest Corridor Advisor Committee of the Hennepin Advisory p County Regional Railroad Authority. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 12:10 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 9 -14 -87 -16- e MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Police Chief Jim Lindsay, Police Captains Scott Kline and Joel Downer, Police Sergeant Greg Weeks, Greg Weeks, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Nyquist reconvened the public hearing on the 1988 annual City Budget. The City Council reviewed the Vehicle Maintenance Division Budget, Unit No. 43. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why object No. 4221, motor fuels, has decreased from the 1987 adopted figure. The Finance Director stated the 1988 recommended appropriation is based on recommendations from the rev' p sous and present years experience. The City Manager noted most of the City vehicles are now more fuel efficient than they have been in the past. Councilmember Scott inquired why the amount listed for trade -ins on capital outlay items is so small. The City Manager stated, in most cases, the City will receive more money than the dollar figure noted for trade -in items but staff does not like to be' overly optimistic. Councilmember Hawes entered the meeting at 7:10 p.m. The Council continued on to the Traffic Signals Budget, Unit No. 44. Councilmember Theis questioned the recommended appropriation amount for object No. 4371, electric service. The City Manager stated over the past two to three years there have been several changes in the signs throughout the City and it was difficult to predict what the cost of these changes would be. Councilmember Theis stated using the actual figures from 1986 puts the 1988 proposed appropriation approximately $7,000 higher. He inquired what type of increase the City had seen for these bills. The City Manager stated he would prepare a detailed listing of the cost for each signal. Councilmember Theis stated he is also interested in what type of changes took place between 1986 and 1988 for traffic signals. There were no questions or comments on the Street Lighting Budget, Unit No. 45. The Council reviewed the Weed Control Budget, Unit No. 46. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to have staff look at raising the administrative cost for weed control and the number of times per season that properties are cut. 9 -16 -87 -1- The Council then reviewed the Health Regulation and Inspection Budget, Unit No. 51. Councilmember Scott inquired what items would be purchased from the capital outlay section of this budget. The City Manager stated it would be specialized equipment and also a car, radio, and other miscellaneous equipment. The Council then reviewed the Recreation and Parks Administration Budget, Unit No. 61. The City Manager noted this budget contemplates one major change from the 1987 budget. He noted this change would be the addition of another full - time program supervisor. He stated this position would supervise and program all adult and youth sports activities. Councilmember Theis inquired how many people were on the staff when Gene Hagel retired. The City Manager stated there were six people on staff at that time and the vacant position created by his retirement was not filled. Councilmember Theis inquired what areas of the program would be enhanced by adding the new position. The City Manager stated the supervisor would program and supervise all adult and youth sports activities as well as devoting approximately 30% of its time to the Earle Brown Days Committee. Councilmember Theis inquired if it would be more economical to hire a person temporarily for the Earle Brown Days celebration. The City Manager stated the Earle Brown Days celebration requires attention y ear - round. Councilmember Theis inquired if the recreational programs are basically seasonal type programs or if they are year- round. The City Manager stated the programs used to be fairly seasonal, but now there is such a diversity in programs that they run year- round. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what object No. 4310, professional services, was for. The City Manager stated this amount was recommended to hire a consultant to conduct a study on City -owned land surrounding Kylawn Preserve Area. The City Council proceeded to review the Adult Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 62. Councilmember Theis inquired how much of this budget is supported by revenue. The Finance Director stated the entire budget is supported by revenue taken in. The City Manager pointed out that in recent studies that have been conducted, the City of Brooklyn Center recovers more of its program costs than most recreation programs. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why there were increases to object No. 4130, salaries, and object No. 4310, professional services, in addition to the proposed added person in budget No. 61. The Finance Director stated the two line items listed in department No. 62 are additional referees which are needed for basketball, softball, and volleyball leagues. He pointed out these costs are recovered by the fees which the participants pay. The City Council reviewed the Teen Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 63. Councilmember Theis stated the teen recreational programs appear much smaller than the adult recreational programs. He inquired if this reflects a lack of interest in the teen programs or not enough push for teen programming. The City Manager stated both reasons are correct. He noted the program which is held at Northview Junior High is a very active program but there does not appear to be much interest elsewhere. He added the City has not tried to be involved with the other school districts because these schools handle their own programs and the City does not want to compete with the school programs. There were no questions or comments on the Children's Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 64. 9 -16 -87 -2- The Council then reviewed the General Recreation Programs Budget, Unit No. 65. Councilmember Theis inquired how the skating rink program is going. The City Manager stated it was hard to judge how much use the skating rinks received last year because of the warm winter. He noted the expected activity for the skating rinks will still be below the usage of 10 to 15 years ago. He added that it does appear that activity is picking up somewhat though. Councilmember Theis stated he would like to have staff investigate the possibility of reducing the hours in which the warming houses are open. The Council reviewed the Community Center Budget, Unit No. 66. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what object No. 4520 buildings, is budgeted for. The City Manager stated this would be for tuck pointing the brick, mostly around the pool side of the building. Next, the Council reviewed the Parks Maintenance Budget, Unit No. 69. Councilmember Scott inquired where the fencing would be installed in Central Park. The City Manager stated it would be along the foul lines on the ballfields. There was a brief discussion as to what type of picnic tables would be purchased and where the flail mower was used. The Council proceeded to review the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Budget, Unit No. 80. There were no questions or comments on this item. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to go back and discuss the Police Department Budget, Unit No. 31. Councilmember Lhotka stated he was not willing to add additional personnel in the police department until the other areas of concern are taken care of. He stated he feels there are a number of things which must be brought under control before adding additional staff. Councilmember Hawes inquired how the City's police department compares with other departments of the same size. The City Manager went on to review the manpower survey which was conducted. Councilmember Lhotka stated he had no doubts that at some time the City would have to add additional personnel, but at this time he feels staff should take care of the administrative problems instead of throwing more personnel at the problem. The City Manager went on to review the salary differential for the positions of captain, sergeant, and patrol officer. Councilmember Hawes inquired if by adding a third captain there would be a captain on duty 24 hours a day. The City Manager stated it takes over four people to cover a 24 hour period, 365 days a year. Councilmember Scott stated she would like to have some input from the police department members present this evening. Councilmember Theis stated he would like to give the police department members an opportunity to speak if they wish. Mayor Nyquist pointed out that this evening's meeting is a public hearing and is open to anyone who wishes to address the Council on any matter pertaining to the budget. Mayor Nyquist recognized Patrol Officer Mike Kaulfauss, who stated the Police Association is against hiring a third captain. He said the Police Association agrees there are necessary changes which should be made, but they do not feel adding a third captain will help the situation. He stated the Association feels the sergeants should be given more administrative responsibilities and possibly hire an additional patrol officer to handle the street duties. Councilmember 9 -16 -87 -3- Theis inquired whether the paper work backlog has created a problem for the patrol officer. Patrol Officer Kaulfauss stated that he personally feels there is a great need for more clerical staff in the police department. The City Manager pointed out as the call load grows for the police department, the Council must look at the clerical and administrative level of staff in the police department. The Police Chief stated the captains handle all complaints, review reports, take care of the jail area, and handle a large amount of duties that one person could not take care of during the day. Mayor Nyquist recognized Investigator Bob Dirks who stated he believes there is a need for more manpower on the streets. He stated responsibility should be given back to the sergeants which would free up some of the captains time to allow them to do the other administrative duties. The City Manager stated whenever a task is completed, it takes up someone's time whether it be the sergeants or the captains time. He noted staff feels this proposal is the best way to handle the administrative duties. He went on to review the number of personnel in the police department for the past years. The Police Chief stated that after the reorganization in 1981, the police captains took on some of the duties of the sergeants who were sent back out on patrol. He added that the type of crime has changed and increased since 1979 and went on to describe the changes. Councilmember Lhotka stated he feels the administration in the police department needs to be tightened up. He stated if staff feels it is necessary to add more clerical staff, he is behind that 100 %. He noted he believes if the additional paperwork gets taken care of, it will help to tighten up control throughout the department. Councilmember Hawes stated he would like to see more coverage on the shifts and possibly coverage 24 hours a day with some weekend coverage. The City Manager stated he did not feel it was necessary to have 24 hour coverage each day. He added if administrative duties are given back to the sergeants it will take away from their time on the streets. The Police Chief reviewed the current hours of the two captains and explained what the proposed hours would be for the third captain. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there were any other questions regarding the 1988 proposed budget. Councilmember Hawes stated he would like to clarify the comparable worth situation. The City Manager stated it would be possible, if the Council so wished, to make the 1988 payment for comparable worth in August versus January 1. Mayor Nyquist inquired when the budget must be completely approved. The City Manager stated he believed it should be approved by October 1, 1987. Councilmember Theis stated he has a number of concerns regarding the tax levy proposed for 1988. He stated he would like to see the mill rate kept at the same level as it was for 1987. He added he would like to make enough cuts in the proposed 1988 budget to bring it down to the appropriate level for the mill rate. He stated he did not want to make these cuts to the capital outlay portions of the budget because he feels these areas have been cut as far as is possible. In order to bring the budget down to the appropriate level, it will be necessary to cut some ongoing expenses. 9 -16 -87 —4— Councilmember Lhotka stated he feels this is a very modest increase in the mill rate. Councilmember Scott pointed out the City has lost a great deal of state and federal aid. She stated she did not see that the City could cut any ongoing expenses without cutting necessary services, and she does not feel the City should do this. Councilmember Theis stated he feels staff is requesting higher increases than is necessary for ongoing expenses. The Finance Director stated residents will see no more than a 4% increase. He stated it is logical to assume that the commercial increase will be somewhat larger because of the state laws. Mayor Nyquist stated he does not like the idea of a mill levy increase but he does not see many alternatives to this. Councilmember Theis stated he did believe there were alternatives and that those were to cut certain areas. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 10 p.m. and reconvened at 10 :10 p.m. The City Manager stated he and the Finance Director have done some checking and it would be possible for the Council to adopt the final budget at the October 5, 1987, City Council meeting. He noted if the Council could give the staff direction towards areas to be cut, staff would prepare a resolution for the October 5, 1987, City Council meeting. Councilmember Lhotka stated it appears the Council has come to a consensus regarding the comparable worth implementation date for 1988. He noted that it should start on August 1, 1988. He added he still has a few questions regarding the full -time fire chief position that he wanted the City Manager to address. Councilmember Lhotka stated at this point in time he cannot approve the captain position in the police department. Councilmember Scott agreed with Councilmember Lhotka regarding the captain position. Councilmember Theis stated he is not willing to approve the captain position in the police department budget, but he would like to suggest putting all funds for this position, including he allocation tlon f or furniture into the contingency g y He stated he did not feel the police department is the place to cut the budget, but by transferring the funding for this position to the contingency account the Council would not have to approve the position immediately. The Finance Director reminded the Council that if the captain position is not approved it will have to be decided who will supervise the dispatch area. The City Manager inquired if the Council wished to approve the administrative services manager, three clerical positions, and decrease the part -time positions for the police department and move all items concerning the captain position to the contingency account. There was a general consensus among Councilmembers to approve the police department budget as the City Manager suggested. Councilmember Theis stated he still had a number of concerns regarding the ongoing expenses portion of the budget especially with regard to motor fuels and street lighting. He added he also had a few questions regarding the full -time program supervisor for the Park and Recreation Department. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if it would be possible to hire someone for a lesser position than program supervisor to handle the proposed position. He added he also has not heard the Council say they want the City staff to take on the functions of the Earle Brown Days planning. He noted he would like to see more reasoning why 9 -16 -87 _5_ this position is necessary. Councilmember Theis added he would like to know what the personnel structuring is for that department at this time and what the proposed structuring would be. Councilmember Lhotka suggested the Council approve the funding for this position in the budget but not allow the position to be filled until the Council is totally convinced the additional position is needed. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes directing staff to prepare a resolution adopting the 1988 Budget. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott directing staff to prepare a resolution approving a one -third mill levy for the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:43 p.m. City Clerk Mayor S 9 -16 -87 -6- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED SHADE TREES (ORDER NO. DST10 /05/87) WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Diseased Shade Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove diseased shade trees on the owners property; and WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of diseased shade trees by declaring diseased shade trees a public nuisance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The diseased shade trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREE NUMBER JOHN NAIL 5035 FRANCE AVENUE N 261 JOHN NAIL 5035 FRANCE AVENUE N 262 CARROLL R BREMSETH 6812 REGENT AVE N 265 W & M DIGGS 5942 VINCENT AVE N 266 LEE J & R PETERSON 5706 HUMBOLDT AVE N 267 DOROTHY J KNAPP 5400 FREEMONT AVE N 268 VICTOR M MARTINEZ 6536 ORCHARD AVE NO 269 MARVIN LARSON 5342 NORTHPORT DRIVE 270 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owners will receive a second written notice that will g ive them (5) business days in which h to contest the determination of City Council by requesting a hearing in writing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. 4. All removal costs, including legal, financing and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. 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. 1 h, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR AND EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL i WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center desires to seek a grant from the Metropolitan Council for state funding to carry out the sponsorship of four groups as part of the 1988 Entertainment in the Park series; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council requires that all grantees authorize and specify by resolution of their governing body the individual to apply for and execute the grant agreement on behalf of the organization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager, is authorized to apply for and execute on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center a grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council for sponsorship of four groups as part of the 1988 Entertainment in the Park series. I 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 ss y p ed and adopted. a/ (WWRTATB) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 87- RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1988 BUDGET ----------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the appropriations for budgeted funds for the calendar year 1988 shall be: GENERAL FUND Unit No. Organizational Unit Amount -- - - - - -- ------------------------------ - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- 11 Council $ 07,368 12 Charter Commission 1,500 13 City Manager's Office 325,341 14 Elections and Voters' Registration 38,488 15 Assessing 172,511 16 Finance 272,532 17 Independent Audit 12,000 18 Legal Counsel 178,500 19 Government Buildings 468,998 20 Data Processing 97,016 31 Police Protection 2,068,115 32 Fire Protection 293,656 33 Planning and Inspection 227,336 34 Emergency Preparedness 55,849 35 Animal Control 13,930 41 Engineering 387,045 42 Street Construction and Maintenance 884,277 43 Vehicle Maintenance 369,416 44 Traffic Signs and Signals 36,900 45 Street Lighting 135fOOO 46 Weed Control 2,000 51 Health Regulation and Inspection 45,934 61 Recreation and Parks Administration 253,262 62 Adult Recreation Programs 265,730 63 Teen Recreation Programs 10,031 64 Children's Recreation Programs 70,788 65 General Recreation Programs 81,666 66 Community Center 509,959 69 Parks Maintenance 523,949 80 Unallocated Departmental Expense 816,001 Total General Fund $ 8,715,098 PARK IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 REDEMPTION FUND $ 191,541 1969 BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT BOND REDEMPTION FUND 178,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR BUDGETED NDS FU $ 9,084,639; and RESOLUTION NO. 87- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the source of financing the sums appropriated are expected to be: General Property Taxes $ 4,335,122 Penalties and Interest on Property Taxes 35,000 Business Licenses and Permits 179,950 Nonbusiness Licenses and Permits 153,250 Intergovernmental Revenue 2,337,729 General Government Charges for Services 164,020 Public Safety Charges for Services 3,500 Recreation Fees 714,068 Fines and Forfeits 270,000 Fund Balance 250,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 642,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED SOURCE OF FINANCING $ 9,084,639; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager is authorized to grant pay increases due to the Pay Equity Act, not to exceed $1.50 per hour per employee, in accordance with Resolution No. 87 -151 adopted by the City Council on July 27, 1987. The increases due to Pay Equity shall become effective on or after August 1, 1987 and the amount of $12,000 has been included in the approved budget to fund said increases; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the additional position of Program Supervisor, for which funds were appropria- ted in the Recreation and Parks Administration budget, not be filled until specific authorization is given by the Council. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member thereof: , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. (WW88B1 ) MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Director of Finance DATE: October 1, 1987 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE 1988 ANNUAL BUDGETS I have attached resolutions which, if adopted by the City Council at its meeting of October 5, 1987, will approve budgets and levy taxes for the General Fund, Debt Retirement Funds, and the Economic Development Authority for 1988. The resolutions are: 1. Resolution to Adopt the 1988 Budget (General Fund and Debt Retirement Funds - City Council Resolution) 2. Resolution to Authorize a Tax Levy for 1988 Budget Appropriations (General Fund and Debt Retirement Funds - City Council Resolution) 3• Resolution Approving a One -Third Mill Le for the Levy Purpose of Defraying the Cost of Operation, Pursuant to the Provisions of MSA 462.411 Through 462.711, of the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year 1988 (City Council Resolution) 4. Resolution Approving the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority ' P � Buet for the � Year 1 88 Pursuant cant to MSA Chapter 462 Subdivision 6 (Economic Development Authority Resolution) 5. Resolution Establishing the Tax Levy for the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority for the Year 1988 (Economic Development Authority Resolution) The Economic Development Authority Budget and Tax Levy are presented for adoption unchanged from what was previously reviewed with the Authority and approved. The General Fund and Debt Retirement Funds Budget and Tax Le were changed at the instruction g nstruction of the City Council in the following manner: Appropriations were decreased as follows: ----------------------------------------- Decrease of appropriations for Pay Equity Act salary and benefit increases because the effective date of the increases was changed from January 1 to August 1. City Manager's Office _$ 2,007 Elections _ 2 Finance - 8,456 Police - 2 ,927 Planning and Inspection - 1 ,935 Engineering - 1,671 Parks and Recreation Administration - 4 ,662 Unallocated Departmental Expenses - 1,095 Total _$22, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE MEMORANDUM DATED OCTOBER 1, 1987 (CONTINUED) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Transfer of appropriations for proposed new police captain's salary, fringe benefits, and office furniture to Contingency Account in Unallocated Departmental Expenses. Police Department - $ 45,747 Appropriations Were Increased as Follows: ----------------------------------------- Contingency Account in Unallocated Expenses Account +$45,747 NET DECREASE TO APPROPRIATIONS - $ 22,983 Estimated Revenues were Adjusted as Follows: -------------------------------------------- Miscellaneous Revenue (Interest Income) Increased +$ 5,000 Intergovernmental Revenue (Police Pension State Aid) Decreased -$ 5,000 NET INCREASE OR DECREASE TO ESTIMATED REVENUES $- 000 The end result of the adjustments to the General Fund and Debt Retirement Funds Budgets as proposed by the City Manager was a decrease of $22,983. The tax levy was decreased by that amount. The resolution adopting the General Fund and Debt Retirement Fund Budgets authorizes the City Manager to grant 1988 Pay Equity Act salary and fringe benefits on or after August 1, 1988 and puts a hold on the fillin g of the new Recreation Program Supervisor position until the Council specifically approves. The position is funded in the Budget. --------------------- Paul W. Holmlund (IRTATL) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 87- RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A TAX LEVY FOR 1988 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. There is hereby approved for expenditures from general taxes, the following sums for the purpose indicated: CITY OPERATION AND ADMINISTRATION $ 3,574,917 EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT 390,664 $ 3,965,581 The foregoing does not include levies already certified to the County Auditor for the payment of outstanding loans, which levies for the year 1988 are as follows: PARK IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 REDEMPTIONN $ 191,541 1969 BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT BOND REDEMPTION � 178,000 $ 369,541 TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR 1988 FROM GENERAL TAXES $ 4 ,335 ,122 2. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property lying within the City of Brooklyn Center, in addition to all levies heretofore certified to the County Auditor as indicated in paragraph one hereof, the sum of $3,965,581, and the City Clerk shall cause a copy of this resolution to be certified to the County Auditor so that said sum shall be spread upon the tax rolls and will be payable in the year 1988. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member thereof: and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. (EEHRACR) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE -THIRD MILL LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 462.411 THROUGH 462.711, OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center is the governing body of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center entitled a "Resolution Establishing the Tax Levy of the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority for the Year 1988 "; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 462.545, Subdivision 6, must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Economic Development Authority of - the City of Brooklyn Center: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that a special tax be levied upon all real and personal property within the City of Brooklyn Center in the amount equal to one -third of a mill. l BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said one -third mill, to be used for the operation of the Brooklyn Center r Economic Development Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 462.411 through 462.711, be certified for tax levy to the County Auditor of Hennepin County on or before October 10, 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: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, HRA Coordinator DATE: October 2, 1987 SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Amendment An amendment to the Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement will be before the Council Monday evening. There are five (5) areas being amended, all of which are mandated by HUD. This joint agreement pertains to our community development block grant funds we receive annually. None of the five (5) areas have an immediate impact upon the City or the uses for which we have used the money. First, under definitions, metropolitan city is defined as any city certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more. This has no impact on Brooklyn Center. Second, the amendment makes effective the agreement until all monies are expended under to the duration of the program. The program funding is for three 3 ea ( ) yea rs, and the agreement is effective until all monies received under the program are spent. Third, the amendment is an assurance clause relative to Civil Rights Act and soforth. The City is required to comply anyway, but it is now set forth in the agreement. Fourth, the City is required to report and return program income to the County. Under the amendment, the City is assured of receiving the money back for new activities and we are required to keep records of such income necessary to monitor it. While new under the agreement, Brooklyn Center is already doing this. Fifth, the amendment deals with real estate acquisitions or improvements. This area is new to the agreement although the items are covered under program regulations. Brooklyn Center must notify the county of changes in the case of real property. The City must reimburse the county at fair market value the funds used if the property is sold or transferred for a noneligible use under CDBG regulations and if income from the sale would be treated as program income. As noted, none of these items have a direct affect upon the City or its ro ra s p m and I recommend that the amendment b g , nt e adopted. I will be available Monday f there are an questions. Y Y � Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 70458, for the purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program for Fiscal Years 1988, 1989, and 1990. BE IT RESOLVED, that Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Cooperation Agreement, County Contract No. 70458 be approved, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized to sign Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the City. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and u on thereon, the following voted in favor thereofp vote being taken and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT N0. THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the CITY OF hereinafter referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT." Said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59; It is hereby agreed that that certain agreement, made and entered into on September 15, 1987, and bearing Contract No. ' f14 ,,) between the herein -named parties covering joint cooperation in th Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program is hereby amended in accordance with the provision set forth below: Section I. DEFINITIONS of the original contract shall be amended by adding paragraph F. "Metropolitan City" which shall read: F. "Metropolitan City" means any City located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people. Section III. AGREEMENT Paragraph A of the original contract shall be amended to read: A. The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the effective date of October 1, 1987, and terminating no sooner than the end of program year sixteen (XVI) covered by the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount authorized by HUD subsequent to the effective date and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. Section III. AGREEMENT of the original contract shall be amended by adding paragraph D. which shall read: D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all action necessary to assure compliance with the urban county's certification required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Develop- ment Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and other applicable laws. Section VII. FINANCIAL MATTERS paragraph E. of the original contract shall be amended to read: E. COOPERATING UNIT shall inform COUNTY of any income generated by the expenditure of CDBG funds it has received and shall pay to COUNTY all program income generation except as derived from activities with an approved revolving account. 1. COUNTY will retain ten percent (10 %) of all program income paid to COUNTY to defray administration expenses. 2. The remaining ninety percent (90 %) of the program income paid to COUNTY shall be credited to the grant authority of COOPER- ATING UNIT whose activity generated the program income and shall be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities con- sistent with this Agreement. 3. COOPERATING UNIT is authorized to retain program income derived from activities with an approved revolving account provided such income is used only for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG requirements as they may apply. 4. COOPERATING UNIT shall maintain appropriate records and make reports to COUNTY as may be needed to enable COUNTY to monitor and report to HUD on the use of any program income. 5. Any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the closeout or change in status of COOPERATING UNIT shall be paid to COUNTY. Section VIII. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT shall be added to the original contract and shall read: SECTION VIII. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT l i � The following provisions shall apply to real property acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds. A. COOPERATING UNIT shall promptly notify COUNTY of any modification or ro change in the use of real property from that planned at the time p p of acquisition or improvement including p ng disposition. B. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. C. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or subsequent to the closeout, change of status or termination of this Agreement shall be treated as stipulated in Section VII, paragraph E of this Agreement. Section IX. METROPOLITAN CITIES shall be added to the original contract and shall read: SECTION IX. METROPOLITAN CITIES A. Any metropolitan city executing this agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of Urban Hennepin County only under condition that a statutory provision authorizing deferral of metropolitan city status becomes enacted prior to the official allocation of the FY 1988 CDBG funds. B. Should the statutory provision authorizing deferral of metropolitan city status not be enacted it will be necessary for Hennepin County and any metropolitan city executing this agreement to request HUD to approve the inclusion of the metropolitan city as a part of Urban Hennepin County for purposes of planning and implementing a joint community development and housing assistance program. In such a case this agreement shall be fully effective. This agreement shall be effective for the same period as the original agreement. Except as hereinabove amended, the terms, condition and provision of said Contract No. dated September 15, 1987, shall remain in full force and effect. COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this agreement on , 1987, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA agreement will be legally va and bindi By Chairman of its County Board ssist nt C y At And: Date: • -! POP Deputy/Associate County minis ra or APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: ATTEST: Deputy County Auditor Assistant County orney Date: CITY OF By: Its And: Its The City is Organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY LAYOUT PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT OF COUNTY ROAD 10 BETWEEN NORTHWAY DRIVE AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation has prepared a preliminary layout plan for the improvement of County..Road 10 (58th Avenue North) between Northway Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway (Hennepin County Project 8716) and has submitted said plan to the City for review and approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said plan and has determined that the plan meets the needs of the City and that the proposed design is acceptable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said preliminary layout plan is hereby approved the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed to monitor the development of detailed construction plans and specifications for this project and to cooperate with the Hennepin County Department of Transportation so as to assure that the project details meet the needs of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. Financial a rtici ation ' in the project b the C' P e it of Brooklyn P P J Y y y Center will be defined in a cooperative agreement which will be developed and submitted to the City Council for its consideration and approval prior to proceeding with the project. 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY LAYOUT PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT OF COUNTY ROAD 10 BETWEEN NORTHWAY DRIVE AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation has prepared a preliminary layout plan for the improvement of County Road 10 (58th Avenue North) between Northway Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway (Hennepin County Project 8716) and has submitted said plan to the City for review and approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said plan and has determined that the plan meets the needs of the City and that the proposed design is acceptable except that the City of Brooklyn Center requests that the plan be amended to include the construction of an "end wall and g railing" design at the North end of the proposed culverts at Shingle Creek. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said preliminary layout plan is hereby approved the City of Brooklyn Center with y the rovision that the plan shall be amend ed P P to include the construction of an "end wall and railing" design at the North end of the proposed culverts at Shingle Creek. 2. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed to monitor the development of detailed construction plans and specifications for this project and to cooperate with the Hennepin County Department of Transportation so as to assure that the P ro'J ect details meet the needs of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. Financial participation in the project by the City of Brooklyn Center will be defined in a cooperative agreement which will be developed and submitted to the City Council for its consideration and approval prior to proceeding with the project. 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 :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 1, 1987 RE: Improvement of County Road 10 Between Northway Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway On January 12, 1987 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 87 -13 (copy attached) requesting Hennepin County to improve the left -turn capacity for Eastbound traffic from County Road 10 to Shingle Creek Parkway. Attached hereto is a letter from Hennepin County indicating that they have started preparation of plans for this project. Also attached is a copy of the preliminary plan layout which shows development of a double left turn lane starting at the Northway Drive intersection and extending to Shingle Creek Parkway. As noted in the letter from Hennepin County, their current plan is to replace the existing bridge across Shingle Creek with a triple box culvert which would be continuous across the entire width of County Road 10, including the area where the City's existing pedestrian /watermain bridge is located. It is our opinion that the use of culverts to replace the bridges is desirable because: (1) it requires substantially less maintenance (2) it allows much greater flexibility in the design of the roadway - especially for possible future changes (3) it allows the center island on County Road 10 to be made continuous, and (4) it replaces the pedestrian bridge. (which does not meet current handicap design standards) with an at -grade sidewalk. Although no firm costs estimates have yet been prepared, it is anticipated that Hennepin County will pay for the majority of the costs for this project. However, it is anticipated that the City will be requested to reimburse the County for the following costs: (1) removal of the existing pedestrian bridge (2) relocation of the watermain (3) the portion of the culvert construction which is determined to be attributed to the provision of a sidewalk berm (4) construction of the new sidewalk, and (5) construction of an "endwall and railing" configuration at the North end of the new box culvert - if the City requests that this type of design should be used in lieu Y t�ce%�conventional box - culvert end section" which the County pr _ ;�.se. M iI� �' 19661llAMERKA QfY ,, MtiJ October 1, 1987 Page two Regarding the type of construction to be used at the North end of the project, Hennepin County is simply offering this alternative to the City because they have experienced several situations where cities insisted on that type of design. So they have adopted the policy that a city may have that type of design if the city is willing to pay the cost differential. For this project, they have developed a preliminary estimate for that cost differential of $100,000 to $150,000. A copy of a plan for an "end wall and railing design" as used on a project in Elm Prairie is attached. I will h4ive a few pictures at the Council meeting showing examples of both alternatives. Hennepin Count is p planning to construct this Y P is im rovement in 1988 g p Because of the nature of this project, traffic restrictions will be necessary during the course of construction. At this time, Hennepin County is considering two options, i.e.: (1) to carry traffic thru the construction area via a series of temporary by- passes; and (2) to detour Eastbound traffic between Brooklyn Boulevard and T.H. 100, South to T.H. 100 on Brooklyn Boulevard. We have expressed our preference for the first alternative, but advised Hennepin County that consideration might be given to approval of the second alternate if it can be shown that it would substantially reduce the length of time needed to complete the project and substantially reduce the project costs. I have asked them to get more details to me before the 10/5/87 Council meeting so that this information can be presented to the City Council. Two alternate resolutions are presented for consideration by the City Council, i.e.. - the first resolution would approve the preliminary layout plan as currently developed by Hennepin County using the conventional box culvert end section design. - the second resolution would approve the preliminary layout plan, but request that the plan be amended to include this endwall and railing design, with a committment from the City to pay the additional cost attributed to that design. Additional Considerations Relating to County Road 10 At least two additional items relating to County Road 10 between Brooklyn Boulevard and T.H. 100 have been discussed periodically, i.e.: (1) the electrical distribution lines which provide service to the street lights and traffic signals on County Road 10 are overhead wires which seriously detract from the appearance of the area. It is estimated that these distribution lines could be "under grounded" at a cost of approximately $60,000.00 This, of course, does not include the large transmission line on steel towers which are also located on the center island. Also, this cost does not include the cost of installing ornamental steel light poles or fixtures. If ornamental street lighting is to be considered, the costs would be very significantly greater. October 1, 1987 Page three (2) the center island on County Road 10 has no existing landscape treatment. Although care would have to be taken to avoid conflict between plantings and the electrical transmission line, it would certainly be possible to develop a streetscape improvement plan. I recommend that these items be discussed with the City A Council October 5, 1987. If the Council has an interest in pursuing either or both of these items, we can develop further details, information and cost estimates. Respectfully Submitted, E z . Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY LAYOUT PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT OF COUNTY ROAD 10 BETWEEN NORTHWAY DRIVE AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center has observed traffic patterns during heavy traffic periods and substantial traffic delays have been noted on County Road 10, adjacent to the Brookdale Shopping Center during the peak holiday shopping season and on a regular basis throughout the year; and WHEREAS, traffic studies conducted by the Hennepin County Department of Transportation have confirmed that a serious traffic congestion problem exists, and that certain improvements should be made to relieve these problems; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation has ,prepared a preliminary layout plan for the improvement of County Road 10 (58th Avenue North) between Northway Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway (Hennepin County Project 8716) and has submitted said plan to the City for review and approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said plan and has determined that the plan meets the needs of the City and that the proposed design is acceptable except that (1) the City of Brooklyn Center requests that the plan be amended to include the construction of an "end wall and railing" design at the North end of the proposed culverts at Shingle Creek and (2) the City of Brooklyn Center also requests that the proposed culverts at Shingle Creek be extended to the South so as to allow future installation of a sidewalk along the South side of County Road 10; and WHEREAS, the City has been advised that Hennepin County is considering a delay in the constructon of this project in conjunction with a reprogramming of their improvement projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Said preliminary layout plan is hereby approved by the City of Brooklyn Center with the provision that the plan shall be amended to include the construction of an "end wall and railing" design at the North end of the proposed culverts at Shingle Creek, and to include the extension of the proposed culvert at Shingle Creek so as to allow future installation of a sidewalk on the South side of County Road 10. 2. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed to monitor the development of detailed construction plans and specifications for this project and to cooperate with the Hennepin County Department of Transportation so as to assure that the project details meet the needs of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. Financial participation in the project by the City of Brooklyn Center will be defined in a cooperative agreement which will be developed and submitted to the City Council for its consideration and approval prior to proceeding with the project. RESOLUTION 4. That the City of Brooklyn Center again requests Hennepin County to consider this project as a high priority project and to proceed with construction of the project in 1988. Date Mayor i 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 B YROOOK'LYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 I TO: Gerald G. Splinter FROM: Sy Knapp DATE: October 5, 1987 RE: Additional Information Regarding County Road 10 Improvements Following is some additional information which I received on October 2, 1987 from the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. City Costs Preliminary cost estimates indicate that the City's portion of the project costs will be as follows: (1) removal of the existing pedestrian bridge = — $ 3,000.00 (2) relocation of watermain (no estimate to date) — ? (3) a. culvert extension on North side to allow sidewalk construction = $10,000.00 b. culvert could also be extended on the South side to allow future installation of a sidewalk on the South side of County Road 10 = $10,000.00 (4) construction of new sidewalk (on North side only) _ $ 5,000.00 (5) construction of "endwall and railing" on North side, if requested by City = $100,000.00 to $150,000.00 Time Required For Construction If the project is constructed with the contractor being allowed to detour East bound traffic on County Road 10 to T.H. 100 via Brooklyn Boulevard for a period of 5 to 6 weeks, the estimated construction period is ---------------------------------- - - - - -- 3 months If the contractor is required to carry traffic thru the project via a series of temporary by- passes, it is estimated that total project costs would increase by $15,000 to $20,000 and that the construction period would be extended to ---------------- - - - - -- 3 1/2 to 4 months "" 1966 ALLAMERM;A QP! October 2, 1987 Page two Possible Re- programming of Project In my conversation with Hennepin County Department Of Transportation on October 2, 1987, I was advised that there is currently some discussion about delaying this project to a later date (i.e. - not in 1988) due to a shortage of funding and a review of Hennepin County's project programming. Another Alternate Resolution Because of the above considerations, I have prepared yet another resolution for consideration by the City Council. The attached resolution should be considered as a "garbage" resolution which contains all of the items which the Council might wish to include. It is recommended that the Council consider each item carefully and delete those items which it does not wish to include. Respectfully Submitted, Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works I Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 87 -13 RESOLUTION REQUESTING IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 10 ADJACENT TO BROOKDALE SHOPPING CENTER WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has conducted a traffic analysis of this segment of roadway and other roadways within Brooklyn Center; and � WHEREAS Brooklyn n Center Y has observed traffic patterns during the heavy traffic periods and substantial traffic delays have been noted on County Road 10 adjacent to Brookdale during peak Christmas shopping season and on a regular basis throughout the year; and WHEREAS, the major factor causing these delays appears to be an overloading of the turning lanes. the C Council the C NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Y 1 of y •f Brooklyn Center that the City requests Hennepin County consider as a high priority in 1987 improvements which will increase turning lane capacities and other system improvements on Count Road 10 Y between Brooklyn I, klyn Boulevard Logan Avenue which will enhance and carr traffic. he ability of County Road 10 to Y ffic January 12, 1987 Date M ATTEST: r � Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: n vote being Gene Lhotka,Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; Dean Nyquist, and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared dul y none, passed and adopted. I 3L1� 'NasninrTcn v, 'curr HENNEPIN , i'y ✓'innesoTa 5ID 43 -8468 L I September 16, 1987 Mr. Sy Knapp Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 0 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 55430 CSAH 10, HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT 8716 BASS LAKE ROAD FROM NORTHWAY DRIVE TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY Dear Mr. Knapp: We have started plan preparation for the above referenced project. Proposed construction includes a second left turn lane on the eastbound roadway beginning easterly of Northway Drive, removal of the two inplace bridges over Shingle Creek, three 12 foot by 10 foot pre -cast concrete box culverts with conventional end sections and removal of the pedestrian bridge. The proposed construction is shown on the attached plan sheet print and cross section sheet Print. We are proposing to place the sidewalk on the north side of CSAH 10 at 10 feet from the face of curb. The berm on the south side is proposed to be 10 feet wide with no sidewalk. Also attached for your information is a plan copy of the endwall and railing which is being constructed on a box culvert pedestrian underpass in Eden Prairie. If the City of Brooklyn Center would want a similar endwall rather than the conventional end sections, we would expect the City to pay for the additional cost which is estimated between $100,000 and $150,000. Removal of the pedestrian bridge necessitates relocation of the 16" watermain which is attached to the bridge. We are requesting that the City prepare the plans and specifications for this watermain relocation. A print of the creek cross sections is attached. Please contact me if you need more information or have questions about this project. Sincerely, Theodore J. Hoffman, P.E. Chief Design Engineer AWH:mak Enclosure HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer 1 'I 5 J ift+ovE scEw , �� � e to r i w � r i t - -. a I�t �_. i ._� _.t . • ._ ., .....�:..... ............ ..._ .. .... i9fl10GE� r �� � Z S ,, x 75 v _ s. + No 0 - I ----------- - ;..._ s. .r 9.. .. . . . .... .. ........... _._._._......� ".__._....._ "".. 'U Ls __ --------------- oii l o3i ,� ----- __ _ � .................. Lced w_� O G p O -sue TAISER 1 La b, 1 9EGIN HENN. CO. PROD. 8716 - - 'o i -� S'. A. P. 27- 610-1' — �7 _ ;NO HENN. CO. ?ROJ. 371 S.A.P. ?7.x10-17 i +J 4 5. A. P. 27 .17 PLAN SHEE — NENN CO UINN C S A`H NO 10 PROD. NO. 8716 SHEET OF I SHEETS - 04.5 % STA. 59 +90.00 ELEV 885.89 CONC. AND METAL RAILING -LE`✓ 892.93WEST _LEV891.16 EAST PROFILE SEE SHT NO. 4 & 7 FOR GRADE I RUSTICATION DETAILS ELEV. 890.35 WE! ELEV. 888.31 EAS \ I OQE (� ELEV. 879.43 WEST FTG "A" , I ELEV. 876.70 ST ELEV. 88O.9OwESTI _ I I FTG. " E" ELEV 878.6n FAS 1 1 2 BIT. WEARING COURSE J MIX 2341 I ILEV 879.70 WEST FT B �-- 1 ,f ELEV. 877.40 EAST FTG "' . D' ELEV, 874,50 WE- T ELE` ✓. 874.50 WEST ELEV. 872.2O EA--T ELEV. 872.2O EAST GENERAL ELEVATION PAYMENT FOR 2" BITUMINOUS TO BE INCLUDED IN ROADWAY PORTION OF CONTRACT, SCALE 3 I6' = I'- 0 B.M. ELEV 872.550( M.S. L. 1929ADJ.) TOP NUT HYD. N. OF CARDINAL CREEK RD. AND EAST OF BAKER ROAD. B.M. ELEV. 901 .178 (M.S.L. 1929ADJ.) SPIKE IN PP. S.W. QUAD, BAKER ROAD AND HOLLY RD. ql Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO RELOCATION OF STORM SEWER BETWEEN LOTS 46 AND 47, BLOCK 6, PEARSONS'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDITION AND ESTABLISHING PROJECT NO. 1987 -22 WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council,that an engineering study is required to assist in resolving a conflict resulting from the encroachment of the house located on Lot 46, Block 6, Pearson's Northport 3rd Addition and the storm sewer system which is located within the public utility easement on that lot; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has obtained a proposal from the Westwood Planning nd Engineering g g g Company to conduct the required study at a cost not to exceed $2,500.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The following project is hereby established: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -22, RELOCATION OF STORM SEWER BETWEEN 5806 AND 5812 HALIFAX AVENUE NORTH 2. The proposal submitted by the Westwood Planning and Engineering Company to conduct the study at a cost not to exceed $2,500.00 is hereby accepted and approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute this agreement. 3. The accounting for this project shall be done in the Special Assessments Fund. 4. There is appropriated the sum of $2,500.00 from the Municipal State Aid Funds $2,600.00 fund balance to pay the costs of consulting services. 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 B:YROOKLYN OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE- FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 1, 1987 RE: Relocation of Storm Sewer Between Lots 46 and 47, Block 6, Pearson's Northport 3rd Addition Attached hereto are the following items: - a copy of my August 12, 1987 report to you regarding encroachments into the ubli p c utilities easements between 5806 and 5812 Halifax Avenue North. - a copy of an agreement dated September 20, 1987 between the owners of the properties, i.e. - James and Joan Andrescik and Twila Rubenstein. Upon receipt of the copy of the Andrescik /Rubenstein agreement, Ron Warren and I met to review all of the elements needed to resolve the various issues in question. Based on our review, we suggest the following scenario: October 5, 1986 - This entire matter is reviewed by the City Council. If the City Council agrees on the recommended course of action, the following two items would require Council approval on that date: (1) adoption of a resolution approving a proposal for Engineering Services relating to the proposed storm sewer relocation and (2) conduct first reading of an ordinance vacating those portions of the public utility easements upon which the houses have encroached. October 15, 1987 - Planning Commission reviews the entire matter, and if they agree with the proposal, they make the following recommendations to the City Council: (1) approval of the side -yard variances (2) approval of the variance(s) from the subdivision ordinance relating to platting requirements 19" W_kwba (M n M'VV October 1, 1987 Page two Between October 5th and October 23rd - City's Consulting Engineer prepares study, preliminary plans and cost estimates - and submits them to City Staff. Between October 23rd and November 3rd - City Staff attempts to negotiate agreement with Andrescik regarding cost sharing relating to the storm sewer relocation. Andrescik executes this agreement, subject to Council approval. November 9th, 1987 - City Council considers the "entire package" and acts on each of the following items: (1) cost - sharing agreement with Andrescik (2) side -yard set back variance requests (3) subdivision ordinance variance requests(s) (4) second reading and adoption of ordinance vacating portions of easements Summer of 1988 - City proceeds with storm sewer relocation based on the executed agreement between Andrescik and the City. Proposal For Engineering Study Attached hereto is a copy of a proposal from the Westwood Planning and Engineering Company to complete the Engineering study, preliminary plans and cost estimate as described in my August 12th memo, at a cost not to exceed $2,500. It is recommended that this ro osal be accepted since it would p p p provide an unbiased analysis by a engineering firm which has the confidence of the City and the Andresciks. A resolution for this purpose is submitted for consideration by the City Council. Ordinance Vacating Portions of Easements As noted above, it is recommended that the council also consider giving a first reading to a proposed ordinance which would vacate the portions of the easements upon which the houses have encroached. This draft ordinance is also presented (as a separate item in the agenda) for consideration by the City Council. As noted above, the second reading should be scheduled for November 9th. Respectfully Submitted P Y , Sy Kra p, Director of Public Works 7 M WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY September 29, 1987 Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Knapp: Pursuant to your request, we present the following proposal for services relating to storm sewer in the vicinity of 5806 and 5812 Halifax Avenue North. • Review storm drainage needs for the drainage area which includes the above two lots as it lies upstream from 58th Avenue North based on a 10 year frequency storm. • Review 100 year frequency storm e f q y event flood level at catch basins in front of 5 , � 806 and 5�?12 Halifax Avenue North. • Design storm sewer to replace existing ng storm sewers which lie under house on Lot 46 Block 6 Pearson's Northport p 3rd Addition. • Prepare estimate of costs to construct above listed replacement storm sewer. • Prepare a written report summarizing the above stated findings. The foregoing stated engineering services will be furnished for a per diem hourly fee not to exceed $2500.00. As you requested, preparation of con - struction plans and specifications are not included in this proposal. If you have any questions about this proposal, please contact me. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING OMPANY I 1� Accepted by the City of Brooklyn Center Francis D. Hagen, Sr. By City Manager President By , Mayor FDH /bw Date 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443 (612) 424 -8862 (Business Office) 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55426 (612) 546 -0155 WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MAY 1, 1987 In general, where it is possible to determine "in advance the Scope of a Project and the time and effort the Project will require, the fee basis for Engineering Services will be a percentage of construction cost or lump sum. Where this is impossible, because of the complex nature of work tasks that are variable in nature and where the time required is controlled by the Client, citizen involvement and environmental 4)roblems: where the time requirement q rement is beyond h y the control of the Consultant h will apply. t e following fee schedule Classification Hourly Rite Principal Engineer ..................................... $ 63.00 .................. Principal Planner /Landscape Architect .................. 63.00 Senior Project Planner /Landscape Architect ............. 54.00 Project Engineer ..,••,•,•,•••, 50.00 Project Landscape Architect.......... 50.00 Engineer ........................... 46.00 ............... Landscape Architect / Planner ............................ 46.00 Senior Engineering Technician .......................... 39.00 Engineering Technician ................................. 32.00 ................ Associate Landscape Architect .......................... 38.00 Planner ............. 30.00 Draftsman ........ ............................... 30.00 Typist................................................. ... ............. Senior Construction Coordinator ........................ 42.00 Construction Observer ... ............................... 38.00 Two -Man Survey Crew .................................... 65.00 Three -Man Survey Crew .................................. ... ....... Computer Rate .......................................... 30.00 Computer Draftsman ...... ............................... 38.00 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443 (612) 424 -8862 (Business Office) 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55426 (612) 546 -0155 I `{ CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY DD OF dl ® ®I1LYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 Y C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 12, 1987 RE: Encroachments Into Public Utilities Easements Between 5806 Halifax Avenue and 5812 Halifax Avenue North INTRODUCTION On June 12, 1987 Mr. Jim Andrescik, owner of the home located at 5806 Halifax Avenue North contacted ed the City Planning and Inspection Department g p p ment to discuss the status of the public utility ea ement which exists along the northerly 15 feet of his property. Mr. Andrescik advised the City Planner that he was in the process of selling his home and that, since a title search had indicated the existence of this easement, the status of the easement needed to be clarified in order for the sale to proceed. Mr. Andrescik was aware that a storm sewer existed within the easement area, and requested that City staff prepare a document which would satisfy the concerns of the title company, the buyer, and the mortgagor. Mr. Andrescik's request was referred to me for my review, comment, and action. My initial response to the City Planner, which he forwarded to Mr. Andrescik, was that no such document should be executed by the City until such time as a thorough review of the situation had been completed. It is my understanding that upon receiving this response, Mr. Andrescik advised the City Planner that he would attempt to work out an agreement with the buyer wherein he would assume the risk of any encroachment into the easement. On June 15, 1987 Mr. Andrescik again contacted the Planning and Inspection Department and indicated that it was necessary to resolve the problem in order to allow the sale of the house to be completed. Accordingly, on June 15, 1987 I ordered our survey crew to conduct a survey to determine: 1. The location to the storm sewer in relation to the property line; 2. The location of the City's easements; and wee u: uu nu an : � August 12, 1987 Page 2 3. The location of the Andrescik house in relation to the easements and to existing storm sewer. That survey was completed on June 19, 1987. A review of the survey showed that there are two parallel storm sewer lines (one an 18" diameter line, the other a 24" diameter line) existing within the limits of the City's easement. Although the City's easement is 30 feet wide and lies 15 feet on each side of the property line between Mr. Andrescik's house (5806 Halifax Avenue) and the home of Twila Rubenstein (5812 Halifax Avenue North), both storm sewers are located within the 15 foot easement which lies on the Andrescik property. The survey also showed that the Andrescik house (a tuck under a extension of the home is g rage and a second story located on top of both storm was transmitted to Mr. Andrescik by Gerald Splinter, City Manager, with f d rmation message that a problem definitely exists and that a solution to that problem needed to be developed. Mr. Andrescik hired a private land surveyor to also conduct a survey of the property. That surveyor (Westwood Planning & Engineering Company) essentially confirmed the City's survey, indicating that: 1. The Andrescik house encroaches onto the easement; 2. The Andrescik house is located on top of both storm sewers; 3. The Andrescik house extends approximately 0.6 feet (7 inches) across the property line, onto the Rubenstein property; and 4. The Rubenstein house also encroaches approximately 5 feet into the easement area. A copy of the survey by Westwood Planning and Engineering, Inc. is attached to this memo. I August 12, 19$7 Page 3 HISTORY The following is a chronological summary of the development of this area: Date Event December, 1954 Area is platte including the dedication of the public utility easements in question. August 3, 1955 Permit issued for construction of the Andrescik house (not including the garage addition) February, 1956 Final inspection made on Andrescik house (Note: No inspection report is on file.) July 7, 1955 Permit issued for construction of Rubenstein house 0 February, 1956 Final inspection made on the Rubenstein house (Note: No inspection report is on file.) 1957 Eighteen inch (18) storm sewer installed (Project No. 1957 -58) 1957 Twenty Four Inch (24) storm sewer installed (Project No. 1957 -33) July 12, 1968 Permit issued for construction of garage and second story house addition to the Andrescik house February 18, 1969 Final inspection made on the addition to the Andrescik house (Note: No inspection report is on file.) April 20, 1971 Permit issued for construction of a garage addition to the Rubenstein house August 10, 1972 Final inspection made on the garage addition to the Rubenstein house (Note: No inspection report is on file.) During our investigation of the developmental history of this area, we also received reports that there has been a history of problems associated with the storm water drainage, particularly as it relates to the two homes in question. July 12, 1987 Page 4 Discussion with both property owners, and with employees of the City's street department and former employees of the Engineering Department have indicated that both houses have experienced flooding problems several times in the past. It is noted that both houses have "tuck under" garages with floor levels that hat are near or possibly elow the street Y levels. In addition tion it is noted that these homes are near the low point of Halifax Avenue. Accordingly, any storm waters which cannot be handled instantaneously by the storm sewer system will begin to pond on Halifax Avenue, and when the water Fends to a certain depth the waters will run into the driveways and then into the basements of the homes in question. The reports which I have received indicate that this has occurred at least three (3) times within the past twenty years. According to reports which I have received, a major flooding event occurred in 1975 or 1976. Following that flood several things were done to reduce the potential for continued problems, i.e; 1. The City installed larger catch basin castings, with a greater inlet capacity on each of the four (4) catch basins on Halifax Avenue. 2. After finding that one of the storm sewers was partially filled with debris, the City cleaned that sewer and has periodically continued to clean that sewer since that date. 3. A manhole was installed in the storm sewer line behind the Andrescik house, for the purpose of facilitating cleaning of the storm sewer. 4. Both property owners construcrted "dikes" at the ends of their driveways in order to prevent water which ponds on Halifax Avenue from over flowing into the driveways and into their basements. 5. Since the storm sewer system extends easterly through the large block, then southerly across County Road 10 and discharges into "Northport Lake ", (see attached map) and since the outlet into Northport Lake tends to become obstructed by vegetation and debris, the City maintenance department periodically cleans out this outlet into Northport Lake. The most recent cleanup of this outlet was completed is 1986. A review of the design n g of the storm sewer system which serves this area indicates that the system (even with the two parallel lines) has a capacity to carry only a "two (2) year storm runoff ". This means that ponding will occur on Halifax Avenue at an average frequency of once every two years. The design of a storm sewer system for a 2 year frequency was regarded as a minimum design at the time that storm sewer system was constructed. Current practice would allow for construction of a storm sewer with a 2 year frequency only in such areas where an "overland" overflow route exists which removes the water from the area before it causes serious flood damage to properties. Provision for such overland flow outlets should be made wherever possible, even when storm sewer systems are designed for 5 year storms, for 10 year storms, or even for 100 year storms. Consideration of these facts indicates that the construction of tuck under garages at this location was an inappropriate choice for this location. July 12, 1987 Page 5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ISSUES Following is a summary of the basic issues which must be dealt with in attempting to arrive at a solution to the problems: Issue No. 1. Andrescik house built over storm sewers Discussion Both of the existing storm sewers under the Andrescik house are constructed with reinforced concrete pipe, using concrete mortar joints. A preliminary inspection of the sewers indicates that they are in relatively good structural condition. However, many of the joints have roots from trees and shrubs which are growing into the storm sewer, causing potential obstructions and requiring periodic cleaning and maintenance. While this condition has created no special problems to date, it is obvious that the location of a house on top of a storm sewer will eventually become a problem; i.e. (1) if repairs to the storm sewer must be made, (2) if the storm sewers need to be replaced because of structural failure at some time in the future, (3) if a decision is made to increase the drainage capacity of the storm sewer system, so as to provide either a S year storm or a 10 year storm capacity, or (4) if damages occur to the house as a result of storm sewer failure. Issue No. 2 Encroachment of both ' 4ouses into the easement area Discussion Encroachment of these houses into the easement area obviously makes it more difficult for the City to operate, maintain, repair, or replace the storm sewers. If the the 30 foot wide easement originally provided were unobstructed, this work could be done with the use of open trenching methods. Because the houses are now only 10 feet apart, it is obvious that it will be much more difficult to accomplish this work within the limited space, that it will probably be necessary to utilize sheeting and shoring methods to allow work to be accomplished between the houses, and that there is a much greater danger of doing damage to the houses while such work is being done on the storm sewer. In addition, the existence of the houses within the easement areas creates title problems for both property owners (as Mr. Andrescik is now experiencing in attempting to sell his house). .:uly 12, 1987 Page b Issue No. 3. Andrescik house extends aver the ro erty line Discussion This issue does not directly involve the City and must be resolved between the two ro e p p rty owners. However, if ;1r. Andrescik plans to acquire any portion of the Rubenstein property, the City's subdivision and zoning ordinances would normally require that both properties be replatted. Replatting of the properties would be very expensi4Te, and would take a considerable period of time - approximately four to six months. As an alternate to replatting of the properties the owners may wish to consider applying for a variance from the platting requirement of the subdivision ordinance. Such variances have been granted in somewhat similar conditions on a few occasions within recent ears. The y procedure ' i p for obtaining fining such variance s that (1) the owner hires a surveyor to do a survey of both properties and to develop a legal "metes and bounds" description of the parcel of property which is to be transferred from one property owner to the other, (2) the owner submits an application for variance to the City, (3) the variance is considered by the planning commission (a public hearing must be conducted by the planning commission), and (4) the application is considered by the City Council at which time the application is either approved pp or denied. Generally, variances have been granted to allow "metes and bounds" descriptions rather than conveying property through formal platting or registered land survey, when no additional lot is created. Also, it has been the practice to allow such divisions if other lot requirements, such as lot width, lot depth, lot area and building setbacks, are not adversely affected. Issue No. 4 Side vard set back requirements Discussion As applied to the two houses in question the City's zoning ordinance re y g quires that the Andrescik's house have a three foot side yard set back for their garage and a five foot sideyard setback for the portion of the house along the common property line. The ordinance also requires that the Ruebenstein house have a ten foot set back on that side of the house. While the Rubenstein house appears to comply to the established set back requirement, it is obvious that the Andrescik house does not. If the property owners involved agree to move the property line (see issue No. 3 above) either one or both of the property owners would then be in the Position of failing to comply to the set back requirements, depending on where the new property line is established. July 12, 1987 Page 7 In order to deal with this matter, it is suggested that the owner or owners who do not meet set back requirements based on the property line finally established consider applying for a variance from the set back requirements of the zoning ordinance. Again, it is noted that the City has granted variances in somewhat similar situations; however, each individual circumstance must be reviewed b. 'a planning commission and City Council and no committment can or will be main by the City staff. The procedure for consideration such a variance is that (1) the o4-ner or owners submit application fuL the variance to the planning and inspection department, (2) the variance application is considered by the planning commission (a public hearing must be conducted) and, (3) the City Council considers the matter r and either approves or rejects the application based on its findings. OPTIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM On July 29, 1987 City Staff (Ron Warren, Bo Spurrier, and I) met with Jim and Joan Andrescik and with Twila Rubenstein in order to discuss this matter, to identify the issues involved (see above), and to suggest alternative ways in which the matter could be dealt with - hopefully in a way that both property owners and the City of Brooklyn Center can "live with" the solution. At that time several options were discussed along with the pluses and minuses of those options. At the conclusion of that meeting, I agreed to prepare this report for transmittal to both property owners and for use as an informational report to the Brooklyn Center City Council members and to the Brooklyn Center staff. Since then City staff has again reviewed the alternatives discussed at that meeting, and we have identified additional alternatives. Following is a description of the options which we have identified and a discussion of the issues that are resolved by each of those options, the issues unresolved by each option, and additional considerations regarding each option: OPTION 1 Description: Leave existing physical conditions (no change to storm sewer or the Andrescik house), and have City vacate that portion of the easement which exists under the Andrescik house in exchange for a new easement wherein Andrescik or the future property owners agree to pay the additional costs which the City may incur in the operation, maintenance, repair, or future replacement of the storm sewers if and when such work is required. Discussion: While this would result in "resolving" the problem for the present time, it is obvious that this option would ultimately cause numerous problems, i.e. (1) this option would place the City in the difficult position of having to force the issue each time a problem occurred - possibly with new owners who are unfamiliar with the agreement and responsibilities, (2) it would be very difficult to accurately and positively identify the "extra costs" which the City would incur by virtue of the encroachment of that house, (3) the City could incur liabilities as a result of failure of the storm sewer under the house, and (4) the existence of such an agreement would obviously place a serious "cloud" on the title of the property, probably resulting in a discounting of the valuation of that house equal to or greater than the cost of providing a Positive remedy at this point in time. duly 12, 1987 Page 8 Accordingly, City staff strongly recommends against the selection of this option. OPTION 2 Description: Require total removal of both encroachments from the easements, i.e, removal of portions of both houses. Discussion: While a case could be argued that the City has this 30 foot wide easement and has the legal authority to order the removal of the encroachments, this option is obviously the most "hard- nosed" which the City could take. It is the City staff opinion that this option would be unnecessarily harsh. Accordingly we do not recommend that it be considered. OPTION 3 Description: Leave storm sewers in place. Require the removal of that portion of the Andrescik's garage (approximately 8 feet) and house (approximately 3 feet) which are located over the existing storm sewer lines, to a distance of 3 feet beyond the center line of the southerly storm sewer. Then vacate that portion of the easement which lies under the remaining portion of the Andrescik home ­ that portion of the easement which lies under the Rubenstein hom. Discussion: Th; option would Inplish several things, i.e. (1) It would eliminate the tflflict betweei )e Andrescik house and the storm sewer, (2) It would elimina -he encroachme, of the Andrescik house onto the Rubenstein property, anc{ s) it would bri: -he Andrescik house into compliance with side yard set back quirements. While this would reduce the wi of the easement, thereby making it more difficult to accomplish work u the sewer, it is my opinion that accomplishment of this option would create a condition which would be acceptable to the City. It is my understanding that Mr. Andrescik has investigated this option and that he has received an estimate of $30,000 for the costs of remodeling his house, and he estimates that the value of his house would be reduced by approximately $20,000, thereby resulting in a net loss to him of approximately $50,000. Mr. Andrescik finds this option unacceptable. OPTION 4 Description: Relocate storm sewer into the easement area between the two houses. Also, remodel Andrescik house to remove those portions of the garage and house which encroach onto the Rubenstei.i roperty and which are in violation of the side yard set back require, rs. In addition, vacate the portion of the easement under the remaining. rtion of the Andrescik house and vacate the portion of the easement under th. .; ubenstein house. July 12, 1987 Page 9 Discussion: Again this would create a condition which we believe could be acceptable to the City of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Andrescik reports that he has also investigated this option and it is his opinion that the cost associated with this option are unacceptable. OPTION 5 Description: Relocate the storm sewer to the portion of the easement between the two houses. Make no change to the Andrescik house. Vacate those portions of the easements under the two houses. Property owners resolve the question of the encroachment of the Andrescik house across the property line (I again wish to emphasize that this item is a matter for private negotiation between the two property owners, and does not directly involve the City of Brooklyn Center. However, the City will in all probability II � become sec ondar' because of the necessity for the granting of variances, etc.) Ily Involved If Andrescik purchases less than 3.6 feet of property from Rubenstein, both property owners would require a variance from the set back requirements of the zoning ordinance. Also a variance would have to be approved from the platting requirements of the subdivision regulations. If Andrescik purchases 3.6 feet or more would not require a side yard set back vaf ' e. However, p Rubenstein n w d ould lk require approval of a side yard set back v, once, and a variance would have to be approved from the platting requiremei� of the subdivision regulations. Discussion: This option is one which could be acceptable to the City of Brooklyn Center from the standpoint of protecting our interests and the storm sewer and the easement. However, this option can only be implemented if agreement is reached between the two property owners regarding the exchange of properties. Also it should be again emphasized that neither,City staff nor Council can commit themselves to the granting of the variances required until and unless the proper procedures have been completed. i July 12, 1987 Page 10 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS If any of the options which involve re- routing and replacing he storm sewer are re to be implemented it is my recommendation that the City also consider increasing the capacity of the storm sewer system so that at least the portion which is replaced would be designed to carry a five year storm or a 10 year storm period. Mr. Andrescik has made contact with a plumber and it is my understanding that the plumber has estimated the cost for relocating the storm sewer, without increasing its capacity, at $11,000. At this point in time we have not been able to evaluate that cost estimate. Additional itional time is needed in order to evaluate this cost estimate to see whether (1) it is a reasonable cost for installation of the new storm sewer pipe, manhole, and other appurtenances, (2) whether there are any soil correction problems which might tend to increase the cost of the project, (3) whether the estimate includes the protection of the existing homes and retaining wall, (4) whether the estimate includes replacement of the fence which exists between the two houses, (5) whether the estimate includes restoration of trees, shrubs, sod, and other landscape features which would be disturbed by the storm sewer construction, and (6) whether the estimates includes filling the existing storm sewer pipes which extend under the Andrescik house so as to assure that those pipes will not collapse at sometime in the future - thereby causing damage to the Andrescik house. Because of the workload of the Engineering Staff at this time, it is recommended that, if a detailed engineering analysis of the storm sewer system, and the preparation of lans and d s ecif' P ications for relocation of this his portion of the storm sewer are required in the near future, the City employ a consulting engineering firm for this work. Since Mr. Andrescik employed Westwood Planning & Engineering Company to do the survey, and since the City has used this firm on a number of projects with satisfactory results, I would recommend that the City obtain a proposal from Westwood to do this work. It should be noted that since the work involved would include analysis of the system, an analysis of th e flooding Y problems Y g p s (attempting to find a way to protect both basements from being flooded) and a general overview of the problem area, it must be expected that the engineering costs would be considerable. Regarding the question of who would do the actual work of relocating the storm sewer, it is my opinion that the best interest of the City would be served by having this work done on the basis of a standard City Contract with the project awarded to the lowest responsible bidder after receiving competitive bids for the work. COST PARTICIPATION IF STORM SEWER IS RELOCATED Based on the authorization which I received from the City Manager I advised Mr. Andrescik that if negotiations can be completed wherein all parties agree to the selection of one of the options which involves relocation of the storm sewer, the City would expect Mr. Andrescik to pay for the construction costs involved in that relocation. I also advised Mr. Andrescik that the City staff would July 12, 1987 Page 11 recommend to the Council for its consideration an agreement wherein the City_ would agree to pay the following costs: (1) staff costs involved in negotiating, (2) engineering costs involved in the review of the storm sewer system capacity and the design and preparation of plans and specifications for relocation of this portion of the storm sewer, and (3) the costs of increasing the size of the sewer to a 5 or a 10 year design, and the cost of installing gasketed joints in lieu of mortar joints. In the event such an agreement for cost participation is negotiated, such agreement should also include a provision wherein the property owners waive any claim for liability which they may believe the City has incurred as a result of any previous action of the City relating to acquisition of the easement, installation of the storm sewer, issuance of building permits, or any other action which relates to the existence of the current conditions. SCHEDULE FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A RESOLUTION At our meeting with the Andresciks and with Mrs. Rubenstein on July 29, 1987 I advised them that in my opinion the resolution of this situation will take a minimum two to four months. I have again reviewed the time requirements for implementation of the various options with the planning and inspection staff and I hereby submit the following more detailed estimate of time requirements: If one of the options is selected which requires only the vacation of portions of the storm sewer easement, and does not require the granting of variances either from the zoning ordinance or from the subdivision ordinance, the estimated time for completion of that action is approximately 45 days after submission of the request for vacation by the property owners) If one of the options which requires the granting of a variance either from the side yard setback requirements of the zoning ordinance or a variance from the platting requirements of the sub division regulations, is chosen these options will take somewhere between 45 days and 105 days following submission of the application for those variances by the property owners In the event the Planning Commission and the City Council refuse to grant a variance from the subdivision regulations and an option is chosen which requires replatting of the two properties the city's official consideration of this process could be completed in approximately 90 to 120 days. However, the necessity of filing and recording such a plat with Hennepin County might well extend the total time requirements to approximately 4 to 6 months after the City date on which the preliminary plat is submitted to the July 12, 1987 Page 12 Regarding the work of relocating the storm sewer, if one of those options is chosen, it is obvious that neither Mr. Andrescik nor the City would wish to proceed with this work and incur those costs until all of the other actions required to make the agreement complete are accomplished. This would appear to make it very difficult to accomplish the relocation before this coming winter. Accordingly it is suggested that any agreement for relocation of the storm sewer be prepared as early as possible, but with the provision that implementation of the project will not proceed until and unless all of the other conditions have been meet. It is also recommended that such an agreement provide for the work to be accomplished by the City after prepayment of a negotiated lump sum amount (reflecting the estimated cost for relocation of the storm sewer with its present capacity, and including all costs for protection of existing structures and replacement of fences, landscaping, etc; and the cost for filling the abandoned section of storm sewer under the Andresciks house) and that the City then agree to pay the difference in cost between the total project costs (including the cost for oversizing the sewer, for installing gasketed joints, and for engineering costs) and the lump sum payment to be made by Mr. Andrescik. Since the work on the storm sewer cannot be completed until 1988 it will probably be necessary to incorporate special language into the agreement which satisfies the title company, the mortgagor and the buyer, so that the sale of the Andrescik house may be completed . Such agreement should require Mr. Andrescik to make an escrow payment equal to the lump sum amount for his share of the project as shown in the agreement. This report has been prepared for the information and consideration of the affected property owners and for the information of the City Council and City Staff. As noted in our meeting with the property owners on July 29, 1987 the City does not intend to initiate any action to resolve this matter at this time. Accordingly it is the responsibility of one or both of the property owners to initiate such action as they deem appropriate. We have assured both property owners that they will be kept advised of any actions initiated and that they will have the opportunit PP y to be involved during all stages of proceedings relating to this matter. Respectfully submitted. Si napp Director of Public Works AVE w LOCATION SURVEY e' ex�srlNe �I prepared for Ouse JIM ANDRESCIK 47 5806 Halifax Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429 L � , _xisrinc Hcuse x 0 ` LOCATION SKETCH FOR PART OF 46 LOTS 46 e S7 Block 6, PEARSON'S NORTH POINT 3RD .4DOITION �.srut�asdvVS��yJ� ESTWOOD SURVEYING COMPANY SIS Qh NargOr C»psv r.G, N.pO +lvw t.ru, uwrt SO!• 51uJ loin .. •.y AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _'�' day of September, 1987, by and between James P. Andrescik and Joan K. Andrescik, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "Andrescik ", and Twila Rubenstein, a single person, hereinafter referred to as "Rubenstein ". WHEREAS, An drescik is the owner of certain real property lying and being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as: Lot 46, Block 6, Pearson's North Point 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; commonly known as 5806 Halifax Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Rubenstein is the owner of real property located in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, legally described as: Lot 47, Block 6, Pearson's North Point 3rd Addition, Henn epin County, Minnesota, commonly known as 5812 Halifax Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the above described properties are contiguous properties; and WHEREAS, there exists a drainage, emergency water and utility easement as described in the plat and dedicated in Pearson's North Point 3rd Addition, Book 134 of Plats,_Page 1; and WHEREAS, the location of the respective properties and easement are as shown on the survey referenced in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein; and -1- WHEREAS, encroachments exist in the public utility easements between. 5806 Halifax Avenue and 5812 Halifax Avenue as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the parties hereto to resolve and redefine the easement and eliminate the encroachment problem substantially in the manner outlined as "Option 5" on Exhibit "A ". NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. That Rubenstein agrees to convey to Andrescik that Portion of Lot 47, Block 6, Pearson's North Point 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which is encumbered by the encroaching garage. 2. That Rubenstein agrees to grant to Andrescik and /or their heirs, successors and assigns, a license or other grant of access over Lot 47 for the purpose of maintenance and repair of the westerly garage wall as the same may be necessitated from time to time. Zh►aT j�t����N � � •+� Well hJor b-e b�S$�DDSi �E {'o r AiuY /)(J JQ E t"L CW li J e S to k L & C ,- ( t - 3. That Andrescik agrees to remove the fence shown on the survey attached to Exhibit "A" to the extent necessary to accommodate the construction. 4. That both parties agree to grant such temporary easements as may be incidental and necessary in order to accomplish the installation of new storm sewer facilities. 5. That both parties agree to execute such documents as reasonably may be required in order to process the variance and to relocate the existing storm sewer between the existing -2- structures on the respective lots. 6., That each party agrees to release the City of Brooklyn Center from any and all obligations heretofore or hereafter existing as a result of the current location of the storm sewer easement and its relocation. 7. That Rubenstein shall incur no cost or expense in connection with the relocation except as may be incurred in securing her own personal legal representation in connection with this matter. 8. That the obligation of Andrescik to proceed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement is contingent upon securing the necessary variances and approvals from the City of Brooklyn Center, including a participation in P the cost of the new storm sewer. 9. That the obligation of Andrescik to proceed pursuant to this Agreement is contingent upon Andrescik making such determination as may be necessary that the costs and expenses associated with the relocation of the storm sewer are acceptable. 10. That Rubenstein agrees to accept the sum of $1,000.00 as and for full consideration for the land to be acquired by Andrescik pursuant to this Agreement and the performance of obligations as set forth herein. T b f U a l d On 14 6' clS e 4.4'5 rt c� - 11. That in the event the necessary variances have not been obtained on or before May 1, 1988 this Agree at h t e op tion of either party, shall be null and void. -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. f� �i Jam s P . Andresc'ik i Join K. Andres"ci.k Twila Rubenstein I -4- /00- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Urdinance Vacating An Easement in Lots 46 and 47, Block 6, PEARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDITION. 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 VACATING PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ON LOTS 46 AND 47, BLOCK 6, PEARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following escribed drainage and utility t g g v easeme n s in Lot 46 and 47, Block 6. PEARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDITION according to the plat on file of record the office of the Count Recorder Hennepin in Count Minnesota are Y p v hereby vacated: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 46, thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 21 seconds East assumed bearing along the North line of said Lot 46 a distance of 47.73 feet to the ictual point of beginning, North 89 degrees 58 minutes 21 seconds fast continui - alonz said North line, a distance of 11.15 feet: thence South 03 degrFCs 06 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 15.62 feet to the south line of said drainage and utility easement: thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 21 seconds West ?long said south line, a distance of 25.54 feet: thence North 3 degrees 06 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 14.25 feet: thence North 86 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 14.35 feet to the point of beginning Together with that part of Lot 47 Block 6 said PEARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDITION described as beginning at the above described point of beginning_ thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 21 seconds East along the south line of said Lot 47, a distance of 11.15 feet; thence North 3 degrees 06 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 0.60 feet: thence South 86 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 11.14 feet to the point of beginning_ And together with that part of Lot 47 Block 6 said PEARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDITION described as be inning at the southeast corner of Lot 47• thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 21 seconds East assumed bearing along the south line of said Lot 47 a distance of 32.09 feet: thence North 00 degrees 01 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 9.52 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 02 degrees 53 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 5.49 feet to the north line of said drainage and utility easement*, thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 21 seconds East along said North line a distance of 25.53 . feet: thence South 02 degrees 53 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 4.21 feet* thence South 87 degrees 06 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 25.50 feet to the Point of beginning. ORDINANCE NO Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF [B:ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE C ENTER 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: October 1, 1987 RE: Vacation of Public Utility Easements Located on Lots 46 and 47, Block 6, PEARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDITION Attached is an Ordinance vacating part of the utility and drainage easements in Lot 46 and Lot 47, Block 6, Pearson's Northport 3rd Addition. The houses located at 5806 and 5812 Halifax Avenue North intrude into the existing utility and drainage easements. This ordinance vacating portions of the easement located under those intrusions is offered for first reading. It is anticipated that the City will need to protect its interest in the existing storm sewer pipes located under the house at 5806 Halifax Avenue North. In order to protect its interest it may or may not be necessary to modify the attached ordinance at second reading. Any necessary modification depends on negotiations with the property owner and the property owners title company. It is anticipated that by the time of the second reading this matter will be resolved. It is recommended that the attached ordinance vacating portions of the public utility easements located on Lot 46 and 47, Block 6, Pearson's Northport 3rd Addition be approved for a first reading. Resp tfull submitted, Approved for submittal, f H.R. urrier Sy Knapp, City ineer Director of Public Works HS /nl enclosures: Vicinity Map Detail Map cc: Plat file �V 0 �r 19A6111AAIERKA Qf'! 1v, . MZv l=♦� l J �l 63RD AVE. FIRE I I I I w z z z JOYCE , a ST0. Q ! MUMpa LANE w OR OI . P xx k > C 6 2'ND 3 v 6i2 NO a 62ND w » bf I r w � I AVE. 4VE. ' I N. I ORCHARD J IJAN I I I 2� ILA I LANE X MY - � E /T� i Q WANGSTAO N C i SCHOOL l i¢ w Y I !DANE I —PARK XX a> RD E. I 33134 N. 413 /61 ST A z 61ST 1 IAVE / X 4 I NMENC L \ y KYLAWN PARKx ti COMMODORE I DR. `, j h \ X 60TH a AVE NI ?R XXXX k X L l i i 11 z A NE 591/2 AVE Z DH W �� I I - - - - -- v'_n 4 C 59TH FAVE . N '! G ¢ G 581/2 w I wli o11, I �, J r�i z NORT � � - wQY w II - -- of p `x'11 1 56TH al o v V wOPEN SPACE 2 a � IFRANCEi Ir cr 57TH �(� �� �' 1 57TH : !AVE[ �� LANE w, AVE AVE. N. ,1 .i ?� z z ! �X m BUROUEST x ILA.. ° o i i Q �,� O } \ �2 56TH AVE N NORT IPORT �\ Z I v I AvE N J�f PARK I l/ ,y,X`k�X; r I( ECKBERG f DRL �XX 1 L � Z �� W cc- J ' n NORTHPORT O Il W v � 1 OPEN a SPACE 1 4 SCHOOL 11 �r74,A i0 514 14 i49 VINICITY OF EASEMENT VACATION I PEARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDITION Ni I i SCALE IN FEET I� PREPARED BY ULYIMAP i SHEET 1 OF 2 i i EX /Sr %vG /!OUSE ar I I J I � I ,✓rstvei✓''� ;.^Y �;`izs 0.`F�•7n�,� - ---- SIf � � x ; .•. 31•ff Yn•E� o , Sou!/+,erf C l�f4J ,srS.SU - W 3209 _ ; s3S -- ssv • ^O� 4773 \ - '+'fi'T1L'E , 3• b /s Q u.� saf•SezY ?d � Ex /Sr /NG �� ----- - ---- -- ' � v L' LOT 46 AND LOT 47, BLOCK 6 PEARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDITION! mm D �OOOOa� UUV SCALE IN FEET PREPARED BY ULTIMAP SHEET 2 OF 2 1% G 1 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 SEPTEMBER 24, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Mike Nelson, Lowell Ainas and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Recording Secretary Nary Lou Larsen. Chairman Lucht stated Commissioners Carl Sandstrom and Molly Malecki were unable to attend this evening's meeting and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 3, 1987 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the minutes of the September 3, 1987 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Bernards, Nelson, Ainas and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 87020 (LaCasita) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to make a solarium addition to the existing Chuck Muer's restaurant at 2101 Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 87020 attached) . He stated the building is now under renovation with the exception of the solarium addition. The Secretary stated there is a public hearing required for this application and the appropriate notices have been sent. Commissioner Bernards asked the applicant if there are any other existing LaCasita Restaurants in the area. One of the applicants responded they now have one in St. Cloud. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if 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 Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Bernards, Nelson, Ainas and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 87020 (LaCasita) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 87020 subject to the following conditions: 9 -24 -87 -1- 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes, prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The addition shall 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. 3• Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 4. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5• 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. 6. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Bernards, Nelson, Ainas and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary asked the applicants when they planned to open the LaCasita Restaurant. One of the applicants stated they hoped to open in late November. APPLICATION NO. 87021 (Firestone Car Rental Inc.) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct a car rental operation at the Firestone Service Center at 5445 Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 87021 attached). Cal Kuhlman, the applicant's representative, reviewed a revised parking plan with the Commission. The Secretary stated he foresees no major parking problem on the site with the retail operation within the building being discontinued. The Secretary stated there is a public hearing required and the proper notices have been sent. Chairman Lucht inquired if there should be a condition stating the special use permit is nontransferable. The Secretary responded that there is an existing special use permit and it would not be necessary. A discussion ensued regarding parking of the rental cars on the site. Commissioner Nelson inquired if there should be a condition limiting the number of rental cars allowed to be stored on the site. The Secretary stated there should be no problem as long as parking doesn't spill over to the service center area. He referred to the car rental operation at Sears at Brookdale where cars are stored under the canopy and after service center hours cars can be stored in service bays. Commissioner Bernards inquired if there have been any problems with the Sears car rental operation. The Secretary stated he was not aware of any problems. 9 -24 -87 -2- �i Chairman Lucht asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Mr. Cal Kuhlman, representing the applicant, explained that Minneapolis is the first city for Firestone to test the the car rental business to see how it works in their service center. Commissioner Bernards asked what type of vehicles will be used. Mr. Kuhlman stated the cars would be Ford and General Motors. Commissioner Bernards asked what size would be offered for rental. Mr. Kuhlman explained there would probably be standard size cars, not compact cars, offered for rental, but would depend on what type are in demand. Commissioner Bernards asked if vans would be included. Mr. Kuhlman stated there would be vans available if requested. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Notion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Bernards, Nelson, Ainas and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 87021 (Firestone Car Rental, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 87021 subject to the following conditions: I. The owner of the property shall agree in writing that the former retail area within the building may be used for the display of tires, batteries and accessories only and shall not resume its use as a retail store for appliances and equipment as long as the car rental business is in operation at the premises. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The area for rental car storage shall be limited to the front of the former retail store and shall be signed for rental car storage. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Bernards, Nelson, Ainas and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary reviewed with the Commission certain areas in need of redevelopment. He stated Superamerica, located at 57th and Logan Avenues North, has expressed an interest in acquiring additional property in the area to expand their operation. The Secretary explained that the existing gasoline station is a nonconforming use as it abuts R1 zoned property at the property line and there is also a parking deficiency on the site. Staff have advised Superamerica they would be unable to expand this nonconforming use. He noted that Superamerica made inquiries regarding whether the City might be willing to modify the ordinances to eliminate the property line restriction in lieu of buffering and screening requirements. The Secretary stated that the Lynbrook Bowl site is another area in need of redevelopment. The area surrounding the site is a major access from T.H. 252 and I694 and should have a significant development such as a high -rise hotel or high rise office building. 9 -24 -87 -3- Another area, as explained by the Secretary, is the Superamerica station at 66th and West River Road. Superamerica was left with one large access after the T.H. 252 taking. They have expressed an interest in acquiring the shopping center to the west of the station to provide better access and possibly the construction of a larger station. The Secretary stated the Northbrook Shopping Center, which is an older center, also needs upgrading and a better parking arrangement. He explained the City has also looked into a different location for the existing municipal liquor store _located in that center, but would like to stay in that area as it has done well there. He stated this center serves a large area in the Southeast Neighborhood. Further discussion ensued regarding the redevelopment of these areas. It was the consensus of the Commission that they did not favor eliminating the provision in the Zoning Ordinance that prohibits automobile service stations from abutting Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Bernards, Nelson, Ainas and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Chairman 9 -24 -87 -4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87020 Applicant: LaCasita Restaurant Location: 2101 Freeway Boulevard (Chuck Muer's) Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to make a solarium addition to the existing Chuck Muer's (to be LaCasita) restaurant at 2101 Freeway Boulevard. The land in question is zoned I -1 and is bounded on the north by Freeway Boulevard, on the east by Shingle Creek Parkway, on the south by an entrance ramp onto I -94, and on the west by the Shingle Creek greenstrip. Restaurants are allowed by special use permit in the I -1 zoning district. The plan calls for a new sidewalk and landscaped area to the east of the new 407 sq. ft. solarium addition. Three (3) parking stalls would be displaced, bringing total parking on the site down to 132 spaces. Remodeling of the interior is to result in no additional seating overall. The proposed seating calls for 238 seats. Employees are not expected to exceed 26 on the maximum shift. Therefore, the 132 parking spaces meets the requirement of one space per two seats, plus one space per two employees. The plans also call for the exterior to be modified by doing away with the Tudor style wood trim and stuccoing the exterior walls. The dutch hipp treatment on the main roof will be converted to a standard gable roof line. On the interior, most of the level changes will be removed so that most of the restaurant will be on a single level. A fountain is also proposed in the middle of the central dining area. Altogether, the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes, prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The addition shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing s ystem to meet NFPA standards and shall be g g Y connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 3. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 4. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. 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. 6. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 9 -24 -87 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87021 Applicant: Firestone Car Rental, Inc. Location: 5445 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a car rental business at the Firestone Service Center at 5445 Xerxes Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by 55th Avenue North on the north, by Xerxes Avenue North on the east, by C. 0. M. B. on the south, and by Marc's Big Boy across a private service road on the west. Automobile and truck rental and leasing is a special use in the C2 zoning district. The applicant's representative, Mr. Cal Kuhlman, has submitted a written explanation of the proposed use (attached). Mr. Kuhlman states that no more than one additional employee will be hired to conduct the car rental business and that most rentals will be made on a delivery basis to customers throughout the metro area. Through a telecommunication system, the office at the service center at 55th and Xerxes will be used as a dispatching outlet for the delivery of these cars. Firestone Car Rental intends to have cars continually on rent and not to have a substantial number of cars at the service center. Occasionally, customers having their car serviced at the center or who simply need a rental car, will rent a vehicle from that location. To respond to the demands, a few cars will be at the location for rent. Mr. Kuhlman goes on to state that approximately 5 to 8 vehicles would be stored on the site at one time. If more cars need to be stored, other lots will found for them. As to parking requirements, Mr. Kuhlman states that they should be met because the orginal retail store at the site now only functions as a waiting area for Firestone Service Center customers. A portion of that space will be used for general office space. As a result, Mr. Kuhlman concludes, parking spaces formerly devoted to the retail function, will now meet the needs of the car rental business. The main zoning issue with this application is parking. There are 12 service bays at the Firestone Service Center. The Zoning Ordinance requires 3 parking spaces per service bay plus one for each day shift employee, plus two for service vehicles. The maximum employee compliment at the site is 10 employees. Therefore, the parking requirement is 48 spaces (36 + 10 + 2) . There are only 52 parking stalls on site. Therefore, there is a surplus of 4 parking spaces on the site. The former retail store within the building is approximately 2,850 sq. ft. and required 26 additional spaces under the retail parking formula. That space is now accessory to the service center and is no _longer used as a retail store, except for tires. When the service center was originally built, there were 33 parking spaces required for the retail store, even more than would be required today. In addition, 24 spaces were required for the service bays. Apparently, no spaces were required for employees. A plan showing 57 parking stalls was approved. However, only 52 were actually built and some of these are not striped. The former retail portion also appears to be somewhat smaller than originally planned, part of it being devoted to storage. There have been no parking problems at the site over the past 20 years. There is an area east of the building with 4 parallel stalls which the applicant proposes to sign and use this area to store rental cars, some in tandem. Since the service center has a surplus of four parking stalls, the use of this area does not 9 -24 -87 -1- Application No. 87021 continued L encroach on required parking so long as the former retail store remains accessory to the service center displaying only tires, batteries, and accessories installed in the service center and is used as a waiting area. Regarding the other standards for a special use permit, there appears to be no conflict posed by the proposed car rental business. There should be no threat to public health, safety, morals or comfort, nor should there be any injury to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. All neighboring property is already developed; therefore, the use will not impede normal and orderly development of adjacent land. Staff believe the special use permit can be issued, but subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The owner of the property shall agree in writing that the former retail area within the building may be used for the display of tires, batteries and accessories only and shall not resume its use as a retail store for appliances and equipment as long as the car rental business is in operation at the premises. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3• The area for rental car storage shall be limited to the front of the former retail store and shall be signed for rental car storage. 9 -24 -87 -2- j.- - PALMER LAKE ----- - - - - - - - - - - - 7 -- -- ----7 IILLJ Ll Ila" PARK tE O z I W Q Z Q O O EEG -- 69TH CITY — I MAINTENANCE 1 BUILDING CREEK I OPEN SPACE 67TH AVE. z -- W \ 694 � ^\` -_ _ -_ Q .L 94 APPLICATION 87020 w Q 66TH A co E• N. / - _ - � FREEW4 i C CIVI ^ -- � ' rte' - �rt� , � y'• ;� `� �>, , \�_ P K ter Ae- -`- V4 P LANE I w q I J C2 CSAH NC ca o C L LLJ 6T �� o o d _ \ v m RTHPORT - PARK a Se 1<1 NORTH PORT '1 1 w // SCHOOL - L S PAR ftTER TOW c� NO.3 - -' <o� o� C , i < A, 3 ' 2• � .C. ' 10'11 9 a 52ND AVE. N . \ P 3 k k 51 ST AVE. N HAPPY HOLLOW W cc PARK," y w � >_, 7 Q --Q p 50TH AVE. N. L .'n Y I 1 I � I CAIZ , t 5! � -, •._ 1157.:5' `i v � � - � 11•..x' -, i 4 rr - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - .6F1 - �. -- ,,,• _ - -____ - _ _ X11 „ . CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY E l- OF R ®OK ��T BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 jJ j � TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: October 5, 1987 RE: Hiring New Engineering Technician IV (To Replace Dave Anderson) At this time our selection process has been narrowed to two candidates. Both candidates are now working for other cities and each is currently accruing vacation benefits at the rate of 3 weeks per year. Both have substantial accruals of unused sick leave. In discussions with them, each of these candidates asked for "special consideration" in these two items (neither item was "offered" to either candidate). Accordingly, it is requested that the City Council authorize you to approve (1) vacation accrual of 3 weeks for the first five years of the employee's employement with the City (theq accrual according to the Personnel Ordinance); and (2) a 96 -hour (1 -year) block oi sick leave, which can be used in the first year, but must be earned according to the City plan before additional hours accrue. Note Geralyn Barone has advised me that this request would conform to the guidelines which are included in the proposed new policy which you are preplirg for submittal to the City Council in the near future. F X 1 4 T '�' N6641-4t[i1G1Qry •N M & C No. 87 -18 October 2, 1987 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Bill Kelly House Special Use Permit To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Attached please find copies of a letter from our attorney, Charlie LeFevere, memorandum from Ron Warren dated October 2, 1987, a packet of information and communication relating to the current lease of the Bill Kelly facility as provided me by Jill Sherritt, and a listing of questions and concerns raised at the September 14, 1987 City Council meeting. I believe the questions and concerns raised at the September 14 meeting are answered in the attached materials or this memorandum. I have talked to Hennepin County Commissioner John Derus briefly this week and he stated, as confirmed by his letters, that he will oppose the funding of the Bill Kelly House in the proposed location in Brooklyn Center. To the best of my knowledge the applicant has not submitted a relocation program for current residents at 5242 Drew Avenue North, but from Planning Commission discussions it is my understanding that it is their intention to give 30 day notices to the existing residents at that location. If the City Council chooses to pass a moratorium as detailed in the attorney's letter, the cost of a study of the impact of such a facility on property values is estimated to be somewhere in the area of $10,000 to $15,000. A study of such areas as traffic would range in the area of $2,000. We have no solid estimates on cost of a review of housing impacts and safety concerns. The Council should further understand that it would take four affirmative votes to pass the second reading of a moratorium ordinance. Regardless of whether or not the current application under consideration is approved or denied, the City Council should consider a detailed review of the ordinances regulating this whole general area of "residential treatment facilities ". I also believe we should work closely with the Legislature to modify and clarify existing law and regulation in this area to adequately address community planning concerns. Respect ully submitted, plinter Gerald S City Ma ager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Planning Commission Application No. 87012 Submitted by Bill Kelly House Questions /Concerns Raised at September 14, 1987 City Council Meeting 1. Determine what the basis is for regulation of sirens on emergency vehicles near Rule 36 facilities. 2. Determine the feasibility of conducting studies on the following: safety, traffic, property values, housing related to displacement of current P residents Metropolitan Council involvement, and effect of "fair share" allocation of group home facilities. 3. Confirm the information in the letter from John Derus regarding elimination of funding for the Bill Kelly House. 4. Research the statement that no residents from Rule 36 facilities have ever harmed anyone. I 5. Determine the group home classification of Eden House. 6. Determine the prerogatives the City has in the licensing process, including regulating staffing levels and admissions policy. 3. Determine if a special use permit is issued to a group home facility, whether or not the facility can change its rules, regulations, and admissions policy without regard to the City's wishes. 8. Determine the feasibility of a moratorium on this application. 9. Determine what types of facilities are allowed in a special use approved location (all group home facilities or only the one being proposed). 10. Define what constitutes substantial and credible evidence rather than speculated and unsubstantiated fears (as cited on page five of the city attorney's opinion). 11. Review what the state defines as a residential treatment facility; i.e. what types of facilities fall under this definition. 12. Define housing and recreational space requirements of the state of Minnesota's licensing rules. -2- 13. Determine if the applicant is willing to accept conditions on the special -use permit controlling the type of residents admitted to its facility. 14. Request documentation from the applicant on the type of individuals admitted to the Bill Kelly House. 15. Determine the proposed staffing levels of the Bill Kelly House and adequacy of these levels. 16. Obtain a copy of the maintenance programs for facilities currently owned and /or occupied by Kelly- Norton Programs, Inc. 17. Obtain a copy of the lease for the existing Bill Kelly House. 18. Obtain a plan from Kelly- Norton Programs, Inc. for relocation of current residents at 5240 Drew Avenue North. 19. Obtain a description of indoor and outdoor on -site recreational facilities for the proposed Bill Kelly House. a MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager ! FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Insp ction - DATE: October 2, 1987 SUBJECT: Followup on Various Questions Raised by the City Council Regarding the Bill Kelly House Application You have requested me to follow -up on a number of questions raised during the City Council's September 14, 1987 meeting involving the Bill Kelly House Application. A number of the questions, specifically Nos. 14 through 19, required response by the applicant. I contacted Mr. Henry Norton and he agreed to respond in writing to these questions and has done so in two written submissions. One is a four -page letter, with attachments, from his attorney, Felix M. Phillips, to the City Attorney and the other is a two -page letter, with attachments, from Henry Norton to myself dated September 28, 1987 (both attached). i During my discussion with Mr. Norton, he confirmed that Bill Kelly House will be adding staff to their facility as had been indicated, an equivalent of 1.8 persons which will allow for no fewer than two staff members on duty during the hours of 4: 00 p.m. and midnight on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to midnight on weekends. One of the two additional weekend staff persons would also be responsible for additional custodial a F� and maintenance d uties e on the weekend. Und their staffing scheme, they have a maintenance person for up to 20 hours per week during weekdays also. MT. Norton believes this will be appropriate to adequately address any maintenance concerns the City Council may have regarding their proposed operation. Also, Mr. Norton told me that he is not aware of any regulation restricting the use of lights and sirens by emergency vehicles near residential treatment facilities. I have also attempted to provide followup information regarding other questions /concerns listed from the Council's 9 -14 -87 meeting by contacting Mr. Jay Bamberry, who is the manager of Rule 36 Programs (mental illness) in the Mental Health Program Division of the Department of Human Services. His operation is responsible for funding mental health programs and treatment services. Funding is through a grant to Hennepin County which, in turn, provides funding through service contracts with mental health providers such as the Bill Kelly House. Bamberry's division is not responsible for the actual compliance with various _licensing provisions, but rather the overall compliance with Rule 36 by providing funding for mental illness treatment programs and services. Facilities must be licensed under Rule 36, must have an appropriate service contract with Hennepin County and must provide appropriate programs and services for mental illness to be eligible for such funding. He, therefore, more or less, oversees the total programs offered. We reviewed various aspects of Rule 36 (mental illness) programs and discussed the classification of Eden House which had been been mentioned at various times during the 9 -14 -87 City Council meeting. Mr. Bamberry informed me that the designation of Eden House as a Rule 35 /Rule 36 facility has recently been changed. He explained that the designation was changed in much the same manner as the designation of Bill Kelly House had been changed, but for opposite reasons. Memo Page 2 October 2, 1987 Both Bill Kelly House and the Eden House are listed in an April, 1987 listing as having dual licensing under Rule 35 (chemical dependency) and Rule 36 (mental illness) . He explained that the change to only Rule 36 licensing for the Bill Kelly House was because they were treating people with primary problems of mental illness and secondarily, problems with chemical dependency. Eden House, on the other hand, is licensed now only as a Rule 35 facility because they provide treatment programs for people with primarily chemical dependency problems and secondarily, mental illness. As an example, based on the current license, the Bill Kelly House can only treat or admit persons with mental illness and and secondary problems of chemical dependency. In fact, according to Bamberry, persons admitted to Bill Kelly House may not have any chemical dependency problems at all. On the other hand, the Eden House, with their Rule 35 designation, can only treat or admit persons with chemical dependency problems and secondarily, problems of mental illness. According to Bamberry, persons admitted to the Eden House may not have mental illness problems at all. Bamberry claimed that the Eden House does get referrals from the Department of Corrections and thought they might even be licensed by the Department of Corrections as well. (Note: A contact with the Department of Corrections indicated that the Eden House is not licensed by that department). Bamberry made the comment that the people treated at Eden House are not similar to those treated at the Bill Kelly House. He stated that those at Eden House are "real tough cookies" and could potentially be more of a problem to a neighborhood. . Bamberry lso noted that h was y e a not aware of any incident where z resident at a Rule 36 (mental illness) facility had ever harmed a neighbor of that facility. We discussed the incident reported by Councilmember Hawes of a person who walked away from the Eden House and allegedly assaulted an elderly Robbinsdale woman recently. The person, as part of his probation, was required to be involved in a chemical dependency treatment program at Eden House. He had walked away from Eden House a number of months ago and was being sought for parole violations at the time of the Robbinsdale incident. Bamberry did not believe persons at the Bill Kelly House were a danger to neighboring residents and cited the close proximity of the current Kelly facility to a day care in a nearby church. No incidents of residents harming or assaulting these children have taken place, although at times they share the same facility with the children. He said safety is a legitimate concern, but did not foresee any safety problems to the neighborhood or school children if the Bill Kelly facility is relocated to Brooklyn Center. He explained that if he believed the relocation of this facility posed a safety problem to the neighborhood, he would not recommend funding of the program. Bamberry also pointed out that any change in the number of residents, the type of persons admitted, or the programs offered would be considered major program changes requiring additional review and approval by his division. He also noted that recreational space requirements are a "judgment call." There are no set square footage requirements, but an appropriate area for recreational purposes should be available. He believed the proposed area provided by the Bill Kelly House provided appropriate recreational space and noted that they have rejected some sites because not enough open or recreational space was provided. He also pointed out that 25 clients is the maximum that can be allowed in these residential treatment Memo Page 3 October 2 1987 facilities. In relocating facilities of more than 25 clients, the facilities must reduce their numbers. He added that the Bill Kelly House is seeking licensing for 23 clients, and if they wish to add more, they will have to seek a program change and under no circumstances could they exceed 25 clients at the facility. My discussion with Bamberry gives me the impression that there may well be various distinctions which can be drawn between the various types of facilities and programs that fall under the broad category of a residential facility. The City Attorney is reviewing various questions raised about the legal right of the City to impose conditions or restrictions on these facilities. It might be most appropriate for the City in considering this application to pin down the applicant, so to speak, through conditions that allow no changes to its operation other than what has been proposed. Such things as not changing the facility to one being licensed by the Department of Corrections; no more than 23 residents with primary mental illness problems and secondary chemical dependency problems; not allowing persons with sole or primary diagnosis of chemical dependency; and any changes to the program or operation requiring City Council approval may be conditions that would be in order. Further review of our ordinance definitions and land use characteristics regarding these residential facilities is, I believe, also in order. Chief Lindsay reports that he is unaware of any restrictions on the use of lights and sirens around residential treatment facilities. He stated that such restrictions would be local regulations such as a "quiet zone" around a hospital. He said Brooklyn Center has no such regulation and that he would not recommend the adoption of one. Also, while this memo was being prepared we received a call from Jill Sherritt of the neighborhood committee. She stated that the committee has been reviewin g the various studies in the 13 page bibliography from the Mental Health Law Project submitted by the applicant's attorney. She claimed that all but one of the citations is related to mentally retarded rather than mentally ill /chemically dependent and questioned whether this information is relevant to this particular case. She also specifically noted the study found on the bottom of page 12 and the top of page 13 of the bibliography as stating the researchers "found results contradictory to 22 studies they had examined, representing the mainstream of past research in this area. Both child /youth and adult residential facilities adversely affected property values." Ms. Sherritt also claims a director in the Department of Human Services claims that large group home facilities have negative impacts and should not be allowed in residential neighborhoods. Bill Kelly House 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 (612) 871 -4131 (612) 871 -4252 September 22, 1987 Mr. Felix M. Phillips, Attorney 700 N rwest Midland Building 401 Second. Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 88401 Application. No. 87012 : Bill Kelly House Request for Special Use Permit Dear Mr- Phillips: During the City Council Meeting of September 14, 1987 reference was made to the police call involving a "stabbing ". Unfortunately, there was no opportunity to give additional details of the incident for clarification to the City Council. The mention of a stabbing is alarming; however, the facts of the incident show otherwise. In fact, a female resident who had a history of self - injury had cut herself severely. The injury required transportation by ambulance to Abbott Northwestern Hospital for medical care. She was ultimately discharged from the Bill Kelly House and transferred to Anoka Regional Treatment Center for long -term care. No one other than herself was involved at all. I have also enclosed "Admission" and "Discharge" policies of the Bill Kelly House as contained in the annual Purchase of Service Agreement with Hennepin County. There have been considerable discussions during the various Public Hearings that have raised questions and concerns about the "dangerousness" of people being admitted into the program. I submit these policies as data to substantiate the careful screening procedures used by us. Sincerely, Richa�Ell rog ram Director Henry,vorton, Jr, Helen Raleigh Administrator ' Program Director D. Admission, Discharge, Transfer and Follow -up Client A Criteria: a. The applicant must have a dual diagnosis of mental illness and chemical dependency /chemical abuse. - b. The applicant must be at least 13 years of age. The majority are between the ages of 18 and 35 and older individuals are considered. C. The applicant must be ambulatory and not in need of nursing or hospital care. Ap pp cants with medical problems will be considered for admission to the extent that such P roblems do not interfere with the individual's participation in the treatment program and that the facility is able to provide for their health care heeds. d. Appropriate financial arrangements must be made to finance their care. For non - Hennepin County residents a placement agreement must be signed and approved by the representative of the County of financial responsibility, and Bill Kelly's program director and sent to the appropriate Hennepin County office. e. Residents with dietary restrictions mu v Y �t have a Physician's statement noting their ability to self- regulate their diet. f. Applicant must have a statement from an M.D. indicating level of .functioning regarding medication administration. g. Applicant must have a physical 30 days prior to admission includ- ing a chest x -ray or mantoux and a statement of freedom from communicable disease. h. No applicant shall be discriminated against admission, termina- tion or treatment on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, public assistance status, marital status or physical handicap. Physically handicapped individuals must be ambulatory due to the limitations of the h s p Y ical cant. Visual 1 and auditory impaired individuals will be considered for admission to the extent that such disabilities do not interfere with the individual's participation in the treatment program. Individuals who are mentally retarded (Full Scale IQ less than 70) are not admitted to this program. i. Individuals who are deemed inappropriate currently are those who require hospitalization, are currently at risk to harm themselves or others, have caused tissue damage to another in the last six months and /or totally deny having a chemical abuse /dependency problem. Any of these individuals could be potential admits after stabilization or significant change has occurred. j. Applicants from Hennepin County will receive priority over residents of other Minnesota counties. k. Applicant must be screened, approved of and referred by Hennepin County Mental Health Social Services. 1. Female applicants who are pregnant are considered for admission contingent upon approval of the attending physician (OB /GYN) who will provide the necessary medical care. Pregnant women need to arrange for transfer to another facility that provides adequate medical care for their condition by the third trimester of pregnancy. Client Dis char g e Criteria: There is a continuum of functioning for graduates from the Bill Kelly House program. One end of the continuum is embodied by a resident who has successfully completed the residential part of the Bill Kelly House program, is prepared for living independently or semi independently, actively participates in vocational activity and has completed the IPP goals prior to discharge. The other end of the continuum is represented by a resident who has also completed Phase I- Phase IV but is not able to live independently, still requires supervision and /or monitoring by residential staff and a county social worker, is not capable of vocational activity at the point of graduation. This second type of graduate deserves recognition for improving his /her functioning and yet still needs assistance and supervision to maintain that level of functioning. Experience of Bill Kelly House staff has been that about one third of clients served by the program decompensate when faced with even minimal vocational activity. For these individuals a structured leisure time schedule with emphasis on use of community resources and a support network would substitute for vocational activity. All residents who complete the residential part of the program complete the following goals prior to being discharged as graduates. a. Client_s_el -c are. The client will have a plan for crisis intervention and if needed, a plan for ongoing therapy with community agencies. The client will have a plan for managing Problematic chemical use situations, know the warning signs for decompensation of his /her mental health, and have phone numbers for his /her assigned county social worker and identified psychiatrist. b. Intzrpersonal and soc ial ski The client will have a support network outside of Bill Kelly House which includes friends, family, professional helpers and any other individuals or groups from whom the client receives appropriate support. C. Living The client will be able to complete daily living activities with no or minimal supervision. These include adequate grooming, housekeeping and preparation of simple, nutritious meals. The client will have arranged to live in an independent or semi - independent situation or a Category II Rule 36 facility such as the Fairweather Training Program, prior to being discharged as a graduate. d. Recreational I nvolve m ent. The client will participate in recrea- tion or leisure time activities, as well as frequent use of free or inexpensive community resources, such as the public library. e. Health _ and medications. The client will have routine contact with his /her psychiatrist or physician as needed, yearly dental exams and will self- administer his /her own medications appropriately or live in a facility that monitors medication compliance. f. Linkage The client will have a method for transportation to and /or communication with, employers, friends, families, helping professionals, support groups and leisure time activities. r Discharge Summary Bill Kelly House follows Rule 36 guidelines for creating a written discharge (or transfer) summary. Besides the forementioned discharge criteria the plan includes the following: a. A statement of who participated in developing the resident's aftercare plan, which includes at least the resident, a therapist or counselor from Bill Kelly House and a representative of the original referring agency. b. Goals and objectives for the first three months following discharge from Bill Kelly House and the identity and phone numbers of individuals or agencies who will be working with the resident after discharge. C. A brief review of the resident's problems, strengths and needs during the time period the individual resided at Bill Kelly House. d. The response of the resident to his /her individual program plan and to the facility's overall program. e. A forwarding address and telephone number to reach the resident for follow -up contacts, forward mail, etc. Other Discharge Criteria a. Residents who do not make progress toward their goals within the time their program plans specify for the various phases will be referred to other programs after repeated attempts are made to encourage their progress. b. Residents may also be transferred for violence towards others, suicide attempts, physical health problems which require hospitalization for more than 15 days or continued disregard for the "Bill Kelly House Resident's House and Program Guidelines." C. Residents may be transferred for chemical abuse problems if repeated attempts have not satisfactorily improved an indiv- idual's chemical health and other transfer criteria are also involved. d. Residents may leave the program at their own request, and will be allowed requisite time to make living arrangements, etc. Staff will assist residents in finding alternative housing. Clients AWOL for more than 24 hours are evaluated for continued placement on an individual basis. e. Transfer from the program for these reasons may be decided on by the resident concerned or by staff decision. Transfer confer- ences will involve the resident concerned, the county social worker, primary therapist, the program director and any staff or significant others that are deemed appropriate. f. Notice of discharge or transfer of a resident follows the guide- lines of the Patients and Residents Bill of Rights. Readmission will be considered for all clients after their problems have been addressed in other settings. Follow -Up Procedures Follow -up of residents completing the Bill Kelly House Program occurs in three different ways: a. Aftercare groups are offered one evening per week to all resi- dents who successfully graduate for up to one year. b. Individual sessions with a designated staff person are offered for the first month after graduation on a weekly basis and for the next two months on an every other week basis to residents who successfully graduate. C. The Mental H - Health Counsel # Counselor 2 conducts six -month fo�.low up interview by telephone. For individuals not reachable by phone, attempts are made to reach the graduate through the county social worker or by mail. The follow -up questionnaire is utilized to identify indications of any necessary changes in programmin g and to furnish characteristics of successful ver sus rsus non successful ex- residents. I . LAW OFFICES PHILLIPS, GROSS & AARON, P.A. 700 NORWEST MIDLAND BUILDING BERT M. GROSS 401 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH FELIX M. PHILLIPS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 REPLY TO: ALLEN H. AARON STEVEN G. POTACH (612) 332 -6571 MARK R GEIER Piper Jaffray Tower 1905 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 (612) 349 -6786 #10,584 TELECOPIER: (612) 349-2824 September 22, 1987 Mr. Charles LeFevere LeFevere Lefler Kennedy O'Brien & Drawtz 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Dear Mr. LeFevere Re: Henry W. Norton /Bill Kelly House Application for Special Use Permit 5240 Drew Avenue North, Brooklyn Center Since the City Council meeting on September 14, when this application was considered, you and I spoke about what appeared to us to be the legal issues and the possibility of an understanding being reached that would satisfy any legitimate concerns of the City, and the legal rights of the applicant. Susan Lentz referred to a recent decision by the District Court of Anoka which was analogous to this case and which relied not only on the case law concerning special use permits but also on the Minnesota Human Rights Act. You asked for further information on that case so that you could study it. That case, Community Options, Ltd., et al., vs. The City of Fridley resulted i.n an "Interlocutory Order Coming a Previously Issued Writ of Mandamus and Resolving Remaining Issues of Attorneys Fees, Damages and Costs and Disbursements . . ." signed by Judge Kammeyer on April 3, 1987. I enclose a copy of that material and direct your particular attention to the order itself which appears on pages 9 and 10. As you will see, in a case quite analogous to the present application, the city was enjoined to issue a special use permit and, in addition to the attorneys fees expended by the city, the court has decided to order the city to pay attorneys fees to the petitioners, both under the Federal Human Rights Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. I have little doubt that the same result would prevail if the Bill Kelly application results in litigation. r Mr. Charles LeFevere September 22, 1987 Page 2 At both the Planning Commission and council hearings there was some reference made to a "stabbing" incident in connection with the Bill Kelly House residence in Minneapolis and the implication was that the incident reflected a violent predisposition, at least on the part of a resident. The Minneapolis police officer who the neighborhood group brought in to raise that incident had no details on whether or not a non - resident was involved and was actually hurt and he refused to answer my questions on cross - examination before the Planning Commission. Nevertheless, the incident is continually brought up, despite the fact that Police Chief Bouza and all of the factual police -call records show no pattern of violence or indeed any incidents of such emanating from the Bill Kelly residence. Since the "stabbing" matter has been stressed so often, the Bill Kelly program director looked into it and found that it was, in fact, a police call on account of a resident who, in a depressed state, had intentionally cut herself. This unfortunate matter could hardly have been more 0 distorted. Mr. Ellis has sent me a copy of the "Admission, Discharge, Transfer and Follow -up" criteria which the Bill Kelly House prepared to describe its services to Hennepin County. Note admission criterion (i) which denies admission to those if . . . at risk to harm themselves or others, have caused tissue damage to another in the last six months ." In the interest of allaying the concern raised by Councilman Theis to the effect that the policies could be substantially changed immediately after the permit were granted, the Bill Kelly House is willing to agree at this time that they will accept the special use permit conditioned on the continuance of admission criterion (i) being included among its admission criteria without any material variation during the term of the permit. This stipulation is offered in return for prompt affirmative action on the application, which action, we believe, has been more than amply supported by the evidence. Of course, if further delay and expense is involved, the applicant should not be asked and would not be legally required to agree to such a condition. However, as Mr. Norton remarked at the council meeting on September 14, admission criterion (i), in fact, is his policy. By accepting this offer the council will thus have ensured the 0 City that it acted carefully and prudently and obtained an additional agreement from the applicant which it would not have been able to obtain in court and avoided the adverse publicity Mr. Charles LeFevere September 22, 1987 Page 3 and substantial legal expenses in what we believe would inevitably be a losing effort to block this application. I also enclose a memorandum to the City Council from Mr. Norton concerning the lawn care at the Bill Kelly house in Minneapolis and which explains the maintenance problem. Any problems with the paint job being unattractive are a result of the owners having had a stuccoed house painted in an improper fashion so that paint will no longer adhere. Mr. Norton, at his expense, agreed with the owners to have the building painted which he did, and the paint would not adhere properly. Finally, please refer to my letter to Mr. Ronald Warren dated August 3, 1987, wherein I repeated the information my client had received from one of the real estate agents involved in his purchase of 5240 Drew Avenue North. On August 5 Mr. Nyquist called me and seemed to be quite agitated over that letter, demanding that I find out who was the person referred to by the real estate agent. I told him that I would pass that request on to my client. He then said that the agent might be referring to himself since he had been negotiating for the purchase of that property at one time but that such a purchase was impossible since Mr. Norton was offering an unrealistically high price. On September 5 Mr. Nyquist wrote Mr. Norton directly, again asking for the name of the party who is under a "serious conflict of interest" and Mr. Norton replied on September 16 that the realtor had not given him that name. It should also be remembered that in mid June, at about the time the application was first made, Richard Ellis called Mr. Nyquist and Councilman Hawes to discuss the application and ways and means of properly and factually presenting it to the people in the neighborhood. The idea, of course, was to get all the facts and information to the neighbors in order to overcome any unwarranted prejudices or fears and to avoid the kind of hysteria that has occurred. Both the Mayor and Mr. Hawes flatly refused to see my clients. It should also be noted that Mr. Ellis and Pat Parchen, director of The Kelly Institute, made a door -to -door canvas of the neighborhood and visited personally with as many persons as they could find at home and would see them, all before the July 8 public meeting which my client called to inform the public and answer their legitimate questions. S Mr. Charles LeFevere September 22, 1987 Page 4 Against this background it was apparent to me (and to all of the witnesses associated with the applicant) that at the September 14 hearing the Mayor demonstrated a lively bias against the applicant. His attitude was clearly antagonistic, playing to the opponents in the chamber, and indeed he acted as their attorney in his one -sided and argumentative questioning technique. After the close of the public hearing, he removed any pretense of fairness by stating that he was "appalled" by the applicant's handling of the matter from the beginning, including the public hearing which he attended. Apparently the obvious bias was encouraged by the direct threats made to the Mayor at the Planning Commission meeting which he attended in August in which Jill Sherrett announced that she and the neighbors would hold him morally, electorally and financially responsible for amy damage or injury which might result to them if the Bill Kelly House application were granted. In the circumstances, it is clear to us that Mr. Nyquist should disqualify himself from any further participation in the consideration of this applicant. Let me know if any further information would be helpful. Yours truly, r Felix M. Phillips FMP /mp Enc. CC: Mr. Henry W. Norton, Jr. Kelly- Norton Programs, Inc. 6739 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 (612) 544 -1447 September 28, 1987 r i J Ronald A. Warren Planning Commission ��t � ��01 Lei;; 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 r r't � Dear .tor. Warren: You asked me to comment on certain of the questions /concerns raised at the September 14, 1987 City Council Meeting. I'm pleased to submit the following. #4. "P7o residents from Rule 36 facilities have ever harmed anyone." This state- ment is too broad. What I said at the Council meeting was "no resident from Rule 36 facilities have ever harmed any neighbor of the facility." #13. This is discussed in the letter of September 22, 1987 from Felix Phillips to Charles LeFevere. The applicable section is. "Individuals who are deemed inapp- roprite are those who require hospitalization, are currently at risk to harm them- selves or others, have caused tissue damage to another in the last six months and/ or totally deny having a chemical abuse /dependency problem. Any of these individ uals could be potential admits after stabilization or significant change has occured." #14. Admissions policy is attached. - -- #15. The staffing levels will be increased b17 1.8 full time equivalent over the original application: This will assure double coverage from 8 a.m. to m idniaht seven days a week. #16. 1aintenance will be provided by a skilled maintenance man two t % days and an unskilled worker each weekend. See attached memo. #17. The lease on the present building expired on June 30, 1987. Since then rental is on a month to month basis. r ' #18. Current residents will be given 30 days notice to rove following the month end after receipt of the permit. As a practical matter tenants may stay on one month longer if necessary. Apartment #P1 is the only apartment requiring extensive remodeling and its occupant has already given notice to move out 2)y Novenber 1st. Henry W. Norton Jr. President Bill Kelly House • OASIS • Stevens House f �� #19. The inside recreation room will be the large room in apartment ;1 in the west side of the building. A ping gong table will be used in that room. Outside recreation will consist of a basketball backboard in the south end of the parking lot and a temporary volleyball net on the lawn of the southeast corner of the lot. I hope this is helpful. Sincerely.yours, Henry W. Norton cc: Mr. Richard Ellis Mr. Felix Phillins r' Kelly -Norton Programs, Inc. 6739 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 65327 f (612) 5441447 - September 18, 1987 O: Brooklyn Center C' .ty* Council Pte: Maintenance at Bill Kelly House I checked out the reason for the poor lawn care at the 2544 Pillsbury site as shown by the photcos" taken by the neighborhood committee. That unusual situation occured during the period that our maintenance man was on sick leave. It was promptly cleared up when he returned to work. To prevent.that maintenance omission from occuring in Brooklyn Center we requested from the Hennepin County Contract Manager that one of the two additional weekend staff people approved for the Brooklyn Center site include custodial, responsibilities. Martha Shipp, contract manager, approved that request so that outside and inside unskilled maintenance can be done on weekends by the weekend mental health worker, and the duties requiring a skilled worker done two days a.week by the maintenance man. I hope this satisfies the Council's legitimate concern with the appearance of the lawn and building at 5240 Drew Avenue North. Sincerely, lien ry W. Orton - Henry W HoMMt Jr. Ptdident Hill Kelly 11— • OASIS • Stever�Houee LeFe�ere Lefler tienneck O'Brien i3: llm z a Professional Association October 2, 1987 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333 -0543 Mr. Gerald Splinter Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 City Manager Clayton L. LeFevere City of Brooklyn Center Herbert P. Lefler 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 David J. Kennedy Joseph E. Hamilton Re: Kelly House Application John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Dear Mr Splinter Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III Followi James J. Thomson, Jr. g the consideration of the Kelly House Applica- Thomas R. Galt tion by the City Council on September 14, 1987, staff Dayle Nolan prepared a list of uestions which were g John G. Kressel q posed Burin that Steven B. Schmidt meeting. I was asked to respond to questions 6 through James M. Strommen 11 and 13 on that list. 0 Id H. Batty P. Jordan The followi is a response to those R. Skallerud g p questions. Rodney D. Anderson Corrine A. Heine David D. Beaudoin QUESTION NO. 6 . Paul E. Rasmussen Steven M. Tallen Determine the prerogatives the City has in Mary Frances Skala the licensing process, including regulating Christopher J. Harristhal Timothy J. Pawlenty staffing levels and admissions policy. Rolf A. Sponheim Julie A. Bergh If a residential facility houses more than 16 persons, the City may generally attach those types of conditions which are routinely applicable to special use permits. A number of such conditions were included in the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission on the Kelly House Application. With regard to staffing, the Court in the Fridley case, a copy of which has been previously delivered to the council members, the Court concluded that the State has preempted local authority in matters of Presidential facilities staffing. Although I do not agree with the Court's reasoning on this issue, in the absence of any other judicial precedent, the council should assume that the authority to regulate staffing levels is questionable. With regard to regulation of admissions policy, there are no doubt matters which a court would conclude are preempted by state regulation. However, the Applicant in Gerald Splinter October 2, 1987 Page 2 this case has recognized that the City has legitimate concerns on such matters as property values and public safety and has represented that its facility will house a certain category of persons who are mentally ill and chemically dependent. The Applicant has represented that these persons will not be dangerous to the community. Since, theoretically, groups of mentally ill and chemi- cally dependent persons could be A so selected as to isolate a group of individuals which does in fact represent danger to the community, I believe it may be appropriate to attach certain conditions to a special use permit that restrict the use to that which is described by the Applicant and for which a special use permit is sought. Any such conditions would be subject to the kinds of challenges which may be brought against any condition imposed by the City in a zoning matter, such as a challenge based on unlawful discrimination or violation of constitutional protections of due process of law and equal protection. QUESTION NO. 7 Determine if a special use permit is issued to a group home facility, whether or not the facility can change its rules, regulations, and admissions policy without regard to the City's wishes. If a group home were licensed in an R -5 district, it would presumably be on the theory that it is a "nursing care home" within the meaning of code section 35 -314, paragraph 3(a). If the facility were simply granted a special use permit for a "nursing care home," it would probably be difficult for the City to prevent a change to any other facility which qualified as a "nursing care home" facility. If the council deems it necessary to prevent conversion to some use other than the one applied for, it should attach reasonable conditions limiting the nature of the facility being permitted. Without such conditions, the Applicant could probably make fairly significant changes in its rules, regulations and admission policies without regard to the City's wishes. QUESTION NO, 8 Determine the feasibility of a moratorium on this application. Attached is a memorandum generally describing the law in Minnesota relating to interim ordinances. I should note that moratorium ordinances would be subject to challenge Gerald Splinter October 2, 1987 Page 3 on the same grounds as any other ordinance, including that it unlawfully discriminates against the handicapped, that it is arbitrary and capricious, or that it denies certain persons the constitutional protections of equal protection and due process of law. QUESTION NO. 9 9 Determine what types of facilities are allowed in a special use approved location (all group home facilities or only the one being proposed). I believe that this question has been answered in the responses to question nos. 6 and 7 above. QUESTION NO. 10 Define what constitutes substantial and credible evidence rather than speculated and unsubstantiated fears (as cited on page 5 of the City Attorney's Opinion). In my opinion letter of August 7, 1987, I intended to distinguish significant and believable evidence from "unsubstantiated fears" which are not a legally sufficient basis for the denial of a special use permit. Given the controversial nature of this case, one might argue that it would be prudent to consider whether any given item of evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence of the district courts of Minnesota. However, the council is not legally bound to consider only evidence which is admissible in a court of law, and much of the evidence considered by city councils on such matters would not be admissible in court, at least in the form in which it is typically presented to the city council. The point I wished to make to the Planning Commission and the City ouncil was simply that Y P Y in evaluating nd actin upon evidence council g members g P should consider the source of the evidence, the reliability of the type of evidence being offered, the nature of the evidence, the interest of the party giving the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, the creden- tials of witnesses giving evidence on matters requiring expertise, and all other such related matters to which reasonable men and women would attach significance in evaluating the reliability and believability of evidence in making important decisions. Gerald Splinter October 2, 1987 Page 4 i s QUESTION NO. 11 Review what the a f' St to defines as a residen - tial treatment facility; i.e. what types of facilities fall under this definition. The term "residential facility" is not particularly relevant in the consideration of the „s;elly House Applica- tion. The operative provisions of s--atute which use the term "residential facility” relate only to facilities housing up to 16 persons. Nevertheless, there is a statutory definition for the definition "residential facility" which is found at Minnesota Statutes Section 245.782, subd. 6, which defines "residential facility" as: Any facility, public or private, which for gain or otherwise regularly provides one or more persons with a 24 -hour per day substi- tute for care, food, lodging, training, education, supervision, habilitation, rehabilitation, and treatment they need, but which for any reason cannot be furnished in the person's own home. Residential facilities include, but are not limited to: state institutions under the control of the commissioner of human services, foster homes, residential treatment centers, maternity shelters, group homes, residential programs, supportive living residences for functionally impaired adults, or schools for handicapped children. QUESTION NO. 13 Determine if the Applicant is willing to accept conditions on the special -use permit controlling the type of residents admitted to its facility. The Applicant has expressed to me a willingness to discuss such conditions. However, as of the date of this letter, I have not had an opportunity to explore fully the extent to which the Applicant would be willing to consent to such conditions which the City might wish to impose. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:rsr Enclosure MEMORANDUM TO: FILE FROM: CHARLIE DATE: August 6, 1987 RE: Moratorium Ordinance for Licensed Group Home Facilities The City of Brooklyn Center may, at some time, wish to consider a moratorium ordinance which might prohibit construction or approval of licensed group home facilities in all or certain parts of the City. This memorandum describes the general legal principals applicable to such an ordinance. I. GENERAL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. The authority for adopting interim ordinances is found at Minn. Stat. §462.355, subd. 4, which provides: Subd. 4. Interim ordinance. If a municipality is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls as defined in section 462.352, subdivision 15, or if new territory for which plans or controls have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipality may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the plan process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective, and may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appro- priate, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. Memo to File August 6, 1987 Page 2 Additional guidance on the issue is found in the case of Almquist v. Town of Marshan 308 Minn. 52, 245 N.W.2d 819 (1976). The Almquist case was decided prior to the adoption of Minn. Stat. §462.355, subd. 4; nevertheless, it does provide some additional guidance to cities in the adoption of interim ordinances. The specific requirements applicable to the ar o p - tion of such an ordinance include the following: A. Studies. The municipality must be conducting studies, or have authorized a study to be conducted, or have held or scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of the comprehensive plan or zoning code. B. Purpose of Ordinance. The ordinance must be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety nd welfare of the citizens of Y the City. The Almquist case notes that an such Y• q h y h study must be undertaken in good faith for the purpose of protecting a legitimate public health, safety and welfare concern. C. The ordinance can only be in effect for a one -year period although it may be extended if necessary for a period not to exceed a total of 18 months. This limitation, is probably subject to the rule articulated in the Almquist case that the period of time of the interim ordinance must be "reasonable," and the City must proceed promptly with its studies and expeditiously adopt an ordinance when the study is completed. D. Nondiscrimination. The Almquist case notes that an interim ordinance must be nondiscriminatory. That is, the ordinance must treat all uses the same which are similarly situated with respect to the zoning or public health, safety and welfare concern which the interim ordinance is intended to protect. II. LIMITATION; CONFLICT WITH STATE STATUTE. The adoption of the interim ordinance would not be valid to the extent that it conflicted with state statutes. Specifically, since state statutes contain certain limitations on the powers of Memo to File August 6, 1987 Page 3 cities with respect to licensed group home facilities, the City would not be able to impose controls by an interim ordinance which it does not otherwise have the power to impose by ordi- nance. For example, state law provides that a residential facility housing six or fewer persons must be considered a permitted single family use. Likewise, ,; facility housing between seven and sixteen persons must be considered, subject to certain conditions, a permitted multiple family use in multiple family zones. It would not be permissible for the City to adopt an interim ordinance in conflict with these statutory provisions unless the City had under consideration rezoning the area of the City in question to a use that would not permit any single family or multiple family uses, respectively, in that particular part of the City. III. LIMITATION; APPLICATION OF MORATORIUM ORDINANCE TO PENDING PROJECTS. Under Minn. Stat. 5462.355, subd. 4, the interim ordinance may not halt, delay, or impede a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. The statute does not provide for a situation in which an applicant has not received preliminary approval, but has incurred substantial costs and expenses, and perhaps made improvements, in reliance on the current zoning code provisions. In Almquist the Court analyzed this issue in terms of whether the application of the interim ordinance to a given application resulted in such harsh and unjust consequences as to constitute Memo to File August 6, 1987 Page 4 substantial prejudice as described in the earlier case of Haukinson v. County of Itasca 231 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 1975) . If it were determined that such "substantial prejudice" would result from the application of the zoning ordinance to a partially completed or pending project, the applicant would either be entitled to compensation for damages or t interim ordinance would not be applicable to the applicant. It should be noted that the Haukinson case, as described in Almctuist the applicant had incurred costs of approximately $80,000 to improve land in connection with a $275,000 project. This was found not to constitute such "substantial prejudice" as to entitle the appli- cant to compensation or to prevent the application of the regula- tion to the applicant. IV. RISK TO THE CITY OF ADOPTING AN INTERIM ORDINANCE. The first potential risk to the City is that it could be involved in a challenge to the validity of the interim ordinance. This would involve, at a minimum, the legal expenses incurred by the City in connection with the defense of the law suit. It might also be claimed by an applicant that the application of the interim ordinance violated his constitutional rights under color of state law so as to entitle him to compensation, and possible attorney's fees, in a 1983 action. Additionally, if it were argued that the effect of the ordinance in a given case would have the result of depriving the property of all reasonable use, the applicant could be entitled to the damage caused as a result of the interim ordinance for a temporary taking under the recent Memo to File August 6, 1987 Page 5 United States Supreme Court case of First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, California (U.S. S. Ct. 1987). However, it would seem to me to be difficult to establish in the case of an existing apartment complex that an interim ordinance which did not prevent the ;eontinuing use of the property of an apartment complex would constitute the taking of property without compensation by reason of depriving the property of all reasonable use. 0007ME01.E19 LAW OFFICE LAWRENCE P. MAROFSKY BOULEVARD PLAZA OFFICE SUITES 7022 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55429 612 -566 -4570 June 10, 1985 12 Mr. Felix M. Phillips Attorney at Law Phillips, Gross & Aaron, P.A. 700 Midland Bank Building Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re: 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South Dear Felix: Again it is necessary for me to write to you with regard to the property at 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South. It appears that when your client had the property repainted, my client agreed to have the garages repainted and agreed to have your client get that work done and paid your client. As such, it appears that my client hired your client, who then subcontracted out the painting. A recent inspection of the premises shows that the painting is flaking, scaling and certainly deteriorating much faster than a quality paint job would do. We would request that your client, as the contractor, either get the subcontractor that it hired to come back and fix the work, or that your client get this work repainted at its cost and expense. In addition, my client's pictures indicate that the deterioration of the painting is also occurring on the main house. This should not have occurred within the time frame given if it were a quality job. We would appreciate it if this matter would be taken care of. Yours truly, Lawrence P. Marofsky LPM /pje cc: Marcy Kronfeld LAW OFFICE LAWRENCE P. MAROFSKY BOULEVARD PLAZA OFFICE SUITES 7022 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55429 612 -566 -4570 September 3, 1985 Mr. Felix M. Phillips Attorney at Law Phillips, Gross & Aaron, P.A. 700 Midland Bank Building Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re: 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South Dear Mr. Phillips: I received your client's letter of August 12, 1985. I have instructed my client to contact your client directly to see if they can't work out their problems. I note, however, that the last paragraph of your client's letter states that the issue is whether the building looks better or worse than it did when he leased it. This is not the issue. Very specifically under paragraph 4 of the Lease, it requires that the lessee would be responsible for the maintenance of the premises, keep it clean and sanitary and it required him to keep it in as good a condition as when turned over. That was the minimum that was required. The painting which he had done was on our premises, not his. We agreed to pay your client to have the garages painted at the same time the main building was done. The man your client hired did a bad job. Yours truly, Lawrence P. Marofsky LPM /pje cc: Marcy Kronfeld The Kelly Institute 6739 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612) 544 -1447 August 12, 1985 Marcy Kronfeld 4242 Basswood Road Edina, MN 55416 Dear Mrs. Kronfeld: Your lawyer keeps writing my lawyer about the paint job at 2544 Pillsbury Avenue. Your failure to accept the judgement of three independent inspections agencies still astonishes me. These are: Minneapolis Inspections Department Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Human Services -- Licensing Division The inspectors are all professionals, substantially experienced, and none were selected by us or known by me before the inspections. We have maintained the building inside and out in a most satisfactory way and this has been confirmed by the inspectors. Perhaps you wish to recommend other independent inspectors -- not related to me, you or your lawyer. From their credentials, I could select one. We could meet some day with Alice Rudy, the Minneapolis Inspector who originally cited the faulty exterior -- to inspect the building. The issue is whether the building looks better or worse than when I leased it. You will remember that the exterior was so bad at the time of the lease that within months it was cited by Ms. Rudy. It is obviously' in far better condition now than it was then. I have fully complied with the terms of the lease. ' Sincerely yours, Henry W. Norton President cc: Felix Phillips Lawrence Marofsky Henry W. Norton Jr. Htenerd D. 8116. President Program Office: 2550 Pillsbury Ave. (612) 871 -3323 Pt gr— Dlroetor AMliated with: Bill Kelly House • OASIS • Stevens House Bill Kelly House. 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 (612) 871 -4131 (612) 871 -4252 September 23, 1983 Marcie Kronfeld Kay Nelson 4242 Basswood Edina, Minn 55416 Dear Marcie and Kav• As you know the City Building inspector has requested that your building be painted. The lowest bid is $4000. We have considered moving over to my building at 1928 Stevens (the Reentry House is moving out), our preference would be to stay put on Pillsbury Avenue if you will extend the lease for another three years on the same terms. Upon your executing the extension document enclosed, we will then instruct the painters to begin the painting before the snow flies. We have already added substantially to the value of your building and will make this additional investment if we have three more years to amortize it. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, t Henry W. Norton, Administrator I Encl. cc: Kay Nelson Quail Avenue N. Felix Phillips 700 Midland Bank Bldg Henry Norton, Jr. Helen Raleigh Administrator Program Director er._1t S 1 LEASE EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made September 19, 1983, between Marcy Kronfeld and Kay Nelson,( "Lessor ") and Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc. ( "Lessee ") and Henry W. Norton, Jr. ( "Guarantor "). RECITALS 1. Lessor and The Center For B havior Therapy, Inc. entered into a Lease Agreement dated July 9, 1982, whereby Lessor leased to said corporation premises commonly described as 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. The performance of the original Lessor under said Lease was personally guaranteed by Henry W. Norton, Jr. 3. Effective December 31, 1982, the Lessee's interest in said Lease was assigned to Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc., by The Center For Behavior Therapy, Inc., and since that date said Assignee has erformed a P s Lessee thereunder and is recognized as the successor Lessee by Lessor. 4. Henry W. Norton, Jr., Guarantor of the performance of the original Lessee, is the President of the Lessee's Assignee, and 40 Ouch is agreeable to guaranteeing the payment of all the monies due or to become due by Dakota Valley Treatment Centers Inc, under said Lease. 5. Lease term under said Lease will expire June 30, 1984, and t th Less t he parties desire to extend the term as provided herein, ,( b Les de sires that Le ^' C6 _ at i t s expense, take care of , the necessary repainting of the exterior of the leased building as required by the Department of Inspections of the City of Minneapolis, and the Lessee is willing to do so. In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the f� parties agree as follows; -' 1. The term of the Lease, scheduled to expire on June 30, 1984, is hereby extended for an additional period of three (3) years to commence on July 1, 1984, and terminate on June 30, 1987. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the Lease, Lessee will, at its expense, repaint the exterior of the building and prepare the building for such repainting, in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Inspections of the City of Minneapolis. 3. Lessor consents to the as,�ignment of the Lessee's interest in said Lease from The Center For Behavior Therapy, Inc., the original Lessee, to Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc., and recognizes said corporation as Lessee under said Least'; subject to the continuing guarantee of the performance by Lessee on the part of Henry W. Norton, Jr., its President. 4. Except as modified herein Lease including all rental and other payments to be made by the Lessee thereunder, shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect and the arties shall P be bound by all the terms and conditions thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this instrument to be executed as of the day and year first above written. � / L arcy Kron A e n LESSOR Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc. LESSEE By �l e ry W. N ton, Jr., its President lenr Nort n, Jr., as guarantor o Lessee's performance. LEASE EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made September 19, 1983, between Marcy Kronfeld and Kay Nelson,( "Lessor ") and Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc. ( "Lessee ") and Henry W. Norton, Jr. ( "Guarantor "). RECITALS 1. Lessor and The Center For B havior Therapy, Inc. entered into a Lease Agreement dated July 9, 1982, whereby Lessor leased to said corporation premises commonly described as 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. The performance of the original Lessor under said Lease was personally guaranteed by Henry W. Norton, Jr. 3. Effective December 31, 1982, the Lessee's interest in said Lease was assigned to Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc., by The Center For Behavior Therapy, Inc., and since that date said Assignee has performed as Lessee thereunder and is recognized as the successor Lessee by Lessor. 4. Henry W. Norton, Jr., Guarantor of the performance of the original Lessee, is the President of the Lessee's Assignee, and no such 14 agreeable to guaranteeing the payment of all the monies due or to become due by Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Tne, under said Lease. 3. Lease term under said Lease will expire June 30, 1984, and the parties desire to extend the term as provided herein, 6. Lessor desires that Lessee, at its expense, Gake care of the necessary repainting of the exterior of We leased building as required by the Department of Inspections of the City of Minneapolis, and the Lessee is willing to do so. In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the parties agree as follows, I. The term of the Lease, scheduled to expire on June 30, 1984, is hereby extended for an additional period of three (3) years to commence on July 1, 1984, and terminate on June 30, 1987. _r 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the Lease, Lessee will, at its expense, repaint the exterior of the building and prepare the building for such repainting, in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Inspections of the City of Minneapolis. I 3. Lessor consents to the assignment of the Lessee's interest in said Lease from The Center For Behavior Therapy, Inc., the original Lessee, to Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc., and recognizes said corporation as Lessee under said Leas; subject to the continuing guarantee of the performance by Lessee on the part of Henry W. Norton, Jr., its President. 4. Except as modified herein, Lease, including all rental and other payments to be made by the Lessee thereunder, shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect and the parties shall be bound by all the terms and conditions thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this instrument to be executed as of the day and year first above written. arcy Kron A / ] n �� e � LESSOR Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc. ESSEE By �t:' e ry W. N ton, r., rest L en t enr Nort n, Jr., as guarantor o Lessee's performance. LEASE EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made September 19, 1983, between Marcy Kronfeld and Kay Nelson,( "Lessor ") and Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc. ( "Lessee ") and Henry W. Norton, Jr. ( "Guarantor "). RECITALS 1. Lessor and The Center For Bfhavior Therapy, Inc. entered into a Lease Agreement dated July 9, 1982, whereby Lessor leased to said corporation premises commonly described as 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. The performance of the original Lessor under said Lease was personally guaranteed by Henry W. Norton, Jr. 3. Effective December 31, 1982, the Lessee's interest in said Lease was assigned to Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc., by The Center For Behavior Therapy, Inc., and since that date said Assignee has performed as Lessee thereunder and is recognized as the successor Lessee by Lessor. 4. Henry W. Norton, Jr., Guarantor of the performance of the original Lessee, is the President of the Lessee's Assignee, and 40 such J agreeable to uar to 1 guara ein the payment o b nC f all 1 he P C monies due or to become due by Dakota Valley Treatment Centera ", Tnc, under said Lease. 3. Lease term under said Lease will expire June 30, 1984, and the parties desire to extend the term as Provided herein, 6 Lessor desires that Lessee, at its expense r take care of the necessary repainting of the exterior of the leased building as required by the Department of Inspections of the City of Minneapolis, i and the Lease / e is willing i g to do so. In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the""�• parties agree as follows. I. The term of the Lease, scheduled to expire on June 30, 1984, is hereby extended for an additional period of three (3) years to commence on July 1, 1984, and terminate on June 30, 1987. r� 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the Lease, Lessee will, at its expense, repaint the exterior of the building and prepare the building for such repainting, in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Inspections of the City of Minneapolis. 3. Lessor consents to the assignment of the Lessee's interest in said Lease from The Center For Behavior Therapy, Inc., the original Lessee, to Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc., and recognizes said corporation as Lessee under said Least' subject to the continuing guarantee of the performance by Lessee on the part of Henry W. Norton, Jr., its President. 4. Except as modified herein, Lease, including all rental and other payments to be made by the Lessee thereunder, shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect and the parties shall be bound by all the terms and conditions thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this instrument to be executed as of the day and year first above written. L M arcy Kron A e n LESSOR Dakota Valley Treatment Centers, Inc. LESSEE By c. e ry ton, r., is enr Nort n, Jr., as guarantor o Lessee's performance. r LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT made and entered into this �� day of /1( Ct1 _, 1982, by and between MARCY KRONFELD and KAY N ELSON, (hereinafter referred to as the "LESSOR ") and THE CENTER FOR BEHAVIOR THERAPY, INC., (hereinafter referred to as "LESSEE "). WITNESSETH: 1. The LESSOR in consideration of the rents and cove- nants herein contained, to be paid, kept and performed by the LESSEE, does hereby demise, lease and let unto the LESSEE, and the LESSEE does hereby hire and take from the LESSOR the following, to -wit: The land, building and Garage No. 5 located on Lot 12, Block 10, J. T. Blaisdell's Revised Addition to Minneapolis, Minnesota, and commonly described as 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the leased premises together with all ,�ights, privileges and appurtenances thereunto per- taining and belonging unto the said LESSEE for a term of two (2) years, commencing on the 15th day of July, 1982, and ending the 30th day of June, 19811 the LESSEE to pay therefor during the term aforesaid for rental in monthly installments the amounts as follows: From August 1, 1982 through June 1, 1983, $4,583.33 per month, thereafter, $5,000.00 per month, all due on the 1st day of each and every month, in advance. If rent is not paid on or before the 10th of the month, Lessee shall pay the additional sum of $140.00 for each month of said delay. If the term contains a partial month, all amounts due shall be pro rated. 3. It is agreed that the leased premises shall be used by the LESSEE for a treatment center for the mentally ill and for no other purposes; subject to all local and state regulations regarding the use of the premises -1- r' - � 4. The LESSEE shall be wholly responsible for the maintenance of the leased premises, and will keep them in as good condition as when turned over to it, reasonable wear and tear excepted; and will keep them in an orderly, clean and sanitary condition as required by the laws and ordinances applicable thereto; will neither do nor permit to be done therein anything which is in violation of the terms of insurance policies on said buildng; will neither do nor permit to be done on said premises anything in violation of laws or ordinances applicable thereto; will neither commit nor suffer waste in said premises; and will pay for all glass broken by its fault or negligence or theefault or negligence of its employees. It is agreed that the maintenance and repair obligations of the LESSEE hereunder shall extend to all parts or portions of i the leased premises, including entrance and overhead garage doors of its garage, and including heating, plumbing, electrical / r and mechanical fixtures and equipment except as such items may be covered by manufacturer warranties. LESSEE shall also be respon- sible for snow removal from sidewalks directly adjoining the leased premises. LESSOR shall be responsible for the structural portions i t of the premises except if the damage has been caused by LESSEE, ` its guests, residents, employees or invitees in which event 1 LESSEE shall be solely liable for any such repairs of said i damage. This clause shall not relieve LESSEE of the obligation f to provide insurance as hereinafter set forth. 5. The LESSEE shall pay for all utilities, including gas, electricity, and any other service used therein during the term of this Lease. 6. In addition to the rent herein described, LESSEE shall pay 50% of real estate taxes and special assessments, payable by LESSOR upon the property for 1982 and all tares and assessments due during the balance of the term -2- jr LESSEE shall pay said taxes directly to the county at least 15 days prior to the date said taxes are due and shall pro- vide LESSOR proof of said payment. LESSOR shall provide LESSEE with copies of the tax statement when received by LESSOR. 7. The LESSOR shall maintain in full force a fire and extended coverage insurance policy and loss of rents insurance for a period of 120 days on the property for full insurable value, LESSEE to pay 100% of said coverage. 8. The LESSEE will maintain in full force and effect duirng the term thereof a policy of public liability insurance under which LESSOR and LESSEE are named as insureds; that the minimum limits of liability of such insurance shall be $250,000 for injury or death to any one person, $500,000 for injury or death to more than one person and $50,000 for property damage, , LESSEE agrees to deliver a duplicate copy of said policy to LESSOR. Such policy shall contain a proviso requiring ten (10) days' written notice to the LESSOR before cancellation of the policy can be effected. LESSOR and LESSEE hereby waive any rights each may have against the other and the right of subrogation of any insurance company on account of any loss, damage or injury occasioned or arising from a risk generally covered by fire, extended coverage - and liability insurance and waive any right of subrogation that their respective insurance companies might have against either LESSOR or LESSEE. 9. That in case said premises shall become untenantable or unfit for occupancy in whole or in part by the total or par- tial destruction of said building by fire or other casualty, and LESSOR shall fail or refuse within thirty (60) days thereafer to agree in writing to restore the same within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the premises became untenantable or unfit for occupancy, this Lease may be terminated by either LESSOR or LESSEE by notice in writing, and in case said LESSOR shall agree in writing to restore the same within said time, the -3- I M n: 3 1 paid hereunder pending such restoration shall be abated in pro- portion to the loss and impairment of the use of said premises, to be determined by agreement between the parties hereto. I 10. The LESSEE will not assign this Lease, and will not sublet any part of said premises except for the use contemplated by Lessees' business without the consent in writing of the LESSOR; and do hereby agree that if the LESSEE shall be declared bankrupt, shall have a receiver appointed of their property, shall make an assignment for benefit of creditors or their rights hereunder shall be taken under execution, it shall be construed as an assignment of this Lease within the meaning hereof. 11. The LESSEE will make no claim against the LESSOR for any loss of or damage to property caused by theft, burglary, water, gas, electricity or other means; provided that the LESSOR has taken all reasonable precautions against such loss or damage. 12. The LESSOR may at all reasonable times upon reaso- nable notice enter said premises to inspect the same; and that no changes or alterations shall be made to said premises without the consent of the LESSOR in writing, except that alterations which in total will not exceed $3,000.00 or which are mandated by a governmental body need not be submitted for LESSOR's approval. Any alterations which will change the existing color scheme must be submitted to LESSOR for approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 13. That in case the LESSEE shall vacate or abandon said premises, or shall default in any of its covenants, and said default shall not be removed within fifteen (15) days or ten (10) days in the event the default is failing to pay any monies after notice thereof in writing from the LESSOR, the LESSOR is hereby authorized to re -enter said premises, to eject the LESSEE, and take full possession of said premises, to terminate this Lease at their option, and to lease and let said premises as to them shall seem best, to remove from said premises all personal property of the LESSEE, and to store the same to the account and at the expense and risk of the LESSEE, and to sell said property or any -4- r part thereof, and out of the proceeds to pay all expense of so removing, storing and selling the same, and all sums which shall then be in arrears or past due for rent; and that no such act or acts of the LESSOR shall be construed as cancellations of this Lease or waiver of the right of the LESSOR to collect rent hereunder for the remainder of said term, except said exercise of their option to terminate the same; and that in case the LESSOR shall determine that any action or proceeding at law or otherwise is necessary to enforce or determine the terms and conditions hereof, or to defend itself from any claims of LESSEE, the LESSEE agrees that a reasonable attorney's fee and ",p necessary gosts and disbursements thereof may be allowed and taxed against it. If the default is a default which by its terms or by an Act of God cannot be cured within the time provided and if LESSEE has promptly commenced to cure the default and has proceeded expeditiously to cure the default, LESSEE shall then be given additional reasonable time to cure the default, except that no extensions will be given to cure any default in failing to pay monies when due except as provided in the first paragraph of this Section 13. LESSEE hereby expressly waives any rights it may have to cure any default in the failure to pay monies after the expira- tion of the ten (10) day period given in the first paragraph of this Section. This waiver is given with the express knowledge of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the rights to reinstate- ment of any lease prior to judicial hearing. 1 That no sign, advertisement or notice will be placed or painted on any part of the outside or inside of said building or leased premises except in such manner, style and places as designated by the LESSOR; and the LESSOR reserves the right to remove all others at the expense of the LESSEE. 15. That no spikes, hooks, nails, screws, or tacks will be driven into walls or woodwork of the leased premises, and nothing will be attached to such walls or woodwork of the leased -5- �r premises, except by consent of the LESSOR, provided, however, that the LESSEE may hang mirrors, pictures and dividers with discretion. 16. The lease herein includes all furniture and fixtures belonging to Lessors which furniture and fixtures are being leased as is. Said furniture and Fixtures shall be returned in at least a good a condition as they are at the time of signing hereof, reasonable wear and tear excepted. In the event that any of the furniture or fixtures do wear out, it shall be the obliga tion of the Lessee to cause reasonable replacement thereof, which replacement shall be the property of Lessor. 17. That any and all furniture, fixtures and goods will be removed whenever such removal is requested by the LESSOR for purposes of repair. 18. That no additional locks will be placed on any of the doors in said building until LESSOR has been given a key thereto. 19. That the LESSOR shall. have the right to keep pass- keys to the building, and to use the same to enter such premises in any emergency for inspection and LESSEE shall maintain passkeys to the rooms and have same available at a central loca- tion in the event of an emergency and upon the termination of this Lease. 20. That the LESSOR shall have the right to enter the leased premises during two (2) months prior to the termination of this Lease, to show the same to prospective tenants at reaso- nable times and on reasonable notice and to place on doors and windows the usual notices that the premises are for rent. 21. That the LESSEE will neither use nor permit the use by its employees of the outside parking areas except during their shifts and for one hour before and after each shift. 22. LESSEE agrees that at any time and from time to time at reasonable intervals, within ten (10) days after written request by LESSOR, LESSEE will execute, acknowledge and deliver to LESSOR, LESSOR'S mortgagees, or others designated by LESSOR, a -6- 7 certificate in a form as may from time to time be provided, ratifying this Lease and certifying: (a) that LESSEE has entered into occupancy of the premises and the date of such entry if such is the case; (b) that this lease is in full force and effect, and has not been assigned, modified, supplemented or amended in anv way (or if there has ben any assignment, modification, supplement or amendment, identifying the same); (c) that this Lease repre- sents the entire agreement between LESSOR and LESSEE as to the subject matter hereof (or if there has been any assignment, modi- fication, supplement or amendment, identifying the same); (d) the Commencement and Termination dates of the term; (e) that all con- ditions under this Lease to be performed by LESSOR have been satisfied (and if not, what conditions remain unperformed); (f) that to the knowledge of the signer of such writing no default exists in the performance or observance of any covenant or con- dition in this Lease and there are no defenses or offsets aganst the enforcement of this Lease by LESSOR or specifying each default, defense or offset of which the signer may have knowledge; (g) that no annual minimum rent or other rental has been paid in advance; and (h) the date to which annual minimum rent and all other rentals have been paid under this Lease. 23• It is mutually agreed that this Lease shall be subordinate to any and all mortgage hereafter placed against the leased premises by the LESSOR and the mortgagee shall agree that in the event of a foreclosure it will not disturb the occupancy by LESSEE as long as LESSEE is not in breach of this Lease. 24. All notice, consents, demands and request which may be or are required to be given by either party to the other, shall be in writing, and shall be sent by United States registered or certified mail, with return receipt requested, addressed as follows: TO LESSOR: Marcy Kronfeld and Kay Nelson c/o Lawrence P. Marofsky 5901 Brooklyn Blvd., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55428 -7- TO LESSEE: Center for Behavior Therapy, Inc. 606 - 24th Avenue S., Suite 602 Minneapolis, MN 55454 The date shown on the return receipt as the date if which said conclusively deemed to be the date on which a notice, consent, may be changed at any time, or from time "to time by notice given by said party to the other party i•,p the manner hereinabove pro- vided. 25• This lease and all the covenants, terms, provisions and conditions herein contained shall inure to the benefit, and be binding upon the LESSOR and LESSEE, their respective suc- cessors and assigns. t IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the LESSOR and the LESSEE have caused this instrument to be executed in duplicate the day and year above writ itte n. In the presence of: �.. By — - - -- - - -__ ___ and C _< LESSOR - - - - -- ------ - - and LESSEE PERSONAL GUARANTEE The undersigned, President of The Center for Behavior Therapy, Inc., to induce LESSOR to enter into this Lease, does hereby guarantee the payment of all monies due or to become due upon the terms of this Lease. - Z' r rJ -e 11( L.2'S "'Z'. LAWRE - " y`r j2i4' ..CiU7 7 C� {r c✓J � CC�i C � S N01ATY P NCE P. MAF�v T UBUC • MINNESOP,1 NENNEPIN COUNTY w My Gcmmission Expires May IP,. )gni <' �� * 1 •�- � GREAT VIE AV. �/ 'iii 'i' , ' ;i � L AKA W/ N `' D o FRA AVE. N, t = EWiNG AVE N. - - - -- -- - <- - rn DREW AVE. co r- o j a Nye C) stiq z �. N � [ b pd Iq 0 _ z j - ABBOTT AVE - u U c —' � 7 d M �: � 0 ZENITH P r m i \\ /E. N. / - - -- - i �' P cn cPI I 'DREW AVENUE NORTH 6x6` CEDAR POSTS, 2'-0" HIGH, . 2CJ7 _ •• `�i t J+ i t i + t i 4. 0 n � �1 SPRUCE p +6' MAPLE 0 "CRABoPPLf NEW 440' HIGH 4 CONCRETE SIDEWALK BOARD ON BOARD - 12. WOCO FENCE m ��� _ 39-10' -39-10' � 6 ISER 6tF� RISER 8550 9' RISER - TREATED WOOD PLANTER wt ASSORTED EVEMREEN - - AND DECIDUOUS SHRUBBERY 21f2 STOREY BRICK AND STUCCO t - APARTMENT BUILDING 60 -0` « : 2 872' 1� 952-4" O 852-4 t0'RISER - - RISER BASEMENT SLAB t Z EL 848:-6' iD N W Ln Q 4 d. 10 ui 12 -0' d =d 5'- Q t ;TIN Z3 REMOVE IXIST N SOD D 3 CONCRETE I.� CONCRETE 849 =0` CONCRETE r' CONCRETE CO PACT& SIDEWALK 34 -3' SIDEWALK 29'- SIDEWALK CONCRET RIC OUTLETSON .M A, SIDEWALK _ GRADE GRAND R FILL; - - P - H.C. RAMP T - - ELECT IS. 4x4 [1a 5 -0" TYP INSTALL BIT. MATCH - ODNCRETE CURB ` •' EXISTING J i REM HC. STALL OVE — -- — - - -- -- IXISTING I� - --- - I — I — — — — — -- — '- _ — — LINE OF D0STING VINO PAVING ; GRADE I '� \EX & RE-`SOD �.'_T i EXISTING PAVING I GRADE �t , I WOOD TRASH \ fiE -500 ' � J ENCLOSURE ON \ 15 STANDARD AND i HANDICAPPED O PARKING STAL5 5_0' 76' -O' 142' I PAD B rTUMINDUS 2 =0'R • _ OC.B. BITUMINOUS PAVING " RELOCATE IXISTING - y j C B . . WOOD TRASH 0 J ' .. ENCLOSURE: PATCH I CONCRETE CURB UTY POLE • : PAVING TO MATCH GTLJTY ROLE' 207.3 -- - Uth1TY HOLE _ .. Y • i/ a I _ STORAGE 469 S.F. -Z RECREATION ROOM I p o F. PAINT STORAGE cr i � I I 1 n BATH ROOtd BOIIE R x � R ROOM _ � 0 I I ' A7MR0 I I ' � I Ili 1 I 1 —' i�r hl I 1 1111111 I, I i' CC ii Ip A I I ".1 OFFICE MHCOFFICE ' lx�l 11 110 S.F. NWl SING OFFICE AFFO ' ;CE I�I'll'I IL,,JI 145 S.F. 114 S.F. li it Y _.. DINING ROOM 550 S.F. IId I I I ' Z 219 S F Y III F I KI EN _ 190 g r x 1 DOU OCCUPANCY SINGLE OCC�PANCY LIVING ROOM DIRECTOR'S OFFICE SLGROOM GROUP ROOM 160 S.F. 135 S.F. 200 S.F. 1 35 S . F. 180 S.F. O - ....... IN - rq, KITCH KITCHEt El I� 5 - -'p -j� _ i � � � �� � \� APARTMENT TRAINING C BATHROOM BATHROOM I BATHROOM DN 14 R Ll F N 14Q BATHROOM BATHROOM Lip 1 1 R-- LOUNGE RECEPTION 19 S. KITCHEN �� itI �I� C \I 7 !D OIIBIE OCCUPANCY SINGLE OCCJPANCY KITCHEN !CSLG ROOM GROUP ROOM 145 S.F. 145 S.F. iso S.F. 1 1 Fr fir-- a — - -- --p DOUBLE OCCUPANCY SINGLE OCC PANCY LOUNGE 100 S..f. 135 S.F. 212 S.F, DOUBLE OCCUPANCY 200 S.F. .9 SI NGL OCCUPANCY DOUBLE OCCUPANC ..• -. i � 135 S. 180 S.F. ! I ] KIlC.EN fi •ITCHE I fj r ptl l Y�[ FT BATHROOM BATHROOM _ - -- _ BATHROOM BATHROOM 1 KITCHEN 1 KITCHEN i fi I � o I DO U B LE OCCUPANCY SINGLE OCC PANCY DOU LE OCCUPANCY 80 S.F. DOUBLE OCC PANCY SINGLE OCCUPANCY DOUBLE OCCUPANC� 00 S. ta0 S. F, 204 S.F. 204 S 145 S.F. 180 S.F. I O I } f i � o i In recent years, a number of land uses have come into being which were not contemplated at the time of the adoption of the City Code. These include adult halfway house, community correctional facilities, residential treatment centers, supportive living residences and group homes. These facilities have many characteristics which are different from the more traditional land uses such as nursing homes and boarding houses which are permitted or conditional uses under the current City Zoning Code. Some such facilities due to their nature or their size have attributes which are more institutional than residential in nature and therefore may not be appropriate land uses in certain residential zones of the City. In the case of the Bill Kelly House, the applicant has represented to the Council that it will generate a facility only for residents with certain characteristics who will not represent a threat to the neighborhood. • However, they have also asserted that the City does not have any legal authority to regulate staffing levels or admission and discharge policies which could serve to guarantee that the nature of the facility could not significantly change in this regard. Therefore, it would seem that our City Ordinances are no longer adequate to protect the public health, safety and welfare. We have heard conflicting testimony on such issues as whether such uses have a detrimental impact on neighborhood property values or pose a hazard to the health and safety of neighborhood residents. The City does not have sufficient independent expertise to evaluate this conflicting evidence or to conduct such studies as would be necessary to determine the facts relating to effects on property values and public safety from such land uses. A Therefore, the City should conduct studies of the various kinds of such "quasi - residential" facilities to determine the lard use impact of the facilities and to establish lawful and appropriate controls to the extent necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. In addition to the public safety and property value issues, the studies should include evaluation of such typical- concerns as levels of staffing, parking needs, need for community services, generation of resident and non - resident traffic, hours of operation, noise, lights and impact on orderly development. �007DRAFT.E19 I 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF ADULT HALF -WAY HOUSES, COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES AND SIMILAR FACILITIES AND PLACING A MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH USES. WHEREAS, the City's zoning ordinance does not clearly specify how uses such as adult halfway houses, community correctional facilities, residen- tial facilities, and community -based residential facilities should be regulated within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary for a study to be conducted to determine how such uses should be regulated within the City and deems it desirable to place a moratorium on the development of such uses until the study has been completed and any amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance are adopted: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, that the Council finds and determines that the adoption of the following is necessary to protect the ongoing planning process in the City and to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. A study is authorized to be conducted and consultant be selected to conduct a study to determine how uses such as adult halfway houses, community correctional facilities, residential facilities, and . community -based residential facilities should be regulated within the City. The scope of the study should include, but is not limited to, the following: a. the particular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either permitted uses or special uses; b. the o ulation density of clientele that such facilities should P P Y serve in the various zoning districts; C. the concentration and density of such uses; and d. the effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area. 2. Upon completion of the study the matter is to be considered by the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council. 3. A moratorium on the development of adult halfway houses residential P y � facilities, community -based residential facilities, and community correctional facilities is hereby adopted pending completion of the study and the adoption of any amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. No license (other than renewals), special use permit, or building permit may be issued for such uses during the moratorium period nor may any rezonings, plattings or replattings, or land divisions or consolidations be granted by the City for such uses during the moratorium period. The moratorium period shall expire on Page 2 Resolution No. 19 , or such earlier date, as may be further adopted by a resolution of the City Council. The moratorium period may be extended for a reasonable period of time, as determined by a resolu— tion of the City Council, that may be necessary to complete the study and adopt any necessary amendments to the City's zoning ordinance. 4. The moratorium shall not apply to any use that meets the definition of a residential facility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 245.782, subd. 6 and which is regulated by Minnesota Statutes, Section 245.812, subd. 3 and 4 and Section 462.357, subd. 7 and 8. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 0007RE02.E19 I ORDINANCE NO. INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADULT HALFWAY HOUSES, COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES AND SIMILAR USES WITHIN THE CITY The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center ordains: Section 1. Background 1.01 The city has received a special use permit application from Bill Kelley House of Kelley Norton Programs, Inc. to operate a state licensed residential treatment facility for mentally ill and chemically dependent adults in an R5 Zoning District. As a result of the review process of that application, it has become apparent that the City's zoning ordinance does not contemplate or adequately address the classification of such uses. 1.02 The City's Zoning ordinance is unclear as to whether uses such as "adult halfway houses ", "community correctional facilities ", "residential facilities ", and "community -based residential facilities" should be classified as "nursing care homes" or "boarding care homes" or whether a new classification should be adopted. 1.03 In addition to the proper zoning classification of such uses, there are a number of significant planning and land use issues pertaining to the regulation of such uses, including the following: 1. The particular zoning districts in which such uses should be allowed as either permitted uses or special uses. 2. The population density of clientele that such facilities should serve in the various zoning districts. 3. The concentration and density of such uses in the City and its neighborhoods. 4. The effect of such uses on other uses in the surrounding area. 1.04 There is a need for a study to be conducted so that the City can adopt a set of comprehensive plans and land use zoning regu- lations pertaining to such uses. Such a study will address the land use and zoning issues, including those referenced above. 1.05 There is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City and to ensure that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of the City's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance until such a study has a been completed and any modifications to the City's zoning and land use regulations are accomplished. 1.06 The City Council has directed that such a study be undertaken. 1.07 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, subd. 4 (Act) permits the adoption of interim zoning ordinances during the planning process. Section 2. Determination 2.01 During the period that this interim ordinance is in effect, no property within the City may be developed, redeveloped, nor shall any site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses (other than renewals), plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits be issued by the City for any uses defined by state regulations, or otherwise, as adult halfway houses, community correctional facilities, community -based residential facilities, or residential facilities. 2.02 Notwithstanding any provision of this ordinance to the contrary, any use that meets the definition of a residential facility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 245.782, subd. 6 and as regulated by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subd. 7 and subd. 8 is not affected by this ordinance. 2.03 This ordinance shall remain in effect for a period of- V1C;i' from its effective date or such earlier date as may be adopted by the City Council, provided that, if the study and planning process have not been completed within that 4 "i 3 period this ordinance may be extended for such additional periods as deemed necessary by the City Council not to exceed an addi- tional period of eighteen months as permitted by the Act. Section 3. This ordinance applies to any applications for site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses, plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits that, have not received preliminary approval by the City Council before, , 1987. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 00070D04.E19 LISTING OF POTENTIAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION NO. 87012 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official and the State Building Codes Division 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. The site plan shall be amended prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate a 42 foot wide parking lot at least 17 90 degree parking stalls and be bounded by B612 curb and gutter. 5. The premises shall continue to be licensed under the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance and shall be subject to the r,%intenance and occupancy provisions therein. 6. The permit is issued to the applicant and is nontransferable. 7. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation shall be grounds for revocation. 8. Existing tenants shall receive a minumum of 30 days notice prior to the date they are expected to vacate the premises. 9. The City strongly recommends the addition of at least one staff person on the premises during the hours of 4:00 p.m. and midnight during weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and midnight on weekends to provide better supervision and protection of the residents of the facility. 10. The facility shall be subject to a City Board and Lodge License and compliance with these requirements. 11. The special use permit shall be reviewed within one year of the date of issuance to examine the history, if any, of complaints or police actions relating to the facility. 12. Approval acknowledges the ability of the applicant to provide up to 20 parking spaces on -site meeting the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby the applicant agrees to provide at least 20 parking spaces on -site upon a determination by the City that the parking spaces are needed. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property. 13. Any and all outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 14. The facility must be licensed as a Rule 36 Facility for mentally ill adults by the State of Minnesota and must continue to comply with all state and county rules and regulations. 15. The facility may not seek or obtain licensure from the State Department of Corrections or seek or accept referrals from the Criminal Justice System. 16. No more than 23 residents may reside at the facility. 17. The facility may not be used for treatment, counseling, evaluation, group or individual therapy or the like for any persons who are not currently residents of the facility. 18. Resident characteristics must be consistent with Rule 36 Program guidelines in effect as of the date of this Resolution, i.e. individuals who do not exhibit behavior that is harmful to themselves or others. Specifically, the facility shall be operated in accordance with the following dmission and discharge e g policies: a. Residents must have a statement from an M.D. regarding level of functioning regarding medication administration. b. Individuals who are mentally retarded (Full Scale IQ less than 70) may not be admitted. c. Residents must not be currently at risk to harm themselves or others. d. Residents may not be admitted who have caused tissue damage to another in the last 6 months. e. Residents must be screened, approved of and referred by Hennepin County Mental Health Social Services. f. Residents shall be transferred from the facility for violence toward others. 19. Applicant shall promptly notify the City of any changes in State licensing procedures or requirements or in admission or discharge polcies. 20. Residents of the facility must have a primary diagnosis of mental illness and may have a secondary diagnosis of chemical dependency. 21. Applicant must have an approved services contract with Hennepin County for this location before making physical alteration of the site. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on October 5, 1987: AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE - OPERATOR �) , United Artists Communications, Inc. 5810 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Cyief of Police COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE -}— 1 Brooklyn Pet Hospital 4902 France Ave. N. / ? j,a:�� FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Sanitarian f Vincent's Chocolates 6030 Xerxes Ave. N. t�YlGti�� Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Otto's, Inc. P. 0. Box 435 Viking Heating & Air Cond. Co. P. 0. Box 713 Building Official GENERAL APPROVAL: L D. K. Weeks, City Clerk