HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 08-06 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
AUGUST 6, 1984
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5• Approval of Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the
City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council member so requests,
in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
6. Approval of Minutes - July 23, 1984
7. Performance Bond Release
Evergreen Estates, 857 to 885 - 70th Avenue North
*.8. Appointment of Election Judges for 1984 Primary Election
9. Resolutions:
a. Accepting Work under Contract 1983 -J (Municipal Service Garage
Improvement Project No. 1928 -28, Phase III)
-This contract provided for completion of the storage yard
construction and landscaping at the Municipal Garage.
* b. Accepting Work under Contract 1984 -C (Street Improvement Projects Nos.
1984 -03 and 1984 -04)
-This contract provided for the widening of Halifax and 70th Avenues
adjacent to St. Alphonsus Catholic Church (Project No. 1984 -03) and
construction of turn lanes along Shingle Creek Parkway between Freeway
Boulevard and 67th Avenue (Project No. 1984 -04).
* c. Establishing Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1984 -14 and Accepting
Proposal for Construction Thereof
-This project provides for construction of sidewalk along the west
side of Humboldt Avenue from Amy Lane northerly to 72nd Avenue as
recommended by the Administrative Traffic Committee.
d. Approving Purchase of a Microprocessor for Use by the Vehicle
Maintenance Division
* e. Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with
Cromer Management, Inc. to Provide an Employee Assistance Program
This contract provides for renewal of the City's Employee Assistance
Program for another year.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 6, 1984
10. Planning Commission Items: (7:15 p.m.) w
a. Planning Commission Application No. 84024 submitted by Dr. John B.
Lescault for special use permit approval to expand an existing
chiropractor's office home occupation at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit and
denial of the expansion at its July 26, 1984 meeting.
b. Planning Commission Application No. 84025 submitted by Dr. John B.
Lescault 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 Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 84025 at
its July 26, 1984 meeting.
c. Planning Commission Application No. 84026 submitted by Brooklyn
Covenant Church for special use permit approval to operate a
mediation, reconciliation, and counseling center in the former
parsonage of Brookdale Covenant Church at 5139 Brooklyn Boulevard.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 84026
at its July 26, 1984 meeting.
11. An Ordinance Regarding Rezoning of Certain Property
-This ordinance is offered for a first reading and comprehends Planning
Commission Application No. 84013 (H.E. Homes' proposed office condominium
project on Brooklyn Boulevard).
*12. Licenses
0 13. Adjournment
A
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
JULY 23, 1984
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by
Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also
present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp,
Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren,
City Attorney Richard Schieffer, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Reverend Bob Cilke of the Brookdale Christian Center.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had received a request to use the Open Forum session
this evening from Mr. Ron Blake, 3812 Janet Lane in Brooklyn Center.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Blake who stated that two weeks ago he had received from
the City a Diseased Shade Tree Agreement and letter which outlined the options for
the homeowner. He explained the options were that the homeowner can remove the
diseased tree on his own, or the City will remove the tree and require the homeowner
to pay 50% of the cost, or the City will remove the diseased tree and assess 50% of the
cost to the property owner. Mr. Blake stated that he was here this evening to ask
the City to pick up the entire cost of the removal of diseased boulevard trees, since
the boulevard is City property. Mr. Blake explained that he had contacted the
cities of Richfield, Bloomington, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka,
4 Plymouth, Robbinsdale, Crystal, Fridley, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, and
Brooklyn Park, and that all of these cities paid the entire cost of removal of
diseased boulevard trees. He added that some of the cities pick up 50% of the cost
of removal of trees on private property, and that the City of Minneapolis picks up
two- thirds of the cost of removal of trees on private property.
Mr. Blake stated he had spoken with Mr. Gene Hagel , the Park & Recreation Director,
and that Mr. Hagel had informed him that the 50/50 split is City policy and is not
established by law or ordinance. Mr. Blake again stated that he was here this
evening to ask the City to pay the entire cost of boulevard tree removal.
Councilmember Hawes inquired whether Mr. Blake had a quote on the cost of removal of
the tree. Mr. Blake replied that the removal of the boulevard tree would be $145
plus a 15% administrative fee.
Councilmember Theis inquired whether any of the cities Mr. Blake surveyed had any
other formula for the cost of removal of boulevard trees. Mr. Blake stated that the
City of New Hope had the same policy as Brooklyn Center.
7 -23 -84 -1-
The City Manager stated he reviewed the minutes of the City Council meeting where the
diseased shade tree program began several years ago. He noted that at the outset of
the program, 600 to 800 trees per year were being removed, and that at that time most
other cities also had.a 50/50 split on the cost. He explained the reason for the
policy was for consistency so that all residents would be treated alike. He added
that the City does not actually own boulevards but that it does have easements on
them.
The City Manager stated he had just received some information from the Police
Department, and noted that Councilmember Scott would be absent from this evening's
meeting since she is attending to an injured family member at North Memorial
Hospital.
Councilmember Lhotka stated he recalled at the time the Dutch Elm Program began a
good portion of Brooklyn Center did not have any boulevard trees, and at that time
the Council did not believe it was fair for the entire City to pay the cost for
removal of trees for those persons who did have boulevard trees. He added that he
recalled the 50/50 split was a compromise solution that was reached. He added he
does not believe that the City should subsidize some homeowners and not others.
Councilmember Theis inquired as to the procedure for removal of diseased shade trees
when the state reimbursment program was in effect. The City`Manager explained the
City used the funds from the state program to purchase replacement trees for
diseased boulevard trees. Councilmember Theis then inquired whether the homeowner
was responsible for maintaining the boulevard trees. The City Manager explained
the City does trim some of the branches on the boulevard trees, if they are creating a
danger, but does not trim boulevard trees for cosmetic purposes. Councilmember
Theis then asked whether the City can prevent homeowners from cutting down a
boulevard tree. The City Attorney replied that the City cannot prevent a homeowner
from removing a boulevard tree.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Milt Vogel, 6730 Ewing Avenue North. Mr. Vogel
explained that he was the original homeowner of the house he lives in, and that since
the City planted the boulevard trees in front of his house he does not believe he
should be required to pay for their removal. The City Manager commented that the
installation of the trees could have been part of the FHA or GI qualifying criteria
when the home was originally built.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs. Blake, 3812 Janet Lane, who stated that the City
planted the boulevard tree in front of her home, that she watered and took care of it,
and that she does not believe she should be required to pay for removal of the tree.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Katherine Hegberg, 3607 Urban. Mrs. Hegberg stated that
people without children still have to pay taxes to support schools and also have to
pay for paving of the streets even if they do not want it. She added she believes
that there should be some help given with regard to removal of boulevard trees.
The City Manager stated he would review the City's policy with regard to removal of
i
7 -23 -84 -2-
boulevard trees and return to the Council with a formal report. Councilmeanber
Lhotka requested that some historical perspective or. the diseased shade tree
program be provided. Councilmember Theis requested the City Manager to research -
the subsidy policy during the 1978 and 1979 era when the shade tree program was
operating. He also requested the total number of trees removed between 1976 and
1984, and requested an estimate on the count of remaining boulevard trees.
The City Manager stated that he would report back to the Council in a month.
Mr. Blake stated that, for the record, he would return the Diseased Shade Tree
Agreement unsigned since he does not agree that homeowners should pay 50% of the
cost.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired whether any Council members requested any items removed from
the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested item 9g be removed from the
Consent Agenda, and Councilmember Theis requested item 9a removed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES :: _JULY 9 2 1984
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of July 9, 1984 as submitted.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
FINAL PLAT - BORGEN ADDITION
There was amotion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the final plat of Borgen Addition (Planning Commission Application No.
84017) , a subdivision of a single- family residential lot along Fremont Avenue North
at 73rd Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,
Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASES
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the release of the performance guarantee for First Federal Savings & Loan,
2901 Northway Drive, in the amount of $45,000. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion
passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the release of the performance guarantee for Iten Chevrolet, 4301 68th
Avenue North, in the amount of $10,000. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion
passed.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -106
Member Gene-Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER PROJECT NO. 1984 -12, PHASE I (CITY
HALL /COMMUNITY CENTER LANDSCAPING)
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:
7 -23 -84 -3-
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -107
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER PROJECT NO. 1984 -12, PHASE II, (CITY
HALL /COMMUNITY CENTER LANDSCAPING)
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, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -108
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1984 -G (CENTRAL PARK TENNIS COURT
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -12, PHASE II)
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, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -109
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1984 -H (SEAL COATING PROJECT NO.
1984 -13)
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, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the ,same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -110
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption;
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVICE OF PHYLLIS PLUMMER
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, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Counc i lm ember Hawes to
approve the following list of licenses:
7 -23 -84 -4
G A,`D E3EEU E VEHICLE LICENSE
Lautch Disposal Service 10264 Xylite St. NF.
Browning Ferris Industries 9813 Flying Cloud Dr.
Gallagher's Service Inc. 1691 91st Ave. NE
Klein S<Initation Company 10690 100th Ave. N.
L & N Disposal 3417 85th Ave. N.
Mengelkoch Company 119 NE 14th St.
Minneapolis Hide & Tallow P.O. Box 12547
Woodlake Sanitation 4000 Hamel Rd.
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Jaycees 3309 84th Ave. N.
St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
Rouse Mechanical, Inc. 11348 K -Tel Dr.
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Midwest Vending 8900 Wentworth
Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
Twin Lake North Apts. 4539 58th Ave. N.
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Initial:
Lance & Debra Bennett 5327 Colfax Ave. N.
A. Elie, T. Elie, C. Berg 5240 Drew Ave. N.
John & Patty DeVries 1507 Humboldt Pl.
Leo Vogel 1513 Humboldt Pl.
Gregory Smith 1517 Humboldt P1.
John Carnahan 1525 Humboldt Pl.
John Carnahan 1531 Humboldt Pl.
M & J Properties 1549 Humboldt P1.
M & J Properties 1555 Humboldt Pl.
D. Shuster & W. Kennedy 4207 Lakeside Ave. #233
Jerry ruman 1 - 2 L ndale Ave.
Y 55 9 3 Y
J. Hauser, R. McClurg, J. Kaul 6825 -27 Noble Ave.
John M. Guider 5115 E. Twin Lake Blvd.
James Lupient 4450 58th Ave. N.
Ralph Kiefer 2845 67th Ln.
Renewal:
Charles Q. Hillstrom 6527 Drew Ave. N.
John S. Tschohl 5416 Fremont Ave. N.
TEMPORARY ON -SALE BEER LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Jaycees 7254 Dupont Ave. N.
St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N.
Voting in favor Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Work under Contract 1982 -M
(Palmer Lake Basin Improvement Project No. 1982 -25)
II
7 -23 -84 -5-
Councilmember Theis commented that the total amount in the "As Approved" column does
not match the figures when added. The Director of Public Works explained that
apparently there is an error or typo in the resolution, and that he would request
that the Council table the resolution until later in the meeting.
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
table consideration of a Resolution Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1982 -M
( Palmer Lake Basin Improvement Project No. 1982 -25) until later in the meeting.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Quotations and Awarding Contract
for the Purchase of a Pickup Truck for the Public Utility Division. The City
Manager explained that currently the Streets and Parks and Utilities Department are
sharing a pickup truck and that the vehicle proposed for purchase this evening will
be for the Public Utilities Department.
Councilmember Lhotka questioned why a supervisor needs a truck. The City Manager
explained that the position is a working supervisor and requires that a great deal of
materials, such as chemicals and equipment, be carried in the vehicle.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -111
Member Rich Theis introduced'the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PICKUP
TRUCK FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITY DIVISION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following
voted against the sane: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted.
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving and Authorizing Execution of
Declaration of Covenants for the Construction of a Parking Facility on Tract C,
R.L.S. 1564.
Councilmember Hawes inquired as to the location of the parking facility, if
required. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained the area would be near
the central parking lot between the proposed Ramada site and the Spec. 10 and 11
buildings. He noted that with the addition of the Spec. 14 building a parking ramp
agreement was required.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -112
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DECLARATION OF COVENANTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING FACILITY ON TRACT C, R.L.S. 1564
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, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none,.whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
7 -23 -84 -Fa-
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 84013 SUBMITTED BY H.E. HOMES INC. FOR
APPROVAL TO REZONE FROM R5 TO R3 THE TWO LOTS AT 7020 AND 7040 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND
FROM R1 TO R3 A .87 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND AT THE WEST END OF THE ST. ALPHOIJSUS CHURCH
PROPERTY — - `-`
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 2 and 3 of the July 12, 1984 Planning Commission meeting minutes and also the
Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No- 84013. He then
reviewed the applicant's request for rezoning and explained the applicant proposes
to build a condominium office complex on the subject parcel.
The Director of Planning & Inspection explained the Planning Commission first `
considered Application No. 84013 at its May 24, 1984 Planning Commission meeting.
The next step in the process was the Neighborhood Advisory Groups review of the
application. The Neighborhood Advisory Group met on June 21, 1984 and recommended
approval of the rezoning. He then explained that at the July 12, 1984 Planning
Commission meeting the Planning Commission passed Resolution No. 84 -1 which
recommended approval of the rezoning. The Director of Planning & Inspection
reviewed Planning Commission Resolution No. 84 -1 for Council members. He then
reviewed the draft resolution for Council consideration this evening which would
approve the rezoning.
The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that notices had been sent to
surrounding property owners regarding the application and that a public hearing is
scheduled for this evening's meeting.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 84013. The Mayor recognized Mr. Jim Backer who explained he owned the apartment
building south of the subject parcel. He added that his main concern was with the
traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard and that he feels the H.E. Homes plan is a good plan
with regard to parking. He added that he believes the proposed building will be an
asset to the area and add to the value of the property in that area.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Rick Hartmann of H.E. Homes, Inc., who reviewed the
proposed plans for the office condonimiums for Council members.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the
public hearing. No one requested to speak and the Mayor entertained a motion to
close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 84013. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -113
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: -
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION. NO. 84013 SUBMITTED BY
H.E. HOMES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
7 -23 -84 -7-
Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 84023 SUBMITTED BY RODNEY MATTINEN FOR SPECIAL
USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONDUCT A SMALL ENGINE REPAIR HOME OCCUPATION IN THE DETACHED
GARAGE OF THE PREhISES AT 5943 VINCENT AVENUE NORTH
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 1 and 2 of the July 12, 1984 Planning Commission meeting minutes and also the
Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 84023. He then
reviewed the applicant's special use request and noted the subject parcel is zoned
R1. He then reviewed the location of the parcel, which is in the southeast quadrant
of Vincent and 60th Avenues. He then reviewed the applicant's letter requesting
the special use.
The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that, following a public hearing on the
application, the Planning Commission at its July 12, 1984 meeting, recommended
approval of the application, subject to ten conditions which he reviewed for Council
members. The Planning Director noted a public hearing on the application is
required and is scheduled for this evening. He stated that notices of this
evening's public hearing had been sent to surrounding property owners and that the
applicant is present this evening.
Mayor Nyquist recognized the City Attorney who inquired whether the Planning
Director was recommending that the conversion of the tuck under garage be stipulated
as a condition of approval. The Planning Director stated he had not recommended it
be a condition but that the Council can certainly add it as a condition if they wish.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 84023, and inquired if there was anyone present who
wished to speak at the public hearing.
Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant Mr. Rodney Mattinen who noted that he started
his small engine repair business part -time in 1971, and that it became a full. -time
job in 1979 when he lost his regular job and could not find another in his field.
Mayor Nyquist noted he had received a telephone call from Pat Swanson, 5937 Vincent
Avenue North, who stated that she had no objections to the application.
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 Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
close the public hearing on Application No. 84023. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting ; against: none. The
motion passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 84023, subject to the following
conditions
7 -23 -84 -8-
.1. The permit is issued to the applicant as ,operator and is
nontransferable.
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes ordinances,
J pp and
any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3• Engines will not be operated for testing or other purposes
before 10:00 a.m. nor after 8 :00 p.m.
4. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off -
street on improved space provided by the applicant.
5. A minimum 5 lb, fire extinguisher shall be installed in the
detached garage where the home occupation is conducted.
6. Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
7. Permit approval acknowledges use of up to one -half of the
detached garage for the home occupation.
$. Permit approval acknowledges small engine repair only. No
repair of automobiles, trucks or other vehicles is
acknowledged.
9. No outside storage of engines, materials or equipment shall be
permitted.
10. Permit approval acknowledges employment on h
g the premises of not
more than one nonresident employee.
11. The applicant shall be required to bring the property at 5948
Vincent Avenue North into compliance with section 35 -310 of the
zoning ordinance with regard to space requirements for
accessory buildings.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:44 p.m.
ORDINANCES
The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code of the
City of Brooklyn Center by Regulating Traffic. He explained the ordinance was
first read on June 25, 1984, published on July 5, 1984, and is recommended for a
second reading this evening.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code of the City of Brooklyn Center by Regulating
Traffic. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public
hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public
hearing.
7 -23 -84 -9-
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code of the
City of Brooklyn Center by Regulating Traffic. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion
passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 84 -09
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BY
REGULATING TRAFFIC
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded, by Rich
Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka,,and Rich Theis. Voting against: none, whereupon said
ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted.
Councilmember Hawes returned to the Council table at 8 :46 p.m.
The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
Regarding the Classification of Financial Institutions. He explained the
ordinance was first read on June 25, 1984, published on July 5, 1984, and is
recommended for a second reading this evening.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Classification of
Financial Institutions. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to
speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained amotion
to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
Regarding the Classification of Financial Institutions. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 84 -10
Member Rich Theis introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE
CLASSIFICATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and
adopted.
The 'City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Section 11 -111 of the City
Ordinances Relating to the Restrictions on Purchase and Consumption of Liquor by
Persons under 19 Years of Age. He explained that the ordinance was first read at the
June 25, 1984 meeting, published on July 5, 1984, and is recommended for a second
reading this evening.
0-
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance
Amending Section 11 -111 Relating to the Restrictions on Purchase and Consumption of
Liquor by Persons under 19 Years of Age. He inquired if there was anyone present who
wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained
a motion to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Section 11 -111 Relating to the
Restrictions on Purchase and Consumption of Liquor by Persons under 19 Years of Age.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 84 -11
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11 -111 RELATING TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON PURCHASE AND
CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR BY PERSONS UNDER 19 YEARS OF AGE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member
Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
The Council returned to consider a Resolution Accepting Work under Contract 1982 -M
which was tabled earlier in the meeting to correct an error in the resolution. The
Director of Public Works explained the original award in the "As Approved" column of
the resolution should be changed from $198,968 to $194,968.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -114
Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -M (PALMER LAKE BASIN
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -25)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted
DISCUSSION ITEMS
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REPORT ON THE EFFECT OF I -94 IN NORTH
MINNEAPOLIS ON TRAVEL PATTERNS IN THE NORTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA
The Director of Public Works reviewed the Minnesota Department of Transportation
report for Council members. The report was prepared in June of 1984 by District 5
Transportation Planning. The Director of Public Works highlighted various
portions of the report and pointed out that the opening of I -94 into Minneapolis had
a distinct effect on traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, including East River
Road, which experienced a 37% decrease in northbound traffic and a 32% decrease in
southbound traffic, University Avenue with a 15% decrease in northbound traffic and
7 -23 -84 -11-
18% decrease in southbound traffic, Central Avenue with a 12% increase in northbound
traffic and 5% increase in southbound traffic, and 35W with a 13% decrease in
northbound traffic and a 6% decrease in southbound traffic. The Director of Public
Works pointed out that on 694 between Brooklyn Boulevard and 94, eastbound traffic
increased 32% and westbound traffic increased 49 %. He also pointed out substantial
increases in traffic volumes along Brooklyn Boulevard, and also pointed out that
north of Brooklyn Boulevard no counts were obtained but there is a substantial
traffic increase in this area also.
1983 ADJUSTED TRAFFIC COUNT MAP FOR BROOKLYN CENTER
The Director of Public Works reviewed the 1983 traffic count map, and noted that the
counts are adjusted for seasonal averages, however, he added that he is not sure of
the county trunk highway counts origin. He stated that with the opening of I -94
additional pressure is put on the 694 bridge and over 100,000 cars per day cross the
694 bridge. He explained this puts the bridge at capacity and any minor problem on
the bridge can bring traffic to a halt. He explained the state has set the bid
opening for the widening of the 694 bridge for October 1986,
CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The City Manager introduced the next discussion item which included a number of
items related to various improvements to the civic center complex. He pointed out
that these items are presented this evening for discussion and consideration by the
Council. He explained the civic center complex is over 15 years old and many of the
areas are in need of maintenance. He explained the report this evening is an effort
to bring the Council up to date on various areas proposed for improvement in the
civic center complex.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the first category of items which were items
proposed to be charged to the 1984 operating budget for the government building's
division or the community center division and included various maintenance items
for the comunity center and City hall.
The next area reviewed by the Public Works Director were items proposed to be
included in the 1985 budget and included numerous maintenance and replacement
items, such as replacing the burners in the City hall boilers and improvements to the
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system in the civic center complex.
The third area reviewed by the Public Works Director were items proposed to be
included in a major capita improvement project for the community center. He
explained the project revolves around a major revision to the entryway at the
northwest corner of the community center. He explained the project is proposed to
resolve access problems into the community center and to provide better access from
the parking lot.
The final areas reviewed by the Public Works Director were miscellaneous items for
future consideration, which included various improvements, primarily to the
community center and pool area.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council.members Lhotka,
Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Brooklyn
Center City Council adjourned at 10:15 P.m.
Deputy f y C erg k _.'� Mayor
7 -23 -84 -12-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning nd Inspection
9 p
FROM Gary Shallcross, Planning Assistant
SUBJECT: Performance Guarantee
DATE: August 1, 1984
The following performance guarantee is recommended for release:
1. Evergreen Estates
857 -885 70th Avenue North
Planning Commission Application No. 82031
Amount of Guarantee - $3,000.00 Letter of Credit
Obligor Schlee Builders
Original guarantee of $30,000 was reduced by City Council on December 5,
1983 to $3,000 to insure viability of landscaping. Plantings which did
not survive the winter have been replaced. Recommend total release.
Approved by
Rona d A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
'Nit 1'oI1(;. riq recc>irurr,rrl -d for ar)r)oi.nt.rrr.nt� as election
jutj for t.h( .� 11, 1984 Prirrkiry Elc t:ion:.
hrf nc 1 Precinct 6
D - Iioot.fa Stewig D -Mary Martin
P - i -liar i, n 11,111ith R ,7osephine Swart
D-Vy Paterson D -Bet.h Rygh
R- Mildred Egnell R -Joann Reavely
D- Phyllis Si.gurdson D- Kathryn Bell
R- Marion Alford R -Pat Elliott
R -Donna Bennett R- Gloria Weinbarger
Precinct 2 Precinct 7
D -Anna Adler D-Mona Hintzman
R -Ethel Irving R -Susan Heisler
D- Dolores Hastings D -Carol Benkofske
R- Adeline Lonn R- Katherine Commers
D- Genevieve Riley D -Helen Julkowski
R- Judith Larsen R- Jerine Polack
R -Grace Freund D -Edna 011anketo
Precinct 3 Precinct 8
R- Evonne Chatelle R- Jeanette Ulrich
D -Carol Larson D- Eileen Hannan
R- Lorene McKusick R- Doloris McGeorge
D -Gcien Stein D-Anne Bergquist
R -Kathy Dziedzic R- Lorraine Wyman
D- Karilyn Martinsen D- Dolores Seal
R- Sharon Finucane R- Donna Zieska
Precinct 4 Precinct 9
R -Mary Meline D -Alice Madir
D-Joan Hagemann R -Jean Sullivan
R- DeLila Newman D -Tracy Tyler, Jr.
D- Robert Leach -R- Jeanne Anderson
R- Marilyn Heinke D- Margaret Stellburg
D- Alberta Ruf
.R- Thelma Jacobson STANDBY- ELECTION JUDGES
D -John Milier (cannot work General)
Precinct 5 R -Frank Slovak
D- Geraldine Dorphy D -Karen Youngberg (cannot work General)
R- Gladys Leerhoff R -Alice Velander
D-Alice VanMeerten D -June Coerper
R -Jean Lindstrom R -Trudi Ann Gores
D- Lorraine Halter D- Virginia Kaupp
R- Arlene Kemp
D- Gloria Voeltz ABSENTEE BALLOT PRECINCT
D- Florence Johnson
R- Barbara Sexton
D-Jean Tubman
M(- -mber introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1983 -J
(MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -28,
PHASE III)
WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1983 -J signed with the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Asphalt Paving Materials, Inc. has satisfactorily
completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract:
MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -28, PHASE III
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved
according to the following:
As Approved Final Amount
Original Award $100,347.75 $ 96,214.02
2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract
°* amount by $4,133.73 due to a general overestimation of planned
quantities.
3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract,
taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be
paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $96,214.02.
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.
f .t
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1984 -C
(STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1984 -03 AND 1984 -04)
WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1984 -B signed with the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily
completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract:
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -03 (WIDENING OF 70TH AVENUE
BETWEEN JUNE AND HALIFAX AVENUES AND HALIFAX AVENUE BETWEEN 70TH
AND 71ST AVENUES)
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -04 (TURN LANE CONSTRUCTION ON
SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BETWEEN FREEWAY BOULEVARD AND 67TH AVENUE)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
.1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved
according to the following:
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -03
{ As Approved Final Amount
Original Award $96,749.00 $96,011.29
Change Order No. 1 162.74 162.74
TOTAL $96,911.74 $96,174.03
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -04
Original Award $37,782.25 $34,209.66
2. The value of the work performed is less than the sum of the original
contract and change order by $4,310.30 due to a_ general overestimation
of planned quantities.
3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract,
taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be
paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $130,383.69.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
RESOLUTION N0.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -14
AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City Council considers it to be in the best interests of
the City to construct sidewalk along the westerly side of Humboldt Avenue
from Amy Lane northerly to approximately 72nd Avenue;
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received proposals for the construction
of said sidewalk, said proposals as follows:
Bidder Proposal
Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $2,460.00
J. Thordson & Son Construction Company 2,863.40
Adcon, Inc. 3,245.00
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised the City Council that the
proposal of Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc., in the amount of $2,460.00, is
the lowest responsible proposal received and has recommended that a contract be
awarded to said firm in that amount.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The proposed improvement shall be established as follows:
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -14
2. The proposal of Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc., in the amount
of $2,460.00, is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager
are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with
said firm in that amount.
3. The total cost of said project is estimated as follows:
Contract Cost $2,460.00
Engineering Cost 221.40
Administrative Cost 24.60
TOTAL $2,706.00
4. Improvement Project No. 1984 -14 will be financed through the
appropriation of funds from Municipal State Aid Fund Balance
No. 2600.
RESOLU`PION NO.
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.
CI 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF BR CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
'BROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY - POLICE -FIRE
C ENTER
... " � 911
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: August 3, 1984
RE: Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1984 -14
(Humboldt Avenue - Amy Lane to 72nd Avenue)
At the request of residents along Amy Lane between Humboldt and Knox Avenues,
the Administrative Traffic Committee has reviewed the feasibility of constructing
concrete sidewalk along the west side of Humboldt Avenue northerly from Amy
Lane to its intersection with an existing walk at 72nd Avenue. As noted in
Traffic Safety Committee File No. 84 -021, the neighborhood children walk in the
street along the referenced segment of Humboldt Avenue to the 72nd Avenue inter-
section, where a school crossing (attended by crossing guards) provides neighbor-
hood access to the Evergreen School area. Accordingly, the Administrative Traffic
Committee -has recommended that the referenced sidewalk construction be completed
prior to the opening of the 1984 -1985 school year.
In order to meet the recommended completion date, staff has solicited proposals
from contractors for the contemplated work. The low quotation of Thomas & Sons
Construction, Inc. is considered acceptable to the staff, therefore, a resolution
awarding a contract to that firm, in the amount of $2,460.00, is attached for
City Council review and consideration at its August 6, 1984 meeting. As noted
on the resolution, the project is financed through the appropriation of funds
from the City's local DIinnesota State Aid account (Fund balance 2600).
Respectfully submitted,
SK:jn
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF A MICROPROCESSOR FOR USE
BY THE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE DIVISION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota, that:
1. The transfer of $5,220 from the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
(Fund No. 25) to the Vehicle Maintenance Division (Division
43) of the General Fund (Fund No. 01) is hereby approved.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to purchase a microprocessor
and appurtenances for installation at the City Garage at a cost
of $5,220.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by .
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF
BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
C TELEPHONE 561 -5440
�j �T�{ EMERGENCY POLICE - FIRE
911
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: July 30, 1984
r For Use At City Garage
R o n ion To Purchase Microprocessor g
RE: ec mane dat Y
p
LOGIS has recently completed development of a new "Vehicle Management System"
provide manage-
ment information re
of are program. The primary purpose of this program is . top g
s tw
(VMS) P g P Y P rP p �'
as been installed for
regarding vehicle maintenance. The h s
g g Y
use by Brooklyn Park (the pilot City) and is now being installed at Edina. St.
r
.Louis Park, Maple Grove and Coon Rapids plan to install th is p o g ram in the near
future.
It is recommended that Brooklyn Center purchase an 11P150 Microcomputer for installa-
tion at the City Garage, to allow the City to use the VMS program. Although no
direct cost reductions are anticipated as a result of this application, it is
anticipated that the system will provide a greatly improved management information
system which will result in long -term cost savings.
Estimated Costs
Estimated costs for purchase of the HP150 and appurtenances is as follows:
HP150 Microprocessor $ 3,450
Epson RX80 Printer 495
212A Modem 565
212 LP Modem 395
Telephone 53
Surge Protector 140
Subtotal 5,098
Install Telephone Line (Est.) 122
TOTAL $ 5,220
Estimated operational costs are as follows:
LOGIS VMS System Charges $ 550 /month
LOGIS Other Charges 78 /month
Telephone Line Charges 102 /month
TOTAL $ 730 /month
" '74 S ateela cg mace &y „
July 30, 1984 - G.G. Spl i iter
].'age 2
hby An "Intelligent" Terminal
It is noted that a "dumb terminal. (i.e. a C.R.T. unit with a printer) could be
used to activate this program. The cost for this work station would be $2,943
v.s. the $5,098 cost for the proposed unit. However, the proposed unit has the
following advantages:
1. The V4S as developed by LOGIS allows a direct interface between our Fuel
Panagement System and the microprocessor. No such interface has been developed
for use with a dumb terminal. Accordingly, to feed fuel usage information into
the VMS program 2 alternatives are available, i.e.:
Alternate A : Purchase the printer unit required to print out the information
from the fuel management unit at an estimated cost of $1,000.
(Note: To -date we have been able to use the company's used printer
on a rent -free basis. However, this arrangement cannot be
continued indefinitely.)
In addition, this alternate would require manual transfer of
information from the Fuel Management System to the terminal. At
an estimated 30 minutes per day, the cost of this factor is
approximately $1,500 /year (including salary plus fringe benefits).
Alternate B : The estimated cost for development of an interface between the
Fuel Management System and the dumb terminal is "up to $7,000"
according to Gary Fish of LOGIS.
2. It is anticipated that additional program applications will become available
for effective application at the City Garage within the next few years. These
applications may include inventory management (signs, streets, public utilities,
etc.); access to mapping systems; and some possible work management systems.
Although many of these applications also could be accomplished on a dumb
terminal, others can't or would be done more efficiently on an intelligent
terminal.
3. It is my belief that within a few years nearly all work stations will utilize
intelligent terminals. Accordingly, we would then have the many advantages
which come with uniformity of systems, i.e. better understanding and cooperation
between users, elimination of incompatibility problems between hardware and soft -
ware, ability to exchange units in the event of mechanical failure, etc.
Why A New HP150 Instead Of A Used HP125
Use of a used HP125 (either by transfer from another City Department or by purchase
from an outside source) is a workable option. It is estimated that the cost for this
option would be approximately equal to the cost of a dumb terminal. However, I
wish to note the following considerations:
1. We are requesting that another 11P150 be purchased for the Engineering Division
in 1985. Since Engineering personnel will work closely with personnel at the
City Garage (on computer applications, including the VIB , future mapping in
inventory applications, etc.), there is much to be said for total compatibility
between these two work stations.
July 3O, 1984 - G.G. Spl inter
Page 3
2. If a used lIP12S is purchased from an outside source, we may not have a good
"handle" on its condition - and would not get the warranty, etc., which comes
with a new unit.
3. While service availability for an I may be equal to that for an HP150 now,
this may not be true in the future.
4. Trade -in value for the HP1S0 should always be higher than for the HP125.
Budget Considerations
No provision was made in the 1984 budget for purchase of this equipment. Accordingly,
a transfer from the Revenue Sharing Fund is requested.
The 1984 budget for Unallocated Departmental Expenses (Division 80) does include
provision for $3,000 for operating expenses for the WIS program.
A resolution for consideration by the City Council is provided.
Respe tfully submitted,
S Kota
cc: Paul Holmlund, Director of Finance
SK: j `
WnrIx�r introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CROMER MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENTER FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
that:
1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute
an agreement with Cromer Management, Incorporated to provide
an Employee Assistance Program for permanent full-time City
employees and their dependents and household members.
2. The cost of the Employee Assistance Program shall not exceed
$1,750 for the 1984 -1985 contract period.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
P eg g
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistant f
DATE: August 3, 1984 f
SUBJECT: Employee Assistance Program
In 1977 the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted a "Statement of Policy for the
Employee Assistance Program ". The policy (attached) established a 'program in
Brooklyn Center and defines the purpose of the program.
The policy established a procedure whereby employees experiencing chemical, f inan-
cial, marital or other problems which could affect job performance, could volun-
tarily seek professional diagnostic and referral services. When possible, employee
benefits, such as sick leave, hospitalization, etc. can be used for treatment or
counseling. All contact with the diagnostic and referral service is confidential.
One other option available under the program is a supervisory referral, in
contrast to the self referral, under which the employee voluntaril.y uses the
service, under a supervisory referral, a supervisor may refer an employee to the
diagnostic and referral service if job performance is affected.
The City Council selected the Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc., now part
of Cromer Management Inc., to provide diagnostic and referral services under the
City's program. The service is provided through an annual contract paid by the
City and there is no direct charge to employees. If an employee is referred to
some form of treatment and the employee chooses to participate in the recommended
treatment, such cost is assumed by the employee or his or her medical insurance
coverage.
COST OF PROGRAM
The Metropolitan Clinic. of Counseling (Cromer Management Inc.) offers a fee
schedule to public sector employees which is based on a utilization rate of the
program. Private sector employers are charged a flat rate. Essentially the
cost of a program with a utilization rate increases as usage increases. The
past cost of the program and the utilization rates are shown in the following
table:
CONTRACT PERIOD COST TO CITY UTILIZATION RATE
1977 -1978 $119 (city information not
-- received a available
90% reim-
bursement
from State
of MN
1978 -1979 $605 (50% information not
reimburse- available
ment from
State)
-2-
CONTRACT PERIOD COS TO CI UTILIZATION R ATE
1979 -1980 $1,020 4.3%
1980 -1981 $1,476 7.3%
1982 -1983 $854 less than 1$
1983 -1984 $1,457.50 4.8
The fee schedule for the 1984 -1985 contract period remains unchanged from the
1983 -84 period and is as follows:
Base retainer fee $7.00 x 125 = $875.00
(0 - 3% utilization)
UTILIZATION FEE
3.01 - 4% $2.33 x 125 = $291.25
4.01 5% $2.33 x 125 = $291.25
5.01 and over $2.34 x 125 = $292.
Maximum Fee $14.00 x 125=$l,.750-00
Maximum cost of the program will not exceed $1,750.00
HOW THE PROG WORKS
The services to employees provided by the employee assistance program include an
assessment of the problem and its severity, the development of an individualized
treatment plan, assistance in obtaining appropriate and effective treatment and
follow up to review the treatment results. If the employee and the employee
assistance counselor decide that further professional treatment is advisable,
the cost of future treatment will. be the responsibility of the employee or his
or her insurance provider.
A confidential summary report of the 1983 -1984 contract period is attached to
this memorandum.
R OOM NDATION
During the 1982 -1983 contract period the program N,ias used by only one employee.
As a result the City Council requested that the utilization of the program be
monitored for the 1983 -1984 contract. period. Since the utilization has increased
substantially for the 1983 -1984 contract period the staff is recommending renewal
of the employee assistance program through Cromer management
Statement of Policy
Employee Assistance Program
City of Brooklyn Center -
The City of Brooklyn Center recognizes that a wide range of problems, not -
directly associated with an employee's job responsibilities, can affect job
performance. In most cases, the employee will overcome such personal
problems independently and the employee's job performance will not be
affected.
In other cases, usual supervisory assistance or discipline will serve to
i s or her
o g uide the emplo to solve h p roblems and the employee's P
motivate r g P
fob performance
will return to an acceptable level. In some instances, neither
the efforts and resources
' sor
e b the s upervisor
guidance P
ee nor the Y
of the
employee g
II P Y
has the desired effect of resolving the employee's problems. In such cases,
unsatisfactory job performance may persist over a period of time, either on a
constant or intermittent basis. - '� ---
The City of Brooklyn Center believes it is in the best interest of the employee*,
the employee's family and the City to provide an employee service which deals
with such persistent problems. Beginning June 15, 1977 it is - the policy of the
City of Brooklyn Center to handle such employee problems within the following
framework:
1. The City of Brooklyn Center is concerned with the health and
well -being of its employees but it has no desire to interfere
with employees private lives. The administration will be
concerned with an employee's personal problems only when job
performance is adversely affected. or when problems reflect dis-
credit on the City.
2 . This policy applies to all regular full -time employees of the
City of Brooklyn Center regardless of their job title or
responsibilities.
I. The program is available to families and dependents of
employees as well as the employees themselves since it
Is recognized that problems at home can have an adverse
effect on an employee's ability to function while at work.
4. If. employees or their dependents realize that they have
personal problems that may benefit from the assistance
provided by the Employee Assistance Program, they are
encouraged to seek assistance on their own and will be
• supported in efforts to do so.
S. Particip ation in the p rogram will not jeopardize an employee's
job security, promotional opportunities,. or reputat ion..
Page 2
SUtemernt of Policy
Employee Assistance Program
6. All records and discussions of personal problems will be
handled in a confidential manner as are other medical records.
Records will be kept by the diagnostic and referral agency and
will not become part of the employee's personnel file.
7. Past experience shows that a significant portion of the problems
encountered in such programs are related to problems involving
• the use of alcohol and /or other drugs. It will be a policy of the
City of Brooklyn Center that chemical dependency is generally
recognized as a treatable illness and assuming the cooperation of
the employee in treatment, will be dealt with as such.
8. When performance problems are not corrected with normal super-
visory attention, employees may be referred to assistance to
determine if personal problems are causing unsatisfactory per-
formance. If performance problems are corrected, no further
action will be taken. If performance problems persist, the
employee will be subject to normal corrective procedures.
9. Incases where it is necessary, employees may be granted sick
leave, vacation or unpaid leave of absence for time for treatment
or rehabilitation on the same basis as it is granted for health or
disability problems.
F .
10: Employee compliance with the program is "strictly voluntary. If
an employee is referred to the Employee Assistance Program in
lieu of other corrective or disciplinary measures and chooses
not to participate in the Employee Assistance Program, then '
normal corrective measures will apply. Refusal to participate
cannot be used as evidence to evaluate job performance.
There is no charge for the diagnostic and referral services,
however, if costs are incurred for rehabilitation services that are
not covered by insurance or other benefits, that cost will be the
responsibility of the employee.
12. The program is not designed to provide ongoing treatment or
Counseling, but rather to provide early identification, motivation,
and referral to appropriate care- giving resources in order to
facilitate the resolution of any serious personal problems the
employee might have.
13. This policy does not alter or replace existing administrative
Policy or contractual agreements, but serves as an adjunct to
assist in their utilization.
CCN Ii)E Employer City of Brooklyn Center
C I R %.iv ... �CRJ
mAEmEm: ilnC
1403 Harmon Place
Minneapolis. MN 55403
(612) 333 -7233
Employee Assistance Program Report
For the period 7 -1 -83 t0 6 -30 -84
(Contract expiration date 6-30-84
Utilization Referrals
125 Total employees covered Inpatient
Number of EAP clients 1 _� Numb O u tpatient
P
4 . 8 Annualized utilization AA /Alanon
Self -help
Legal
Client Classification Male Female Financial
Management/Supervisor 1 Other
Union/Non-union Employee 3 3
Spo use/Dependent/other Problems
Alcohol /drug (dependency)
Alcohol /drug (abuse, misuse)
Sexuality
Referral Source 1 Relationship
5 Self Divorce/ separation
1 Spouse /Dependent Incest
Co-worker
Child abuse
Supervisor Battered woman
Nurse, medical department. ---
Adolescent
family physician Financial
School 1 Legal
Other Health
Career
No Referrals 3 Personal /emotional
` Z_ Resolved by EAP counselor
Job
Refused
referral Parenting
1
Client failed initial Grief & loss
EAP appointment Aging
Client started, but did not Stress
complete EAP assessment 1 Other
1 Pending
,�M
STATEMF_NT 01 AGI ;I_FM[_NT
B[_T WEEN
CROMER MAI4AGI_MENT, INC.
AND
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
This agreement is for the period July I, 1984 to June 30, 1985. In this agreement the
term EMPLOYER refers to City of Brooklyn Center and CROMER refers to Cromer
Management, Inc.
1. SERVICES. Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling (MCC), an affiliated company of
Cromer Management, Inc., has agreed to provide diagnostic services (problem
assessment and initial counseling) and referral services (motivational counseling,-
referral to competent care and follow -up) to all employees of the EMPLOYER, to the
employee's dependents and household members.
2. SERVICE AVAILABILITY. Diagnostic and referral services will be available from any
of Metropolitan C linic n in ' our office locations in the Minnea olis - St.
p C of Cou sell g s f f p
Paul metropolitan area. Emergency and after -hours calls will be responded to by a
professional staff member on a 24 -hour daily basis.
3. ADDITIONAL SERVICES. CROMER agrees to provide for all eligible employees an
individual orientation brochure explaining the services. CROMER agrees to
periodically provide to the EMPLOYER brochures aimed at maintaining employee
awareness. CROMER agrees to periodically provide to the EMPLOYER a statistical
report regarding utilization of the services.
4. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES. To assure adequate acceptability and utilization of
these diagnostic and referral services, the EMPLOYER agrees to participate in
program exposure and employee education of the services available. Mailings to
employees shall be the expense of the EMPLOYER. The EMPLOYER agrees to
provide a list of names of employees covered under this program, said list shall be
updated quarterly. The EMPLOYER agrees to provide CROMER with a copy of its
current hospitalization and health insurance policies which are relevant.
S. FEE. The base retainer fee for the agreement period is $875. The base retainer fee
is based upon the per employee rate of $7.00 + ++ for 125 employees. The base
retainer fee will cover all diagnostic and referral services up to a 3.00% annual
utilization.
The utilization fee will be billed for each one percent or portion thereof increase in
the utilization above that covered in the base retainer fee, in accordance with the
following retainer schedule:
Base retainer fee $7.00 x 125 = $875.00
(0 - 3% utilization)
Utilization Fee
3.01-4% �2 x 125 = $291.25
4.01 -5% 233 x 125 = $291.25
5.01 and over $2.34 x 125 = $292.50
Maximum Fee $14.00 x 125 $1,750.00
Submission of an invoice for the utilization fee will be made, at CROMER's
discretion, when it is ascertained that the annual utilization will be within any of the
listed utilization categories or at the conclusion of the contract period.
4 �� , � — /Z — penl
GROMER MANAGEMENT, INC. DATE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, Mayor DATE
CITY OF it Manager a9 er
i
MINUTES) OF THE PROCE'f`D'f1, OF THE, "PLAHNTNG COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF PROOKLYn CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HE:NNEPIN 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 Commissioner 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 the Chairman Pro tem's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first
two items of business, a request for special use permit approval to expand an
existing chiropractor's 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 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 in the
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
7 -26 -84 -1-
stated that the proposed size of the sign was simply based on an estimate given by a
salesman and that he would be content with a somewhat smaller sign, as long as it was
larger than 2 112 sq. ft. Dr. Lescault pointed out that he 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 Manson 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 hone
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 land, 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 use section of the Zoning Ordinance.
In response to another 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 lotto 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. The Secretary responded that the City is looking at
the possibility of adopting a redevelopment policy which could possibly be geared
toward, among other things, the acquisition of nonconforming homes 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 would 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
I�
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 King. Chairman Pro tem Manson 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 Malecki 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 6:00 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 horne occupation use.
7 -26 -84 -4-
y. 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.
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
p .permit.
Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas,
Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none.
MOTION RECOMMENDING STUDY
oG�mmiEsioner 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. 84025 (Dr. Lescault)
Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial
of Application No. 84025 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 Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION _ ON N0. 84026 Brookdale Covenant Church)
( C )
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use
permit approval to operate a Mediation, Reconciliation and Counseling center in the
former parsonage of the Brookdale Covenant Church at 5136 North Lilac Drive. The
Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission
Information Sheet for Application No. 84026 attached) . The Secretary explained that
the Building Official had reviewed the premises and is satisfied that the structure
is sturdy enough to meet the occupancy requirements for the proposed use. He also
noted that the file for this application contains a rough floor plan sketching out
the rooms on the first floor containing offices for counseling. He also noted that
staff have received a second letter regarding the application explaining that the
Brooklyn Center Ministerium will not be on the Board of Directors of the center, but
will have access to the facility.
Chairman Pro tem Manson then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add.
7 -26 -84 -5-
w
Mr. Dwight Johnson, representing Brookdale Covenant Church, stated that he had
nothing to add. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the MRC center would parallel
other programs or whether it would be a coordinating and referral service. Mr.
Johnson responded that the facility would be used by the Brooklyn Center Mediation
project and the Christian Conciliation Service and by others involved in
counseling. He explained that people would be referred to the center as a place
where they could find help in resolving conflicts. Commissioner Simmons asked what
the Brooklyn Center Ministerium was. Mr. Johnson responded that it consisted of
all of the ministers from within the Brooklyn Center area.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84026)
Chairman Pro tem Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked
whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none,
she called for a motion to close the public hearing
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public
hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Malecki recalled that the Youth Investment Foundation was denied a
special use permit to locate in a house along Brooklyn Boulevard. She asked whether
this was because of parking. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Mayor
Nyquist, who was also present representing Brookdale Covenant Church, noted that
the YIF organization was not going-to have anyone living on the premises and,
therefore, could not be considered a home occupation. He also noted that the
neighbors in the area objected to the proposed operation.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84026 (Brookdale Covenant Church
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend
approval of Application No. 84026, subject to the following conditions:
1 Permit approval is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant for a Mediation,
Reconciliation and Counseling center use and is nontransferable.
3. Building permits are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the
issuance of permits.
4. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges that the Mediation,
Reconciliation, and Counseling center will not be operated
currently and /or in conflict with Brookdale Covenant Church
services. Parking for the Mediation, Reconciliation and
Counseling Center shall be off - street on space provided in the
Brookdale Covenant Church parking lot.
Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas,
Sandstrom and Nelson Voting against: none. The motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the
meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning
Commission ajourned at.9:06 p.m.
Cha i rriw ri
7 -26 -84 -6-
Picinning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 64024
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 breaks down as follows:
Dwelling Basement Office Garage
Existing 989 1092 545 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-
Application No. 84024 continued
As to the other Standards for a Special Use Permit, staff have no concerns about
standard (a) 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 42.9% 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 act ivit
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:
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
Application fJo. 84024 continued
d. the employment on the premises of one non - resident employee
2. Spec P PP
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 6:00 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 the
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-
PIannIn Cuii ;Jssion Information Sheet
Application No. 84025
Applicant: Or.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 allow 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 to 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 classification;
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 signery 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-
Application No. 84025 continued -
The circumstances of this application - a home occupation on Brooklyn 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 would 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`-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 84026
Applicant: Brookdale Covenant Church
Location: 5139 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a Mediation, Recon-
ciliation, Counseling service in the former parsonage on the Brookdale Covenant
Church property at 5139 Brooklyn Boulevard. The church property is zoned Rl and
is bounded on the south by Malmborg's Greenhouse, on the northwest by Highway 100,
and on the northeast by Brooklyn Boulevard. The old parsonage is at the southwest
corner of the triangular church property. The proposed use, since it is on church
property and is affiliated with the church is considered accessory to the church
use, which is a special use in the Rl zone.
The applicant's representative, Dean Nyquist, has submitted a letter (attached)
addressing the Standards for a Special Use Permit contained in Section 35 -220. Mr.
Nyquist explains the proposed use as a way of meeting the need for professional
counseling and making better use of the former parsonage. It is presently being
used for Sunday school classes and youth activities. He notes that the Brooklyn
Center Mediation Project and the Christian Conciliation Service address similar
needs. Attached to the letter is a proposal for creating a Mediation, Reconciliation
and Counseling (MRC) center.
Regarding the special use standards, Mr. Nyquist's letter states that the proposed
use would add to the community and would not diminish property values in the
neighborhood. He notes that the surrounding property is already developed and,
therefore, the proposed use should not negatively affect the development of adjacent
property. The applicant points out that more than adequate parking exists on the
church property and that the MRC center would operate at times during the week when
the church is not heavily used. The letter concludes by noting that handicapped
clients can be accommodated at the church itself which is accessible to the handi-
capped, but that the MRC center would not be remodeled for handicapped access.
Staff see nc real conflict with the special use standards. The proposed use seems
to be an entirely appropriate reuse of this part of the church property. Our main
concern is that the proposed use be connected to and consistent with the ministry
of Brookdale Covenant Church. We would not recommend approval of a reuse of the
premises that involved, for instance, law offices or accountants' offices. In
light of the non- profit, public- service nature of the MRC center and its affiliation
with the church, we feel it can be comprehended within the R1 zone. A more com-
mercial use of the property involving perhaps a subdivision of land, would have to
be accompanied by a rezoning application to C1. That need not be considered in
this case.
In light of the above, approval is recommended on the grounds that the Standards
for a Special Use Permit are met and subject to the following conditions:
1. Permit approval is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant for a Mediation,
P P PP
Reconciliation and Counseling center use and is nontransferable.
3. Building permits are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
7 -2F -A4
f
CITY OF LROOKLYN CLP IER
Notice is herby given thi;t a f); l;lic will � v can t; e 1Uth c' y cf
September, 1984 at Y p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 .Shingle Creek P rXway,
to consider are amendment to the Zoning Ordinance changing the zoning; classifi-
cation of certain land.
ORDINANCE N0. - -- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
CHANGIN THE ZONING CL OF CERTAIN LAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 35 -1120. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R3). The
following properties are hereby established as being within the (R3) Multiple
Family Residence District zoning classification:
[Outiot E, Twin Cities Interchange Park Addition
Lot 1, Blo 2, Brooklyn V illage Offices Addition.
Blocks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Earle Brown Farm Estates First Addition.
Earle Brown Farm Est ates Second Addition, Earle Brown F arm Estates Third
Addition, Earle B Farm Estates Fourth Addition, Brown Farm
Estates Fifth Addition.
Section 2. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances is further amended in the
following manner:
Section 35 -1140. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (115). The
following properties are hereby established as being within the (R5) Multiple
Family Residence District zoning classification:
[That part of Lots 4 and 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57, described as
follows: Commencing at a point in the westerly line of Lot 4 distant
202.5 feet south, measured at right angles, from the north line thereof;
thence southeasterly 198.49 feet; thence east 251.39 feet; thence
northwesterly at an angle of 132° 10' a distance of 215.39 feet more or
less to a point 202.5 feet south, measured at right angles, from the
north line of Lot 4; thence west to the point of beginning; except
highway.
That part of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57. described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the north line of tot 4 distant 34 rods east
from the west line of Section 27; thence south 82.5 feet; thence west
81.35 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence south 120 feet;
thence west to the northeasterly line of State Highway No. 152; thence
northwesterly along said highway line to a ;point distant 82.5 feet south
as measured at riche angles from the north line of Lot 4; thence east
to the point of beginning; except highway.
0RDINANCE N0
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this _ day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
f Publication
Date .o
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted).
1
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 6, 1984
AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR LICENSE
zza Factory 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. �p
yders Brookdale Center !1111( ( l
Ch' f of Police
GARBAGE AND REFUSE HAULERS LICENSE
Crosstown Sanitation 10110 38th Ave. N.
Sanitarian
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Jaycee Women 4152 Welcome Ave. N.
Sanitarian,
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
The Energy Barn 17441 Highway 10 E.
Flare Heating 664 Mendelssohn Ave. N.
Buildi Official
GENERAL APPROVAL:
r d G. ter, City Clerk
i