The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986 04-07 CCP Reguar Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APRIL 7, 1986 (following adjournment of the HRA meeting) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Consent Agenda - All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. *6. Approval of Minutes - March 24, 1986 - Regular Session 7. Resolutions: *a. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Improvement Project Nos. 1985 -27 and 1986 -07 (Contract 1986 -G) This is for geometric improvements and resurfacing of Shingle Creek Parkway from C.S.A.H. 10 to Interstate Highway 94/694. *b. Approving Limited Use Permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for Use of Properties at Centerbrook Golf Course c. Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Providing for a Hearing on Proposed Assessment for Nuisance and Hazard Abatement at 5800 Drew Avenue North -This resolution certifies the costs incurred relating to the removal of a hedge which was in violation of the City Ordinance relating to sight distance at intersections and provides for the conduct of a hearing relating to this special assessment. d. Authorizing the Execution of an Amendment to Petition and Agreement Regarding Special Assessments This action confirms the action of the HRA in the same matter. e. Approving Addendum No. 1 to the Plans and Specifications for Brooklyn y Farm Storm Sewer Improvement Project No, 1986-08, - 86 08 Contract 19 86 I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- April 7, 1986 f. Establishing Project No. 1986 -11 for Installation of a Lightning Protection System at Grandview Park, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and Accepting Quotation g. Establishing Employee Retirement Incentive Program h. Authorizing he Participation ation ' g p in any Retirement Incentive Program Adopted by the City Council in 1986 to those Employees who Retire in 1986 Prior to the Adoption of a Program -This item was tabled at the March 24, 1986 City Council meeting. i. Amending the 1986 General Fund Budget This item relates to the installation costs for the civil defense sirens. j. Approving Proposed Program for Year XII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Funds and Authorizing its Submittal k. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into a Joint Powers Agreement to Form a Coalition of Metropolitan Communities 8. Public Hearing (7:30 .m. P ) -A public hearing is scheduled for 7 :30 p.m. on an application for a private kennel license from James Zimmer, 5729 Bryant Avenue North 9. Ordinance: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapters 34:and 35 Regarding Rummage Sale Signs and Real Estate Signs (public hearing 8:00 p.m.) -This ordinance was first read on March 10, 1986, published in the City's official newspaper on March 20, 1986, and is recommended for a second reading this evening. This item requires a 4/5 vote by the City Council. 10. Planning Commission Items: (8:15 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 86009 submitted by Dr. John B. Lescault requesting an appeal from an action by the City in 1984 to reclassify the chiropractor's office in the home at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard as a special home occupation rather than a permitted home occupation. This application was discussed at the Commission's February 27, 1986 meeting at which time the Commission directed staff to return with a resolution denying the appeal. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- April 7, 1986 This resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at its March 27, 1986 meeting and a draft of the resolution is before the Council this evening. b. Planning Commission Application No. 86011 submitted by Roy Hansen /Lombard Properties requesting preliminary subdivision approval to combine into a single parcel of land the three vacant tracts (Tracts D, E, and F of R.L.S. No. 1572) at the northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 27, 1986 meeting. c. Planning Commission Application No. 86013 submitted by Stephen Cook requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval for a two family lot on the 5300 block of Russell Avenue North. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 27, 1986 meeting. 1. Final Plat a. Cook Estates d. Planning Commission Application No. 86014 submitted by Budget Rent a Car (Sears) requesting special use permit approval to conduct a car rental business in the Sears automotive center at Brookdale. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 27,_1986 meeting. *11. Licenses 12. Adjournment � MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUICY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 24, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:25 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 Public 'F Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, HRA Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum 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. Mayor Nyquist noted that Brooklyn Center Explorer Post 880 was present this evening o resent their charter g P r r to the City. y Kevin Stahl of Brooklyn Center Explorer Post 880 came forward to present the City with the charter from the Viking Council of the Boy Scouts. He went on to explain a little more about the Explorer Post and how they operate. He noted that there are 15 members ranging in age from 14 to 21. He stated that the post is a career orientated division of the Boy Scouts. He stated that Brooklyn Center Explorer Post 880 is the only post in the United States which has a city for a sponsor. He added that they are also the only post which handles fire, medical, and police emergency procedures. He stated that most posts only handle one area. He thanked the Council for the opportunity to appear this .evening and requested a wall size map from the City. The City Manager stated that staff would like to add one resolution to the agenda. He noted this resolution is identical to the one which was passed by the HRA earlier. RESOLUTION NO. 86 - 42 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PETITION AND AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 3 -24 -86 - - 1 1. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda, and no requests were made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ---MARCH 10, 1986 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of March 10, 1986 as submitted. The motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka abstained from voting as he was not present at the March 10, 1986 meeting. PROCLAMATION Councilmember Hawes introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoptions DECLARING APRIL 12, 1986 AS A DAY OF SPIRITUAL REDEDICATION AND PEACEMAKING IN BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded b member y Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, 7100 CORPORATE PLAZA 2ND ADDITION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the final plat of the 7100 Corporate Plaza 2nd Addition. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, BROOKLYN FARM There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the final plat of the Brooklyn Farm. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 86 -43 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved .its adoption: RESOLUTION TABLING THE BIDS FOR PROJECT NO. 1985 -27 AND 1986 -07, CONTRACT 1986 -G (SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -44 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ON DEC CARING ADEQUACY UACY Q OF PETITION, ESTABLISHING PROJECT, 3 -24 -86 -2- ICI RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -08, CONTRACT 1986 -I The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 86 -45 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member 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: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE American Bakeries 4215 69th Ave. N. T. J. Applebee's Brookdale Center Bakers Square 5601 Xerxes Ave. N. Bridgeman's Brookdale Center Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. N. Carmel Corn Brookdale Center Country Store 3610 63rd Ave. N. Cross of Glory Lutheran Church 5929 Brooklyn Blvd. Dayton's Brookdale Center Denne's Market 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Fanny Farmer Candy Shops Brookdale Center Green Mill Inn 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. Ground Round 2545 Country Rd. 10 House of Hui 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. Ault Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. Jerry's Brookdale Super Value 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N. Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home5401 69th Ave. N. McDonald's - 5525 Xerxes Ave. N. Nature Food Centers Brookdale Center Northport Elementary School 5421 Brooklyn Blvd. Num -Num Foods, Inca Brookdale Center Orange Julius Brookdale Center Perkins Restaurants 5915 John Martin Dr. Red Lobster Restaurant 7235 Brooklyn Blvd.' Rocky Rococo Brookdale Center Service Systems 701 Decatur Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Thrifty Scot Motel 6445 James Circle 3 -24 -86 -3- Tombstone Pizza _6850 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. U.A. Theater 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Wes' Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Blvd. Willow Lane PTA 7020 Perry Ave. N. Yen Ching Restaurant 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Band Boosters 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. N. Budgetel Inn 6415 James Ave. N. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. N. Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Tombstone Pizza Corp. 6850 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Glen Iverson 5900 Aldrich Ave. N. Leslie G. Reinhardt 5713 Humboldt Ave. N. Wallace S. Anderson 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #204 Robert Levine 3401 -3413 47th Ave. N. Renewal: Marvin Garden Ltd. Marvin Garden Townhomes H. Oien, E. Sullivan 5801 Brooklyn Blvd. Duane & Jessie Erickson 7019 Dallas Road M & J Properties 1507 Humboldt Place Gregory Smith 1519 Humboldt Place Gary Schultz 4220 Lakeside Ave. N. David W. Zemke 6813 Noble Ave. N. Rueben & Diane Ristrom, Jr. 6819, 21 Noble Ave N. Robert Berglund 6833, 35 Noble Ave. N. Curtis Erickson 4809, 11 Twin Lake Ave. William Kirby 5006 Zenith Ave. N. Leonard H. Schollen 5305 4th St. N. Jack Lescault - 3507 62nd Ave. N. Ralph Kiefer, Jr. 2845 67th Lane Lee Marwede 4700, 02 68th Ave. N. W. Wetzel L. Grones .4701 03 68th Ave. N John & Patricia DeVires 2911 68th Lane SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Lawrence Sign Co. 945 Pierce Butler Rte. LeRoy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Ave. N. 3 -24 -86 -4- TEMPORARY BEER LICENSE St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. 1. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending the 1986 General Fund Budget. He stated this resolution would authorize the purchase of a moving radar unit instead of the stationary radar unit which had been budgeted for. He noted that since the fall of 1985 the courts have become much stricter in their requirements for setting the stationary radar unit. He also added that the cost of a moving radar unit has decreased. Councilmember Scott asked whether a handheld unit or dashboard unit would be purchased. The City Manager stated he believed a handheld unit would be purchased. RESOLUTION NO.-86-46 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1986 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving A Contract for Outfitting the Mobile Communications Van, He noted the consultant had recommended approval of the proposal from Road Rescue, Inc. because they were the only company in the area which could do the installation. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -47 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR OUTFITTING THE MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS VAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member -Celia Scott, and the motion passed, with Councilmember Lhotka opposed. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that a representative for Planning Commission Application No. 86004, was not present and he requested that the item be tabled until a representative was present. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86008 SUBMITTED BY LOMBARD PROPERTIES, INC REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT _A 70 100 SO FT., RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER AT THE CORNER OF EARLE BROWN DRIVE AND SUMMIT DRIVE BEHIND TARGET The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by 3 -24 -86 -5- . the Planning Commission at its March 13, 1986 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the -Mayor and City Council to pages one and two of the `March 13, 1986 Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheet with those minutes regarding this application. He proceeded to review ` the application and noted that the site had originally been three parcels which were combined in 1985. He stated that there would be two truck access points, one for Target and one for the Lombard Shopping Center. He added that originally there had been some negotiations for Target and Lombard to share the truck access, meaning there would be no greenstrip or landscaping between the two buildings. He stated that the discussions had broke down because an agreement could not be reached for the payment of the costs. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the application had been reviewed- by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and that the Commission had recommended three conditions. He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 86008 subject to the 12 conditions which can be found on pages two and three of the March 13, 1986 Planning Commission minutes. The Director of Public Works stated that an additional condition should be added regarding the agreement between LaBelle's and Lombard for joint use of the property. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 86008 submitted by Lombard Properties, Inc. requesting site and building plan approval to construct a 70,100 sq. ft. retail shopping center at the corner of Earle Brown Drive and Summit Drive, behind Target, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Planning Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City ordinances 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in 3 -24 -86 -6- i i all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all si ner which is g Y subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. . 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. An as -built utility survey of the property shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The grading, drainage and utility plan and the design of the storm water skimmer shall be subject to review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 11. Fire hydrant locations shall be subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of permits. 12. Plan approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for 85 additional parking stalls. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing that he shall install said stalls upon determination of the need by the City. Said acknowledgement shall be filed with the title to the property as a deed restriction. 13. The applicant shall provide a copy of the cross access and joint use agreements with LaBelle's prior to the issuance of buildin g permits. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86012 SUBMITTED BY RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 111,755 S4. FT OFFICE BUILDING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SUMMIT DRIVE AND EARLE BROWN DRIVE (WEST LEG) The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 13, 1986 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to pages three and four of the March 13, 1986 Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheet on Application No. 86012 attached with those minutes. He proceeded to review the application and noted that the parcel of land is approximately 5.9 acres and it is zoned I -1. He stated that office uses are allowed as a special use in I -1 zoning. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated he would like to recommend the modification of the landscape plan to allow for relocating and elimination of trees to preserve the site lines recommended by Westwood Planning. He added that the landscape plan could be amended prior to issuance of permits. He stated that Ryan Construction has agreed to these changes. He noted that the Shingle Creek 3 -24 -86 -7- s Watershed Management Commission has reviewed the application and recommended four conditions which he reviewed for Councilmembers. He stated that the second phase of this development is not covered at all in this application and that the second phase would require more study of traffic patterns. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 86012 subject to 12 conditions which can be found on page three of the March 13, 1986 Planning Commission minutes. After reviewing the conditions, the Director of Planning & Inspection stated that a public hearing is scheduled, notices have been sent, and a representative of the applicant is present at this evening's meeting. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 86012 submitted by Ryan Construction Company requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 111,755 sq. ft. office building at the northeast corner of Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive (west leg). Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience 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 Planning Commission Application No. 86012 submitted by Ryan Construction Company. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember. Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 86012 submitted by Ryan Construction Company requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 111,755 sq. ft. office building at the northeast corner of Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive (west leg), 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. 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 guarantee and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 3 -24 -86 -8- 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. An as -built survey of the property shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. The grading, drainage and utility plan, including the design of the storm water skimmer, shall be subject to review, and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 11. Special use permit approval is deemed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with Sections 35 -220 and 35 330 of the Zoning Ordinance and further is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. 12. Plan approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for 33 additional parking stalls. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing that he shall install said stalls upon determination of the need by the City. Said acknowledgement shall be filed with the title to the property as a deed restriction. 13. The landscape plan shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to reflect the recommendations of Westwood Planning to retain site lines to the Earle Brown Farm. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:23 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86004 SUBMITTED BY PAUL WORWA REQUESTING AN APPEAL FROM A DETERMINATION THAT NOT MORE THAN FIVE _(5) CHILDREN, INCLUDING CHILDREN OF THE RESIDENT FAMILY, MAY BE SERVED IN A FAMILY DAY CARE OPERATION IN A TOWNHOUSE The City Manager noted that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this item at its March 13, 1986 meeting, but recommended an ordinance amendment. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the application was reviewed by the Commission and tabled at its February 3, 1986 meeting in order to ' 3 -24 -86 -9- give staff time to obtain and review the State licensing regulations for home day care facilities. He stated that day care is an allowed home occupation for R3 zoned property. He noted that State licensing regulations allow up to ten children but City ordinance only allows up to five children including the resident children in R3 zones. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that in Mr. Worwa's appeal it was noted that his townhouse is larger than his previous detached home and that he is near more open space than in his previous home. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the ordinance amendment submitted this evening would meet State mandates for R1 zones, which is 12 children; would allow five children not including the resident children, in R2 and R3 zones; and would not affect the R4 zones at all. Councilmember Hawes asked if there were any State - requirements regulating the number of school age children allowed in home day care facilities. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the licensing provisions would handle this regulation, not the zoning ordinance. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember- Theis to deny Planning Commission Application No. 86004 submitted by Paul Worwa requesting an appeal from a determination that not more than five (5) children, including children of the resident family, may be served in a family day care operation in a townhouse. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion b Councilmember r Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Family Day Care in the R1, R2 and R3 Zoning Districts and to set the public hearing date on the ordinance for April 21, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed, with Councilmember Hawes opposed. ORDINANCES The City Manager presented An Ordinance Vacating Part of the Right -Of -Way of Logan Avenue North along Lot 6, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition. He added that this item was first read on February 24, 1986, published in the City's official newspaper on March 6, 1986 and is offered this evening for a second reading. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating Part of the Right -of -Way of Logan Avenue North along Lot 6, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience 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 An Ordinance 3 -24 -86 -10- Vacating Part of the Right -of -Way of Logan Avenue North along Lot 6, Block 2, Northbrook Center Addition. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 86 -03 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE VACATING PART OF THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF LOGAN AVENUE NORTH ALONG LOT 6, BLOCK 2, NORTHBROOK CENTER ADDITION 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 35 of the Ordinances Adopting a New Official Zoning Map. He added this ordinance is offered for a first readin g g. this evening, and modifies the flood plain boundaries. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the Ordinances Adopting a New Official Zoning Map and set the public hearing date on the ordinance for April 21, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED The City Manager r resent Y ed a g Resolution p Authorizing the Purchase of an Electronic Typewriter for the Public Utilities Division. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -48 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF AN ELECTRONIC TYPEWRITER FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Participation in Any Retirement Incentive Program Adopted by the City in 1986 to Those Employees Who Retire in 1986 Prior to the Adoption of a Program. Ma or N ist g Y Yqu stated that he was concerned by the fact that this resolution may be misleading and may give employees the impression that the Council will be passing a Retirement Incentive Program. The City Manager stated that those employees who will be retiring in 1986 are aware of the fact that the City Council may or may not pass a Retirement Incentive Program. He added that he cannot make any recommendations regarding a Retirement Incentive Program until the Legislature firms up their decisions on the PERA rule of 85 and rule of 90. Mayor Nyquist asked if the program could be made retroactive. The Director of Finance stated that the City 3 -24 -86 -11- Attorney has informed him that the City cannot retroactively reward an employee who has retired. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the time frame was that the staff is looking at. The City Manager stated that staff should be able to- make a recommendation within 30 to 60 days. Councilmember Lhotka asked the City Attorney what the legalities were of this resolution. The City Attorney stated that he had not discussed this particular resolution with the staff. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the City is within their legal rights to pass the resolution. The City Attorney stated that he has not researched the City's legal rights but it is his gut reaction that the City would be safe in passing this resolution. Councilmember Theis stated that he was under the impression that the early Retirement Incentive Program was to reorganize and save the City money. The City Manager stated that the past program and any program in the future is not an early retirement program but a program which encourages employees to retire when they are eligible for retirement. Councilmember Theis suggested that the third paragraph of the resolution should be changed to include "may or may not consider if . There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to table the resolution authorizing the participation in any Retirement Incentive Program adopted by the City in 1986 to those employees who retire in -1986 prior to the adoption of a program for legal review until the April 3, 1986 City Council meeting. The motion passed with Councilmember Theis opposed. The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 86 -30. He stated this resolution would authorize the contractor to begin work on the golf course land which belongs to the City but not on State land. Councilmember Lhotka asked how long it would be before we received approval from the State. The City Manager stated that we should have formal approval within two weeks. RESOLUTION NO.-86-49 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86 -30 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS NORTHBROOK LIQUOR STORE LEASE EXTENSION The City Manager briefly reviewed the memorandum and attached material submitted by the Director of Finance regarding the Northbrook Liquor Store lease extension. 3 -24 -86 -12- There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the extension of the Northbrook" Liquor Store lease. The motion passed unanimously. REGIONAL PARK FACILITY UPDATE The City Manager briefly reviewed a memorandum` which had been sent to the Council and to members of the Park and Recreation Commission. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the feasibility of the regional park and how it would affect the Lyndale area. Councilmember Scott stated that the Brooklyn Center school district is very concerned -about this project because it could mean less tax dollars for the district and also less children. She added that a number of people on the commission are not familiar with the Lyndale area at all and that they are making decisions about something which they know nothing about. Councilmember Theis asked if the park board had the money to acquire homes. The City Manager stated that they have approximately two million dollars and that they are setting their priorities for acquiring homes. He noted that first they would buy from any willing sellers on the east or west side of Lyndale, secondly they would acquire property on the east side of Lyndale, and last they would acquire land on the west side of Lyndale. Councilmember Theis asked how the City can protect the residents so that they can continue to live there. The City Manager stated that the park board has allowed life tenancy on other park land. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the City can legally do to protect the City and its residents. The City Attorney stated that would depend upon what the City wants to do, whether it be stopping the project totally or only having a partial project. The City Manager stated that until they come out with a final plan the City cannot really react to this. 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 9:59 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 3 -24 -86 -13- / Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NO. 1985 -27 AND 1986 -07 (CONTRACT 1986 -G) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Projects No. 1985 -27 and 1986 -07, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 24th day of March, 1986. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Alber Construction $326,187.70 Alexander Construction 333,311.45 Valley Paving, Inc. 339,792.28 Hardrives, Inc. 359,920.95 C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 368.825.05 WHEREAS, it appears that Alber Construction, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $326,187.70 with Alber Construction, Inc. Plymouth, Minnesota in the name of the City f Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Projects No. 1985 -27 and y y � P J 1986 -07 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1985 -27 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract $375,581.00 $309,475.55 Engineering (9 %) 33,795.00 27,853.00 Administration (1 %) 3.755.00 3.095.00 $413,131.00 $340,423.00 RESOLUTION N0. 2. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1986 -07 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract $ 42,983.00 $ 16,712.15 Engineering (9%) 3,868.00 1,504.00 Administration (1 %) 430.00 167.00 Legal (1%) 430.00 167.00 Capitalized Interest (12 %) 5.158.00 2.005.00 $ 52,869.00 $ 20,555.15 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk i 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. 7b CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER ER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: April 4, 1986 RE: MNDOT Permit for Centerbrook Golf Course Mr. Jim Povich, Assistant District Engineer for MNDOT has now advised me that the proposed permit will be delivered to us sometime today. Accordingly, we will review the permit and submit our comments and recommendations at the City Council meeting on April 7th. Respectfully submitted, Sy Knepp Director of Public Works cc: File 1985 -23 SK: jn Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR A HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE AND HAZARD ABATEMENT AT 5800 DREW AVENUE NORTH. WHEREAS, on August 8, 1985 the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center passed Resolution Number 85 -122, ordering the abatement of nuisance and hazardous condition of real estate existing at 5800 Drew Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the order issued by the Forth Judicial District Court, the City of Brooklyn Center has caused the abatement of nuisance and hazard abatement at 5800 Drew Avenue North (Property Identification Number 03 118- 21 -13- 0019), the cost of which is summarized as follows: Labor $117.13 Materials 8.00 Equipment Rental 11.81 Total $136.94 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The cost to be assessed against the affected property owner is declared to be $136.94. 2. A hearing shall be held on the 5th day of May, 1986, at 8 :00 P.M. to pass upon such assessment and at such time and place the person owning said property affected by the abatement of nuisance and hazard will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at lease two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total cost of the abatement. 4. The City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Date Mayor .ATTEST: Clerk Resolution No. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon,., the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Gene 1hotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85 -12 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND HAZARDOUS CONDITION OF REAL ESTATE EXISTING AT 5800 DREW AVENUE NORTH IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Section 19 -101, Subdivision 2, defines a public nuisance as anything that, "Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, public streets, highway or right -of -way, or waters used by the public..."; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes No. 463.15 et. seq. permits the City Council to correct the hazardous condition of any parcel of real estate; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Section 35 -560 states that "nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, maintained, or allowed to grow on a corner lot... in such a manner as materially to impede vision...; and . WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has made written report to the City Council relative to the condition of the property located at 5800 Drew Avenue North which creates such a public nuisance and hazardous conditions; and WHEREAS, said report has been examined and considered by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. That a portion of the hedge and bushes located on the property at 5800 Drew Avenue North are in violation of Brooklyn Center Ordinance 35 -560 are found to be a public nuisance and a hazardous condition of real estate for the reasons set forth in the written report from the Chief of Police, a copy of which is attached to this resolution and incorporated by reference. 2. That abatement of the nuisance and hazardous condition of real estate is hereby ordered by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3• That a written order directing the property owner, Catherine Armstrong, to correct the condition within twenty days of service of the order be served on the property owner and all lien holders of record. 4. If the condition is not corrected within that time, the City will obtain _ a judgment in court allowing the City to abate the nuisance and hazardous condition and assess the costs of abatement to the property owner under Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Section 19 -105 and Minnesota Statutes No. 463.21 (1984). July 8, 1985 Date Mayor J RESOLUTION NO. 11 -12 ATTEST: ler The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT In the Matter of the Nuisance and Hazardous Condition of Real Estate Located at 5800 ORDER Drew Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota The Court, having reviewed the documents on file, .including the Order for Abatement of Nuisance and Hazardous Condition of Real Es- tate and Affidavit of James J. Thomson, Jr.; IT IS ORDERED that the Order for Abatement of Nuisance and Haz- ardous Condition of Real Estate is affirmed and that the City of Brooklyn Center may pr ceed with the enforcement of the Order for Abatement after 1985. I BY THE COURT: Judge of. Di.stn ourt LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. j Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO PETITION AND AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, representatives of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (HRA) and the City of Brooklyn Center (City) have presented to the HRA a proposed Amendment to an agreement entitled: "Petition and Agreement Regarding Special Assessments" by and between the HRA, Brookdale III Limited Partnership and Brookdale Corporate Center A Limited Partnership; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed such Amendment to the Agreement and the Project proposed therein and finds that the same are appropriate and in furtherance of the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment District; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. The proposed Amendment to the Petition and Agreement Regarding Special Assessments is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Council are hereby authorized to execute such Amendment to the contract in the name of and on behalf of the City. 3. The Mayor and City Council are hereby authorized to take such steps as are necessary to carry out the objectives of the City thereunder as may be required of the City pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 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: S 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 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BROOKLYN FARM STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -08 CONTRACT 1986 -I WHEREAS, the City Council, on March 24, 1986, adopted Resolution No. 86 -44 wherein the Council accepted a petition for, and ordered the construction of, Brooklyn Farm Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1986 -08, and approved plans and specifications therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on April 7, 1986, adopted Resolution No. wherein the council approved an amendment to the petition, providing for the addition of certain components to the project; and WHEREAS, Westwood Planning and Engineering Company has prepared Addendum No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Project No. 1986 -08, Contract 1986 -I, providing for the inclusion of the additional components into the project: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that Addendum No. 1 to the plans and specifications for the Brooklyn Farm Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1986 -08, Contract 1986 -I, is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7F Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT NO. 1986 -11 FOR INSTALLATION OF A LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM AT GRANDVIEW PARK, AMENDING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS THEREFOR, AND ACCEPTING QUOTATION WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reported to the City Council that lightning strikes have occurred at Grandview Park on four separate occasions since 1975, resulting in property damage and resulting in personal injury in October, 1985; and WHEREAS, it appears to the City council that a safety problem exists which requires that corrective action be taken; and WHEREAS, the following quotations have been received for the installation of a lightning protection system meeting the standards established by the Lightning Protection Institute and by the National Fire Protection Association: Thompson Lightning Protection, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota $11,250.00 Lehn Electric Anoka, Minnesota $15,495.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The following project is hereby established: LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -11 2. The 1986 General fund Budget is hereby amended to transfer an appropriation of $11,250 from the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Contingency Account (01- 4995- 000 -80) to the-Parks Maintenance Other Improvements Account (01- 4530 - 000 -69). 3. The quotation of Thompson Lightning Protection, Inc. in the amount of $11,250.00 is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into contract with said firm in that amount. 4. Payment for work accomplished under this program shall be made from the Parks Maintenance Division Other Improvements Account in the General Fund. RESOLUTION N0. Date Mayor ATTEST: , - Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: April 3, 1986 RE: Lightning Protection System at Grandview Park On October 17, 1985 lightning struck an area near the middle of the football field located in Grandview Park where several young boys were playing. Several of the boys were struck by the lightning, and one received injuries. Subsequent review shows that at least three other lightning strikes have occurred at Grandview Park since 1975. Specifically, the following incidents have been reported and are charted on the attached map. in 1975 Lightning struck one of the wooden light poles causing extensive damage. The entire wiring system and a number of lights and ballasts had to be replaced. in 1978 Lightning struck another one of the wooden light poles causing a minor split in the pole. in 1983 Lightning struck the warming house causing extensive damage to the electrical system and some damage to the roof. Repair costs were approximately $4,000. in 1985 Lightning struck resulting in personal injury (see description above). Because this number of lightning strikes in a small area is very unusual, and because they appear to be following a pattern (i.e. they are occurring at or near the wooden light standards) it is my recommendation that a lightning protection system be installed on each of the 12 wooden lighting standards and on the shelter building. General information regarding lightning protection is attached for your information. Quotations have been received from 2 firms for the installation of a system meeting the standards of the Lightning Protection Institute and the National Fire Protection Association. Because this work is not contemplated within the 1986 budget, it is recommended that funds be appropriated from the Capital Projects Fund to cover the cost of this project. , .7/te .Sum Mau �„ April 3, 1986 Page 2 A resolution for this purpose is submitted for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works cc: File 1986 -11 SK: jn J 1s_ � , a ,�1''�� 3 �� . "�� '• aid c "l,� - °' $# ' $' �'w ��. ,,,:'�;� � � s a Ay ".' + ;�•�', • '6' - ...�.� =` ° ry � •s �° �/� a " ��'� fi ��,�?'x's .mac a �. y . � rr' F ° *,�', �.� . »�*s .a:..•� -� ,�� • Pax £'��.� F' .",�•j� �� je Y�. � " 1 fil a�4:e�� < :R4," �'�. -� t y,, "` X - ;� •J•` � ,d* �lF ��' f y �e �wt,a - a , ai'�*' � ..,, a il , � av I 'Wooden light s dard •�' A 'fit 3t3�' s a g $ Z • . • i,: ' in 19 7S 'Boy struck b lightning in lOctober, 1985 � ` � � � , . .�.� i ':fir � �.t` � � i _• .:�. * :gy "` r �' '"� � M�. +�; _ �� » �• ,: � �}# e , � �,� +'. � < �� c q , N4 ` v tw ` R. w IV . fir r g y \ tj or Warming x • K•• s °d M , a • y, , �s ^ .r� -r ac .' +',k � � � ' >`` 'f r � *' �,a''1 i �.'. ._ ^>-. �. �r� �r 1 � •• i ,•,a3F* -•a*_� t Y s j '. - � . yy, x .�.� �z.�,�"^ ....a'�l'�. A � n i -�• =� : "tom, r, N;�k r i+ f ,:.."g5b�, - v- .,, +,.. .�..�� .� � '+° "._ ,` u•91' _ lei ,, ..�', .�ar�',: 4 , ,° wh ro in 1983 Iwo jjAL � i ' i "° WW1 � I � , p ' n,` "{ a. r�,:. � :. � ` t ` . � ... • }r �. >,.( +� #,�°"v , � �,� :.... � v� c�rb�g a �' '�v. +" " - �' �;r } �,�`, s,k` , a .+ � ,.(,s,.s.. B'7.. ;a#, „::r.< ,. y..•;:� . .' .. , ,:. .,; {' '".. •, +. k�`h,�+s,a {°t`a ,"�,, ^�';. �� ,n?;`sr r ,° ,�ti, i�',. #�.+ �,ur',* '$1 8� t +,!'s „4° S °',r„g+ ,Y �'4ab -? d-� { s •• - ,,. f �, �'°v.:. t �r .. . , ,.. ", ., .. ,'c's Y `k � "- � 5 � "" �' r.�� d� i'�x' r -'b S ;;, k�,�'�ri�`„ri�5, ��,., ,� f�� 7•� "�� '".� ' ,`r kum t y ' � , t �x' . ~•�n < Y r'L ;.'1,''� �x' � �.r x;'nz�t ✓h� �aj�'r 3 ""9 �A3 �t'te ,�:. sk��',f" ' ..'� „f '•A.t¢' . $ �.: 5 r 'r . yi ,gp � r3� �} �# �t , €� r , °� � �;„. '�'�� ,r, �,• � ��, a� �� '� �' ^�;,� �`x` .�YW 4 a s ;� rr`sr }' ,z•q:�! t �,r' ".. !. dam, s . m "' r oS3 r? , t k ". , " sr .,!r -� 4� � S ° �'`' "s 0 a ,;� 7;9 r # ,° v';#, {� fir- '?ta, "�'` ',� 7a ,�;`• �'" / ;trn„r.�'' l er vice QP , c �� 1tCd:+ O ia a a c. �Illr • om I ��, �t9 �� "�y% ^.rte "".6€r,..t , � ,� �s,� Yr, �t�.M" � / _ t !' , k ��' , a s. • s � � �;� Y� �� ., Y! ,, � � ,� ,rJ* r' aa9 { ,.>� � ��`.. � �ua t ; � t 4 / y t " I ""t y ,er, •+ }.�" y ix sr'i n r °, y • :�:x ak.. qr' .,t" `, i : l'u" '�+. }, � 'x, t` ' � ., '"�, air": 9 � c.4'� _ � �� ' ' � r 4'�a: „. tT7w 7 '•�'`� � � ,8e'<�� w d ^ '�'�' $ rj,,�� ,. � r i ^$ �'§ ,rt^� f,'/��s ��,rv'��t��r � �, ^^ ' y ♦'r.* � , A+ ,� «. A �� tG 4't�r �� a � t�x' o! a � y r* i "'a w” , 'k�' }Y '� J C� t< r 30 /✓"/ /1 :'� r ^A • .its :.a r,f ,.•^ �. t ` s x' .fr a$r' y� �„ i + 3 ��d:x . '? q "'f 4.T a. , R 8888 11" P D o n L L/OHTN/N0 PROTECT /ON INC. 901 Sibley highway ..,,, � �, . � � 612/455 -661 St. Paul, Minneso la 55118 Phone Telex 29 -81 �oMpso rd Ar teCtS, L /(�htn %nq iandthe LOW Why? The architect, they said, failed to specify adequate lightning protection. The trustees of a church destroyed by lightning while still under And the construction firm, whose engineers, they contended, should have construction sued —and almost ruined —an architect and a construction firm, known better, did not insist on it. Both had relied on the unreliable "cone of protection" theory. Only one air terminal was installed. It was placed on the steeple, the highest point of the building. Lightning struck the rear of the structure. A fire reduced the dreams of an entire congregation to ashes. n { �# Lightning damage was once considered by the courts to be "an act of God ". Today lightning itself remains an act of God, but lightning protection, nearly ' } 100% safe, has become the responsibility of man. " A seasoned Chicago trial attorney recently stated he would gladly accept 4 *'f` clients who wished to sue building owners, architects and construction firms for failure to specify or install adequate lightning protection. "Lightning ", he said, "has long been considered 'an unforeseeable intervening force'. (Prosser on �z Torts) However, I believe it is a 'reasonably foreseeable danger' for which there exists a simple, inexpensive system of protection. Failure to specify or install such a system, even while remodeling older buildings, is a simple case of µ negligence." The attorney added that tenants in unprotected or poorl p p y protected buildings or owners and tenants of nearby buildings destroyed or damaged by fires caused by lightning would, in all likelihood, have strong grounds for suit. Because of this subtle but important development, architects are advised to always specify lightning protection. If the owner refuses such protection, the architect should have a document to that effect. In the case cited above, the church also sued the lightning protection installer. The court absolved the 16 1=1111 installer, however, since he proved he tried to persuade the architect and the construction engineer to install adequate protection. Seven Mole Reasons Why There are many more reasons why a lightning protection system is more ,,. important today than it ever has been. When discussing the matter with their clients, architects frequently cite the following seven reasons: Lightning is the greatest natural destroyer of buildings -worse than tornadoes, hurricanes or floods! 2 Lightning is the one natural destroyer against which protection is positive, yet economical. 3 Lightning damage costs more than ever because of higher replacement costs, presence of expensive electronic equipment, and lost usage of the building. 4 Lightning is not rare. Every year 90,000,000 cloud -to- ground -bolts strike American land areas. Lightning protection prevents losses for which ordinary insurance can only partially compensate —such as bodily injury, death, loss of important records, good will or business. 6 Lightning protection frequently adds to the charm of the building, e.g. air terminals can be ordered in various architectural styles, they may be barely visible. ikk 7 Lightning protection is economical and the cost can be financed with other construction. W170A Pre the P i odds Fire 0 Anyone who has met a victim of lightning damage many of In some areas lightning causes up to 37% of all fires. Rarely does week not w have lost their life's onder about the odds most of lightning sentimental striking ahome pass without word of another building destroyed by lightning- related not wonder lightning riking me —or even a public building. The aftermath is usually too awesome. fire. Two recent studies of fires, one of churches, another of building But for the gamblers, the statistics are persuasive. material yards indicate the scope of the problem. Given an average location and exposure, a 50' high building stands a greater chance of being struck by lightning once a year than a gambler has of filling an ordinary flush in a game sit of poker (1 chance in 4'/�)! This startling statistic is part of LIGHTNING' 302 the following "Table of Probability of Annual Li g g htnin �E gl p ip y74 . efiectwe wrcm and e u mart Discharges to Buildings of Various Heights ". The table is flefeGtweheatingequipment"' `11 " based on data compiled by Mr. Edward Beck, Westinghouse Electric Company. Smokmgind matches '. ': 9 3 " Spgnteneou3 cam6ust�or! f 6 6 "P1 'iii Ili tklisGelleneoureinorcius�€� ". * X 253 ) a• a } t r 'rt t ( So F " s 1 . a • V �r � a ., q i 41� � il;� �i a � ' �i "t�i�ff i t d � ' �, �� " ° ', �SGIiTCe, + Insur$nC@ fOfOrmetl0f} Irist tote � , � a a t }5;, 67 i.33'h w��f 5011 2 $74 d($ ti 66 26.66 t 43 �t` ° �w:� 84� ; �wi`3 i t� 350, ,�o3Q� "l.07 s 33.33 ' LIGHTNING M twwi Ia Defece rin0 egy�pment =13 1 a 40.00 and itiBfQC1�1Vieating B4u111111ent '�`c` 12.9 exposure firer 411i, r � 2.5 et'fires tchiiren tra :12.3 rtes arson . M � `Smoktlrg and matches t , � �` 112 �, Spir6 ind Stocks } a 8 7 Mist: end minor causes 4 10.1 1 t 1Sour�e• Notir�nal Fi ProtectionAss M In addition, "cold" lightning bolts, which cause no fire, cause millions of ' dollars of structural damage, much of which is unreported. The United States government requires protection on defense sites and other properties. However, one Cape Kennedy launch complex did not have proper lightning protection. The apparatus was struck and the space flight was delayed at heavy cost. Buildings containing large quantities of electronic equipment are particularly vulnerable. And in Canada entire classes of building must have lightning protection. 000,00 Another way to estimate the probability of lightning dis- Lightning Str okes charges to a given structure is to use data based on avera9e lightning discharges per square mile for various geographic OPEN SHORT FORM SPECIFICATIONS areas. In the United States the average geographic area is The contractor shall furnish all labor, materials and items of service required for the completion of a subjected to 40 lightning strokes per square mile every year. functional and unobtrusive (concealed or semi - concealed) system of grounds, conductors and air Using this method, a five story building may receive one to terminals for protection against damage by lightning of (designate type of building, stacks, trees, or two discharges every four years, . while a forty story building other) as approved by the architect. The complete installation must conform in all respects to the cur- may be expected to receive that many every yearl This rent requirements of the L.P.I. Certified System program and all legal, labor, insurance or other method takes into account the size of a building's foundation authorities having jurisdiction. The installing contractor shall have a minimum of 5 years experience in as well as its height. Beck's table considers only height. this specialized work and be a certified master installer of the Lightining Protection Institute. All materials used shall be furnished and recommended for their intended use by a reputable lightning Lightning is the greatest natural destroyer of protection manufacturer who is a Manufacturer Member of the Lightining Protection Institute. All buildings —worse than tornadoes or floods! materials must be equal to those of Thompson Lightning Protection, St. Paul, MN. W mor, -t , FACTS ABOUT LIGHTNINGP ROTE N . Lightning, because of ft tremendously high voltage and unpredictability, is far different from commercial electric The Lightning Protection Institute recommends that "Since protection is available it should be secured, for current. Lightning protection, therefore, should be asepa all buildings, public or private, be protected against lightning is not only a cause of fire and damage to rate specification and not tied to electrical specs. loss by lightning. Some buildings need protection property, but also of personal injury and loss of life. " ; Lightning's known toll of property in the United States' more urgently than others, particularly buildings in NATIONAL BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS runs into hundreds of millions of dollars everyyear,..and ` the hearts of cities. Use and type of occupancy are ;virtually all of the loss is preventable. considered to be influencing factors, too. But "Today there is a compelling added reason to build .A steel frame building is not proiected'against lightning lightning is known to strike tall buildings and small, complete and sophisticated lightning protection into ¢ x: damageunless it has a proper roof system of air terminals buildings built on hills or in valleys, in cities and buildings... the need to also protect increasingl lightning y �A" N, d f and wide -open spaces. The only "safe" building is a vulnerable and costly contents, such as resent and frame, properly protected building. p * g future automated equipment. "' A lightning protection system' with tie -iris to metallic Robert Loewe, Chief Engineer ; bodies of Inductance and conductance will reduce static ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORA TOR Y4 problems on mechanical floors. , and, in this respect, such protection is more important than ever before , Few devices of man are as efficient as a. modern LPI`CERT11=1ED SYSTEM LABEL lightning protection system. " z The' "[ Pt'certifted System label is a cast ��C. p NA TIONA L FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION z metal plate in the configuration shown here ` C°# " I .. Institute directly to the Owner of the t is issued by the Lightning Protecpro- tion i� ' EAT F 4 Z The place to study fire safety is on the architect's f iu,. tected property or through a third party 5 y 5 T F drawing board, not after the building is completed." r r inspector designated by the Owner. When , John C. Thornton, A.I.A. 4f.V attached to a'building, the LPI Certfied Sys -., �s'� <`V 4 item label signifies: I TiT V a) ,. that the mart sled that all material g epplleatfon for cer r manufacturer has by signing the a cation, atte s furnished have been Is tory inspected for adherence to the requirements of the r4 gmaterial standard, LPI -176, �. � A l , � ~?that the installing contractor* his signature on the spplica , Y R tion has attested to adherence to Code of his Installation lay a •+., { x a r r .out and workmanship; , « : #; c) } that the owner orowner s agent has inspected the system at >.. all stages of construction and fount) it in compliance with the ,installation standard, i Pl 17 i d) Ghat thQ li n`se, ghtning Protection lr . r 'hy the signature of its n� Xgu ,- Managing Director, has `certified that all LPI Certified System I sV o g re uirements hav " q e been properly attested to by responsible w.fl *T parties; and finally, qn� 1 t 8) i that the lightning protection syslere will be reinspected one year after certification under the annuai' inspection and maintenance procedure that Is am andatory part of continued system certification P LPI MANUFACTURER MEMBER Piper Tower NSP Prairie Island Nuclear Plant THOMPSON LIGHTNING PROTECTION, INC. Hammel Green &Abrahamson Architects Pioneer Engineering and Service Company 901 Sibley Highway Minneapolis, Minnesota Architect- Engineer, Chicago, Illinois St. Paul, Minnesota 55118 • Phone 612/455 -7661 Architects specified Thompson lightning protection systems for new projects like these ... Each day, more and more Architects and Engineers are writing Lightning Protection System. j modern lightning protection systems into their building specifi- Solid copper air terminals and conductors connected to copper cations clad steel ground rods and counterpoise network complete the The Piper Tower Building (shown above) utilizes structural system. steel as part of the lightning conductor in its L.P.I. Certified THOMP ON LIGHTNING. PROTECTION, INC. 901 Sibley Highway • Saint Paul, MN 55118 -1792 • 612 -455 -7661 Since 1910 Telex 29 -8436 January 30, 1986 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN. 55430 Attn: Mr. Dick Ploumen RE: Brooklyn Center Park Shelter & 12 Light Poles Lightning Protection Dear Dick: As per our telephone conversation today, enclosed please find the quotes on the above referenced project. These systems will be full copper and installed by our master installers in such a manner as not to detract from the architectural design of the structure. We appreciate your consideration of our quotation and if you have . any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, Acceptance by City of Brooklyn Center. T 01a e P LIECTION, INC. Approved by City Council on April 7, 1986 Signed Y Mayor 5Rd fickler I Division Signed City Manager RJS /js Enc. World's largest manufacturer of lightning protection equipment THO PSON LIGHTNING P I �OTECT� ON INC. 901 Sibley Highway a ,ai,i1 Pjul, M1% 118 792 • 6J ' 455 -7661 7 , c 29 -84.36 Since ?910 QUOTATION 1/30/86 PROJECT: PARK SHELTER - GRANDVIEW PARK BID DATE: ASAP BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. Gentlemen: We are pleased to quote you for the Lightning Protection System installed complete on the above project. Per Drawing No. * Sheet No. * Dated The installation will be made in complete conformance with the above plans and code requirements as of January, 1983' LPI 175, NFPA 78 and UL 96A and we guarantee complete satisfaction to the owner, architect and contractor. Our figure for the completely installed Lightning Protection System is $2,250,0Q Thanking you for this opportunity of quoting, we remain, Very truly yours, THOMPS IG IN TE ON, INC. by Ob Stickler NOTES: World's largest manufacturer of lightning protection equipment THOMPSON LIGI �. r. �l �� PR�ITIJCTION �- ,IBC. 901 Sibley ilioh;i,_ly • S nc 1, ON 551 1 a- i < 2 • 612- 455 -7i)61 Telex 29 -8•,36 Since 1 ,910 QUOTATION 1/30/8„ PROJECT: TWELVE LIGHT POLES BID DATE: ASAP GRANDVIEW PARK BROOKLYN CENTER MN. Gentlemen- We are pleased to quote you for the Lightning Protection System installed complete on the above project. Per Drawing No. * Sheet No. * Dated The installation will be made in complete conformance with the above plans and code requirements as of January, 1983, LPI 175, NFPA 78 and UL 96A and we guarantee complete satisfaction to the owner, architect and contractor. Our figure for the completely installed Lightning Protection System is -S_75a _ fl0 / P x 12 = $9 , 000.00 _ Thanking you for this opportunity of quoting, we remain, Very truly yours, TCT ION INC. J. Stickler NOTES: i World's largest manufacturer of lightning protection equipment 9 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City established an Employee Retirement Incentive Program which became effective on February 14, 1983 and which expired on December 31, 1985; and WHEREAS, in most cases it is in the best interest of the employer and the employee that an employee retire as soon as he /she is eligible to do so; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the employer to have adequate planning time for replacement or evaluation of the future of v acated osi ' bons • and d WHEREAS, it is neither in the best interest of the employer or the employee to have an employee remain in a position ition past his /her retirement eligibility date if physical or mental stress may interfere with job performance; and WHEREAS, current health insurance contracts of the City require some City contribution if an employee or a dependent is to remain eligible for benefits -under these contracts after retirement to age sixty -five (65). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of Brooklyn Center establish an Employee Retirement Incentive Program with the following provisions: 1. To qualify under this program, an employee,`on the day of his /her retirement, must meet eligibility requirements for a full retirement annuity under PERA or PERA Police without reduction of benefits because of age. g In addition, to be eligible for this program an employee must have been employed b the City o Brooklyn Y Y Center for the last five (5) i e 5 ( ) consecutive years .prior to the effective date of his /her retirement. Employees participate in this program on a voluntary basis. 2. To qualify under this program, an employee must submit his /her letter of retirement to the City Manager at least two years prior to the date on which he /she is eligible for retirement. To qualify under this program, an employee must retire on the day of eligibility unless the retirement date is modified under Section Four (4) of this resolution. (Those employees who are qualified and intend to retire prior to March 31, 1988 must submit a letter of retirement to the City Manager before July 1, 1986.) RESOLUTION NO. 3. Once submitted under this program, a qualified employees letter of retirement cannot be withdrawn or modified by the employee without written approval by the City Manager. 4. When the best interests of the City will be enhanced, the City Manager has the authority to extend the retirement date after an employee is qualified for retirement under this program. 5. If retirement eligibility requirements are modified by action of the State of Minnesota and create a conflict for an employee regarding the timing of proper submittal of a letter of retirement, the City Manager may make adjustments of eligibility requirements under this policy. 6. Positions vacated by employees retiring under this program will not be filled without prior City Council approval. 7. Qualified participating employees will be entitled to receive payment of an amount calculated by multiplying the number of months between the date on which the employee retires and the employee's or his /her spouse's sixty -fifth (65) birthday, rounded to the nearest full month, times the dollar amount of the City's maximum monthly contribution for insurance during the year of retirement. The amount shall not exceed 120 times the City's maximum monthly contribution during the year of retirement. This payment is intended to reflect the City's desire to assist the retiring employee in maintaining current levels of health insurance benefits. 8. The City Manager is authorized to administer the Employee Retirement Incentive Program and to fund this program from the City of Brooklyn Center Employees' Retirement Fund until such funds are depleted, at which time the program will be funded from the General Fund. 9. Benefits of this program will be paid to qualifying employees retiring between the effective date of this resolution and December 31, 1990. 10. The City Manager is instructed to bring this policy before the City Council for review prior to December 31, 1988. RESOLUTION NO. 11. The provisions of this._ resolution shall expire on December 31, 1990 unless extended by the City Council prior to that date. 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. M & C No. 86 -06 April 3, 1986 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Retirement Incentive Program To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Attached please find copy of a proposed resolution establishing a retirement incentive program for the City of Brooklyn Center. This proposal is similar to the program established in 1983. This program is being recommended to you because we believe it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center and its employees that when they are eligible for their retirement, that they do retire. There, of course, are and will be exceptions to this statement and there are provisions in the proposed plan to allow for those exceptions when it is in the best interest of the City. It should also be understood that under this program no one is forced to retire. This program states that if an employee retires at the time of their first eligibility for retirement, the City will pay them an amount calculated by multiplying the number of months between the date of their retirement and the 0 employees or his /her spouse's 65th birthday,, times the dollar amount of the City's maximum monthly contribution for insurance during the year of their retirement date. This payment or incentive under the recently expired program averaged $10,511 among the 11 employees who were eligible and took advantage of that program. The average retirement age was 60 and the youngest to retire was 55 (police officers) and the oldest was 67 (public works employee). Under the previous program, which is virtually the same as the currently proposed one, of the 11 positions retiring under the program four positions were not filled. At the end of 1986 cost savings from those vacated positions will accumulate to approximately $430,000. The total retirement incentive paid out under this expired program was $115,625. From an economic perspective the previous program was a success for the City of Brooklyn Center as there were and will be substantial dollar savings. However, in the future the economic savings of such a program may not be as dramatic as our initial successes. We believe that from an economic basis, savings will accrue to Brooklyn Center from the following sources. Employees who retire generally are at the top of their salary scales. New employees replacing them start at the lower end of the salary scale and for a number of years a savings accrues to the City of Brooklyn Center. This is . especially true in the police department where their union 1 > {r contract establishes longevity payments. Some of the jobs in the City of Brooklyn Center involve physically active and physically demanding work, which is difficult to do for some people as they reach and pass their retirement age. While it is virtually impossible to predict related costs, we do know we can anticipate costs if employees try to hang on beyond their retirement eligibility._ As employees' physical ability to do their job deteriorates, increased worker's compensation costs will be .incurred. If the ci ty is forced into adversarial proceedings for their removal, it could be very costly monetary ise and e of Y also human relations wise. These type proceedings can be ensi g very Y expensive. If a positive solution such. as the proposed retirement incentive program can avoid most if not all of .these situations, both the employer and the employee benefit. The hoped for result would be to accomplish retirement when it is in the best interest of both the employee and the employer. In our current health insurance contracts there are provisions which require an employer to contribute some amount to allow retired employees to continue under our group insurance plan. This program would qualify as that contribution. This program provides for specific Council review and approval prior to filling any position vacated under this retirement incentive program. This will allow the City Council and the staff to review very carefully each • Position needed or whether organizational changescan be implemented to is modify or eliminate the position to the benefit of service delivery to the community. There are also provisions in this program which require the employee to � Y give at least two years notice o This f their rat' his in turn retirement. n allows our various departments planning time for replacement or elimination of a given position or job. The value of this two year notice can easily be overlooked. Our experience under the previous program in which we averaged d abo u 8 month g t a year to 1 s notice Y indicated that even with months, onths addi ' planning time would have been useful. Because of our experience With the previous program, we found that two years is not too long to evaluate the replacement of certain_ positions given other work loads. There aren't many programs which offer substantial benefits to both the employee and the employer. Based on our experience this type of program seems to be one of those which offers a positive aspect for both employer and employee. For the employer it offers planning time, a fiscal review of the filling of vacated Positions and economic savings on reduced salary costs. For the employee it offers assistance in retirement with the payment of health insurance costs and assures the availability of a quality health plan for them and their spouse. Our experience with this 2 type of program seems to parallel that of private industry. These type of programs were initially developed to allow an employer to reduce the number of employees by offering an incentive program for retirement. After experiencing the program the benefit to the employer, while staff reductions were accomplished, seemed to be equaled by the positive aspects such as we have suggested above. Couple these benefits to the employer with the benefits which accrue to the employee, it results in a very positive program for everybody involved. We recommend the adoption of this resolution as being in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center. Respectfully submitted, Gerald G. Sp ter City Manager 3 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: " RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PARTICIPICATION'IN ANY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1986 TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRE IN 1986 PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM WHEREAS, on February 14, 1983 by the adoption of Resolution No. 83 -33 by the City Council, the City of Brooklyn Center established a Employees'Retirement Incentive Program; and WHEREAS, the program terminated on December 31, 1985, as scheduled; and WHEREAS, the City Council may consider retirement incentive programs which may or may not be adopted in 1986; and WHEREAS, one or more City employees may retire prior to the City Council acting on its considerations; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that it is not in the best interests of either the City nor its employees for employees to delay their retirement until such time as the Council may or may not adopt a retirement incentive program; and WHEREAS, the City Council does not wish to deprive any employee of benefits which that employee may be entitled under a retirement incentive program merely because the employee's retirement date falls between the expiration of the previous retirement incentive program and the inception of a new program: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that if the City Council adopts a retirement incentive program during the calendar year 1986, that any employee who retires after January 1, 1986 and prior to the Council enacting a retirement incentive program or December 31, 1986, whichever comes first, will be eligible to participate retroactively under the rules of that program as if they had not retired. Date "" ------ _._._�"._ Mayor_ ATTEST: 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. 7i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1986 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, two new civil defense sirens have been installed and one siren has been relocated, as budgeted for in Unit 34, Object 4552; and WHEREAS, electrical equipment necessary to make the sirens operational requires additional transformers at two of the siren locations; and WHEREAS, the cost of equipment and installation of the transformers is $3,500. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City f Brooklyn klyn Center to amend the 1986 General Fund Budget as follows: Transfer an appropriation of $3,500 from the Unallocated Departmental Expense Contingency Account, Unit No. 80,, Account 4995 to the Other Equipment Capital Outlay Account in the Emergency Preparedness Budget, Unit No. 34, Account 4552. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by memb ' and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the folowing voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XII URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit in the Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG, funds made available to it; and WHEREAS, the following proposed use of Community Development Block Grant funds was developed consistent with program rules. 1. Home Rehabilitation Grant Program $154,961 2. Contingency $ 14,255 Total $169,216 BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Brooklyn Center approves the proposed use of Year XII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for consideration by the Citizen Advisory Committee and for inclusion in the Year XII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds. 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 FROM: Brad Hoffman DATE: April 3, 1986 Subject: CDBG Appropriation A public hearing was held by the CDBG Advisory Group on March 19th of this year to discuss possible uses of the City's Allocation of CDBG funds. The City's allocation for the next funding Year (XII) is $169,216. It should be noted that only Barb Jensen of the CDBG group attended the meeting. The CDBG recommendation is as follows: a) Housing Rehab $154,961 b) Contingency 14,255 Barb Jensen and Ann Wallerstedt will be at Monday's Council meeting to make a recommendation for the use of the contingency funds. It is their proposal that $5,000 (approximately) be used as a one time funding for the mediation service. The staff recommendation is to use all of the money for the Housing Rehab Program. -It has been a long standing policy of the City to not fund any service outside of the levy. The use of federal funds could create a demand for,the service that would survive beyond the life of the federal program. This is especially true, now since this might well be the last year of CDBG funds. If it is the desire of the Council to fund a'service, such as the one that will be proposed Monday night, I would recommend that it be considered in the budgetory process and prioritized like any other program. If it was funded in the budgetory process then the program could still use CDBG funds for the project. I will be available Monday evening to discuss these projects with the Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM A COALITION OF METROPOLITAN COMMUNITIES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center and other metropolitan communities are desirous of entering into a Joint Powers Agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 for the joint and cooperative exercise of any power common to the contracting parties. 2. This Council has reviewed a proposed Joint Powers Agreement for the purpose stated in Section 1, and finds that the execution of the agreement is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3• The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. 4. The City Manager is directed to transmit an executed COPY of the Joint Powers Agreement and a check for $.02 per capita to the City of Brooklyn Park. 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. 5800 85th AVENUE NORTH / BROOKLYN PARIS, MN 55443 / 612- 425 -4502 CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK January 24, 1986 Dear City Manager: On January 23, 1986 the Mayors Association /Coalition (name unofficial) met at the Sheraton Inn N.W. to formally organize. Legal counsel from some of the member cities, however, requested that the organization's Joint Powers Agreement be modified. As a result -the "Agreement" was changed to add language clarifying "associate member" and also a termination clause was incor- porated. The enclosed Joint Powers Agreement reflects these changes. You are, therefore, requested to have your city council approve this "Agreement Once the document has been approved, signed by the Mayor and City Manager or City Clerk, please forward it to me; Charles Darth, 5800 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, 55443. Also, include a check for 2 cents per capita (1985 Metro- politan Council population estimate) -- please make it payable to the City of Brooklyn Park. The strong interest in our organization is encouraging. For example, forty -seven elected officials and `city staff attended the January 23 meeting. At least one representative from 17 metro cities was in attendance. In addition, one city not represented did adopt a Joint Powers Agreement. Thank you for your interest and support. Please contact me if you have additional questions. Sincerely, A la ) Charles Darth Intergovernmental Relations Director CD:ja enclosure it JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM A COALITION OF METROPOLITAN COMMUNITIES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1986, by and between the cities and entities of hereinafter referred to as "Agencies ". The Agencies hereto agree to establish an organization to be known as the to promote transportation and economic development projects. Any other public entity may become an agency upon approval by a majority of the then Agencies. Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to enter into an agreement for the joint and cooperative exercise of any power common to the contracting parties. Whereas, improvements to transpor- tation systems serve the Agencies by promoting the public's health, safety and general welfare and economic development enhances the local tax base thereby enabling Agencies to provide needed municipal services at acceptable tax rates. NOW, THERFORE, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, the parties hereto do agree as follows: 1) BOARD OF DIRECTORS. The governing body of the coalition shall be its Board of Directors. Each agency shall be entitled to two (2) directors. Each director shall have one (1) vote. Each agency shall appoint two (2) direc- tors, one (1) of whom shall be the City Manager or Administrator or other designee. A majority of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum of the Board. 2) MEETINGS. The coalition shall meet on call of the president or by the Operating Committee. 3) OPERATING COMMITTEE. The Board of Directors shall appoint an Operating Committee. The Operating Committee shall have authority to manage the affairs and business of the coalition between coalition meetings, but at all times, shall be subject to the control and direction of the Board. The Operating Committee shall meet as needed at a time and place to be determined by the Operating Committee. 4) FINANCIAL MATTERS. Coalition funds may be expended by the Board. Other legal instruments shall be executed with the authority of the Board. The Board shall have no authority to expend funds in excess of the coalition funds or incur any debt. The financial contributions of the Agencies in support of the coalition shall be per capita for full members. Each of the Agencies shall, by February 2nd of each year, pay to the coalition an amount as annually determined by the coalition based on the most recent metropolitan council population estimates. The Board may authoirze changes in the per capita charge for all members upon majority vote. The annual assessment levy shall be determined by October 1st of the preceeding year. The Board may receive financial contributions from private asso- ciations, entities or financial institutions. Such associations, entities or instutitions shall then become honorary associate members. Honorary associate members may send representives to board meetings, but shall not be entitled to representation on the Board or have any voting rights. 5) WITHDRAWAL. Any agency may withdraw from this agreement effective on January 1 of an y ear b g iving Y Y Y 9 g notice prior to October 15 of the preceeding year. 6) TERMINATION. The coalition shall be dissolved if less than three (3) Agencies remain, or by mutual signed agreement of all.of the Agencies. Upon termination, remaining assets of the coalition shall be distributed to the full members still remaining at the time of termination, pro rated according to their respective contributions. 7) NOTICES. All notices or other communications required herein shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following parties: President, Board of Directors, and Chairman, of the Operating Committee. 8) AMENDMENTS. This agreement may be amended only by written agreement entered into by a majority of the then full member Agencies to this agreement. 9) MULTIPLE EXECUTION. This Joint Powers Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which counterpart shall be deemed to be an original and all such counterparts shall constitute but one and the same instrument. An originally executed counterpart shall be filed with Charles Darth, City of Brooklyn Park. Each of the participating Agencies shall also file a certified copy of a resolution of its governing body authorizing the execution of this agreement. \ 7 10) EFFECTIVE DATE. This agreement shall be in full _force and effect upon receipt by Charles Darth, City of Brooklyn Park, of fully executed counter- parts and resolutions from six (6) Agencies. CITY OF By: By: CITY OF By: By: CITY OF By: By: M E M O R A N D U M TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Kristin Lee, Public Health Sanitarian RE: Private Kennel License for James J. Zimmer 5729 Bryant Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN DATE: April 1, 1986 An inspection was made March 24, 1986, of the James Zimmer residence at 5729 Bryant Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Mr. Zimmer owns three (3) dogs. Two of the dogs are neutered and all three (3) are male. All three of the dogs are purebred. One is a Walker Hound, one a German Wirehaired Pointer and the third is a Brittany Spaniel. The dogs sleep indoors and when the owner is not home, two of the dogs stay in cages in the basement. The dogs are allowed to exercise in the backyard which contains a fenced area approximately 40 feet by 20 feet. The enclosed area is fenced with wood and chicken wire to about a 4 1/2 feet height. Inside the enclosure is a 6 foot tall chain link dog run where the dogs are kept during the day, when the owner is not home. Fecal matter is removed from the fenced enclosure daily, which appears to be sufficient. There does not appear to be any type of sanitation problem at this address. The Police files show that the only reported violation at this address was failure to obtain a kennel license. I do not foresee any major problems if a kennel license is approved at this address. KAL: jt , lUt ?TE / f9,-y C, hie-,. tXS OR I`'RO?43?r y L- U1r 7 uls r -f SEA /-t 4)e(r 9 k4S jjvcC )OWloe ro rl i RM� 0 /Sc uS S' 0j , /��Er�SC FVRW'?j ?v / n� F0Rr-71? r 101V R • APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Date: M19RC-H I3 . l '/P( o 1. Applicant's Name (Last, First, Middle) 5729 gR 9LACF /U. )!?)9WK4.ynt Cc= �RTrl2 M� SSy3o 2. Applicant's Address (Number, Street, City, State, Zip Code t4 v -64 '143e ,S +q - e /4's "q gout Piicme- W iC Sw 4 - 77Y I 3. Address or.Legal Description of Proposed Kennel 4. Attach a sketch or drawing with this application describing the construction and operation of the proposed kennel, or, if the animals are to be confined within the family dwelling unit, indicate this on the application. SEc ATrHLHc -0 S(j r'cH /g.J-D Pic7tiRC-5 zWow/nj(, ours 14L lyeA.Iv U. &UGS A APC 9, e,cie./or lluv THE ' p" /N(. eclegy ti!b->�tr , Pft-S Arty r4lrey ou O 7 ) -- Z N/EE/l E /a1oS )9 1-16,%J r14. 5. Indicate number of animals to be confined within the proposed kennel, together with their age, breed and sex tjAxIrINM _ t) ( YRs. BR�trANy Sr�i��EC MIL NL -ur�R 3 D `trS -_�1 ,'� yRS. (j - ERMq,v tti�REH��R�O PG'ititt'E /? r /"1�Lt 3) 2 `SRS. , �l�t.a'ER yvuNn M/a�E ,,Vcur�%z 6. PLEASE NOTE: The license fee in the amount of $30.00 must be submitted with this application. Si natu e Applicant g PP PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED APPLICATION AND LICENSE FEE TO: City Clerk, City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE • New License Renewal License License Period through License Fee Received KEAJ/JE.L �oER� -r,r r,?AP�,c�rid�� A�►ES S. /��r -DER SH��r ! Od �N i [ L S£� rti Sr (C { FENCED y�9R0 c�zg i XGIVIVC4. BRY�3tir- ,rUSiDE YARD 0 P" ONE 7;' , 9A-�SM,SS10N LINE AD3AcCK)t RiG,tr -aF =ulgy VEI(Ag ()u. I a V k J � , V j /UorES;'PcC rr'EFCR 7 GrY P41;1 A:rtll gC7UAL R)?O)CL `Y t � �vc'$ AN,D ,aESt.E'1 S• • XENNEL /Z Ct„9,A/ - C.ln1K CoNSr ,Vc.,Cr,aN Wiry J Ati1 EARTH FGUU�Q �`vvE1��D -U�T� STRAW ' Aa ,NSUC,�rto r`�craL i°ri'NE� a��a sE IS ,N S,DE ' Xe1UA C4 Is 0 ,9r7 - h944Y C.ael'rFG �9 r /; / 7 - IS .5 , R y 1 4ND g sILI /; ,oF rf466 L,NES' OF .7/6 fdR coi rya DOGS 19, PeaRC of OF rYe P)?0PC -,9rY 1 91?4 L, Ry 01y1re 006-5 ARC ACD R N tO Z'Z e P 1 N 7,Ye oV W CLL 1 z FuR P1C7,q1?ES, r t e d� .0 k I IN _ ---r-- ,- w . - _ Ion ■ Il:� .. _ , ."�" -� -w � � ■ c�wat "• ` e Wty�N K . Li Y 1 � A 9�. CITY OF BRCOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 7th day of April 1986 at 8:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance regarding Rummage Sale Signs and Certain Real Estate Signs. 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 arrangments. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 34 AND 35 REGARDING RUMMAGE SALE SIGNS AND CERTAIN REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapters 34 and 35 of the City Ordinances are hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34 -110 and Section 35 -900. DEFINITIONS Rummage Sale - The infrequent temporary display and sale, by an occupant on his or her premises, of personal property, including general household rummage, used clothing and appliances, provided the exchange or sale of merchandise is conducted within the residence or accessory structure; the number of sales does not 0 exceed four (4) per year; the duration of the sale does not exceed three (3) consecutive days; any related signery shall [be limited to the premises and to other residential property provided that property owner's permission has been obtained to display such signery, shall] conform with the sign ordinance provisions [for home occupations and shall be removed at the termination of said sale]; and the conduct of the sale does not encroach upon the peace, health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. Section 34 -130 PROHIBITED SIGNS. 7. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons, [and] stringers or similar attention attracting devices, unless approved in conjunction with an Administrative Permit as provided in Section 35 -800 or unless authorized by Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2m of the City Ordinances. 11. Billboards, except as provided in Section 34 - 140, Subdivision 2c, 2f, 2h, 2i, 2k, 21(1); or billboards which may be approved in conjunction with an Administrative Permit as provided in Section 35- 800 of the City Ordinances; and certain rummage sale billboards as provided in Section [34 -110] 34 -140, Subdivision 2m of the City Ordinances. Section 34 -140. 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit. 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 1. Temporary freestanding or wall signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or entire buildings provided that such signs shall [be less than ten (10)] not exceed six (6) square feet in area for residential property and thirty -two (32Tsquare feet ORDINANCE NO. for other property and that there shall be only one such freestanding or wall sign permitted for each property. The sign must be removed within ten (10) days following the lease or sale. Temporary freestanding off-site real estate signs announcing an "open house" or similar activity for the purpose of showing or displaying a home for sale are permitted provided: a. The off -site sign is located on privately -owned residential property and there is no objection to the display of the sign on the part of that property owner; b. The off -site sign is displayed only during the time of the "open house" or showing; c. The size of the off -site shall not exceed [2.51 three (3) square feet in area. M. Rummage Sale Signs as follows: 1. A temporary on -site sign not exceeding six (6) square feet in area, identifying the location of and /or information relating to a rummage sale. Banners, pennants, streamers, - balloons, stringers or similar attention attracting devices may also be displayed on the property where the sale is being conducted. The sign and other devices may be displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. 2. Temporary off -site signs not exceeding three (3) square feet in area, indicating the location and /or time of a rummage sale may be located on other residential property (not commercial, industrial or pubic property ) provided that property owner's permission has been obtained to display such signery. These signs may be displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. 3. Rummage sale signs must conform in all other respects with the provisions of this ordinance. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) 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 i MARCH 27, 1986 CITY HALL I CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:39 P.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards, and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier, Planner Gary Shallcross and Attorney Kurt Erickson. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Ainas had called to say he would be unable to attend the meeting and was excused. Commissioner Malecki had also informed the Commission of her inability to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 13, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the minutes of the March 13, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Sandstrom, Nelson and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. q MOTION TO REMOVE APPLICATION NO. 86009 FROM THE TABLE Motion Nelson t 0 on by Commissioner .Sandstrom seconded. by Commissioner o remove m Application No. 86009, an appeal by Dr. John B. Lescault, from the table. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86009 (Dr. John B. Lescault) The Secretary then introduced Application No. 86009, an appeal from a determination by the City that the chiropractic office and the residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard is a special home occupation rather than a permitted home occupation. The Secretary briefly reviewed the background of the application, arising out a lawsuit by Dr. Lescault against the City. The Secretary also reviewed briefly the draft resolution recommending denial of the appeal and citing three principle grounds for considering the home occupation to be a special use rather than a permitted use in the Rl zoning district. The Secretary also noted that Dr. Lescault was not present, but that he had been notified and was aware that the issue was before the Planning Commission that evening. Chairman Lucht asked whether attorney Kurt Erickson had anything to add. Mr. Erickson stated that he had spoken with the applicant's attorney, David Cody, earlier in March and explained the timing of the consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He stated that Mr. Cody was satisfied with that schedule at the time he had talked to him. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -1 Member Mike Nelson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 3 -27 -86 -1- RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF DR. JOHN B LESCAULT AND AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO CLASSIFY DR. LESCAULT'S CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE, 6142 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, AS A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Carl Sandstrom, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Wallace Bernards, George Lucht, Mike Nelson, Carl Sandstrom, and Ann Wallerstedt; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. APPLICATION NO. 86011 (Roy Hansen /Lombard Properties) The Secretary thin introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary subdivision approval to combine into a single parcel of land the three tracts at the northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86011 attached). The City Engineer added that the easements referred to in the report would not be shown on the registered land survey, but would be documents filed with the subdivision at the County. He also noted that cross access easements already exist and that some of these easements may also exist over the property. Commissioner Nelson, noting that the proposed use of the property was for office development, asked whether that would generate more or less traffic than restaurants. The Secretary stated that the City would have to confer with its traffic consultant Short- Elliott- Hendrickson on the traffic impact of an office development. He noted that a restaurant's peak hour traffic generation would be later than an office's peak hour. He stated also, that, based on the other uses existing in the industrial park, he did not feel there would be a traffic problem with an office development, but that the matter would be referred to Short-Elliott- Hendrickson as part of the special use permit process. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. The applicant responded in the negative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86011) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 86011 and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Lucht discussed the conditions of approval briefly. The Planner stated that he was aware of cross access easements over of the property in this area, but was not aware of any greenstrip or building setback easements that have been placed over the properties. He suggested keeping this condition and that, if it has already been accomplished, then the condition is fulfilled. The Secretary also noted the need for other information to be indicated on the plat such as the land area, zoning, etc. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86011 (Roy Hansen /Lombard Properties) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 86011, subject to the following conditions: 3 -27 -86 -2 t 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary R.L.S. shall be modified to indicate the following: a) Land area, zoning and proposed use of the property and such other information deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. b) An easement agreement over the northerly portion of the property for the private access road, a 15' greenstrip adjacent to the access road, and a 25' building setback from the road, shall be provided prior to filing of the subdivision at the County. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86013 (Stephen Cook) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat and site plan approval for a two - family dwelling on the 5300 block of Russell Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86013 attached). The Secretary also noted that the City Council had requested a site plan to accompany the preliminary plat. - He noted that each unit in the double bungalow would be 28 wide rather than 26' as indicated on the plan. He pointed out that the resulting setbacks would be between 16.36' at the southeast corner and 18.36' at the northeast corner of the building. He noted that the revised plan still exceeds the setback requirements of the City ordinance. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the setback for a rear deck. The Secretary stated that the setback for a deck is not the same as for a dwelling. He added that a three- season porch would have the same setback, in this case, a minimum of 40' from the rear property line. He pointed out that the plans submitted by the applicant show a setback of approximately 50 feet. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Stephen Cook stated that he would have separate sewer services for the dwelling units on the lot. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86013) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mrs. Vivian Hedlund of 5320 Russell Avenue North stated that the proposed plan called for a three bedroom unit on each side with a possible fourth bedroom. She stated that this would be a bigger house on a smaller lot within the neighborhood. She expressed concern that the house would look out of place on this block. Mr. Lewis Hedlund of 5320 Russell Avenue North also stated that the single family home to the south is a smaller building and that the other double bungalows in the area, including his own, are smaller. He stated that the proposed duplex would have 3 -27 -96 -3- a ground coverage of 2,560 sq. ft. and that it was 24% larger than the other doubles, while the lot area is 16% less. Mr. Hedlund went on to point out that the other houses on the block are a little more than 26' deep, while the proposed double bungalow is 46' deep. He stated that the double being built by Mr. Cook should be smaller since it is on a smaller lot rather than larger than other double bungalows in the neighborhood. Mr. Hedlund added that another neighbor in this area was oppased, and would have come, but had to work. Chairman Lucht pointed out the tuck -under garage proposed for this double bungalow. Mr. Hedlund stated that other bungalows on the block also have tuck -under garages. Mr . Robert Hansen, of 4951 Logan Avenue North, the owner of the property, explained that he bought the property when the zoning was only single - family. He pointed out that doubles are now allowed in this neighborhood. He stated that he could not understand why other people who live in double bungalows on the block are complaining about having another double bungalow -on -the street. The applicant, Mr. Stephen Cook, stated that he had been trying to comply with the neighbors' wishes. He stated that the elevation of the double bungalow that he proposes is the same as the other doubles on the street: two stories. He stated that his building would not crowd the lot and that the side of the double bungalow would not be very visible from the street. He stated that he felt some of the requests being made by the neighbors were unreasonable. Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else wished to speak) Mr. Lewis Hedlund again addressed the Commission. He stated that he had objected to the variance and that he objects to the proposed building. He clarified, however, that he no longer objected to a two- family dwelling since that question had already been decided. He stated that he wanted the new double bungalow to be kept in perspective with the rest of the neighborhood. Chairman Lucht asked what size Mr. Hedlund's double bungalow was. Mr. Hedlund answered that it was 72' wide by 27 112' deep. Chairman Lucht observed that his double bungalow was wider from the street than that proposed by Mr. Cook Mr. Hedlund explained that he was on a wider lot so he still had considerable setback area. Mr. Cook stated that he would build a double bungalow, but that he wanted enough size for his own family. He stated that if he were forced to build a small double bungalow, he would not live in it, but would rent both units out. Chairman Lucht then observed that the double bungalow proposed by Mr. Cook was essentially the same building as the double bungalow built by his brother along Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that it was a very attractive building. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht ask whether hether there were any other comments. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked what control there would be on the renting of the units in the double bungalow, assuming the application were approved. The Secretary stated that there could be no restrictions placed on renting the units 3 -27 -86 -4 under the City's Zoning Ordinance. He stated such controls might besought under a deed restriction, but that there may well be constitutional problems even with such a private agreement. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the applicant had made a good attempt to complement other units along Russell Avenue North. He added that a three bedroom unit is good for resale value. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86013 (Stephen Cook) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 86013, 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. The plat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The existing sewer service to the half -lots on the south side of the property (old legal description: North half of Lot 4, Block 2, Robert L. Hansen's First Addition) shall be disconnected at the main prior to the issuance of building permits unless separate sewer systems are provided for the two units. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The City Engineer left the meeting at 8:40 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 86014 (Budget Rent a Car /Sears) The Secretary then introduced the last item of business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct a car rental business in the Sears Automotive Center at Brookdale. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86014 attached). The Secretary also showed the Commission a transparency of the parking area under the canopy north of the auto center building. He recommended that the Commission alter Condition No. 2 to confine storage of inventory only to the canopy area. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the car rental office would occupy a portion of the auto center. The Secretary answered in the affirmative, stating that there would be a booth in the retail portion of the center. Commissioner Bernards asked what vehicles would be rented. The Secretary stated that only cars would be rented to his knowledge. The applicant also stated that small and mid -size cars would be rented, no trucks or recreational vehicles. In response to another question from Commissioner Bernards regarding storing cars' under the canopy, the Secretary stated that he felt it should be limited to this area so that there would be no impact on the parking lot. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there was an off -site lot which the business would draw cars from. Chairman Lucht noted that such a lot is referred to in the applicant's letter. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. 3 -27 -86 -5- r . 1 Mr. Joseph Finley, an attorney for Budget Rent a Car, stated that his client would accept the conditions listed in the report. He asked that the word "primarily" be left in Condition No. 2 in order to allow for flexibility. There followed a lengthy discussion as to the storage of inventory and whether it should be confined strictly to the area under the canopy or whether some cars could be allowed outside of the canopy. Mr. Finley stated that cars would not normally be outside the canopy, except on occasional days when an extraordinary amount of cars came in. The Secretary stated that he would rather have the condition limit the storage to the canopy so that the City could limit the storage to that area. The Secretary stated that he did not think the enforcement of the condition would be rigid, but that the option should be there to prevent a consistent practice of storing cars outside the canopy from developing. The Secretary also expressed a concern that storing the cars outside the canopy would have an impact on the parking lot. He stating that there was a conflict which dealers constantly face between storing inventory on their lots and providing customer parking. Commissioner Bernards stated that the record could show that the Commission understands that there will be occasional situations when a car or two may be parked outside the canopy. The Secretary stated that this understanding could be acceptable, but urged that the condition not explicitly allow for such storage outside the canopy. Mr. Finley consented to the dropping of the word "primarily" in Condition No. 2. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86014 (Budget Rent a Car /Sears) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 86014, subject to the following conditions: 1. , The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Storage of inventory of cars for rent shall be confined to the area under the canopy. 3. Special use permit approval acknowledges rental and leasing only. No sales of automobiles or other vehicles is acknowledged by this action. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9 :01 p.m. and resumed at 9:11 p.m. Commissioner Wallerstedt left during the recess because of illness. OTHER BUSINESS A Request for Central Neighborhood Advisory Group Review. The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission the problem of cut- through traffic in the Central Neighborhood by cars moving from Brooklyn Boulevard to Brookdale Shopping Center and vice versa. He stated that this concern should be addressed by a meeting of the Neighborhood Advisory Group for the central neighborhood and other residents in the neighborhood affected by the problem. 3 -27 -86 -6- Commissioner Nelson stated that he had checked with people on the list for the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group and that almost all of them no longer lived there or were no longer interested in serving. There followed a discussion of who would be appropriate to serve on such a group. There followed further discussion of the nature of the traffic problem and some possible solutions that had been drawn up by the Engineering Department under the direction of Sy Knapp. ACTION REFERRING CUT- THROUGH TRAFFIC STUDY TO THE CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP Rot by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to refer the I issue of cut - through traffic in the Central Neighborhood to the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. Voting in favor. Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:3 p.m. Chairman 3 -27 -86 -7- Planning Comnission Information Sheet Application No. 86011 Applicant: Lombard Properties, Inc. Location: NW Corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard Request: Preliminary Registered Land Survey The applicant requests preliminary registered land survey approval to combine into a single parcel the three tracts of land at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The property in question is zoned I -1 and is bounded on the north by the Parkway Place Industrial Building, on the east by Shingle Creek Parkway, on the south by Freeway Boulevard and on the west by the Ramada Inn. The planned use of the property at this time is a five to six storey office building. The existing legal description is Tracts D, E, and F of R.L.S. 1572. No area is given for the proposed tract (Tract A of an as- yet - unnumbered R.L.S.). The combined area of the three underlying tracts contained in this subdivision is 5.8 acres. No easements are indicated on the subdivision plan. Past subdivisions including this property have provided cross access over this land and all land bounded by Shingle Creek on the west, by Freeway Boulevard on the south, and by Shingle Creek Parkway on the east and north, excluding the MTC site. The staff's primary concern with this subdivision is the access drive along the north edge of the tract. Staff would recommend that an easement for this roadway be indicated on the subdivision plan. Furthermore, there should be easements pro- hibiting parking within 15' of this roadway and building within 25' of the roadway. This would be a lesser greenstrip and building setback than if the roadway were public right -of -way, but would be consistent with the precedent of the Richardson Addition (east of Earle Brown Bowl). The possibility of installing traffic si nals in Shingle Creek P r prehended in an earlier subdivision agreement. We see no need to expand aon that com agreement with this subdivision. Altogether, the proposed subdivision is acceptable, subject to at least the following conditions: I. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary R.L.S. shall be modified to indicate the following: a) land area, zoning, and proposed use of the property and such other information deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. b) An accurrately dimensioned easement over the northerly portion of the property for the private access road a 16' greenstrip adjacent to the private access road, and a 25' building setback therefrom. 3 -27 -86 Planning Comnission Information Sheet Application No. 86013 Applicant: Stephen Cook Location: 5300 block of Russell Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat, Site layout The applicant requests preliminary plat and site plan approval for a double bungalow on the 5300 block of Russell Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R2 and is bounded on the west by Russell Avenue North, on the north by a double- bungalow, and on the east and south by single - family homes. This property was the subject of Application No. 86005, under which a variance for lot area was granted. The preliminary plat provides for one lot, 90.75 wide by 133.45' deep (12,111 sq. ft. in area), to be legally described as Cook Estates. A 5' wide drainage and utility easement is indicated along the rear lot line and a 10' easement is shown along the front. A sewer service to the half -lot on the south portion of the plat will have to be disconnected at the main unless separate sewer systems are proposed for the two units. The site layout for the proposed double - bungalow places the structure in the middle of the lot. Each unit is 26' wide by 46' deep. The total width is, therefore, 52'. The setback is a little over 19' on each side. The building is to be slightly cocked to allow an 18.36' setback to the southeast corner and a 20.36' setback to the north - east corner. The units are also staggered 2', the northerly unit protruding in front, the southerly unit in back. The floor plan shows three bedrooms, a living room, dining room and kitchen on the upper level. A two -car garage, utility room, recreation room and optional bedroom are indicated on the lower level. Two and a half baths are provided overall. The plan is generous for a double - bungalow. The proposed plat and site and building plan appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least 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. The plat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior y p or to the issuance of building permits. 4. The existing sewer service to the half -lots on the south side of the property (old legal description: North half of Lot 4, Block 2, Robert L. Hansen's First Addition) shall be disconnected at the main prior to the issuance of building permits unless separate sewer systems are provided for the two units. 3 -27 -86 tf Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86014 Applicant: Budget Rent a Car (Sears) Location: 1299 Brookdale (Sears Auto Center) Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a car rental business out of'the Sears Auto Center in Brookdale. The property in question is zoned C2 is bounded by Xerxes Avenue North on the west, by County Road 10 on the north, and by Highway 100 on the southeast. Automobile and truck rental and leasing is a special use in the C2 zoning district. The proposed car rental business would operate out of the retail sales portion of the auto center. The inventory of cars for rent would be stored under the existing canopy at the north end of the auto center. No additional parking is required since no building addition is proposed and the car rental use requires no more parking per 1,000 sq. ft. than the existing retail use. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) explaining the operation of the special use dated March 4, 1986. A second letter, dated March 12, 1986 (also attached) explains that the operation will be conducted in the existing sales/ service building rather than in a small outside building located under the canopy. The applicant was advised by staff that the small, transportable building he initi- ally proposed did not meet building code requirements and would have to be signifi- cantly modified. The question of parking requirements for additional building space was also raised. The applicant decided, in the interests of time, to locate the rental office inside the existing building and use the available area under the canopy for storage of inventory. Staff do not see any conflict with the standards for special uses posed by the proposed car rental business. It should have no measurable impact on the improve- ments or traffic circulation within Brookdale Center. Approval is, therefore, recommended, subject to at least the following condi=tions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Storage of inventory of cars for rent shall be confined primarily to under the canopy. 3. Special use permit approval acknowledges rental and leasing only. No sales of automobiles or other vehicles is acknowledged by this action. 3 -27 -86 adoption: N;ember Mike Nelson introduced the following resolution and moved its PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 86 -1 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF DR. JOHN B. LESCAULT AND AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO CLASSIFY DR. LESCAULT'S CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE, 6142 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, AS A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance distinguishes between permitted home occupations and special home occupations in Sections 35- 310,35 -405, 35 -406, and 35 -900 which are attached hereto by reference; and WHEREAS, Dr. Lescault operates a chiropractic office at his home located at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Dr. Lescault's property located at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, is zoned R1 under the City of Brooklyn Center's Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on or about Pay, 1984, Dr. Lescault submitted an application for a building permit to the City of Brooklyn Center for an expansion of his private residence and chiropractic office; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 1984, the Brooklyn Center Zoning Administrator informally reviewed Dr. Lescault Is proposed expansion and the current status of the chirporactic office with the Brooklyn enter Planning g Commission; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 1984, the Brooklyn Center Zoning Administrator by and through Gary Shallcross, Brooklyn Center City Planner, classified Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office as a special home occupation under Brooklyn Center Ordinance 35 and informed him of the classification; and WHEREAS, on or about July 10, 1984, Dr. Lescault wrote a letter to the City of Brooklyn Center stating the conditions acceptable to operation of his chiropractic office; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 1984, the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission formally convened to discuss the Dr. Lescault's Special Use Permit. The Planning Commission found that Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office was a special home occupation for the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 1984, the City Council of Brooklyn Center reviewed Dr. Lescault's special home occupation and granted him a special use permit for his chiropractic office; and WHEREAS, on or about October 1, 1984, Dr. Lescault filed a complaint against the City of Brooklyn Center and on October 18, 1984, the City answered the complaint; and WHEREAS, in January, 1986, a trial was held and during the trial, the court determined that Dr. Lescault should exhaust his administrative remedies before the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission before completing the trial; and RESOLUTION NO. 86 -1 WHEREAS, on or about February 12, 1986, Dr. Leseault appealed the above described decision to the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission sitting as a Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator submitted a report on the appeal to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the appeal on February 27, 1986 at which Dr. Leseault and his attorney were present; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator read verbatim his report to the Planning Commission and.into the record; and WHEREAS, Dr. Lescault's attorney, David Cody, addressed the Planning Commission on the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Brooklyn Center adopts the following as its reasons and findings of fact for declaring Dr. LescaultIs chiropractic office at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a special home occupation: 1. The report of the Zoning Administrator attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office is a special home occupation because of the traffic it generates. Traffic generation is an important factor in differentiating special home from home occupations. Home occupations listed as permitted in Section 35 -900 -- dressmaking, secretarial services, individual music or art instruction, individual hobby crafts, professional offices, etc. -- are businesses which have only occasional customer traffic. The person performing the activity is likely to travel to the customer, rather than the customer mer travelli t o the person's business travelling p b ness premises. On the other hand, special home occupations -- barber and beauty shops, photography studios, group instructions, saw sharpening, small engine repairs, etc. -- have regular customer traffic on the premises. Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office is a special home occupation because it generates regular customer traffic of twenty g g o Y twenty -five patients per day, which is at least as much, if not more than, most special home occupations. Dr. Leseault may have up to three patients in his office at any one time. To .accommodate this traffic Dr.- Leseault has constructed a parking lot on his property. Patients who drive to Dr. LescaultIs office enter the parking lot from 62nd Avenue North, a residential street. The traffic generated by Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office is a factor addressed in Section 35 -405 and 35 -406 by virtue of the regulation of on- street parking and the admonishment in 35 -406 (1) prohibiting special home occupations from causing traffic congestion. RESOLUTION NO. 86 -1 Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office, like other special home occupations generating customer traffic, must be regulated under the provisions in Section 35 -406 (particularly those provisions dealing with traffic congestion and parking) for special home occupations in order to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the R1 zoning district. 3. Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office is a special home occupation because of the use of equipment nor customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. Dr. Lescault has two pieces of equipment not normally found in the home. First, Dr. Lescault uses an x -ray machine for patient diagnosis in his office. Former Building Official Will Dahn reported this fact to the City in spring 1984. In addition, Dr. -Lescault admits using an x -ray machine. Second, Dr. Lescault uses a thermography device in his office. This device measures temperature variance on the surface of skin. The x -ray equipment and the thermography device are equipment not customarily found in a residence. Use of such equipment is prohibited in home occupations, under Section 35 -405. Use of the equipment is permissible, however, pursuant to Section 35 -406 in a special home occupation. 4. Dr. Lescault's use of a nonresident employee makes his chiropractic P office a special home occupation under the provisions of Sections 35- 405 and 35 -406. For purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, the City defines a nonresident employee as any person not living on the premises who is engaged in the activity of a home occupation. Use of a nonresident employee in a home occupation requires a special use permit. On July 10, 1984, Dr. Lescault wrote a letter to the City of Brooklyn Center informing them that he intended to hire an intern from a local college as a nonresident employee at his office. Further, although Dr. Lescault would not directly pay the intern for his research assistance, he would pay money to the intern's school for the intern's services. In addition, the City learned that Dr. Lescault has another chiropractor come to his office to treat patients while he is out of town. Like the intern, this person is also a nonresident. Finally, Mrs. Lescault's daughter, another nonresident, answers Dr. Lescault Is business phone and takes messages for him while he is out of the office. The intern, the visiting chiropractor and the daughter of Mrs. Lescault all qualify as nonresident employees because they do not live on the premises and because they are engaged in the operation of the chiropractic office. Their employment means that the chiropractic office is not a permitted home occupation because permitted home occupations do not permit nonresident employees: See Section 35 -405 (5)• The chiropractic office is, therefore, a special home occupation pursuant to Section 35-406 (4). RESOLUTION NO. 86 -1 i March 27, 198E Date -� ai rman V _ Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Carl Sandstrom, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: George Lucht, Wallace Bernards, Mike Nelson, Carl Sandstrom and Ann Wallerstedt; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. l 1014 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF DR. JOHN B. LESCAULT AND AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO CLASSIFY DR. LESCAULT'S CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE, 6142 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, AS A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance distinguishes between permitted home occupations and special home occupations in Sections 35 -310, 35 -405, 35 -406, and 35 -900 which are attached hereto by reference; and WHEREAS, Dr. Lescault operates a chiropractic office at his home located at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Dr. Lescault's property located at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, is zoned Rl under the City of Brooklyn Center's Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on or about May, 1984, Dr. Lescault submitted an application for a building permit to the City of Brooklyn Center for an expansion of his private residence and chiropractic office; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 1984, the Brooklyn Center Zoning Administrator informally reviewed Dr. Lescault Is proposed expansion and the current status of the chirppractic office with the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on June 26,_1984, the Brooklyn Center Zoning Administrator by and through Gary Shallcross, Brooklyn Center City Planner, classified Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office as a special home occupation under Brooklyn Center Ordinance 35 and informed him of the classification; and WHEREAS, on or about July 10, 1984, Dr. Lescault wrote a letter to the City of Brooklyn Center stating the conditions acceptable to operation of his chiropractic office; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 1984, the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission formally convened to discuss the Dr. Lescault's Special Use Permit. The Planning Commission found that Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office was a special home occupation for the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 1984, the City Council of Brooklyn Center reviewed Dr. Lescault Is special home occupation and granted him a special use permit for his chiropractic office; and WHEREAS, on or about October 1, 1984, Dr. Lescault filed a complaint against the City of Brooklyn Center and on October 18, 1984, the City answered the complaint; and WHEREAS, in January, 1986, a trial was held and during the trial, the court determined that Dr. Lescault should exhaust his administrative remedies before the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission before completing the trial; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, on or about February 12, 1986, Dr. Lescault appealed the above described decision to the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission sitting as a Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator submitted a report on the appeal to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the appeal on February 27, 1986 at which Dr. Lescault and his attorney were present; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator read verbatim his report to the Planning Commission and into the record; and WHEREAS, Dr. Lescault's attorney, David Cody, addressed the Planning Commission on the appeal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on March 27, 1986 following further review and discussion of this matter adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 86- 1 recommending denial of Dr. Lescault's appeal and affirming the Zoning Administrator's decision based on various reasons and findings of fact; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center on April 7, 1986 considered Dr. Lescault's appeal, the Planning Commission's recommendation, offered Dr. Lescault the opportunity to be heard _a then deliberated on the matter. pp y nd d b d e m er . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn • Center to deny the appeal of Dr. Lescault and affirm the Zoning Administrator's decision to classify Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office as a Special Home Occupation and to adopt the following as its reasons and findings of fact to support that action: 1. The report of the Zoning Administrator attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office is.a special home occupation because of the traffic it generates. Traffic generation is an important factor in differentiating special home from home occupations. Home occupations listed as permitted in Section 35 -900 - dressmaking, secretarial services, individual music or art instruction, individual hobby crafts, professional offices, etc. -- are businesses which have only occasional customer traffic. The person performing the activity is likely to travel to the customer, rather than the customer travelling to the person's business premises. On the other hand, special home occupations -- barber and beauty shops, photography studios, group instructions, saw sharpening, small engine repairs, etc. -- have regular customer traffic on the premises. Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office is a special home occupation because it generates regular customer traffic of twenty to twenty -five patients per day, which is at least as much, if not more than, most special home occupations. Dr. Lescault may have up to three patients in his office at any one time. RESOLUTION NO. To accommodate this traffic Dr. Lescault has constructed a parking lot on his property. _Patients who drive to Dr. Lescault Is office enter the parking lot from 62nd Avenue North, a residential street. The traffic generated by Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office is a factor addressed in Section 35 -405 and 35 -406 by virtue of the regulation of on- street parking and the admonishment in 35 -406 (1) prohibiting special home occupations from causing traffic congestion. Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office, like other special home occupations generating customer traffic, must be regulated under the provisions in Section 35 -406 (particularly those provisions dealing with traffic congestion and parking) for special home occupations in order to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the R1 zoning district. 3. Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office is a special home occupation because of the use of equipment nor customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. Dr. Lescault has two pieces of equipment not normally found in the home. First, Dr. Lescault uses an x -ray machine for patient diagnosis in his office. Former Building Official Will Dahn reported this fact to the City in spring 1984. In addition, Dr. Lescault admits using an x -ray machine. Second, Dr. Lescault uses a thermography device in his office. This device measures temperature variance on the surface of skin. The x -ray equipment and the thermography device are equipment not customarily found in a residence. Use of such equipment is prohibited in home occupations, under Section 35 -405• Use of the equipment is permissible, however, pursuant to Section 35 -406 in a special home occupation. 4. Dr. Lescault's use of a nonresident employee makes his chiropractic office a special home occupation under the provisions of Sections 35 405 and 35 -406. For purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, the City defines a nonresident employee as any person not living on the premises who is engaged in the activity of a home occupation. Use of a nonresident employee in a home occupation requires a special use permit On July 10, 1984, Dr. Lescault wrote a letter to the City of Brooklyn Center informing them that he intended to hire an intern from a local college as a nonresident employee at his office. Further, although Dr. Lescault would not directly pay the intern for his research assistance, he would pay money to,the intern's school for the intern's services. In addition, the City learned that Dr. Lescault has another chiropractor come to his office to treat patients while he is out of town. Like the intern, this person is also a nonresident. RESOLUTION N0. Finally, Mrs. Lescault's daughter, another nonresident, answers Dr. LescaultI s business phone and takes messages for him while he is out of the office. The intern, the visiting chiropractor and the daughter of Mrs. Lescault all qualify as nonresident employees because they do not live on the premises and because they are engaged in the operation of the chiropractic office. Their employment means that the chiropractic office is not a permitted home occupation because permitted home occupations do not permit nonresident employees: See Section 35 - 2 405 (5) • The chiropractic office is, therefore, a special home occupation pursuant to Section 35 -406 (4) . Date Mayor 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 duly passed and adopted. APPLICATION N0. 86009 (Dr. John Lescault j — T Following the recess, the Secretary introduced the last item of business, an appeal by Dr. John Lescault from the City's determination in 1984 that the chiropractic office in the residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard is a special home occupation rather than a permitted home occupation. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report.(see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86009 attached). The Secretary also explained that a lawsuit brought by Dr. 2 -27 -86 -4- Lescault against the City was before the District Court and that it had been continued while Dr. Lescault exhausts his administrative remedies. The Secretary copeluded his remarks by recommending that the Planning Commission table the application and direct staff to prepare a resolution regarding disposition of the matter. Mr. Kurt Erickson of the City Attorney's office added that Dr. Lescault would be Paying the college for sending an intern to work with him in the home occupation. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. David Cody, (offices at 160 Hanover Building, St. Paul) an attorney representing Dr. Lescault, stated that his client contends that the administrative action to reclassify the chiropractic office as a special home occupation was arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious. He explained that the lawsuit brought by Dr. Lescault against the City had to do with t g y he expansion which was denied and also the reclassification of the home occupation to a special use. He explained that the appeal before the Planning Commission only had to do with the reclassification of the home occupation to a special use. Mr. Cody stated that he also sat on the Planning Commission in another community. He stated that he was not present to talk about lawsuits, but wanted the Planning Commission to interpret the City Ordinances in light of the facts. Mr. Cody explained that Dr. Lescault moved into Brooklyn Center in 1975 and carried on his chiropractic business for 9 years with the knowledge of the City, but with no intervention from the City. He asked what happened in 1984 to make the operation a special use. He stated that between 1975 and 1984, the land around the Lescault residence had become more commercialized. He stated that the ordinance had been ` changed in 1982, but that it was basically a housecleaning ordinance amendment. He stated that the only change that had occurred was that Dr. Lescault requested a • permit ttop expand his home occupation as well as his dwelling. He stated that the City staff aff asked the Planning Commission whether to reclassify the home occupation to a special use and allow an appeal or whether to simply reviews special use permit application. Mr. Cody stated that the staff letter of June 26, 1984 was the reclassification of the home occupation to a special use. He stated that the City had no evidence at that time that the home occupation was a special use. He stated that the Planning Commission should consider the evidence available on June 26, 1984, not later testimony. Mr. Cody pointed out that Dr. Lescault is a licensed professional and that the City Ordinance classifies a professional office as a permitted home occupation. He explained that the ordinance does not provide any basis for distinguishing between one type of professional office YP P and another.. He, therefore, stated that there was no basis for reclassifying a professional office to be a special home occupation. He also stated that there was no definition in the ordinance of secondary and incidental. Mr. Cody stated that staff evaluated the expansion proposed by Dr. Lescault and saw no way of controlling and denying the expansion except by classifying the home occupation as a special use. He stated that there was no rational basis for the reclassification and that it should be reversed. The Planner then sought to clarify certain facts surrounding the reclassification r of the chiropractic office to a special home occupation. He stated that the appeal 2 =27 -86 -5- option that was discussed with the Planning Commission on the June 14, 1984 meeting was the option for the staff to simply deny the building permit proposed by Dr. Lescault for the expansion on the grounds that the expansion would make the home occupation more than secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises. Dr. Lescault could then appeal that action. The appeal discussed in the June 26, 1984 letter to Dr. Lescault , the Planner explained, was the option for-Dr. Lescault to appeal the determination that his chiropractic office was, in effect, a special use. The Planner also stated that staff did not rely on the reclassification of the home occupation as a special use as a means of stopping the expansion. He stated that the staff always had the right to deny the building permit for the expansion on the basis that it would go beyond the ordinance limits of secondary and incidental use of the premises for a home occupation. He stated that that option was not exercised that the expansion was considered under a special use permit application instead. Mr. Cody disagreed with the Planner's interpretation of the minutes of the June 14, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. There followed a discussion as to what was contained in the minutes and the appeals that were possible to Dr. Lescault. Chairman Lucht concluded that the Planning Commission and the applicant have a disagreement as to what the minutes of the June 14, 1984 Planning Commission meeting actually say. Mr. Kurt Erickson of the City Attorney's office pointed out that the matter had been referred to the Planning Commission by the District Court in order to exhaust all administrative remedies. He urged the Commission to consider not only the facts that were known prior to June 26, 1984, but all facts that have come to light since that time as the best way of exhausting all administrative remedies. Mr. Erickson also stated that the access to Dr. Lescault Is property was from 62nd Avenue North which is a residential street. Mr. Cody stated that his client was appealing the determination of the June 26, 1984 staff letter in which the chiropractic office was considered to be a special home occupation because of its land use impacts. He stated that there is no basis in the ordinance for distinguishing between a permitted and a special home occupation on the basis of traffic and, therefore, the reclassification had no foundation in the City ordinance. He pointed out that Dr. Lescault had operated as a permitted home occupation for approximately 10 years without any intervention from the City. Mr. Cody also explained that the nonresident intern working in the home occupation was basically there for an educational experience. He stated that to consider such a person as a nonresident employee would be the same as considering someone who cut the grass in the yard to be a nonresident employee in the home occupation. The Planner again attempted to clarify the appeals that were discussed by the Planning Commission in June of 1984 and the appeal brought by the applicant. He also pointed out that Dr. Lescault actually has more rights afforded to him under the special use classification than if he were limited to the classification of a permitted home occupation. Mr. Erickson asked how that was the case. The Planner pointed out that special home occupations are allowed to have a nonresident employee and equipment not normally found in the home. He added that permitted home occupations are not allowed to have either. The Secretary asked the applicant whether he wanted to live under the regulations in force in 1975 governing permitted home occupations and operate without an employee or x -ray equipment. He stated that both these aspects of his home occupation were 2 -27 -86 -6- prohibited for permitted home occupations in 1975 just as they are today. Mr. Cody responded that Dr. Lescault simply wants the rights that he enjoyed from 1978 to 1984. The Secretary answered that he had not been aware of the equipment or of the nonresident employees working in the home occupation and that he considered these to be zoning violations which could not continue once they came to light. Chairman Lucht discussed the special use status with the applicant and his attorney. He pointed out that equipment not normally found in the home requires a special use permit. Mr. Cody stated that that equipment had been in the home 10 years prior to the reclassification. Chairman Lucht also pointed out that an outside employee requires a special use permit. Mr. Cody stated that another chiropractor comes to the house to treat patients when the Lescaults are out of town and that that chiropractor is paid directly by the patients. Chairman Lucht stated that Dr. Lescault was obviously trading services of value with the other chiropractor and was receiving some benefit from the fact that that chiropractor did come in and take over patients that might be lost if they were not treated while he was gone. Dr. Lescault explained that his malpractice insurance requires that he provide continuing care to patients. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the special use classification of the home occupation would allow another chiropractor to come onto the premises to provide that continuing care. The Secretary asked whether patients could go to the other doctor's office. Mr. Cody responded that that was not practical, that it was important to serve the patients within the geographic area that they are accustomed to. The Secretary stated that, for another doctor to come onto the premises to treat patients when Dr. Lescault is away constitutes a nonresident employee. Mr. Cody argued that the home occupation had been allowed as a permitted use for 10 years. The Secretary stated that it was a zoning violation as long as it exceeded the parameters of a permitted home occupation in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether x -ray equipment should not be assumed in a chiropractic office. The Secretary stated that he did not know whether that was an appropriate assumption. The Secretary stated that he felt Dr. Lescault could have been classified as a special use in 1975, but was not. He stated that Dr. Lescault essentially got away with a- zoning violation for a number of years and that it was appropriate for him to seek a special use permit for the things that he was already doing. Dr. Lescault pointed out that he had gotten a permit for the electrical service needed for the x -ray equipment and that it was inspected by the City. He also stated that his operation is checked by the State every year. Commissioner Malecki stated that the Planning Commission was essentially being asked to allow the continuation of a zoning violation rather than comprehend the home occupation as a special use. She stated that she could not believe the applicant was serious about this request. Mr. Cody asked whether the meeting was being taped. Chairman Lucht responded in the negative. Commissioner Ainas speculated that a betting operation could have 20 phones installed by Northwestern Bell and partitions installed and inspected by the City and might operate without anyone understanding the purpose of these improvements. He stated, however, that when the operation was discovered by the Chief of Police, it would certainly be stopped whatever prior permits were granted. He stated that he saw no justification in reversing the decision of 1984 in classifying Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office as a special use. 2 -27 -86 -7- y f� Following further protestations by Mr. Cody on the nature of the business and its prior status and the reclassification action, Chairman Lucht stated simply that the Commission has a disagreement with the appellant on facts and interpretation of facts. He added, however, that the Planning Commission did not want to be entirely negative toward Dr. Lescault. He stated that Dr. Lescault has improved his property and that he is a credit to the community. He concluded, however, that past precedent and City ordinances limit the discretion of the Planning Commission in classifying home occupations. He stated that he felt it was clearly a special home occupation. Commissioner Sandstrom asked what difference it would make if the home occupation were allowed under the proper ordinances. Chairman Lucht stated that that was already being done and asked for the reason for the appeal. Mr. Cody suggested that the Commission read the conditions of the special use permit and mentioned hours of operation as one reason for the appeal. Mr. Kurt Erickson, the City's attorney in this case, pointed out that the conditions of approval came primarily from information contained in Dr. Lescault's letter of application. He stated that Mr. Cody seemed to argue that the conditions are too restrictive, but, he said, they come from the very applications submitted by Dr. Lescault. Mr. Erickson went on to address the matter of emergency treatment. He stated that he did not feel it was the City's intent to bar Dr. Lescault from treating patients on an emergency basis at times other than the normal operating hours limited in the special use permit. Planning Commission members concurred and the Secretary pointed out that the hours limitation in the special use permit pertained only to normal office hours. Mr. Cody then ceased to argue the appeal and called for the question to be voted on. The Secretary pointed out that if the City upheld the appeal, Dr. Lescault would be much more restricted than he is as a special use. He pointed out that Dr. Lescault could not have an outside employee and could not have equipment not normally found in the home without a special use permit either under the ordinance in effect in 1975 or 1984. He stated that Dr. Lescault could seek an amendment of the conditions of approval if he felt they were too restrictive. Commissioner Malecki asked whether a person can cease being a special use home occupation if he or she wants to. The Secretary answered in the affirmative, provided they live within the restrictions for permitted home occupations. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 86009 (Dr. John Lescault) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 86009 and direct staff to prepare a formal resolution recommending denial of the application and setting forth the Commission's reasoning. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Chairman 2 -27 -86 -8- t � Application No. 86009 Applicant: John B. Lescault Location: 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Appeal This application is an appeal by John B. Lescault of a determination in 1984 that the chiropractor's office in his residence is a special rather than a permitted home occupation. The chiropractor's office is located at 61 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is zoned Rl and is bounded on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the north by 62nd Avenue North and on the east and south by single - family homes. Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office was treated as a special home occupation following a request by Dr. Lescault to expand his office and residence in the spring of 1984 which initiated a staff evaluation of the operation and a discussion with the Planning Commission on June 14, 1984 as to how to respond to the proposed expansion. Dr. Lescault filed a special use permit application on July 11, 1984. The permit was approved by the City Council on August 6, 1984, subject to certain conditions, among them that the home occupation could not expand beyond its existing limitations in the dwelling. Other conditions pertained to the hours of operation, parking, the employment of a non - resident, the requirement for a fire extinguisher, and to signery. The appellant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the reclassification of his home occupation from a permitted use to a special use is "unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, unconstitutional and void." He states that he moved to Brooklyn Center in 1975 and set up a chiropractic office in his home as allowed by Sections 35 -900 and 34 - 110 of the City Ordinances. The office, he states, was 489 sq. ft. and consisted of three treatment rooms, a reception area and secretarial area. He points out that the remaining floor area of the house, including basement was 2,081 sq. ft. He goes on to explain that the expansion he proposed in the spring of 1984 would have added two rooms within an area of 12' x 20' to the home occupation area. The appellant's letter goes on to say that the home is located on Brooklyn Boulevard which has traffic volumes of 23,000 to 28,000 cars per day. He next asserts that "on June 14, 1984, at a hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission apparently on advice of City staff, considered that my home occupation had gone beyond the point of being secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises." (See minutes attached) Dr. Lescault then states that he received a letter on June 26, 1984 informing him that his home occupation had been reclassified as a special home occupation (See letter attached). Dr. Lescault then offers his chief argument. In essence, he states that: 1) my home occupation was considerd a permitted use in 1975 as a "professional office "; 2) the 1982 ordinance revisions relating to home occupations were merely a clarification and left the category of "professional office" in the permitted use classification; 3) my home occupation has not changed from being a professional office; 4) therefore, my chirporactic office should still be classified as a permitted use. Clarification of Certain Facts Before responding to Dr. Lescault's main argument, we would like to clarify certain 2 -27 -86 -1- Application No. 86009 continued matters referred to in Dr. Lescault Is letter. First, the proposed expansion of the home office area would not have been only the 12' x 20' area devoted to new rooms (the Plans submitted showed 14' x 20 1 ), but also an approximate 4' x 36' area devoted to hallway and restroom. The gross floor area devoted to the home occupation, as shown on the plans submitted by Dr. Lescault on July 11, 1984, amounts to over 860 sq. ft. (an area slightly larger than 23.5' x 36' as shown on the plans). Second, - the discussion of the Lescault home occupation at the June 14, 1984 Planning Commission meeting did not take place in the context of a formal hearing or review of a formal planning application. The discussion was initiated by the staff who sought direction on how to proceed in response to Dr. Lescault's proposed building expansion. There was no vote by the Planning Commission and no formal action was taken. This discussion was purely advisory in nature, on the question of procedure. It was not an action of the Commission to approve or disapprove, to classify or reclassify. Finally, the Commission made no finding or conclusion, either at the June 14, 1984 meeting or at the July 26, 1984 meeting (See minutes attached) that Dr. Lescault's home occupation, as it existed, had "gone beyond the point of being secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises." The Planning Commission and City Council did conclude, in their actions of approval of the special use permit that no expansion of the home occupation cupation could be allowed (even this action was based on the standards in Section 35 -220, not on the specific . restrictions of home occupations in Sections 35- 405, 35 -406, and 35 -900). However, it is inaccurate to suggest, as Dr. Lescault does, that his reclassification from permitted to special home occupation was based on a finding that the home occupation was no longer secondary and incidental. Such a finding would have required the diminution or elimination of the home occupation since both permitted and special home occupations must be secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises (See Section 35 -900 attached). Such a finding was never made by the Planning Commission or City Council. The findings on which the reclassification from permitted to special use was made are contained in the first condition of approval of Application No. 84024 by both the Planning Commission and City Council. That point reads as follows: 11 1. Special use permit approval is deemed necess for the home occupation in question in light of the following factors: a. the extent of the home occupation use within the dwelling unit b. the level of traffic generated by the home occupation c. the use of equipment not normally found in a residential dwelling unit d. the employment on the premises of one nonresident employee." Analysis The appellant argues that nothing substantial has changed about his home occupation or the City's ordinance since 1975. Therefore, there are no grounds for a reclassification. The action to reclassify Dr. Lescault's chiropractic office from a permitted to a special home occupation was based on a combination of interpretation of the ordinance's intent and the evidence that was available on August 6, 1984 (the date of the City Council action). a) Interpr Findings (a ) and (b) of point #1 of the Council's action are not factors explicit in the Zoning Ordinance for distinguishing between permitted and special home 2- 27 -86- -2- r Application No. 86009 continued occupations. We believe that at least point 1(traffice generation) is implicit in the overall scheme of the ordinance's home occupation provisions. Those home occupations listed as permitted in Section 35 -900 -- dressmaking, secretarial services, individual music or art instruction, individual hobby crafts, professional offices, etc. -- are businesses which have only occasional customer traffic. In such businesses, the person performing the activity is about as likely to -go out to the customer as for the customer to come to the premises. In special home occupations - barber and beauty shops, photography studios, group instruction, saw sharpening, small engine repairs, etc. -- the customer traffic is more regular and directly related to the success of the business. Dr. Lescault Is chiropractic office has been classified as a special home occupation partly because it generates customer traffic (20 -25 patients per day) which is at least as much as, if not more than, most special home occupations. Traffic is an implied concern of Sections 35 -405 and 35 -406 by virtue of the regulation of on- street parking (see attached). We would like to state clearly for the record that the City's grouping of the chiropractic office with home beauty shops and other special home occupations is in no way based on the assumption or meant to imply the idea that Dr. Lescault is not a professional. We concede that Dr. Lescault does operate a "professional office," but we feel that a more general reading of the City's ordinance would support the conclusion that this type of professional office is more akin to a special than a permitted home occupation. Staff would concede that the area devoted to the home occupation, while s erha P P indicative of a level of activity, is nowhere expressly employed as a factor for distinguishing between permitted and special home occupations. It must also be acknowledged that permitted home occupations may involve a great deal of time spent and may be the sole source of income. A home occuation is considered permitted or special on the basis of land use impacts, not income derived or even hours worked. We would, therefore, recommend that the point (a) be eliminated from the Council's reasoning in determining that the chiropractic office is a special home occupation. b) Evidence Dr. Lescault was contacted by letter of June 26, 1984, informing him that it was "the judgment of the staff and of the Planning Commission, at this time, that your home occupation is more similar in its land use effects to those home occupations classified in our ordinance as special home occupations than to those classified as permitted." Dr. Lescault was told that the proposed expansion would be evaluated as part of the special use permit application and was asked to provide information on the nature of the business, hours, parking, plans for a nonresident employee, a survey of the property and other items. Dr. Lescault was also informed in the letter of his right to appeal the determination contained therein (namely, that his home occupation was a special use) . Dr. Lescault chose not to appeal at that time, but has been directed by the district court to exhaust such an administrative remedy before concluding his lawsuit against the City. Dr. Lescault responded to the June 26, 1984 staff letter by filing an application for a special use permit with an informational letter, building plans, and a site survey on July 11, 1984. The letter submitted by Dr. Lescault (see attached) contained the following points which were taken into account in ultimately classifying the home occupation as a special use: "Regarding the question of whether I desire to have a nonresident employee or would it be my desire sometime in the future to have a J nonresident employee: Part of my tentative plan is to bring in an intern from our local college." 2- 27 -86- -3- } } Application No. 86009 continued It was primarily the above statement of the appellant that was relied upon to determine that a nonresident employee would at sometime be present in the home occupation. A nonresident employee is not permitted in a permitted home occupation. It has always been City policy and a part of the ordinance in effect in 1975, to classify any home occupation with a nonresident employee as a special home occupation, even if the person were engaged in activity otherwise listed as a permitted home occupation (such as dressmaking, secretarial services, etc.). Dr. Lescault has since stated in court that an intern would not be paid directly, would not add clients, and would be present for an educational experience only to exchange information about the practice of chiropractic. It has also been revealed through court testimony that another chiropractor comes to the home when Dr. Lescault is out of town to take over patient appointments. Staff have also noted that the daughter of Dr. Lescault Is wife has come to the home to answer the office phone and takes messages when the Lescaults are out of town. Staff's interpretation of the ordinance has generally been that anyone who lives off the premises and comes onto the premises to be engaged in the activity of a home occupation, other than a customer, is a nonresident employee. The City does not investigate into the contractual arrangement between such a nonresident and the resident operator. Basically, if a nonresident is on the production end, as it were, of a good or service rather than the consumption end, he /she has been considered an employee of sorts. It seems clear to us that the activities of nonresidents at Dr. Lescault Is office clearly indicate that a nonresident is often employed on the premises in the home occupation. There is even a question of whether more than one nonresident may at times be working in the office when Dr. Lescault and his wife are not present. This would exceed the limitations not only of Section 35 -405 under which Dr. Lescault wishes to operate, but Section -406 P , 35 governing special home occupations as well. Another piece of evidence which was considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in reclassifying the chiropractic office as a special home occupation was the fact that Dr. Lescault uses an x -ray machine in diagnosis of patients. This fact was reported by former Building Official Will Dahn who had visited the property in the spring f 1984 in a private capacity as a patient. The x-ray equipment g P p y p y , has been considered to be "equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling unit" which is allowed under Section 35 -406 in special home occupations, but is not allowed under Section 35 -405 for permitted home occupations. Dr. Lescault also has indicated that he uses a thermography device which checks temperature variance on the surface of the skin. Staff certainly feel that x -ray equipment and a thermography device are equipment not normally or customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. The use of such equipment was cited by the City Council in point 1 d of its action approving Application n No. 84024. Man home occupations involve PP somewhat Y P at unusual equipment such as: drafting table, special sewing machine, word processor, metronome, special tools, etc. We believe x -ray equipment is unusual enough that it would classify a business as a special home occupation. If, however, the Commission feels that noise and odor are the real concerns, the ordinance might,be amended to address a narrower range of equipment or leave equipment out as a consideration altogether. Nevertheless, under existing ordinance, staff feel it is reasonable to consider the chiropractic office a special home ocupation because of the use of x- ray equipment. 2 -27 -86 4- 1 i Y Application No. 86009 continued Conclusion The argument can certainly be made (and probably will) that the Planning Commission discussion of June 14, 1984 and the staff letter of June 26, 1984 relied solely on interpretation of implicit factors in arriving at the position that the chiropractic office at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard should be considered a special home occupation. It will also probably be argued that such interpretations were erroneous and that the entire procedure of acting on a special use permit application was invalid. Staff would acknowledge that the interpretation of the chiropractic office as a special use is reasonably debatable. The letter of June 26, 1984 implied as much b saying A i that• it 's t Y Y z he judgment ment of the staff an d of the �� J�� g Planning Commission at this tim (e mphasis added) ( that our P home occupation more similar — Y P ation is I , in i land use effects (emphasis added) to those home occupations classified in o'ur ordinance as special home occupations than to those classified as permitted." Dr. Lescault was also told of right to appeal that determination and chose not to do so at that time, but complied with the special use permit process. Staff would still argue that the judgment contained in the June 26, 1984 letter was sound. However, even if the initial judgment based on an interpretation of implicit factors were ruled invalid, the evidence which has been provided in the course of the special use permit process and in court testimony leads us to consider that the explicit factors in Sections 35 -405 and 35-406 relating to a nonresident employee and equipment have been satisfied, that the home occupation is a special use because of the use of equipment not normally found in the home and because of the employment of nonresident persons in the function of the home occupation. Accordingly, staff would recommend that Application No. 86009 be denied and the ruling hat the chiropractic g p actic office at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard special p 1 home to occupation be affirmed on the following grounds: a. The chiropractor's office which draws 20 to 25 customers per day and as many as three (3) at a given time is more similar, in terms of traffic generation, to home occupations classified as a special uses than those classified as permitted uses because of the high level of customer traffic. b. Having a nonresident intern working in the office; having a nonresident take business calls when the Lescaults' are not in town; and having a nonresident chiropractic attend patients in the Lescault office when the Lescaults' are not in town: all constitute the employment on the premises of at least one nonresident at a time in the activity of the home occupation. Such activity on the, premises by nonresidents is deemed to require the classification of the home occupation as a special use under the provisions of Sections 35 -405 and 35 -406 of the Zoning Ordinance. c. The use of x -ray equipment and a thermography device in the home occupation is considered to be the use of equipment not normally found in a residential dwelling unit. The use of such equipment in the home occupation is deemed to require the issuance of a special use permit under the provisions of Sections 35 -405 and 35 -406 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2 -27 -86 -5- APPEAL TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Pursuant to Section 35 -251 entitled Appeals of the city ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center, John B. Lescault appeals from a determination made by the City of Brooklyn Center in their administrative capacity in the enforcement of their zoning ordinances, which were effective on June 26, 1984. The following is the statement of the appellant relative to the determination made on June 26, 1984, by the City of Brooklyn Center. I am a duly licensed and practicing chiropractor in the State of Minnesota, where I have practiced for the past 30 years. In 1975 I relocated to the City of Brooklyn to Center and established a residence located at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. At that time I established within my residence a chiropractic office as a home occupation under the zoning ordinances of Brooklyn Center then in effect. The zoning ordinances in effect on that date were Section 34 -110 and Section 35 -900. My chiropractic office within my home consisted of three treatment rooms, a rece tion area and a small secretarial area, encompassing square feet. The remainder of my home which was solely restricted to residential use, including basement, was in the amount of 2,081 feet. I was allowed to maintain my home occupation as a chiropractor by the defendant between 1975 and June 14, 1984. In the spring of 1984, I decided to add an expansion onto my home. The home occupation would be increased by a 12 by 20 foot area which would include two additional rooms. An additional space would be added to my home for M Purely residential use in the approximate amount of 175 square feet. My home is located on Brooklyn Boulevard, which according to the Comprehensive Plan is one of the most heavily traveled thoroughfares in the City of Brooklyn Center with average daily traffic of between 23,000 and 28,000 people. On June 14, 1984, at a hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission apparently on advice of city staff, considered that my home occupation had gone beyond the point of being secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises. on June 26, 1984, I received a letter from Gary Shallcross, informing me that my home occupation was no longer a permitted home occupation but rather a special home occupation. It is from that determination that I am subsequently making this appeal. On February 20, 1982, the ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center relative to home occupations were amended. No significant changes were made between the ordinance existing in 1975 and the ordinance of 1982, with the exception that the ordinances were made easier to read. Within both ordinances, my home occupation of a chiropractor was what I considered to be a professional office. Pursuant to the ordinances, a professional office constitutes a permitted home occupation. In view of the fact that no construction has taken place on my premises, and that therefore my premises continue to be as they have been since 1975, I am at this time requesting that the decision of the City of Brooklyn Center relative to my reclassification from permitted home occupation to special home occupation be reversed. Nothing has changed between 1975 and the present time which would allow my home occupation to be construed as anything but a permitted home occupation. The City of Brooklyn Center -2 h has not submitted an types Y YP of finding of fact justifying the reclassification. In my mind the reclassification is unreasonable, arbitrary,- capricious, unlawful, unconstitutional and void. Dated thi sr E da of + Y 1986. John B. Lescault -3- r 2 . ' Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit may be granted the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to _secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period.of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued visions of this ordinance, such pursuant to the proe permit shall. expire without further b applicant y the Planning Commission or the Cit Council or his assignee or successor y s wor unless the 'ect commences w � property work P rt w' upon -' P Y ithi P the s n one year of � Y the e date. g anted, or unless before the expiration the special use permit is applicant shall apply for an exnsionthereof e by n filling POut o and he submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire withinlone year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use lated thereto shall expire one year follinv tha gate Pit re ow me nt ._... �L_ . PREVIOUS ORDINANCE Section 35 -900 (continued) Floor /area ratio -The numerical value obtained through dividing the gross floor area of a building or buildings by the total area of the lot or parcel of lam s',ich building is located, don which Garage private - An accessory building or an accessory portion of building intended for or used to store private asSe the dw,. d upon the premises and in which no business, service nger or indus of the families resider. indirectly with automotive vehicles may be carried on, y connected directly or Gree Strip An area containing only vegetation such as grass tree pg :materials, and maintained r Purpose. expressly for hedges, and other related landscaping for su hrs, Home Occupation - Any gainful occupat' l occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwr llinon or profession, engaged in by the secondary to the residential use of the premises � which provide clearly incidental and , --h aCtivity does not duce light glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyondsthe boundaries of the pro- premises; does not involve the use of accessory structures; and, further provid t said activity does not involve any of the following: repair, service or manufa tur _hat ing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in a home; over -th e - cou nter r ,over th,. ,;ounter sale of merchandise . 0 P off the premises; o:• the employment of persons on the premises, other than those customarily residing on the premises. Examples include: dressmaking; secretarial services; professional offices; answering ice; music or art instruction; individual hobby craft; child da care define individual not more than five (5) nonresident children and provided the facility and o erati are e properly licensed by the County, and provided a record of said license is on file with the City); and the like. Home Occupation,_ Ste by special use permission, engaged Any gainful occupation or profession, approved ��ed in by the . said dwelling or involving not more than one accessory t use e tilling unit within 35 -310 or Section 35 -311, and which involves any of he following: o Sectio , incidental to the performance of the service; repair, service, or ai1s uf _tu act n which requires equipment other than that customarily found in a home; the rfing which the premises, at any one time, of not more than one -employment o on the premises; the teaching of more h on (1) but m •e person who is a nonresident of students an not more than four (4) nonresident Y given time or the need for not more tha z two (2) parking spaces in addition to spaces required for the persons residing on the premises; an activity: is clearly incidental and secondary to the residen al use of th d provided the including the dwelling, and permitted accessory buildings or instal a premises, does not produce light glare, noise ,., o lations thereon; cries of the premises; does not consist of overbthc�- copntee stible beyond the bound- duced off the premises. Examples inc eni lude: barber and beauty ales of merchandise services, shoe repair, r Photography studio, group lesions, saw sharpenin ' engine repair, and the like. p ng, motor - driven appliance and small Hotel - A building which provides a common entrance, lobby, and in which lodging is commonly offered with or wit h-o u t ' Y� d stairways, than a week, tnout meals for periods of less • 35 -900 CURRENT ORDINANCE from the center line o par y wa s separating two buildings. In articular floor areas' shall include: p g g particular "gross 1. Basement space, if at least fifty percent of its story height is above the average level of the finished g rade 2. Elevator shafts and stairwells at each floor. 3. Floor space used for mechanical equipment q pment where the structural headroom exceeds 7 -1/2 feet, except equipment, open or enclosed, located on the roof, i.e. , bulk needs, water tanks, and cooling towers. 4. Attic floor space where the structural headroom exceeds 7 -1/2 feet. 5. Interior balconies and mezzanines, where the structural headroom exceeds 7 -1/2 feet. 6. Enclosed porches, but not terraces and breezeways. 7. Accessory uses other than floor s pace devoted exclusively to accessory Off-street parking or loading. But shall not include the following: 1. Garages, open porches, and open patios. Floor /area ratio - The numerical value obtained through dividing the gross floor area o'f b lding or buildings by the total area of the lot or parcel of land on which such building is located. Garage, RqVate - An accessory building or an accessory portion of the dwelling building intended for or used to store private passenger vehicles of the families resident upon the premises and in which no business, service or industry connected directly or indirectly with automotive vehicles may be carried on. Garage - school bus - A building, or portion of a building, used for the storage of school buses defined in M.S.A. Section 169.01, Subdivision 6), or where any such vehicles are kept for remuneration or hire, excluding major repair of such vehicles. Green Strip - An area containing only vegetation such as grass flowers,hedges,and other related landscaping materials trees, , and maintained expressly for such purpose. Grou Care Facility - A facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare to provide child care for six or more children atone time. This term also includes, but is not limited to, facilities having programs for children known as nursery schools, day nurseries, child care centers, play groups, day care centers, cooperative day care centers and Head Start programs. Home Occupation - Subject to the further limitations of Secti the Zoning Ordinance, a Home Occupation is an on 35 -405 of carried on within a Dwelling Unit, by a family ember residing withinpaoDwelln' Unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the Dwelling Unit and the Lot upon which it is constructed, including without limitation, dressmaking. secretarial services, professional offices, answering services, individual music or art instruction, individual hobby crafts, and day care and similar activities. Home Occupation S ecial - Subject to the further limitations of Section 35 -406 hereof, and subject to approval by the City Council, a special home r ` 35 -900 occupation is any gainful. occupation or profession carried on within a Dwelling Unit or any permitted accessory buildings or installations on a Lot, by a family member residing within the Dwelling Unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the Dwelling Unit, the accessory structures, and the Lot upon which it is constructed, including, without limitation, barber and beauty services, shoe repair,. photography studios, group lessons, saw sharpening, motor driven appliances and small engine repair, and similar activities. Hotel - A building which provides a common entrance, lobby, and stairways, and in which lodging is commonly offered with or without meals for periods of less than a week. Loadin Space - A space accessible from a street, alley, or way in a building or a lot or t ee use of motor vehicles while loading or unloading merchandise or materials. Lot - A lot is a parcel or portion of land in a subdivision or plat of land, separatedfrom other parcels or portions by description, as on a subdivision or record of survey map, or by metes and bounds, for the purpose of sale or lease or separate use thereof. Lot Area - The area of a horizontal plane bounded by the front, side and rear lot lines. Lot, Corner - A lot at the junction of and abutting on two or more intersecting streets. Lot, Depth - The mean horizontal distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line of a lot measured within the lot boundaries. Lot, Interior A lot other than a corner lot. Lot Line - A property boundary line of any lot held in a single or separate ownership. Lot Line, Front- That boundary of a lot which is along an existing or dedicated street. n he case of corner lots, the zoning official shall determine, but only for the purpose of this ordinance, which lot line or lines shall be considered front lot lines; such determination shall not be construed as stating in which direction buildings shall face. In general, the narrower of the lines' abutting streets shall be the front line for the above stated purpose. Lot Line, Rear The boundary of a lot line which is most distant from and is approximately parallel to the front lot line. Lot Line, Side Any boundary of a lot which is not a front or rear lot line. Lot Width - The horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured at tie front yard setback line. Manufactured Home - A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with a permanent foundation when connected to required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning (if any) and electrical systems contained therein, except that the term includes any structure which meets all the requirements, and which bears the HUD seal of certification of compliance with the Federal standards as required by State law. Mass - Rubbing, stroking, kneading, tapping or rolling of the body of another with ' �e FHe hands for the exclusive purpose of physical fitness, relaxation, beautification and for no other purpose. 35-400 10. Setbacks along major thoroughfares as designated in Section 35 -900 shall in all cases be at least 50 feet, measured from the street right- of -way line, except for accessory structures in rear yards or where the property abuts a marginal access street or where the property abuts a noise wall or noise berm constructed by MN /DOT, or where the City Council finds that excess right -of -way mitigates the effects of traffic, noise, dust and fumes. In such cases the setback requirements shall be as contained in the Table of Minimum District Requirements. 11. Service /office (C1, C1 A) uses abutting major thoroughfares shall have a minimum lot area of one acre. 12. In instances where an existing one or two family structure in a residential zoning district is deficient in its setback from the front, side, or rear property line by not more than 30% of the setback requirement, the structure maybe expanded along the existing building line, provided there is no greater encroachment into the required yard area. This provision in no way permits the expansion of a conforming structure, resulting in a setback less than established by this ordinance. Section 35 -405. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS: I. No home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the lot. 2. No home occupation shall involve the use of any accessory structures or installations. to 3. No home occupation shall involve the use f Pa o equipment other than that customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. 4• No home occupation shall involve the retail sale of merchandise produced off the lot. 5. No home occupation shall involve the employment on the lot of persons who are not members of the family residing on the lot. 6. No home occupation providing day care shall serve more than ten (10) children, including children of the family occupying a dwelling unit in the R1 district, or five (5) children, including children of the family occupying a dwelling unit in other residential districts (R2 through R7). This subsection is not intended to supersede any lease arrangements which may be more restrictive. 7. No home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the lot containing the home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto. 8. No automobile parking related to the home occupation shall be permitted on the street. Section 35 -406. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS: 1.- All special home occupations shall require approval of a special use ermit pursuant to Section 35 -220 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 2._ No special home occupation shall use more than one accessory structure or installation and such structure or installation must be a permitted use under Section 35 -310 and Section 35 -311 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 1 35 -406 3. A special home occupation may use equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. 4. No special home occupation shall employ, at any one time, more than one person who is not a member of the family occupying *the dwelling unit. v 5• No special home occupation may include the teaching of more than ten (10) students at one time who are not members of the family occupying the dwelling unit. 6. No special home occupation cause traffic congestion on the lot • containing the special home occupation or on the streets adjacent` thereto. 7. No automobile parking related to the special home occupation shall be permitted on the street provided, however, that upon a finding that the special home occupation is not feasible without on street parking, the City Council may authorize parking on the street based upon a consideration of Section 35 -220.2 and of the following: a. The amount of the applicant's street frontage. b. The rights of adjacent residents to park on the street. c. Preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood. 8. No special home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the lot. 9• No special home occupation shall include the retail sale of merchandise produced off the lot. Section 35 -410. SPECIAL REQUIMIRTM, IN R3, R4, R5, R6 AND R7 DISTRICTS. 1. All storage shall be contained wholly within an enclosed building. 2. The incineration of waste matter shall be conducted *in approved equipment located within the building wherein the permitted use is .conducted. Equipment shall be considered "approved" when approved by the zoning official and sanitarian. 3. Where a proposed R3, R4, R5, R6, or R7 development abuts an R1 or R2 district other than at a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established. There shall be provided a protective strip not less than 25 feet wide in the case of R6 and R7 uses and not less than 15 feet wide in the case of F3, R4 and R5 uses. The protective strip shall contain an opaque fence or a Council approved substitute. The protective strip shall be landscaped and not be used for parking, garages, driveways, offstreet loading or storage. The screening device design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the multiple dwelling area. A proposed fence shall be no less than four feet in height and shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right- of-way.. t 1 Y He pointed out that the proposed addition would have no real impact on setbacks or parking requirements and that it was simply an addition to facilitate the flow of traffic through the drive -up. He asked the Commission to make a finding that this proposal did' not represent a significant addition or alteration to the building and does not need Planning Commission review. ACTION REGARDING MCDONALD'S ADDITION Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to find that the proposed addition of a pay window at the McDonald Is Restaurant is not a significant addition or alteration to the building and does not require Planning Commission or City Council review. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DR. L ESCAULT R ESIDENCE The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission a proposed addition to the residence at the southeast corner of 62nd Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard which is presently owned by Dr. Lescault. He explained that Dr. Lescault conducts a chiropractor home occupation within his dwelling. He explained that the original garage of the residence was converted to offices in 1975 and that the home occupation was considered at that time to be a professional office and, therefore, a permitted home occupation under Section 35 -900 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary explained that Dr. Lescault wishes to add two more offices and a dining room and garge to his dwelling. He explained that the residence has no garage at present and gains access off 62nd Avenue North. The Secretary stated that the real question is regarding the home occupation. He stated that such a medical use was a high traffic generator, certainly in the category of beauty shops and similar operations. He explained, however, that this use has been considered a professional office and, under the Zoning Ordinance, a permitted home occupation in the R1 zoning district. He asked the Commission for direction as to whether this use should:be looked at as a special use permit and whether the proposed addition would lead the home occupation to go beyond the point of being secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises. He also pointed out that an existing site plan of the property indicates that the proposed addition would encroach into a side interior setback and that if a building permit application were submitted, an as -built survey of the property would also be required to verify setback information. Commissioner Simmons stated that the plans seem to make the residence look like an Office with living quarters. The Secretary stated that he felt a doctor's office should be considered a special home occupation. He stated that the Commission could require that a special use permit application be submitted for the proposed addition and review the home occupation ordinance along with the home occupation at that time, or it could recommend that the staff simply find that the home occupation would no longer be secondary and incidental and let Dr. Lescault appeal such a finding. Commissioner Simrnons stated that it already looks like an extensive operation` within the home and that it would become more so with the addition. The Manning Assistant also pointed cut that the addition of more office space apart from the single- family dwelling might create the pos- sibility that the residence would be used as a two-family dwelling in the future, or even a boarding house. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the doctor's office should be considered a special use. 6- 14 -84• -12- e, Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt the doctor's proposal simply would not be an incidental use within the premises. Commissioner.Sandstrom stated that he felt the doctor's of'f'ice should be considered a special use and that the matter should be reviewed under a special use permit application, rather than denied by staff and then appealed. The Planning CorrLnission and planning staff discussed the option of an appe._il or a special use permit application and eventually decided that the proper procedure would be to take a special use permit application. ADJOURP119ENT Notion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:28 p.m. Chairman 6 -14 -84 -13- June 26, 1934 Dr. John B. Lescault , 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Re: Home Occupation for Chiropractor's Office Dear Dr. Lescault: This letter is to confirm to you in writing what I stated to you over the phone on June 26, 1904 regarding the zoning interpretation of your proposed expansion for two additional treatment roo;as and a bathroom as part of your home occupation. Briefly, I informed you that such an expansion would require that you seek special use permit approval for an enlargement of your home occupation. I also conveyed to you that members of the Planning Coamission and the staff have serious reservations as to whether the resulting space for the home occupation would be consistent with the ordinance definitions for a home occupation and with a single- family use of the .premises generally. I acknowledged to you that, in the past, your home occupation has been considered a permitted home occupation under the category of a "professional office. However, it is the judgement of the staff and of the Planning Commission, at this time, that your home occupation is more similar in its land use effects to those home occupations classified in our ordinance as special home occupations than to those classified as permitted. This is because your home occupatfon occupies a considerable portion of your home and because it generates as much or more traffic than those home occupations classified as special uses. I am enclosing, for your information, a copy of those sections of the City Zoning Ordi•rance pertaining to home occupations, a Planning Corinissidn Application, the Standards for a Special Use Permit, and a copy of the Planning Coxmission minutes pertaining to the discussion regarding this matter at its June 14, 1984 meeting. Along with an application form, and a fee of $50.00 you should submit a letter pro - viding your arguments as to why you feel the special use permit shoLild be granted and the following informational items: Dr. John Lescault Page 2 June 26, 1934 -_ Location in the home of the activity -Are'a devoted to home occupation /Area of dwelling Description of hoime occupation activity -Hours of operation - Parking space available on site - Safety measures, such as fire extinguisher -deans of ingress and egress Whether you have or desire to have a nonresident employee -A survey of your property showing location of the existing house (this is primarily for building permit evaluation) -A-floor plan of the proposed addition (if changed from the existing proposal). These items must be submitted at least two weeks prior to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission. If you wish to appeal the determination contained in this letter, you may file an appeal by filling out the same application form, paying a fee of $25.00, and submit- ting your arguments in writing at least two weeks prior to•a regular meeting of the Planning Commission in the manner prescribed in Section 35 -251 (attached). If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact either myself or the Director of Planning and Inspection, Ronald Marren, at this office. Sincerely yours, Gary Shallcross Planning Assistant GS.:mlg cc: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection File ' Enclosures DR. JOHN B. LESCAULT, D.C. 6142 BROOKLYN BLVD. BROOKLYN CENTER. MINN. 55429 TELEPHONE: 566.9330 a July 10, 1984 City of Brooklyn Center Attention: Gary Shallcross, Planning Assistant 6301 Shingle Creek Parkwa y Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Gary: As per your letter of June 26, 1984 requesting additional information in reference to my application for expansion and remodeling of a home office operation in the city of Brooklyn Center, I submit the following: - The location in the home of the activity as per your request would be as per the plan submitted. The area devoted to the home occupation would also be as per the plan submitted. The description of the home occupation activity of course would be a chiropractic office. The hours of operation are 9 to 6 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. No hours on Thursday and Saturday. - The parking space available on the sight is as per the certified survey submitted, but is in general a four car parking lot. - The safety measures such as a fire extinguisher I would leave up to the discretion of the inspector. The means of ingress and egress would be according to the detail plans submitted. - Regarding the question of whether I desire to have a non resident employee or would it be my desire sometime in the future to have a non resident employee: Part of my tenative plan is to bring in an intern from our local college. I guess we could say that the rest of the questions relative to the struc- ture are answered in the building plans. If you have any further questions please contact me. Sincerely, J hn B. Lescault, D.C. JBL:PMS:raj MINUI :S OF THE PROCFF.D 1J(;S OF THE PLANNING CONMISSIOPI OF' THE CITY OF' UROOKLYn CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 26, 1984 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom, and Mike Nelson.. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 12, 1984 Motion by hommissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the July 12, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Simmons. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 84024 AND 84025 (Dr. John Lescault) Following th Ce hairman Pro tem's explanation, the secretary introduced the first two items of business, a request for special use permit approval to expand an existing chiropractors office home occupation at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard and a request for a variance from Section 34 -140 of the Sign. Ordinance to allow a 24 sq. ft. home occupation sign at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information. Sheet for Application Nos. 84024 and 84025 attached). Commissioner Malecki noted the statement in the staff report regarding the requirement for a six stall parking lot and that these stalls meet ordinance requirements for size and driving lanes, etc. She stated that this sounded like the requirements applied to commercial developments and wondered whether such requirements applied to residential uses. The Secretary responded affirmative, noting that parking beyond what is located in a residential driveway would have to meet greenstrip requirements. He stated that the figure of six parking stalls was derived from using the medical formula for the space that would be devoted to the home occupation with the proposed expansion. He noted that there was also a requirement for two additional stalls for the residential use for a total of eight parking spaces. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Dr. Lescault pointed out that a medical use is not usually a solo doctor and he questioned whether the City's ordinance formula for medical uses was an appropriate measure of his parking requirement. The Secretary pointed out that the ordinance formula is based on the floor area devoted to medical use. There followed a brief discussion regarding the stalls that are available on the site of the home occupation. Dr. Lescault stated that he was trying to conform to the handicapped code through his building addition and modifications. He explained that he owned the lot to the east of his residence, but added that he is not building his addition in order to expand his business. Regarding the Sign Variance application, he 1 -26 -84 _1_ state] th'i',: the of thF. :airr' was simply based on an estimr.;te rri,ven 1,y a salesman and that he ,x)uld be content with a somewhat smaller sign, as long as it was larger than 2 112 sq. ft. Dr. Lescault pointed out that tie was recently unable to obtain an FHA or VA mortgage on his home because the property is not considered to be conducive to residential use. In response to a question from Chairman Pro tem Hanson regarding the small room adjacent to the existing offices, Dr. Lescault explained that that space was presently used as an office for his wife who is his secretary. He explained that he wanted to make that room larger and make it into a handicapped accessible bathroom. Commissioner Simmons expressed concern regarding the home occupation.. She stated that the existing home occupation already occupied more than 1/3 of the dwelling and that it would occupy even more with the expansion. Dr. Lescault questioned these percentages and there followed a brief discussion of the area devoted to the home occupation. Commissioner Simmons noted that Dr. Lescault would be adding an intern and that, with an additional person, he would be able to treat more people, generating more traffic, and increasing the commercial nature of the property. Dr. Lescault responded that it is important to train young doctors. He noted that he attends various schools around the country about one week out of every month. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that most of the proposed addition is for the home occupation and that Dr. Lescault is intending to increase the percentage of the dwelling devoted to the home occupation. Dr. Lescault stated that he was simply building to meet the need for space with his existing clientele, that he did not intend to bring in more business. Commissioner Sandstrom, noting that the Comprehensive Plan calls for eventual reuse of this area of the boulevard for office use, suggested that perhaps the expansion of this home occupation is a starting point in the conversion of this area to commercial use. The Secretary responded that the Comprehensive Plan specifically recommends that conversion to commercial use should not be accomplished through house conversions, but through the clearing of lard, the assembling of parcels, and the building of larger commercial developments. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the acquisition costs of houses along Brooklyn Boulevard is too high. The Secretary agreed, but added that the proposed addition to Dr. Lescault's residence would simply add to those acquisition costs. He explained that the City did not rezone land along Brooklyn Boulevard to C1 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted because the City wished to allow homes along the Boulevard to expand and not be subject to the full force of the nonconforming se section of n' g the Zoning n .g Ordinance. In response to another other question from Commissioner Sandstrom the Secretary explained that home occupations are to be a limited use of residential premises. He pointed out that residential districts are to be clearly residential in nature and that home occupations are tolerated as a limited commercial use within a residential district. The Secretary stated that the applicant, to some extent, wanted to have the best of both worlds, to be both commercial and residential. Commissioner Sandstrom argued that a controlled expansion of a home occupation on Brooklyn Boulevard was consistent with a conversion to commercial use in the future. The Secretary pointed out that a commercial use along a major thoroughfare must have a minimum of one acre of land and that Dr. Lescault's residence does not meet that requirement. Dr. Lescault pointed out that the one acre requirement came into effect after he had bought his residence. He explained that he has acquired one lot to the east of his residence. He stated that he did not think a conversion of the property would take 7 -26 -84 -2- place for another 8 or 9 years. lhu :;euretary resp Lhat the City is looking at the peissibilityof adopting a redevelorjncnt policy which could possibly be geared toward, among ether things, the acquisition of nonconforminghrxnes along Brooklyn Boulevard and the preparation of land for commercial development. Dr. Lescault stated that he was not intending to expand, but wished to expand the structure in order to provide more comfort in his work environment. He added that he was not looking to acquire more land. Commissioner Simmons told Dr. Lescault that he was asking the Commission to allow the expansion of an already large home occupation. She pointed out that there 4muld be an additional employee and that more business would result. She pointed out that the letter accompanying the sign variance application indicated an interest in drawing more customers, not simply identifying the business. Dr. Lescault answered that he didn't know how to differentiate between those two functions. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that not all buildings are suited for medical uses. Commissioner Simmons answered that it was certainly possible to find office space somewhere for the chiropractic use. Commissioner Nelson stated that, without a plan for redevelopment, property owners were looking at the need to convert land to commercial use overnight through a complete change in the use of the property. He stated that this did not seem to be in line with reality. He suggested that the expansion of the home occupation could be considered as the beginning of a conversion to commercial use. He also noted that the Doctor does own the adjacent lot and could perhaps someday put together the one acre required. The Planning Assistant recommended against this approach. He stated that the ultimate conversion of the existing residence to a commercial use was too uncertain at this time and pointed out that the expansion of the dwelling might complicate such a conversion. He urged the Commission to look at the application as a home occupation in light of the City's ordinances regarding home occupations. He recommended that the Commission ignore the Brooklyn Boulevard location, noting that the existing situation does not conform with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan or the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for commercial uses on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stressed that the property was still a single- family use in an R1 zone and must be treated as such until a redevelopment plan in accordance with City policy is presented. Chairman Pro tem Manson agreed that the application had to be considered in light of the ordinance requirements governing home occupations. Dr. Lescault stated that he would eventually have to sell the property and that it would be his problem if he made an expansion to the property which would make it difficult for him to sell. He explained that he could not sell the property for residential use since he could not get a mortgage through FHA or VA to use the property as a residence. Chairman Pro tem Manson acknowledged the point about private risk, but stated that the City would have to face the same type of questions in other neighborhoods that are clearly residential districts. PUBLIC HEARING (Application. Nos. 84024 and 84025) Chairman Pro tern Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the special use permit application and the sign variance application submitted by Dr. Lescault. She asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Mr. Harold Schuller of 6136 Brooklyn. Boulevard stated that he was concerned about how his property would be affected, but added that Dr. Lescault was an excellent 7 -26 -84 -3- neighbor. He stated he was much better off having; Dr. Lescault next to him than a Burger Wing. Chairman Pro tem i';anson asked whether anyone else wished to speak. Hearing none, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Ainas stated that the Commission was faced with a` situation where it could grant a special use permit for the home occupation, but that the expansion of the office portion of the dwelling would make it no longer an incidental and secondary use to the residential use of the premises. He recommended that the staff prepare a draft ordinance stipulating a maximum area in terms of square footage or in terms of rooms which a home occupation can occupy within a dwelling. Commissioner Simmons and Malecki both agreed with the recommendation of Commissioner Ainas. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84024 (Dr. Lescault) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner I'lalecki to recommend approval of Application No. 84024, subject to the following findings, conditions and considerations: 1. Special use permit approval is deemed necessary for the home occupation in question in light of the following factors: a, the extent of the home occupation use within the dwelling unit b. the level of traffic generated by the home occupation c. the use of equipment not normally found in a residential dwelling unit d. the employment on the premises of one nonresident employee 2. Special use permit approval is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3• The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 4. Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the premises of not more than one nonresident employee. 5. A chemical fire extinguisher shall be installed in the area of the home occupation. 6. The hours of operation shall not be later than 6:OO p.m., with no hours on Sunday. 7. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off— street on improved space on the applicant's property. 8. Special use permit approval acknowledges use of the five rooms in the southerly portion of the residence, an area of approximately 545 sq. ft. for the home occupation use. 7 -26 -84 -4- r , 9. Special use permit - specifically forbids the expansion Of the dvr� or any accessory structure or use of other space than that outlined in Condition NO. 8 above to be used for the home occupation on the grounds that such expansion of the use cannot be justified under the standards contained in Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all sigrery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. While the motion was on the floor, there was a discussion as to its implications. Commissioner Ainas explained that the motion would approve the home occupation as is with the addition of one outside employee, but that the expansion of space devoted to the home occupation would not be allowed. The Secretary further explained that the addition of a nonresident employee to a home occupation requires an amendment to or a new special use permit. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. MOTION RECOM1 STUDY Cornmisslorer Sandstrom then moved that the Commission recommend to the Council that there be a study of Brooklyn Boulevard to find ways of putting properties along the Boulevard to fuller and better use. The motion died for lack of a second. Regarding the sign variance request, Commissioner Malecki asked how the limitation of 2.5 sq. ft. had come into effect. Commissioner Ainas explained that 2.5 sq. ft. is 18" x 20" and that this is the standard size for small commercial signs. Commissioner Malecki observed that there were 8 other home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard that were abiding by this provision of the Sign Ordinance. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 8 (Dr. Lescault) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial of Application No.- 814025 on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Ordinance Variance were not met in this case. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners h ;alecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. {'larinirig Cunoui;,ion InfurflidLion Shcct App ic:at ion No. 84024 Applicant: Dr. John B. Lescault - Location: 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to expand the space devoted to a chiropractor's offices within the residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west, by 62nd Avenue North on the north, and by other single- family residences on the east and south. A chiropractor's office has been judged by the Commission in its discussion of June 14, 1984 to be a special home occupation. This determination was conveyed to the applicant in a letter dated June 26, 1984 (attached). The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) and site survey and building plans describing the home occupation and the proposed addition. Dr. Lescault states that his hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday with no hours Thursday or Saturday. He also states that he desires to bring in a nonresident employee who would be an intern from a local college. The rest of the information requested is contained in the site and building plans submmitted. The proposed additions include a 14' x 36' addition to the dwelling (14' x 23' 6" for the chiropractor offices and 14' x 12' 6" for a dining room) and a 14' x 26' deck along the east side of the house; also a 24' x 26' attached garage to the north side of the house. The use of the residence s deuce breaks down as follows: Dwelling Basement Office Garage Existing .989 09 545 7 0 Proposed 1164 1092 874 624 The chiropractic offices are located at the south end of the residence in an area that was formerly a two -car attached garage. Access to the offices is presently from the west or Brooklyn Boulevard side of the property. The proposed plan would add a door and hallway to the east side. Dr. Lescault's letter indicates parking for four spaces. It should be noted that the four stalls do not meet ordinance requirements for stall size and driving lanes. Moreover, the parking.requirement for 874 sq. ft. of medical space is six stalls rather than four. In addition, two spaces are required for the residential use. It is also questionable whether a six stall parking lot, meeting ordinance requirements for greenstrips, parking spaces and driving lanes can be provided on the site without eliminating the proposed garage or the granting of variances. The difficulty for this site in providing adequate parking space based on ordinance requirements can be construed as a failure to meet standard (d) of the Standards for Special Use Permits (attached) regarding ingress, egress and parking. It also has implications for standard (e) regarding compliance with applicable regulations, inasmuchas the lack of required parking may well lead to on- street parking which is generally, though not totally, prohibited by Section 35 -405 and 406 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The only instances where on- street parking has been allowed have been home occupations for group instruction. Beauty shops and other operations similar to Dr. Lescault's have been required to have off- street parking, 7 -26 -84 -1- d� App I i co L ion iir,. 84004 c.un i, i riued As to the ether Standard) for a Special Use Perri n, staf have no cuncerns about stardard regarding public health, safety, morals or comfort. Neither does there seem to be an unacceptable impact on the use or value of neighboring property. As to standard (c) regarding the effect on the normal and orderly development of neighboring property, it must be noted that'the surrounding lots are presently developed. However, the City's Comprehensive Plan recommends eventual conversion of this area to a service - office use. While the proposed expansion is to some extent consistent with that use, it also complicates the clearing of a minimum of one acre of land for an office use on a major thoroughfare. The expansion may, therefore, impede.. the redevelopment of this area. Aside from the Standards for a - Special Use Permit, staff have serious reservations as to whether the home occupation, especially with the expansion, can be considered to fall within the ordinance definition of a home occupation as "incidental and secondary to the residential use of the Dwelling Unit." Most home occupations involve the use of one room on the main floor or in the basement or half of a garage. The exist - ing home occupation involves five rooms and, with the expansion would involve seven. The existing home occupation involves 35.5% of the dwelling space on the main floor. With the expansion, it would occupy 42.91 of the dwelling space on the main floor. While the home occupation would not become the dominant use of space, we feel it could no longer be considered an incidental and secondary use within the dwelling unit. The companion Sign Ordinance variance application serves as a further con- firmation of this judgment. The Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly define what "incidental and secondary" means. It may be that some additional language should be added to Sections 35 -405 and 35 -406 clarifying the maximum space of permissible home occupation activity. Some home occupations do involve considerable space in a basement area, but usually in one large room. It may be that a limit on square footage or percentage of floor area would be appropriate. Another method might simply limit the number of rooms devoted to a home occupation. In every case we can think of, two rooms would easily suffice. However, such a limit would make Dr. Lescault's operation nonconforming in its present status. Still, such a limit may be the simplest and most flexible standard to apply. The Commission may, of course,reject the suggestion of an ordinance clarification of "incidental and.secondary" preferring to make a judgment on a case -by -case basis. Either way, we feel the line should be drawn, relative to the current situation, to allow no more than the existing home occupation. This is simply a case where a home occupation has grown to a point where it should find an appropriate commercial location. Our ordinance should not be construed as encouraging home occupations, but rather as acknowledging and limiting them to being incidental to the residential use of property and tolerating them under certain specific conditions. In light of the above concerns, we do not recommend approval of the proposed expansion of the home occupation. The expansion of the residence, garage and deck are, however, permitted. There are other aspects of the special use permit which may be approved and we recommend consideration of the following findings, stipulations and conditions in conjunction with this application: I. Special use permit approval is deemed necessary for the home occupation in question in light of the following factors: a. the extent of the home occupation use within the dwelling unit b. the Level of traffic generated by the home occupation C. the use of equipment not normally found in a residential dwelling unit 7 -26 -84 -2- App I i(,a t, I'm ilk). 84024 r.ont i r;uf_(i d. the employment on the premises of r o r n n e non-resident ee ern to P Y 2. Special use permit approval is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and an violation thereof shall y o sha be g rounds for revocation. 3.-. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 4. Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the premises of not more than one nonresident employee. 5. A chemical fire extinguisher shall be installed in the area of the home occupation. 6. The hours of operation shall not be later than 6:00 p.m., with no hours on Sunday. 7. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - street on improved space on the applicant's property. 8. Special use permit approval acknowledges use of the five rooms in the southerly portion of the residence, an area of approximately 545 sq. ft. for the home occupation use. 9. Special use permit approval specifically forbids the expansion of the dwelling or any accessory structure or use of other space than that outlined in Condition No. 8 above to be used for the home occupation on the grounds that such expansion of the use cannot be justified under the standards contained in Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. If the Commission is inclined to agree with the conclusions stated above, it might be procedurally more correct to request the drafting of a resolution outlining he 9 facts in this case, recommended findings, and denial of the portion of the application involving the structural expansion of the home occupation. 7 -26 -84 -3- r L �innissron- fr,(orni,rf:ron �ht_ct Application Pao. 84025 Applicant: Dr.John Lescault Location: 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from Section 34 -140 Subsection 3. - C.1. to allov a 4' x 6'' 24 sq. ft. illuminated sign for the chiropractor's office in the residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Sign Ordinance allows home occupation signs to be no larger than 2.5 square feet. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the north by 62nd Avenue North, and on the east and south by single- family residential homes. This application pertains to the same home occupation addressed under Application No. 84024. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he makes his arguments as to why the variance should be granted. He states that a hardship exists because new patients generally continue down Brooklyn Boulevard to the dental professional building because they cannot see the sign and have to walk back up the street to the Lescault residence. He also states that the larger sign "would not be detri- mental to adjacent property owners and would be in good taste since Brooklyn Boulevard for all practical purposes is a commercial street." He adds that the sign would give his office exposure to passing traffic and that passersby would be able to remember the location in the event of future need of care. Variances from the Sign Ordinance may be granted when strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circum- stances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration. The provisions of the ordinance, considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances related to the property or uses thereof must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demon- stration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 1. A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out; 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique t q o the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally to other property or uses thereof within the same zoning 1 o g c assification; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. With respect to hardship, it is felt that the amount of si ner g y permitted under the Sign Ordinance for home occupations is adequate and appropriate for the scale of operations envisioned by the Zoning Ordinance as permitted or special home occupations. It should be noted that Dr. Lescault has been in business for at least 8 years. Con - sidering his operation survives well enough on a four day week, it does not seem that the lack of signery has thus far resulted in undue hardship. 7 -26 -84 -1- ` App i(.ai,ioll iiO. <'40? The circum of thi app! i(.,)Lion a home occupation on (,rooklyn Boulevard are certainly not unique. There are a minimum of 8 home.occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard and none have been granted a variance fora larger home occupation sign. Certainly all of these would have justification for a variance should this appli- cation be approved; and other home occupations on major thoroughfares or collector streets ~Mould have equal right to a variance. In short, there are few home occupations for which equal or stronger arguments could not be made that a variance is justified. The Brooklyn Boulevard location, after all, is an advantage. Perhaps home occupations in quiet neighborhoods should be entitled to greater signery. Al- lowing greater signery to home occupations should be accomplished, if at all, through an ordinance amendment rather than by variance. We do not recommend any ordinance change. Limitations on this type of signery are as much a matter of community taste as a matter of protection of property values. With respect to detriment on neighboring properties, it should be borne in mind that a general lessening of controls on signs throughout the community could well lead to diminition of property values by lessening the residential character of neighborhoods. Although the neighborhood in question is not particularly residential, we feel the granting of a variance in this situation would eventually erode the protection of neighborhoods that are clearly residential. In light of the above, it is recommended that this application be denied on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Variance are not met. 7 -26 -84 -2 Mayor Nyquist questioned whether the $750 per month operational cost would be an ongoing cost. The Director of Public Works explained the cost would be ongoing and that the same amount of information obtained manually would require additional E.. personnel, but that the cost of the new system would be higher than the cost of the .manual information the City is currently generating. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the long term pay back in terms of dollars. The Director of Public Works replied that currently the City spends between $100,000 to $150,000 for new equipment annually, and that the equipment maintenance cost is approximately $300,000 per year. He added that a savings of 57 would provide a pay back almost immediately and that the City should be able to expect a 5% savings with the new system. Councilmember Theis inquired whether the system was interfaced with the computerized gas pumps and whether or not the system would interface with the City's accounting system. The Director of Public Works explained the equipment management system is interfaced with the accounting system and as an example the system could generate purchase orders. He also noted that the cost of gas, labor and parts could be entered through the microprocessor. Councilmember Scott inquired if there was any problem with future time availability on the computer as other cities come on to the system. The Director of Public Works explained that this was a concern of the Public Works Directors and that LOGIS had assured the City there is adequate time, even with other cities coming on line in the future. Councilmember Hawes asked how many vehicles would be covered by the system. The +�^+ Director of Public Works explained that the vehicles range from light to heavy and run from lawnmowers to squad cars all the way up to heavy equipment. He added that the system could also be applied to the City's lift stations. Initially, he stated 150 units would be put on the system with eventually as many as 250 to 300 units. The Council continued its discussion of the proposal and expressed certain concerns over the cost of the program. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he feels cost is a big factor and that he currently does not have enough information to justify the purchase of the microprocessor. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to table consideration of the Resolution Approving Purchase of a Microprocessor for Use by the Vehicle Maintenance-Division until the August 20, 1984 City Council meeting to allow staff more time to prepare additional information for the City Council. PLANNING COMXISSION APPLICATION NO. 84024 SUBMITTED BY DR. JOHN B. LESCAULT FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CHIROPRACTOR'S OFFICE FImME OCCUPATION Ai' 6 1 2 C1T0 KLYN E ULEVARD PLANNING COi:t ISSION APPLICATION NO. 84025 S10- 'ITTED BY DR. JOHN B. LF.SCAULT FOR A VARIANCE I kc, Si:C'I'ION 34 -i OF THE SIGN ORbiN"N'CE TO ALLOT! A 214 "0. FT. ?iOME o i 42 LT 7.i:. — YN i.(A!L;-.VARi.: The Director oi' Planning & ln. pre: unted and reviewed for C(.)uncil rnerr,i,ers pat l thrutil;h 5 of the July 19'.4 1)1;:rininil mv_-cting minute-, ;,nd the Pl.innin;, ( : c,rnmi ssicn inf'ormntion :Jjeet prepared for Application Ifo. 8 Ike :.r, -1 t,c;t.od th;A, tl (. E;- reel was zoned R1. Ile expl.nined the home occupation has been conducted at thf-- location since 1701 under an rjdviini. ;tr�:tive ruling indicnti.nr, that it wa:; a permitt-d use. The Director of Planning noted that since 1974 various (Tanning Comission and City Council ruling ;s have placed chiropractor's office under the horse occupation requirements of the City zoning ordinance. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the applicant's letter, site survey and building plans describing the home occupation and the proposed addition. He also noted that Dr. Lescault desires to bring in a nonresident employee who would be an intern from a local college. The Director of Planning then reviewed a transparency showing the proposed expansion. He also reviewed the parking requirements for the site. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that, following a public hearing on the application at which a neighbor of Dr'. Lescault spoke, the Planning Commission acted on the application. He explained the Planning Commission at its August 9, 1984 meeting recommended approval of Application No. 84024, subject to ten findings, conditions and considerations which he reviewed for Council members. The Director of Planning & Inspection next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 84025 and noted that the applicant was requesting a variance from the City sign ordinance. He noted the applicant was requesting approval of a variance from Section 34 - 140 to allow a 4' by 6' 24 sq. ft. illuminated sign for the chiropractor's office in the residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. He added the City sign s ft. He next ordinance allows home occupation ation si ns to be no lar g er than 2.5 q reviewed the standards for a variance specified in the City's zoning ordinance. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that at the Planning Commission, after a public hearing on Application No. 84025, recommended denial of the application on the grounds that the standards fora sign ordinance variance were not met in this case. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that a public hearing on the applications is required and that the applicant is present this evening. Mayor Nyquist expressed a concern that the Council is faced with a dilemna in that logic indicates that the area in question is different from a typical residential zone. However, he pointed out the zone is R1 and it is apparent to him that the City should look into developing a policy on redevelopment. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the Planning Commission has not made any recommendations against the residential expansion in this case, only for the home occupation expansion. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application Nos. 84024 and 84025, and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the hearing. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant Dr. Lescault who stated he believes his house meets all the setback requirements and that he did not anticipate having quite such a problem when he submitted this application. He added that he is building the expansion for convenience and that he is a small "mom and pop" operation. He also noted he lacks sufficient land to be able to request commercial zoning. He stated he knows that the letter of law must be applied evenly, however, he believed his 8 -6 -84 -5- request would create a different situation in a more quiet residential area as opposed to Brooklyn Loulevard. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else 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 Planning Commission Application Nos. 84024 and 84025. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the status of property on Brooklyn Boulevard regarding commercial versus residential uses. The Director of Planning & Inspection replied that the City's Comprehensive Plan has some specific recommendations for this area and that the Planning Commission recommends conversion of Dr. LescaultIs property and the surrounding property to a C1 zone. He added the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the need for changes in land use but does not take any action to change it. He explained the City's current role is one of reacting to proposals for development and that the other alternative would be for the City to take a more proactive role in redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Application No. 84024, subject to the following findings, conditions and considerations: 1. Special use permit approval is deemed necessary for the home occupation in question in light of the following factors: a. the extent of the home occupation use within th unit p e dwelling b. the level of traffic generated by the. home occupation c. the use of equipment not normally found in a residential dwelling unit d. the employment on the premises of one nonresident employee 2. Special use permit approval is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3• The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 4. Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the premises of not more than one nonresident employee. 5. A chemical fire extinguisher shall be installed in the area of the home occupation. G. The hours of operation shall not be later than 6:00 p.m., with no hours on Sunday. r r ,a 7. A],[ p:jrk ...;'ir:i:A,,.- -! on S Lt t ct on €iro )City. t. 8. Special use permit approval ackn ;wle-11t use of the five morns in the southerly portion of the re:;ide!rice, an area of approximritely 545 sq. ft. for the home occupation use. -' q. Special use permit approval specifically forbids the expansion of the dwelling or any accessory structure or use of other space than that outlined in Condition No. 8 above to be used for the home • occupation on the grounds that such expansion of the use cannot be justified under the standards contained in Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. In discussion of the motion, Councilmember Hawes stated he believes this.home occupation has gone beyond the scope of home occupations, and that he believes the Council should seriously look at the definition of what a home occupation is. Councilmember Theis stated that he agrees with the motion but that the area is certainly not a residential area. Upon a vote being taken on the motion, the following voted in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting .against: none. The -� motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to deny Application No. 84025 on the grounds that the standards for a sign ordinance variance are not met in this case. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION ON REDEVELOPMENT POLICY Were was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to authorize the staff to proceed on the preparation of a Redevelopment Policy for Brooklyn Boulevard. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. '�:'�° • .,�'�er µ �`,.;. �'t34e t fir ) .e - T C GAR SCHOOLl. 4 W POE 1 1- a ;. RLIr': ,, .�' a4 O'kJEIIRY ROAD 1 v 1 (" ' 77 1 ; TA 1 ±JOYDF; -s. rT p `'2p L A ^ E - - --� ApPI i cati on No 0;l C2 84024 and 84025 1` i t i C/ ¢ gip. �) < --` - ' `� ILA f V i� •1 �� i A N, �N T f �si AVE 61ST j 'N F T: DOR FO TH AV E � E � . i //'�_ /':�- ,�- .r.r- ----y -.��. i .tom, i" _ . r N O R T,y - _�- _ C2 8 TH 1 i LA 1 l c 2 57' C � 1 r CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY • Denotes Found monumn t r }Or' e 0 Den..tes iron Manucent Set JOEi': LESCAULT Bearings Shown Are On An Assumed Datum. r . a 62nd AVENUE NORTH n , 1 bl v d _ `\ �� • (' J CC ell ti 7Z 2B � "`'' _ �Ufi /ifits Ease.»enfJ F . i All that part of the following described lot: Lot 6, Block 3, "Lawnrid •^ . flenne . g� pin County, State of Siinnekottl except c _ a pt that pest thereof, which lie of a line run southwest Parallel with and d'ti , cant 4l feet northeasterly of the following described line: From a point on the north line of section 3, townslup 118 north, range 21, west, distant 1741.08 feet west of the northeast corner thereof, run southeasterly at an angle of 68 01' 52.3" with said north section line for 104.54 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 17 20' 35.2" for 536.92 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run northwesterly along the last described course for 100 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 2 00' (delta angle 17 20' 35.2 ") for 867.IG feet; thence deflect to the left on a 0 15' curve (delta angle l 29' 54.8 ") for 599.42 feet ' and there terminating; and except a triangular northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning atn point i heusterty of the above e . di n t strip and southeasterly of its intersection with the northerly line of said thence run northeasterly t to it point on said na therly line, distant 30 feet easterly of said intersection; according to the plat thereof on rile or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in rind for said County. ' role: I ": 20 1 hereby certify that ilia survey, Nan. a reporP vvas Prepared h , wk W4 or under my dwact vVerv.rolt one that f am o e1,ly wq�areree E.G. RUD a SONS, INC '9' a Lar4 Survey" wtdw ft loin , of pr State of• umm* o LAND SURVEYORS ' 9560 Lexagton Avenue ft 7b N0 A_� /?P rte.... ( Now BrphtOn (twn9ton) Mn ' ► "< `• OoV `f' - c 4 '4 .ftti 55112 - f 5:..e �;.. •�'. - 4 �-t y;��_• .Ys '"`v, e Too. 71!6 - 4YJi +�SSaiw - x ..rt kG�i -y {cnr°.�'w,+riil� ia Y � 4 } �c;`�i -c- L I , 0 r ; • 'ter ;�i ��• ern. '; f i ! w �� 35 -300 I. Residence R1 One family residence R2 Two family residence R3 Multiple family residence (townhouse /garden apartment) R4 Multiple family residence (1 -1/2 and 2 story) R5 Multiple family residence (2 -1/2 and 3 story) R6 Multiple family residence (4 and 5 story) R7 Multiple family residence (6 stories or more) 2. Commerce C1 Service /office C1A Service /office C2 Commerce 3. Industry I -1 Industrial Park I -2 General Industry 4. Open Space 0-1 Public open space reserved 0-2 Public and private open space reserved The location and boundaries of the districts established by this ordinance are set forth in Sections 35 -1100, 35- 1110, 35- 1120, 35- 1 35 -1140, 35 -1150 35 -1160 35 -1170, 35 -1180, 35- 1190 35 -1200, 35 -1210, 35 -1220, 35 -1230. Unless otherwise indicated by relation to established lines; points, or features, the district boundary lines are the centerlines of streets, alleys, or railroad rights -of -way, existing or extended. Section 35 -310. R1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses a One family dwellings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or 35 -310 f A industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces. - 3. Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the following limitations: aa. The ground coverage of any single accessory building shall be no greater than 1,000 square feet. bb. No more than two accessory structures shall be permitted on any one residential premises. cc. The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building. 4. Public recreational structures in parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 5. Playground equipment and installatins, including private swimming pools and tennis courts. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 7. Signs as permitted by the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 8. A temporary real estate tract office for the purpose of selling lots on the tract upon which it is located. 9. The renting of not more than two sleeping rooms by a resident family, provided adequate offstreet parking is provided. 10. Tents, stands and other temporary structures for churches, charities, carnivals and similar purposes as provided by Section 35-800 of these ordinances. 11. Rummage sales as defined in Section 35 -900. 2. Special Uses a, Chapels, churches, temples and synagogues, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. b. Public and private elementary and secondary schools offering a regular course of study accredited by the Minnesota Department of Education, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. 35 -310 c. Golf courses and accessory buildings essential to the operation of a golf course. d. Cemeteries. e. Publicly -owned structures, other than poles and underground • facilities in easements or in rights -of -way of public streets or alleys. f. Special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900• g. Other, noncommercial uses required for the public welfare in an R1 district, as determined by the City Council. Section 35 -311• R2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 1. Permitted Uses a. One and two family dwellings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special g p a1 uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory use. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: g 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Renting of not more than two indoor kin s Pte' g Pa ces. 3• Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the following limitations: aa. The ground coverage of any single accessory building shall be no greater than 1,000 square feet. bb. No more than two accessory structures shall be permitted on any one residential premises. cc. The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building. 4• Public recreational structures in parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 5• Playground equipment and installations, including private swimming pools and tennis courts. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900• 35-400 M ' y 10. Setbacks along major thoroughfares as designated in Section 35 -900 shall in all cases be at least 50 feet, measured from the street right - of -way line, except for accessory structures in rear yards or where the property abuts a marginal access street or where the property abuts a noise wall or noise berm constructed by MN /DOT, or where the City Council finds that excess right -of -way mitigates the effects of traffic, noise, dust and fumes. In such cases the setback requirements shall be as contained in the Table of Minimum District Requirements. 11. Service /office (C1, C1 A) uses abutting major thoroughfares shall have a minimum lot area of one acre. 12. In instances where an existing one or two family structure in a residential zoning district is deficient in its setback from the front, side, or rear property line by not more than 30% of the setback requirement, the structure maybe expanded along the existing building line, provided there is no greater encroachment into the .required yard area. This provision in no way permits the expansion of a conforming structure resulting in a setback less than established by this ordinance. Section 35 -405. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS: 1. No home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the lot. 2. No home occupation shall involve the use of any accessory structures or installations. 3. No home occupation shall involve the r Pa use of equipment other than that customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. 4. No home occupation shall involve the retail sale of merchandise produced off the lot. 5. No home occupation shall involve the employment on the lot of persons who are not members of the family residing on the lot. 6. No home occupation providing day care shall serve more than ten (10) children, including children of the family occupying a dwelling unit in the R1 district, or five (5) children, including children of the family occupying a dwelling unit in other residential districts (R2 through R7). This subsection is not intended to supersede any lease arrangements which may be more restrictive. 7. No home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the lot containing the home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto. 8. No automobile parking related to the home occupation shall be permitted on the street. Section 35 -406. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS: 1. All special home occupations shall require approval of a special use ermit pursuant to Section 35 -220 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 2: No special home occupation shall use more than one accessory structure or installation and such structure or installation must be a permitted use under Section 35 -310 and Section 35 -311 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 35 -406 w, 3. A special home occupation may use equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. 4• No special home occupation shall employ, at any one time, more than one person who is not a member of the family occupying the dwelling unit. r 5. No special home occupation may include the teaching of more than ten (10) students at one time who are not members of the family occupying the dwelling unit. 6. No special home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the lot containing the special home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto. 7. No automobile parking related to the special home occupation shall be permitted on the street provided, however, that upon a finding that the special home occupation is not feasible without on street parking, the City Council may authorize parking on the street based upon a consideration of Section 35 -220.2 and of the following: a. The amount of the applicant's street frontage. b. The rights of adjacent residents to park on the street. c. Preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood. 8. No special home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the lot. 9• No special home occupation shall include the retail sale of merchandise ,produced off the lot. Section 35 -410. SPECIAL REQUIMIEMTS IN R3, R4, R5, R6 AND R7 DISTRICTS. 1. All storage shall be contained wholly within an enclosed building. 2. The incineration of waste matter shall be conducted in approved equipment located within the building wherein the permitted use is conducted. Equipment shall be considered "approved" when approved by the zoning official and sanitarian. 3. Where a proposed R3, R4, R5, R6, or R7 development abuts an R1 or R2 district other than at a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established. There shall be provided a protective strip not less than 25 feet wide in the case of R6 and R7 uses and not less than 15 feet wide in the case of R3, R4 and R5 uses. The protective strip shall contain an opaque fence or a Council approved substitute. The protective strip shall be landscaped and not be used for parking, garages, driveways, offstreet loading or storage. The screening device design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the multiple dwelling area. A proposed fence shall be no less than four feet in height and shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right- of-way. �► �� Ito �_ a� i� 1 y: R S� I_ 4 F -i • CITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING CREEK .. � OWN��.s , /one mill e • 1 �I N �, 1 � > . I - , �•�I /� goo 8• fum,nous - s72. (,PC.s. /sn) �R ep til NB4 °/S'39 "E 572.74(^/eas i � Y 0 FREEWAY -Z- SO mm NO m MIN mm IRK -AM NO MON NO ON ON an O� LIE IS �� ■s m® _ i mom mm WIN ■■ I ■m m■ ■■ ■, if li �s. .I. ;A " Mi AN ..ray - _3 ® ®,r11►� I N , ■� S PA ♦ ®�® .531 Avenue /Uo/ ElevafiO 846.3 Sca le In Fee vO 1X7,9JV HO[ F 0 20 40 60 80 ;a3 8 r) -ri/ if r) r',f"rlr'A/ fi 8 sr8 70 Ex�sr�NO e ¢3e x USE U� L / X 8gg n r) f� L� --lUorth /ine of Robert L, Hansen'.s Fir -st Add ition � 7 pIr L3.� �1 S A 8445 ZAA egp /0 I 3 I se t�lCe i� o PONDER A Qj on E v 15 91 l X n e� I j eg9q J � O x C� i - I —it/or t line of lot 4 g ° � X ..' i l off, all c /O 89 s-� l N. c L Soufh / /tee of N %z of /of 4, , 54- e, Aoier/ E. f/vnseo : Firs1� Addi�io/�. w'9r`'941,9 . 3 BUS 16121544-7f)19 LNND SMVEYORS Certificate of Survey SURVEYING d LAND PLANNING f tats NORTH LILAC DRIVE. GOLDEN VALLE r MN 55422 STEVE ^ 10 30 /33.45 F LJ .....3.5.0........ lz W- 4-4 o v as.o u x CO •o . � o lu N 1 h (� 0 x all a P�apased a lz tl I D z o I a, 1 p O ►. h I_ 46o N v -3 M �a� ! r' .:... _..3so....- ....,.� . o -moo I I_ ss �D 1i2e o/ /Y of io 30 � f !. flonsens 1 98£ DESCR1pn0AJ : d; �R fY O N AjorM %z OF lot 4 o od a// of C-' jF� M; NN. lot 5, block e, ROB L. fi �ti HRIVSEU'S FIRST ADDITIOIU, Hennepin County, M< n nesota . 944.z Denotes existing e/evo tion SC E : I 30' Denotes directron of drainage o Denotes iron lnonumcnt WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS; IF ANY THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND Doted th-s 27th dor of Llcknuo y A D. 19 ' Re ac ry Pao as�d Ju % ldi/g ono e ✓ :nfo. po'oed 1i / /,�d6' Job No. 2 l Book Page 6 b 7 h� Sec: 2 T. R Surveyor, Monnisoto Registration No 1129 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B TOO F BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 I(, �� TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE R EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: April 4, 1986 RE: Final Plat - Cook Estates Mr. Steven L. Cook, developer of the above - referenced plat, has petitioned City Council to approve the final plat of Cook Estates. The land is located in the 5300 block of Russell Avenue on the East side of the street across from Lions Park. The developer proposes to received preliminary and final plat approval on April 7, 1986. Conditions proposed for the preliminary plat are as follows: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The final plat shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits. -4. The existing sewer service to the half lots on the South side of the property (old legal description: North half of Lot 4, Block 2, Robert L. Hansen's 1st Addition) shall be disconnected at the main prior to issuance of the building permit unless separate sewer systems are provided for the two units. Conditions 1 and 2 have been met. Accordingly we recommend approval of final plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Receipt of a title opinion from the City Attorney confirming the appropriate parties responsible for signing the plat. 2. Execution of an agreement to provide for the removal of unused sanitary sewer service lines extended to the proposed plat. 3. Payment of all City Attorney fees incurred in the review of the plat. Respectfully submitted, Approved for submittal, ��Xnap H.R. Spurrier Sy p City Engineer Director of Public Works cc: Cook Estates File HRS : j n i N COOK ESTATES o Denotes iron monument - BeorIngs are shown on an assumed bases. SCa IC In Fee/- O 10 40 60 80 1 r� �nC'Air. nn!'►r'f'r/'A1 30 30 i� Y Ut /v v /'"l.�u /7 /r7 HG/G�/ /!4 / Iv n!J!_ !_ A/ North /Jne or Robert L. Henien s First Addi tron Cr 's • ' Z 1 qj LU ' V IE M OI I iy O W Oc� tw 7z �p Q , ' Z _ f - Alort line of lot 4 J , C Ui W Jo J tis ' cr N 88 °S7 03 ' ` 1 /o/ 4 b /w.'4 1; r r � •. 30 30 i i ��_% i /� i�.��.�i i it i i lJ yam► �� °°° ° � �� °° �$ _ �. MIS NAM 1� '°"' i� .° y Was I t A AV 11 -ter® • �A e � � ,ee , ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦• � ,r �' a ��d� dD .�♦ NO RTHPORT7 SCH ��►� Lit / �� ® . c n s.: 1 1� H?r b ' L Z.• t?l lt -o l� Licenses to be approved by the City Council on April 7,_1986. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT C LI ENSE Arby's Brookdale Center Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Berean Evangelical Free Church 6625 Humboldt Ave. N. Bosa Donuts 1912 75th Ave. N. Brookdale Cinema 5801 John Martin Drive B. C. American Legion Post #630 4307 70th Ave. N. B. C. American Little League 60th & Xerxes Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Service Inc. 6849 Brooklyn Blvd. Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Donaldson's Brookdale Center Donut Delight 6838 Humboldt Ave. N. Duke's Standard 6501 Humboldt Ave. N. Kim Fung 5704 Morgan Ave. N. Highway 100 N. France Racquet Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Little Brooklyn 6219 Brooklyn Blvd. Los Primos Brookdale Center Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Marc's Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Blvd. Munch Box Snack Service 6840 -20 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Nutrition World Brookdale Center 1 Potato 2 Brookdale Center Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. Showbiz Pizza 5939 John Martin Dr. �. Sanitarian GARBAGE HAULERS LICENSE Waste Management - Blaine 10050 Naples St. NE .�J� V� Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Air Conditioning Associates, Inc. 689 Pierce Butler Rte. All Season Comfort, Inc. 55 Mound Ave. N. Alta Mechanical & Electrical P.O. Box 545 Binder & Sons, Inc. 120 E. Butler Ave. Cherokee Refrigeration 285 W. George St. H. Conrad Manufacaturing Co. 509 lst Ave. NE Ditter, Inc. 3570 Kilkenny Lane Louis DeGidio, Inc 6501 Cedar Ave. S. Dependable Heating & Air Cond. 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd. L.S.V. Metals, Inc 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Thompson Air Conditioning 5115 Hanson Court Yale, Inc. 9649 Girard Ave S. Build' g Official MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LICENSE ten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. City Clerk 0 NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N. Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore St. NE Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. Viking Gym 6504 Shingle Cr Pkwy. Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Five Star Vending 15034 Fillmore St. NE Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. Norcraft, Inc. Rte. 1 Box 222 Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. .�.QQ, Sanitarian k SIGNHANGERS LICENSE Poblocki & Sons, Inc. 620 S. 1st St. Suburban Lighting, Inc. 6077 Lake Elmo Ave. N. Waldrum Sign Company 530 E. Pioneer Dr., Build Official (� SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Beach Condominiums 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. Brookdale Ten Apartments 53rd & Highway 100 Brookwood Estates 6201 N. Lilac Dr. Columbus Village Apts. 507 70th Ave. N. Evergreen Park Apts. 7200 Camden Ave. N. Four Court Apts. 2836 Northway Dr. Garden City Court Apts. 3407 65th Ave. N. Hi Crest Apts. 1300 67th Ave. N. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.: Marvin Garden Townhouses 68th & Orchard Ave. N. Moorwood Townhouses 5809 Lake Curve Lane North France Racquet Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N. North Lyn Apts. 6511 Humboldt Ave. N. Northbrook Apts. 1302 69th Ave. N. Sanitarian TAXICAB LICENSE Yellow Suburban 127 1st Ave. N. 4 ry Clq.ief of Police GENERAL APPROVAL: k l' Av'L— D. K. Weeks, City Clerk