The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985 02-25 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 25, 1985 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 - February 11, 1985 7. Presentation of Award of Financial Reporting Achievement for Paul W. Holmlund, Director of Finance 8. Resolutions: a. Approving Change Order No. 1 to Contract for Well No. 8 Reconditioning Project No. 1985 -01, Phase I -This resolution provides City Council authorization to remove obstructions from the well cavern discovered during well reconditioning procedures. *b. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1985 -A (Lift Station Improvement Project No. 1984 -05) -It is recommended the City Council award a contract in the amount of $75,135.41 to 0 & P Contracting, Inc. for the construction of a lift station and force main to serve the proposed Ramada Hotel and adjacent commercial properties. c. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1985 -B (Water Tower Reconditioning Project No. 1985 -02) -Is recommended the City Council award a contract in the amount of $113,700 to Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. for the reconditioning of the City's towers located along 69th Avenue North at France Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North. d. Amending the 1985 Employee Position and Classification Plan and Appointing Mr. Arnold Mavis to the Position of Director of Recreation *e. Accepting Quotation for Purchase of 3/4 Ton Cargo Van -This item is authorized for the Street Department in the 1985 Budget. It is recommended the quotation of Cloverleaf Motors, Inc. in the amount of $8,727.99 be accepted. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 25, 1985 * f. Approving Collective Bargaining Agreement between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49, AFL -CIO and the City of Brooklyn Center. 9. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 85004 submitted by Cathy Rausch for special use permit approval to conduct a home beauty shop with one nonresident employee in the existing family room of the residence at 3000 63rd Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85004 at its February 14, 1985 meeting. 10. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the City Ordinances Regarding Onsite Sewage Systems -This ordinance was first read on January 28, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on February 7, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. A public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. The ordinance would adopt Minnesota Pollution Control Agency criteria for onsite sewage systems. b. An Ordinance Amending the Penalty Sections of the City Ordinances of Brooklyn Center to Reflect the Changes in Minnesota Statute -This ordinance is offered for a first reading nd would bring the g g penalty sections in City ordinances in compliance with State statute b r y prescribing a maximum fine of $700. or imprisonment for 90 days for an ordinance violation. The ordinance would also stipulate that the penalty would include the costs of prosecution. c. An Ordinance Vacating a Street Easement Over a Portion of Lot 2, Block 1 Corner Addition -This ordinance is offered for a first reading and provides for the vacation of a street easement within Corner Addition as required under the conditions of final plat approval. 11. Discussion Items: a. Update on Brookwood Senior Housing Project li *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment 4P 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 FEBRUARY 11, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance`Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Chief of Police James Lindsay, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Bob Cilke of the Brookdale Christian Center. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Theis requested item 7a removed from the Consent Agenda. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 85 -26 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST BY NEIL HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING FOR A MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -27 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF TWO (2) 27,500 GVW DUMP TRUCKS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the 2 -11 -85 -1- following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -28 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ONE (1) 14 FOOT ALUMINUM STEP VAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.- RESOLUTION NO. 85 -29 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF VIRGINIA SWANSON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -30 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DIANE LEMKE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LICENSES There was e motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: BULK VENDING LICENSE Brooklyn Center Lions 7131 Knox Ave. K -Mart 3600 63rd Ave. N. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Orchard Lane 6201 Noble Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Air Conditioning Associates 689 Pierce Butler Rte. Anderson Mechanical 3551 Emerson Ave. N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. 2 -11 -85 -2- Ault 1600 Freeway Blvd. Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. ARA Services 2830 N. Fairview Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Open Systems 2700 Freeway Blvd. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Bond Tool & Die Company 6840 SHin g le Cr. Pkwy. Canteen Company 6200 Penn Ave. S. FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. MTC 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Cook Paint 4800 N. Lilac Drive D.L. Service Co. 2516 83rd Ave. N. Lowell's Auto 6211 Brooklyn Blvd. Dale Tile Co. 4825 France Ave. N. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Interstate United Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. State Farm 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Iten Leasing 4301 68th Ave. N. Jimmy Jingle, Inc. 1304 E. Lake St. Johnson Control 1801 67th Ave. N. K -Mart 3600 63rd Ave. N. Malmborg's Inc. 5120 N. Lilac Dr. Midwest Screw 3501 48th Ave. N. Pilgrim Dry Cleaners, Inc. 5748 Morgan Ave. N. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Donaldson's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Onan Tech Center Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. Thrifty Scot 6445 James Circle Bill West Union 76 2000 57th Ave. N. Twin Lake North Apts. 4539 58th Ave. N. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. Ault Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. ARA Services 2830 N. Fairview Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. S. FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd. Iten I Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. MTC 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Interstate United Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. State Farm 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's Brookdale Center 2 -11 -85 -3- Donaldson's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Cr Pkwy: Onan Tech Center READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE American Bakeries Co. 4215 69th Ave. N. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Fun Services, Inc. 3701 50th Ave. N. European Health Spa 2920 County Rd. 10 Gift Shop Too 1501 Freeway Blvd, Ideal Drug Store 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Snyder Brothers Brookdale Center Total Petroleum Inc 6830 Brooklyn Blvd Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1985 -08, Approving Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1985 -E). Councilmember Theis inquired whether the City could authorize more than one contractor to be hired under the contract in case the City gets into a time bind with regard to the 20 day removal period for diseased elm trees. He also noted that Dutch Elm disease is on the increase again in Minnesota. The Director of Public Works replied that last year the City's contractor took down the number of trees he contracted for but also took down more than the initial amount specified in the contract. Councilmember Theis suggested that the specifications be written so that the City could go to a second contractor if it gets in a bind over the 20 day removal period. The Director of Public Works replied that he would review the .contract to see if there can be some flexibility in this area. RESOLUTION NO 85 -31 Member Bill.Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1985 -08, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1985 -E) 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, Celia Scott, Gene Lhotka, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, Rich Theis abstained; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Amending the 1985 General Fund Budget, Transferring Funds from the Council Contingency Account to Police Department Mobile Equipment Account No. 4553 for Mobile Command Center. Councilmember Scott inquired whether the staff believed the Command Center would` meet the City's needs for sometime to come or just a few years. Chief of Police Lindsay responded by stating that he believed the equipment would meet the needs of the City for approximately the next ten years and that only the radio equipment would 40 2 -11 -85 -4- 4 become outdated. At the request of Councilmember Lhotka, Chief Lindsay reviewed the costs of the equipment noting that the vehicle will be purchased at City cost but all other outfitting costs would be matched by the federal government. He added that the vehicle will be primarily a communication center which can only be duplicated by the City's existing dispatch center. He stated the command center would allow the City to separate emergency situation communications from the day to day communications which are ongoing in an emergency. He added that the van will provide the same radio capacity as the existing dispatch center and that the command center will eliminate the delay caused by communications going through the dispatch center from the emergency site. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he was not convinced that the results, in terms of lives saved and other similar standards, would be improved. The Chief of Police replied that he cannot definitely state that such results would be realized but the command center would improve the capability in situations, such as hostage situations. He added that he does, not know when it may be needed and only asks that the City have the capability to give what the staff believes will improve the reaction time and communication efficiency in emergency situations. He pointed out the intent is that the command center would be operated by a police dispatcher. Councilmember Theis requested the Chief to review how the day to day operations of the police department would interfere with an emergency situation. The Chief replied that medicals, alarms, and call for assistance, such as personal injury accidents would have to be dealt with and would interfere with emergency communications. The Chief then reviewed how the police department operates now in emergency situations, and pointed out that the department uses neighboring homes for communications and that he believes this is not an efficient use of personnel. Councilmember Theis asked the Chief to rate the priorities in the police department budget in relation to the command center such as personnel needs. The Chief replied that in terms of personnel there is one officer currently on short term disability and two on long term disability, and that certainly manpower is the number one priority in the department. He stated, however, that the command center would provide better overall service to the community than items such as remodeling of the police department entryway. RESOLUTION 85 -32 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET, TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM COUNCIL CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO POLICE DEPARTMENT MOBILE EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT NO. 1 4553 FOR MOBILE COMMAND CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott. In discussion of the motion Councilmember Lhotka stated he was not convinced that the City needs this particular piece of equipment. Councilmember Theis commented that he believes the communication capability i more important p y s p tant than remodeling of the entryway to the police department and that if the resolution passes he would like to look at the police department remodeling in light of cosmetic versus efficiency type remodeling. Upon a vote being taken on the motion on the floor, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: Gene Lhotka, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed .and adopted. 2 -11 -85 -5- PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 4 8 036 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONDUCT A DITCH DREDGING PROJECT IN THE FLOOD PLAIN WITHIN THE CRYSTAL AIRPORT PROPERTY WEST OF UNITY AVENUE, NORTH AND SOUTH OF 63RD AVENUE NORTH — a The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Councilmembers the January 31, 1985 Planning Commission meeting minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 84036. He explained the project originally proposed to dredge the drainage ditch from 63rd Avenue North to Bass Lake Road in Crystal, but that the project has been modified to extend only to the environmental preserve bordering Crystal and Brooklyn Center. He explained the purpose of the project is to facilitate drainage in Brooklyn Park between 63rd Avenue North and the I -94 freeway. He explained any deposit of dredged spoils is a special use in a flood way o P y z ne. He proceeded . to review the provisions in Chapter 35 -2184 related to the project and by which the Planning Commission and Council must base its decision. He pointed out the primary concern in the project is the potential higher flood levels which would be created in Twin Lake. He then referred Councilmembers to an engineering study done by Barr Engineering which indicated the effects would be minimal. He pointed out that the Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing on January 31, 1985, recommended approval of the project, subject to four conditions which he reviewed for Councilmembers. He explained a public hearing on the special use permit request has been scheduled for this evening, that notices had been sent and that a representative of the applicant is present this evening. Mayor Nyquist expressed a concern for the project as it relates to the water level on TwinLake, and noted that last summer Twin Lake did not appear to recede at all. The Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed project area, and explained that the drainage from the project goes into Twin Lake through upper, middle, and lower Twin and passes through Ryan Lake and finally to Shingle Creek. He explained high water was experienced through most of the summer, and pointed out that there was a great deal of rainfall throughout last summer. He explained that hydraulic studies show that r' p unary restrictions to the flaw of water are at T.H. 100 and France and also at the outlet from Ryan Lake. The purpose of the project, he pointed out, is to speed up the run -off rate and that the staff had expressed some serious reservations about the project and insisted on a detailed hydraulic study. He explained Brooklyn Park agreed to the study which showed a five year storm level may increase the level of the water in Twin Lake 1 1/8 inches, which is significant. He explained that Brooklyn Park then went back to Barr Engineering for a more detailed study which showed that the levels would only be between 0 and 1/8 inch and that the question now appears to be whether 1/8 inch is a significant effect. Councilmember Scott noted that the problem at France and T.H. 100 is quite severe. The Director of Public Works agreed, stating that the channel appears to be silted in quite heavily in this area. Councilmember Scott also commented on the blockage of the channel at the railroad crossing on upper Twin Lake. The Director of Public Works stated that measures had been taken of the lake levels last year and that there did not appear to be a blockage shown in this area. He explained the most severe restrictions are the culvert and the channel west of the culvert. In response to further questions from the Council regarding the cost to alleviate the problem, the Director of Public Works stated that dredging would not be the expensive part of the project but replacement of the culvert would be quite expensive. Councilmember • 2 -11 -85 -6- Theis inquired whether the 1/8 inch level during the five year flood would reach the capacity of the culvert. The Director of Public Works replied that the five year level would reach the capacity of the culvert. Councilmember Theis then asked whether the 10 year or 50 year flood levels would be more serious problems than the five year flood level. The Director of Public Works explained that the Barr Engineering study tested for 5, 10, 50 and 100 year flood levels and showed that the maximum effect is on the five year flood since on larger floods there is a g reater overland flow and that the five year flood produces the most significant change. The City Manager pointed out that the water level will get to its end point with or without the proposed project, and that dredging would only increase the time at which the levels downstream w stream wo uld increase. The Director of Public Works added that by modifying the project as was done the increase in levels should be less than 1/8 inch increase. Councilmember Theis inquired whether there was any option for ponding in Brooklyn Park. The Director of Public Works explained that development in the area to be drained is so intense that this does not appear to be an option. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 84036. He inquired if there was anyone present q y p ese t who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak at the public hearing and he entertained a motion to close the hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Application No. 84036. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Votin g against: ainst: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Application No. 84036, subject to the following conditions: 1. If the project results in construction of a ditch crossing under the existing boardwalk which crosses the "Environmental Preserve" area, Brooklyn Park shall construct a pedestrian bridge meeting the approval of the Brooklyn Center Director of Public tic Works and the Crystal City Engineer at no cast to the City of Brooklyn Center or to the City of Crystal. 2. Upon completion of the project, the City of Brooklyn Park shall submit to the Brooklyn Center Director of Public Works a center line profile along the route of the constructed channel, showing an "as built" profile of the bottom of the ditch after construction. 3. The expiration date for the permit shall be April 1, 1986. 4. Any damage to existing fences adjacent to the project caused by , the ditch dredging project will be repaired at the expense of the City of Brooklyn Park. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes to table consideration of Application No. 84036 until the City of Brooklyn Center obtains some input from the City of Robbinsdale regarding any problems created by the restrictions of water flow in the project area in the City of Robbinsdale. The motion died for lack of a second. 2 -11 -85 -7- Upon a vote being taken on the motion on the floor, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis; the following voted against the same; g ,Bill Hawes,. whereupon Application No. 84036 was declared duly passed and approved. Mayor Nyquist requested the staff to see what could be done with regard to the area in question in Robbinsdale. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m. ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING HOLIDAY LEAVE The City Manager introduced the ordinance and explained that it was first read on January 14, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 24, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He explained the ordinance provides for time and one -half pay for certain holidays for police clerk /dispatchers and those employees working irregular work shifts. He added that a public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Holiday Leave. - He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Holiday Leave. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 85 -01 Member Rich Theis introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING HOLIDAY LEAVE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE LOCATION OF GROUP DAY CARE FACILITIES IN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS The City Manager introduced tie ordinance and explained it was first read on January 14, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 24, 1985, and is offered: this evening for a second reading. He explained the ordinance was presented in conjunction with Planning Commission Application No. 84039 submitted by New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. and that a public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance` Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding the location of group day care 2 -11 -85 -8- facilities in commercial zoning districts, and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and Mayor Nyquist entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Location of Group Day Care Facilities in Commercial Zoning Districts. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 85 -02 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE LOCATION OF GROUP DAY CARE FACILITIES IN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN COMMERCIALLY ZONED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The City Manager introduced the ordinance and explained it was first read on January 14, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 24, 1985, is offered this evening for a second reading and that a public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Development of Certain Commercially Zoned Land within the City of Brooklyn Center. The City Manager stated that he had received a letter from Ryan Construction regarding a proposed project on Summit Avenue, and explained that in the letter Ryan Construction states that the project will not produce a deleterious effect from traffic. The City Manager also recommended that in order to allow Ryan Construction to have the project on the Planning Commission agenda on May 20 the moratorium would have to end on May 20, 1985. He explained that this would mean a three week difference to Ryan Construction with regard to the time required for consideration of their application. The City Manager also recommended that if the Council chooses to act favorably on the ordinance they should first adopt the resolution authorizing the traffic study. Mayor Nyquist stated that he would like to allay any rumors with regard to the moratorium, and stated that the moratorium would be for a three month period only and would only be extended if the traffic study showed a need. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Nick Stenson, President of Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies. Mr. Stenson stated that he sees an opportunity o have a neighbor as earl Y g Y as November of this year and urged the Council not to close the window on this opportunity. He stated that he would like to see the moratorium set aside. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Dick Grones representing Lombard Properties, who showed a map of the developed and undeveloped area in the Shingle Creek Business Center area, and noted that most of the retail businessess existing went in with the 2 -11 -85 -9- thought that more retail would also go in. He stated that he had been encouraged to develop the area according to zoning which has been commercial for 13 years and that it is a little disturbing that it may not be able to be used for the purpose it was originally purchased for. He added that in Brooklyn Center the existing re Y g tail space is now leased up. With regard to the parcel across from Davanni's, he explained that the purchase price was $880,000 and that $1.4 million has been invested in the property considering taxes, engineering studies and interest costs. He stated that the erc h e tion is P P that this area cannot be developed. He added that the moratorium will be costly and that if retail is not acceptable, he would like some suggestions for what is acceptable, and requested the Council to urge the staff to have a firm recommendation regarding usage. Mayor Nyquist recognized Lonnie McCauley, Executive Vice President of the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce. Ms. McCauley stated that the Chamber opposed the full year moratorium but that the board voted not to take any formal action when the Council reduced the moratorium to a three month period to conduct a traffic study. She added that she is here this evening on her own and not representing the Chamber formally. She added that sheds concerned about what will happen to land uses if the study shows that retail would be restricted. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Tom Bonneville, representing Target Stores. Mr. Bonneville stated he feels confident that the traffic studies will show Target will be a good member of the greater Brookdale shopping area, and that he also feels confident that Target will be a member of the Brooklyn Center community. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Dick Grones who cited the large amount of office space currently vacant in Brooklyn Center. He stated there is about a two year supply of office space in the City now. Mayor Nyquist Y Yq inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the .public hearing on An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Development of Certain .Commercially Zoned Land within the City of Brooklyn Center, Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist Councilmembers Lhotka Scott Hawes and Theis. Voting against. none. The motion passed unanimously. Y RESOLUTION NO. 85 -33 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SHORT- ELLIOTT- HENDRIC KSON INC. N TO CONDUCT A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RELATING TO RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN BROOKLYN CENTER AND AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes. In discussion of the motion, Councilmember Lhotka. stated that he does not see why a moratorium is necessary and that he believes the traffic study can be accomplished without enacting a moratorium. Councilmember Theis inquired as to the proposed construction' schedule indicated by Target Stores. The City Manager explained that Target has indicated that they would plan the opening for August of 1986 and that he did not see a moratorium 40 2 -11 -85 -10- delaying Target's plans. He pointed out that Target has been cooperative in working out plan changes to go to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Theis stated that he looked at the traffic study to deal with traffic flow problems before hand and not after the fact as in the Target store located in Fridley. In light of that procedure, he pointed out he would support the moratorium. In reponse to questions from the Council, the City Manager stated that he believes the City could plug in to the study other criteria from future developments to receive data on traffic related to future development. In this way, he pointed out the study would not be limited to a one time assessment but could be used in the future also. Mayor Nyquist stated that he wanted to assure the study could be used for more than this single purpose. Councilmember Lhotka again stated that he believed the study could be accomplished without the moratorium. Upon a vote being taken on the resolution on the floor, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 85 - Member Bill Hawes introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption with the stipulation that the period of the moratorium established by the ordinance shall begin upon the effective date of the ordinance and end on May 20, 1985: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN COMMERCIALLY ZONED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance as amended was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the fallowing voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: Gene Lhotka, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION ITEMS STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ASSESSMENT POLICY AMENDMENT RELATED TO STREET RECONSTRUCTION Councilmember Lhotka inquired where the increased costs in terms of dollars to the City would be coming from with the new policy. The City Manager replied that with regard to the Lyndale Avenue reconstruction project an oral approval has been received from the State regarding the turnback funds. He added that the turnback funds would provide for all the costs of the project except the portion assessed. He int ed out that ' t if the ' � City assesses 20% of a project the City can bond for the rest. He pointed out that assessments can cover 60% and 40% would come from the general fund. Also, the City could bond for the whole project and assess 60% and obtain 40% through _a general obligation bond. He noted that the debt service would increase the tax levy until the debt is paid off. Councilmember Theis asked that, assuming six to ten blocks per year are reconstructed, how long would it take to replace all the streets in the City. The Director of Public Works stated that it would take approximately 150 years, but that he did not think the City will need to replace all the streets and that an evaluation that all streets need to be replaced within 20 to 30 years is reflective of current 2 -11 -85 -11- policy which has resulted in not replacing any streets in actuality. Mayor Nyquist asked of the City Attorney whether the Council must make findings of an increase in market value with regard to a reconstruction project. The City Attorney replied that such a finding would reduce the risk of having an appeal but that the appeal process itself remains the same. He added that, with an assessment hearing held before construction, if appeals come, the City can change the project and satisfy appeals before the project is built or the project can be abandoned completely. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -34 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING ASSESSMENT POLICY RELATING TO STREET RECONSTRUCTION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -35 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECEIVING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING LYNDALE AVENUE WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -04, STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -05, AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -06 AND CALLING FOR A HEARING THEREON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CONSIDERATION OF ON SALE WINE AND BEER LICENSE FOR DENNY'S RESTAURANT Councilmember Scott questioned the reference to the Manager of Denny's Restaurant in the memo, and noted that the memo has indicated that the Manager has been there since 1978 and that this is an error and the current Manager is not the same one as in 1978. The City Manager noted that the City investigates the company holding the license, including the officers of the corporation, and that the investigation of the onsite manager is separate. Councilmember Scott stated that she would like the statement in the memo checked out regarding the tenure of the current manager. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to table consideration of the on sale wine and beer license for Denny's Restaurant to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting to clarify the investigation report; Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF CLASS B GAMBLING LICENSE FOR THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, COUNCIL 6772 There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the Class B gambling license for the Knights of Columbus, Council 6772. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 2 -11 -85 -12- There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to waive the $10,000 fidelity bond for the gambling license for the Knights of Columbus, Council 6772. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager noted that the Knights of Columbus paid their $75 fee in advance, and that because of the State Statute change which grants authority for gambling licenses to the State as of March 1, 1985, this license will expire on February 28, 1985. He explained further that this means the license will only be in effect for approximately three weeks and that the staff is recommending refund of the $75 fee. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to refund the $75 fee for the Class B gambling license for the Knights of Columbus, Council 6772. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmember Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF ON SALE WINE AND BEER LICENSE FOR DENNY'S RESTAURANT The City Attorney explained to the Council that the trading of the stock for Denny's Restaurant means that the new license should be in effect before any liquor can be sold. For example, he pointed out, if they reorganized tomorrow they would be operating outside the law for every sale they made, if the Council does not grant the license this evening. He added that he recommends approval of the license with a call for an investigation of the onsite manager. Mayor Nyquist noted that the item had been tabled earlier in the meeting and that a motion to reconsider would be necessary. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to reconsider the on sale wine and beer license for Denny's Restaurant'. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the on sale wine and beer license for Denny's Restaurant for a period of 30 days, subject to the results of the investigation of the onsite manager and clarification that the existing manager is not the same manager as in 1978. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF BROOKWOOD SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT Councilmember Lhotka requested the staff to report on the status of the Brookwood Housing Project. The City Manager commented that Mr. Phil Cohen has met with Mr. Dan Brutger this afternoon regarding the housing project. Mayor Nyquist requested that the Brookwood Senior Housing Project be put on the next Council agenda as an information item. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 2 -11 -85 -13- .•. Vii. /r January 16, 1985 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 8 0NO NORTH Honorable Dean Nyquist MICHIGAN 180 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE Mayor r SUITE 800 y CHICAGO, ILUNOIS 60601 -7476 City of Brooklyn Center 312:977 -9700 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mayor Nyquist: We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1983 qualifies for a Certi- ficate of Conformance in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Confor- mance is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomp- lishment by a government and its management. When a Certificate of Conformance is awarded to a government an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is also presented to the individual designated by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate. Enclosed is an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement for: 0 Paul W. Holmlund Director of Finance The Certificate of Conformance will be shipped under separate cover in about six weeks. We hope that you will arrange for a formal presentation of the Certificate and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and that appropriate publicity will be given to this notable achievement. A sample news release is enclosed. We suggest that you provide copies of it to the local newspapers and radio and television stations. We hope that this example will encourage other government officials in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excel- lence in financial reporting. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if we may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION IS - % rc - David R. Bean Assistant Director /Governmental Accounting Programs 0 /Pp Enclosures FORMERLY THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON OFFICE• SUITE 200. 4750 K STRFFT. N W • WASHINGTON. D C • 20006.2(12 4M -2(144 i GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION NEWS RELEASE EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 180 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE SUITE 800 CHICAGO. IWNOIS 60601 -7476 312:977 -9700 RE: Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting The Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting has been awarded to City of Brooklyn Center by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1983. The Certificate of Conformance is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomp- lishment by a government and its management. u being awarded a Certificate of Conformance, the comprehensive annual ncial report (CAFR) of a government has been judged to substantially conform to the programs high standards of excellence. Such standards encompass both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. To earn a Certificate of Conformance a government must demonstrate a con- structive "spirit of full disclosure" effort to clearly communicate its financial story, enhance understanding of the logic underlying the tradi- tional governmental financial reporting model, and motivate persons and groups in society to read and use the CAFR. Eligible CAFRs are evaluated by an impartial Special Review Committee com- posed of government finance officers, independent certified public ac- countant, educators and others with particular expertise in governmental accounting and financial reporting. When a Certificate of Conformance is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is also presented to the individual designated by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate. An Award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been awarded to: Paul W. Holmlund Director of Finance NOTE: Further information concerning the Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting Program is available upon request. FORMERLYTHE MUNICWAL FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON OFFICE- SUITE 200.1750 K STREET N W • WASHINGTON. D C. • 20006.20T4m_9014 I S 7 A Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT FOR WELL NO. 8 RECONDITIONING PROJECT NO. 1985 -01, PHASE I WHEREAS, the City Council entered into Contract with Layne Minnesota Company, for Well No. 8 Reconditioning Project No. 1985 -01, Phase I; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined that certain modifications need to be made to the contract to facilitate the completion of the project, said modifications being as follows: Mobilize drilling equipment for removal of.well cavern obstructions $ 2,500.00 Drilling /bailing of obstruction 40 hours (est.) @ $115.00 /hour 4,600.00 SUBTOTAL $ 7,100.00 Increased sand removal due to obstruction removal 20 cubic yards @ $75.00 /cubic yard $ 1,500.00 TOTAL $ 8,600.00 WHEREAS, the Contractor, Layne Minnesota Company, has agreed to the prices for the modifications as noted above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the above modifications to Project No. 1985 -01, Phase I are approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. There is appropriated the sum of $8,600.00 for the additional costs. 2. The appropriation will be financed by: Utility Fund $8,600.00 RESOLUTION 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. TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer DATE: February 19, 1985 RE: Well No. 8 Reconditioning Project No. 1985 -02, Phase I The following is a summary of the developments of the last few days regarding the change in project status of referenced Project No. 1985 -01, Phase I: On February 14, 1985,'a representative of Layne Minnesota Company informed me of difficulties encountered in the bailing of sand from Well No. 8. In discussing the problems further with the bailing rig operator, I learned that an apparent obstruction was located approximately 260 feet below the surface, and the operator considered the obstruction to be significant to the point that he would not continue bailing operations unless so directed. Based upon the operator's remarks, it was agreed that the well hole should be televised to determine the nature of the obstruction. The televising took place on February 15, 1985, at which time it was found that a dense rock layer had apparently broken loose from the side of the well cavern and slid along the top of the underlying sandstone to partially obstruct the opening below the finished well casing. The obstruction is located 255 feet below the surface, or 12 feet below the bottom of the finished well casing. At this point it appears the City has three options: 1. Cease all bailing operations, leaving the obstruction, and place the well in service. This option is not, recommended as it does not address the problem, rather it assumes the obstruction will not adversely affect well performance. Possible negative affects include significant pumping from directly adjacent to the bore hole, thus promoting degradation of the cavern ceiling. As a result, more sand could be pumped causing blockage of meters or loss of the pump. Cont' inued um in could expose the casing P P g P g increasing the possibility of casing pipe loss due to instability. 2. Blast the obstruction with a dynamite charge. This option is not recommended as it introduces significant dynamic forces, the result of which cannot be determined. 3. Drill the obstruction and bail the fractured,rock with the sand present in the cavern bottom. This option is recommended based upon discussions with the contractor and Black & Veatch, the City's consultant. Based upon further discussions with the contractor, it is obvious that the project scope has been altered significantly, and re- evaluation of contractural terms is necessary. 1 Item 1 - Layne Minnesota Company bailing rig is not sized to accommodate drilling of the obstruction. - Contractor cost to mobilize /demobilize necessary equipment - $2500. - Comparable verbal quote received from Keys Well Drilling, Inc. for comparable work - $2880. Evaluation - Layne Minnesota Company used a smaller rig because present circumstances were unforeseen, therefore, I do not consider it appropriate to further reduce the cost. Item 2 Obstruction drilling /bailing - This item is a "black box" item. Keys considers the time needed to fracture the obstruction and bail the large rocks to be at least 24 hours. Layne Minnesota Company has cautioned that it may take up to 40 hours. - Layne Minnesota Company quote $115 /hour Keys Well Drilling quote - $120 /hour - Upon completion of the obstruction removal and bailing of resulting "chunks ", the contractor can proceed with "Production" bailing as contemplated under the scope of the original documents. Item 3 - Increase in sand volume removed during production bailing - Layne Minnesota Company - $75 /cubic yard (contract price) - Keys Well Drilling - $60 /cubic yard Based upon the modified project scope described above, and the quoted prices received on February 18, 1985, I recommend the City negotiate a change order with Layne Minnesota Company for the work described above. A summary of the additional costs related to the drilling /bailing are as follows: Mobilization $ 2,500.00 Drilling /Bailing 40 hours @ $115.00 /hour 4,600.00 $ 7,100.00 It is anticipated that an increased amount of sand will be dislodged from the well cavern walls when the drilling operation is undertaken. As a result, item "3 above acknowledges that there will be an overrun in the contract item - sandstone removal. The estimated overrun of 20 cubic yards results in a $1,500.00 increase in contract amount (20 cubic yards x $75 /cubic yard). 2 Based upon the cost summary outlined above, it is anticipated that the total of all contractural costs for Phase I will be as follows: Original contract award $ 6,325.00 Obstruction removal 7,100.00 Increased contract quantity (additional sand removal) 1,500.00 TOTAL $14,925.00 The attached resolution contemplates the issuance of Change Order No. 1 to the contract (in the amount of $8,600.00) and its approval is recommended. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer Recommended for approval, Z h�, a, Di ec or Public Works 3 yb Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1985 -A (SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -05) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1984 -05, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 14th day of February, 1985. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Base Bid Amount Alternate 0 & P Contracting, Inc. $ 76,135.41 Deduct $1,000.00 L & G Rehbein, Inc. 89,678.45 No Bid C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. 90,708.25 No Bid Sarah Contracting, Inc. 90,851.98* No Bid Hayes Contractors, Inc. 92,289.50 No Bid Orfei & Sons, Inc. 96,241.43 No Bid Northdale Construction Co., Inc. 103,483.00 No Bid Nodland Associates, Inc. 106,375.00 Add $3,000.00 Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. 107,597.00 No Bid G.L. Contracting, Inc. 159,609.50 Add $2,500.00 *Engineer's Correction Upon Extension WHEREAS, it appears that O & P Contracting, Inc. of Osseo, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $75,135.41 with 0 & P Contracting, Inc: of Osseo, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Project No. 1984 -05 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to .return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids except that the deposit of the P P successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. RESOLUTION NO. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Reconditioning Project No. 1984 -05 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract Cost $ 93,390.00 $ 75,135.41 Engineering Cost 8,400.00 6,762.19 Administrative Cost 930.00 751.35 Legal Cost 930.00 751.35 Capitalized Interest 11,210.00 9,016.25 TOTAL $114,860.00 $ 92,416.55 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. TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer DATE: February 21, 1985 RE: Evaluation of Bids Contract 1985 -A (Lift Station Improvement Project No. 1984 -05) Pursuant to City Council authorization bids were received for the construction of a lift station and force main to serve the proposed Ramada Hotel and adjacent commercial development. A review of submitted proposals shows that the lowest responsible bid was submitted by 0 & P Contracting, Inc. A summary of interviewed references is as follows: City of Brooklyn Park (Bill Heab - Senior Inspector) 0 & P Contracting,. Inc. completed a comparably sized project in 1984. The Contractor was very cooperative making every effort to respond to the directives of the City. City of Mahtomedi (Chuck Wetzler - Consultant for TKDA) The Contractor completed 2 comparbly sized projects in 1984. The Contractor completed work in a timely manner and maintained a good working relationship with the owner. Army Corps of Engineers (Mike Schwalbe) The Contractor completed a project for the Corps in 1982 at St. Anthony Falls. Again, the Contractor completed the work in a timely fashion, making necessary corrections as directed by the Engineer without delay. Based upon the information provided, staff is confident that the Contractor can complete the project, and it is recommended that a contract be awarded as provided on the attached resolution. Please note that the resolution acknowledges the submittal of an alternate add or deduct for the use of an alternate prequalified lift station pump system. 0 & P Contracting, Inc. submitted a bid which contemplated a $1,000 deduct for use of an approved alternate pump system. The attached resolution accepts the deduct to the base bid. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for approval, l 1ty Engineer Director u 1c Wor s Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION �C NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1985 -B (WATER TOWER RECONDITIONING PROJECT NO. 1985 -02) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Reconditioning Project No. 1985 -02, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 14th day of February, 1985. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Base Bid Amount Alternate Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. $105,700.00 $ 8,000.00 Tenyer Coatings, Inc. 184,000.00 13,900.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. of Blaine, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $113,700.00 - (including the alternate bid) with Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. of Blaine, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Project No. 1985 -02 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to the second bidder the deposit made with its bid. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Reconditioning Project No. 1985 -02 is hereby amended from $167,020.00 to $129,322.00 in accordance with the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract Cost $149,270.00 $113,700.00 Engineering Consultant 8,800.00 8,80`0.00 City (5%) 7,460.00 5,685.00 Administration 1,490.00 1,137.00 TOTAL $167,020.00 $129,322.00 RESOLUTION 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. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer DATE: February 21, 1985 RE: Evaluation of Bids for Contract 1985 -B (Water Tower Reconditioning Project No. 1985 -02) Pursuant to City Council authorization, bids have been received for the complete painting of the water tower located at 69th and Dupont Avenues, including the removal of nonessential structural members. Also included in the documents was the request for an alternate bid for the use of a polyurethane paint system on the tower's exterior. This paint gives a glossy finish, does not fade as readily as the common paint system, has an extended service life, and is more "graffiti" resistant. Also included in the project is minor interior paint touchup of the City's tower located at 69th and France Avenues. As noted on the attached resolution, only two bidders submitted proposals for the work with the low bid being submitted by Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. Our review of these bids shows that the great discrepancy between the two bids maybe attributed more to the second bidder "fishing for a fat Contract" rather than the low bidder overlooking some aspect of the bid documents. The actual Engineer's Estimate of $129,800 (standard contingency factor of 15% raises the reported total to $149,270) was only $16,100 (14 %) greater than the low bid of $113,700 (base bid - $105,700 plus alternate - $8,000) whereas the second bidder's proposal of $197,900 (base bid - $184,000 plus alternate - $13,900) is considered to be totally unrealistic. Staff considers the apparent lack of interest on the part of other contractors to be attributable to a significant increase in work for 1985 and the fact that the project calls for partial project completion (exterior painting) in the spring and final completion (interior painting) in the fall thus requiring the Contractor to mobilize twice. 1 "Ile .So xetlsi cg %V once ,. All aspects of the bid documents have been reviewed with the low bidder. Based upon our review and discussions with Odland Protective` Coatings, Inc., it appears they fully understand the project requirements and are ready to proceed with the work on the basis of their bid. We have checked out references for previous work complete by the Contractor. A summary of the interviews is as follows: City of Anoka (John Norgren - Water Superintendent) Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. completed comparable work on a 1/2 million allon tank in 1983. The o g e C ntractor completed the work in a timely, responsible manner, having good rapport with the City. City of St. Paul (Bill Tschida - Engineering Technician) The Contractor completed the painting of the interior and exterior of a 5 million gallon standpipe in 1984. Again, the Contractor completed work in a timely, responsible manner, having good rapport with the City. City of Litchfield (Dallas Nelson - Utilities Superintendent) The Contractor completed minor structural repairs and repainting of a 2 million gallon ground storage structure in 1984 and repainted an 80,000 gallon tower in 1979. Mr. Nelson reports that the Contractor was dependable and completed work in a professional manner under both contracts. Based upon the information provided, we are confident the low bidder can complete the project as comprehended and we recommend that the contract be awarded to 'them as provided on the attached resolution. Our recommendation includes the use of the alternate paint system because this should extend the service life by 25% to 50 %. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer Recommend for approval, Director 6f "Public Works 2 M & C NO. 84 -03 February 22, 1984 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Replacement of Parks & Recreation Director To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: As you all know, Gene Hagel will be retiring on February 28, 1985. Gene has been with the City of Brooklyn Center in its parks system since its infancy. His 28 years of service is most adequately represented by the quality and serviceability of our parks system today. Gene will be sorely missed and his service greatly appreciated by this City Manager. With Gene's retirement, and being aware of it for approximately 12 months, we have had an opportunity to review the organization of our Parks and Recreation Department. I am recommending the organization of that department be modified. Gene Hagel and I agree the major work of the Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department over the past 20 to 30 years has been park development and the future of this department will undoubtedly be more orientated to recreation and leisure time programming. In light of this I am recommending the creation of a new position called Recreation Director and moving the park maintenance responsibility from the current Parks and Recreation Director to the Public Works Director Sy Knapp. Currently there is a dual supervision over the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, and I believe this is the opportune time to make that position responsible to a single department head rather than two. I am recommending the appointment of Arnie Mavis to the new position of Recreation Director. This new position will have all the same responsibilities as Gene Hagel Is position with the exception of park maintenance. This new position will still be responsible for park planning and input and responsibility for future park development. As a part of this proposal we would be eliminating and vacating Mr. Hagel's position and proposing not to fill it. We would expect that part -time personnel would be used to supervise and take over some of the more line supervisory activities of Mr. Mavis' current position. There may be an additional need for adding supervisory responsibility to other department employees, but that will be assessed during 1985 after we have had an opportunity to work with this system through the summer. I believe by adding the additional responsibilities to Mr. Mavis' current position we will be able to place ourselves in a situation where we can meet the challenges the i future is going to bring to our arks and recreations stem b this new o p Y Y g posture. I believe Mr. Mavis is uniquely qualified to give us the skill and experience this position demands. He is a graduate in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, served five ears as a YMCA Program Director and Y g has served this community n the capacity of Recreation Superintendent c sin e Y P Y 1969. The attached resolution approves the appointment of Mr. Mavis to the new position of Recreation Director and eliminates the positions of Recreation Superintendent, Parks and Recreation Director, and makes the necessary pay plan modifications. Respectfully submitted, /A"& 4 -5 � D Gerald G. Splinter City Manager 8d Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1985 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND APPOINTING MR. ARNOLD MAVIS TO THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF RECREATION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following amendments be made to the 1985 Employee Position and Classification Plan: 1. That schedule C is amended by deleting the position of Superintendent of Recreation. 2. That schedule B is amended to change the position of Director of Parks & Recreation to the Director of Recreation with the following grade range schedule. RANGE I RANGE II RANGE III GROWTH PERFORMANCE MERIT POSITION MINIMUM MAXIMUM MINIM MIDPOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM Director of Recreation 34,784 38,877 39,286 39,923 41,969 42,378 46,061 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to appoint Mr. Arnold Mavis to the position of Director of Recreation. 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 duly passed and adopted. JOB DESCRIPTION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER POSITION: Director of Recreation DEPARTMENT: Recreation DATE APPROVED: Feb., 1985 OBJECTIVE Plan, direct and administer the development and operation of a balanced year around recreational and leisure time program to meet the needs of all ages and groups in line with City objectives. RELATIONSHIPS Reports to: City Manager Supervises: Recreation Department and Community Center employees SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Evaluates needs for park and recreational areas. Recommends to City Manager alternative actions to reflect changing neighborhood charac- teristics, input from the Park and Recreation Commission and other community and neighborhood groups, etc. 2. This position is responsible for the planning and the development of park and recreation areas. 3. Assists the Public Works Director in ensuring proper planning and imple- mentation of all regular maintenance and special repair work to assure effective coordination between park maintenance functions and recreational and community functions. 4. Directs the design and implementation of recreational programs. Evaluates the community needs for recreational and leisure time activities, and ensures proper planning, organizing, promotion, and coordination of all activities. Includes overseeing the selection, training, and supervision of part time or seasonal recreational assistants, instructors, etc. as needed. 5. Evaluates recreational programs. Develops feedback from supervisors and participants and reviews attendance and cost records to determine if the programs are meeting objectives. Ensures proper balance of programs to meet the needs of all groups. 6. Ensures effective coordination of recreation functions with the operations of other departments, four different school districts, and other community functions. Meets with representatives of civic organizations, schools, and special interest groups to coordinate community recreation efforts and to interpret program goals and objectives. Also provides input and serves as advisor to the Parks and Recreation Commission. 7. Directs the purchase of materials for recreational needs. Reviews pur- chasing activities of subordinates in relation to budgeted amounts. Personally handles or develops recommendations for the purchase of major items. 8. Performs required administrative functions. Includes preparation of the annual department budget, supervision of the handling and recording of all program receipts, and preparation of regular and special reports as required. 9. Performs other related duties as indicated. Includes assisting local leisure time groups in the development of their activities, etc. REQUIREMENTS 1. Education: Bachelors degree in Parks and Recreation Administration or related area or equivalent combination of education and experience. 2. Experience: Minimum of three to five years of responsible experience in municipal recreation. 3. Extensive understanding of major leisure, recreational and educational programs for all ages and groups. 4. Strong organizational and administrative abilities, good communications skills, and the ability to work effectively with community groups, outside agencies, and the general public. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ONE (1) 3/4 TON CARGO vAN WHEREAS, written quotations were accepted for the purchase of one (1) 3/4 Ton Cargo Van. WHEREAS, the quotations received were as follows: Bidder Quotation Cloverleaf Motors, Inc. $8,727.99 Baldwin Chevrolet, Inc. 8,974.15 Brookdale Ford, Inc. 9,222.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the quotation for One (1) 3/4 Ton Cargo Van from Cloverleaf Motors, Inc. in the amount of $8,727.99 is hereby accepted and the City Manager is hereby authorized to contract for the purchase of the 3/4 Ton Cargo Van in the amount of $8,727.99 from Cloverleaf Motors, Inc. 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. MEMO: Gerald G. Splinter 1 FROM: Brad Hoffman DATE: February 20, 1985 SUBJECT: 3/4 Ton Van A 3/4 Ton Van was approved for Park Maintenance for an amount of $9,500 less $700 trade -in. I have received fourteen (14) quotes for the vehicle and the quote from Cloverleaf Motors, Inc. in the amount of $8,727.99 per our specs was the lowest quote. I am recommending the approval of the quote from Clover Leaf Chevrolet. M & C NO. 84 -02 February 22, 1984 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: 1985 Local 49 Agreement To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: The attached agreement represents a two year agreement for 1985 and 1 86 with an opener for wages, insurance, and local issues in 1986. This proposed contract represents a settlement of slightly under 5 %. The dollar amounts for insurance are in line with what we are paying other City employees for 1985, and the settlement is in line with the information the Council had when setting the nonorganized employees' salaries in December, 1984. The changes in the local issues section of the contract were to add a "standby" clause for Utility personnel and a pay rate of $11.54 for welding. The standby clause is for Utility workers who are on call and standing by at home in case of a utility equipment failure on weekends and holidays. For that we will be paying them two hours at the overtime pay rate. This type of compensation is standard among all the metro suburban communities. We recommend your favorable consideration. Respectfully s m'tted, Gerald G. Splin er City Manager Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49, AFL -CIO AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as amended thereafter requires a written contract between the employer and the exclusive representative of a recognized bargaining unit; and WHEREAS, the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49, has been designated as the exclusive representative for the Brooklyn Center Public Works employees bargaining unit; and WHEREAS, the membership of Local No. 49 and the City Manager have agreed to a negotiated Master Labor Agreement between the Metropolitan Area Management Association (MAMA), representing the Cities of Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Cottage Grove, Crystal, Eden Prairie, Edina, Fridley, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Mounds View, New Hope, Oakdale, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Roseville, St. Anthony, St. Louis Park, and White Bear Lake and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49, AFL--CIO; and WHEREAS, the agreement includes the following terms and conditions of employment: I. LENGTH OF CONTRACT The agreement shall cover the period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1986. 2. WAGE RATES A. The following wage schedule will be in effect from the first payroll period in 1985 through the last payroll period in 1985: Maintenance Three - $11.78 per hour Maintenance Two - $11.30 per hour Maintenance One - $8.14 per hour Mechanic - $11.78 per hour Night Service Person - $11.11 per hour Welding - $11.54 per hour Crew Leader - an employee assigned in writing by the department head to assist a supervisor as a crew leader shall be paid an additional $.48 per hour while performing such duties,. 3. INSURANCE The City will contribute up to a maximum of $155 per month per employee for group health and life insurance, including dependent coverage for calendar year 1985. RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends employer approval of the agreement: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the 1984 -1986 Master Labor Agreement between the Metropolitan Area Management Association representing the aforementioned cities, including the City of Brooklyn Center, and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49 AFL -CIO. 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 duly passed and adopted. MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (MAMA) REPRESENTING THE CITIES OF: Blaine Eden Prairie New Hope Brooklyn Center Edina Oakdale Brooklyn Park Fridley Richfield Burnsville Golden Valley Robbinsdale Circle Pines Hopkins Roseville Columbia Heights Minnetonka St. Anthony Cottage Grove Mounds View St. Louis Park Crystal White Bear Lake AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS (IUOE) LOCAL NO. 49 AFL -CIO JANUARY 1, 1984 - DECEMBER 31, 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE PAGE I PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT . . . . . . . 1 II RECOGNITION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 III UNION SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 IV EMPLOYER SECURITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 V EMPLOYER AUTHORITY . . . . . . . 2 VI EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.. . . . . . 2 VII DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 IX WORK SCHEDULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 X OVERTIME PAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 XI CALL BACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 XI I LEGAL DEFENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 XIII RIGHT OF SUBCONTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . 7 XIV DISCIPLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 XV SENIORITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 XVI PROBATIONARY PERIODS . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 XVII SAFETY 8 XVIII JOB POSTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 XIX INSURANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 XX HOLIDAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 XXI SCOPE OF AGREEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 XXII WAIVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 XXIII DURATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 APPENDIX A - WAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . A -1 APPENDIX B - LOCAL ADDENDUM. . . . . . . . B -1 LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49, AFL -CIO ARTICLE I PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter called the EMPLOYER, and Local No. 49, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL -CIO, hereinafter called the UNION> The intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT is to: 1.1 Establish certain hours, wages and other conditions of employment. 1.2 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT'S interpretation and /or application; 1.3 Specify the full and complete understanding of the parties; and 1.4 Place in written form the parties' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment for the duration of this AGREEMENT. The EMPLOYER and the UNION, through this AGREEMENT, continue their dedication to the highest quality of public service. Both parties recognize this AGREEMENT as a pledge of this dedication. ARTICLE II RECOGNITION The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the exclusive representative for all job classifications listed below whose employment service exceeds the lesser of 14 hours per week or 35 percent of the normal work week and more than 100 work days per year, excluding supervisory, confidential and all other employees: Maintenance III Maintenance II Mechanic Night service person Maintenance I ARTICLE III UNION SECURITY In recognition of the UNION as the exclusive representative the EMPLOYER shall: -1- 3.1 Deduct each payroll period an amount sufficient to provide the q 0 payment of dues established by the UNION from the wages of all employees authorizing in writing such deduction, and 3.2 Remit such deduction to the appropriate designated officer of the UNION. 3.3 The UNION may designate certain employees from the bargaining unit to act as stewards and shall inform the EMPLOYER in writing of such choice. 3.4 The UNION agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the City as a result of any action taken or not taken by the City under the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE IV EMPLOYER SECURITY The UNION agrees that during the life of this AGREEMENT it will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow down, other interruption of or interference with the normal functions of the EMPLOYER. ARTICLE V EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all manpower, facilities, and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules; and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this AGREEMENT. 5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify, establish, or eliminate. ARTICLE VI EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 6.1 DEFINITION OF A GRIEVANCE A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. 6.2 UNION REPRESENTATIVES The EMPLOYER will recognize representatives designated by the UNION as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities established by this Article. The UNION shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the names of such UNION representatives and of their successors when so designated. -2- 6.3 PROCESSING OF A GRIEVANCE It is recognized and accepted by the UNION and the EMPLOYER that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the EMPLOYEES and shall, therefore, be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such EMPLOYEE duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved EMPLOYEE and the UNION REPRESENTATIVE shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss in pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal working hours provided the EMPLOYEE and the UNION REPRESENTATIVE have notified and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the EMPLOYER. 6.4 PROCEDURE Grievances, as defined by Section 6.1, shall be resolved in conformance with the following procedure: Step 1. An EMPLOYEE claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of this AGREEMENT shall, within twenty -one (21) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the EMPLOYEE'S supervisor as designated by the EMPLOYER. The EMPLOYER- designated representative will discuss and give an answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) . calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the AGREEMENT allegedly violated, and the remedy requested and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the EMPLOYER- designated representative's final answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 2. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER - designated Step 2 representative. The EMPLOYER - designated representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER'S Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER- designated representative's final Step 2 answer. Any grievance not appealed in writing,to Step 3 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. -3- Step 3. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER- designated Step 3 representative. The EMPLOYER- designated representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER'S answer in writing within ten (10)' calendar days after receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3 may be appealed to Step 4 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER - designated representative's final answer in Step 3. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 4. A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed in Step 4 shall be submitted to the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services. A grievance not resolved in Step 4 may be appealed to Step 5 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER'S final answer in Step 4. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 5 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived Step 5. A grievance unresolved in Step 4 and appealed in Step 5 shall be submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as amended. The selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the "Rules Governing the Arbitration of Grievances" as established by the Public Employment Relations Board. 6.5 ARBITRATOR'S AUTHORITY A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall consider and decide. only he y specific issues submitted in writing b P ) g y the EMPLOYER and the UNION, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any s submitted. itte other issue not m' d . B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws rules , or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision e ision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following the close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the facts of the grievance presented. -4- C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the EMPLOYER and the UNION provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings the cost shall be shared equally. 6.6 WAIVER If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered "waived." If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the EMPLOYER'S last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, the UNION may elect to treat the grievance as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual agreement of the EMPLOYER and the UNION> 6.7 CHOICE OF REMEDY If, as a result of the EMPLOYER response in Step 4, the grievance remains unresolved, and if the grievance involves the suspension, demotion, or discharge of an employee who has completed the required probationary period, the grievance may be appealed either to Step 5 of ARTICLE VI or a procedure such as: Civil Service, Veteran's Preference, or Fair Employment. If appealed to any procedure other than Step 5 of ARTICLE VI, the grievance is not subject to the arbitration procedure as provided in Step 5 of ARTICLE VI. The aggrieved employee shall indicate in writing which procedure is to be utilized- -Step 5 of ARTICLE VI or another appeal procedure- -and shall sign a statement to the effect that the choice of any other hearing precludes the aggrieved employee from making a subsequent appeal through Step 5 Of ARTICLE VI. ARTICLE VII DEFINITIONS 7.1 UNION: The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49, AFL -CIO. 7.2 EMPLOYER: The individual municipality designated by this AGREEMENT. 7.3 UNION MEMBER: A member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49, AFL -CIO. 7.4 EMPLOYEE: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit. 7.5 BASE PAY RATE: The employee's hourly pay rate exclusive of longevity or any other special allowance. -5- 7.6 SENIORITY: Length of continuous service in any of the job classifications covered by ARTICLE II - RECOGNITION. Employees who are promoted from a job classification covered by this AGREEMENT and return to a job classification covered by this AGREEMENT shall have their seniority calculated on their length of service under this AGREEMENT for purposes of promotion, transfer and layoff and total length of service with the EMPLOYER for other benefits under this AGREEMENT. 7.7 SEVERANCE PAY: Payment made to an employee upon honorable termination of employment. 7.8 OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER in excess of either eight (8) hours within a twenty -four (24) hour period (except for shift changes) or more than forty (40) hours within a seven (7) day period. 7.9 CALLBACK: Return of an employee to a specified work site to perform assigned duties at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER at a time other than an assigned shift. An extension of or early report to an assigned shift is not a call back. ARTICLE VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota, and the signed municipality. In the event any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree no appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provision shall be voided. All other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be renegotiated at the request of either party. ARTICLE IX WORK SCHEDULES 9.1 The sole authority for work schedules is the EMPLOYER. The normal work day for an employee shall be eight (8) hours. The normal work week shall be forty (40) hours Monday through Friday. 9.2 Service to the public may require the establishment of regular shifts for some employees on a daily, seasonal or Y Y, Y, annual basis other than the normal 8:00 -4:30 day. The EMPLOYER will give seven (7) days advance notice to the employees affected by the establishment of work days different from the employee's normal eight (8) hour work day. y. 9.3 In the event that work is required because of unusual circumstances such as (but not limited to) fire, flood, snow, sleet, or breakdown of municipal equipment or facilities, no advance notice need be given. It is not required that an employee working other than the normal work day be scheduled to work more than eight (8) hours, however, each employee has an obligation to work overtime or call backs if requested unless unusual circumstances prevent the employee from so working. 9.4 Service to the public may require the establishment of regular work weeks that schedule work on Saturdays and /or Sundays. -6- ARTICLE X OVERTIME PAY 10.1 Hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours within a twenty -four (24) hour period (except for shift changes) or more than forty (40) hours within a seven (7) day period will be compensated for at one and one -half (1 -112) times the employee's regular base pay rate. 10.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable. 10.3 Overtime refused by employees will for record purposes under ARTICLE 10.2 be considered as unpaid overtime worked. 10.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation, overtime hours worked shall not be pyramided, compounded, or -paid twice for the same hours worked. ARTICLE XI CALL BACK An employee called in for work at a time other than the employee's normal scheduled shift will be compensated for a minimum of two (2) hours' pay at one and one -half (1 -112) times the employee's base pay rate. ARTICLE XII LEGAL DEFENSE 12.1 Employees involved in litigation because of negligence, ignorance of laws, nonobservance of laws, or as a result of employee judgmental decision may not receive legal defense by the municipality. 12.2 Any employee who is charged with a traffic violation, ordinance violation or criminal offense arising from acts performed within the scope of the employee's employment, when such act is performed in good faith and under direct order of the employee's supervisor, shall be reimbursed for reasonable attorney's fees and court costs actually incurred by such employee in defending against such charge. ARTICLE XIII RIGHT OF SUBCONTRACT Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall prohibit or restrict the right of the EMPLOYER from subcontracting work performed by employees covered by this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE XIV DISCIPLINE The EMPLOYER will discipline employees only for just cause. ARTICLE XV SENIORITY 15.1 Seniority will be the determining criterion for transfers, promotions and layoffs only when all job- relevant qualification factors are equal. -7- 15.2 Seniority will be the determining criterion for recall when the job- relevant qualification factors are equal. Recall rights under this provision will continue for twenty -four (24) months after layoff. Recalled employees shall have ten (10) working days after notification of recall by registered mail at the employee's last known address to report to work or forfeit all recall rights. ARTICLE XVI PROBATIONARY PERIODS 16.1 All newly hired or rehired employees will serve a six (6) months' probationary period. 16.2 All employees will serve a six (6) months' probationary period in any job classification in which the employee has not served a probationary period. 16.3 At any time during the probationary period a newly hired or rehired employee may be terminated at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. 16.4 At any time during the probationary period a promoted or reassigned employee may be demoted or reassigned to the employee's previous position at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. ARTICLE XVII SAFETY The EMPLOYER and the'UNION agree to jointly promote safe and healthful working conditions, to cooperate in safety matters and to encourage employees to work in a safe manner. ARTICLE XVIII JOB POSTING 18.1 The EMPLOYER and the UNION agree that permanent job vacancies. within the designated bargaining unit shall be filled based on the concept of promotion from within provided that applicants: 18.11 have the necessary qualifications to meet the standards of the job vacancy; and 18.12 have the ability to perform the duties and responsi- bilities of the job vacancy. 18.2 Employees filling a higher job class based on the provisions of this ARTICLE shall be subject to the conditions of ARTICLE XVI (PROBATIONARY PERIOD). 18.3 The EMPLOYER has the right of final decision in the selection of employees to fill posted jobs based on qualifications, abilities and experience. 18.4 Job vacancies within the designated bargaining unit will be posted for five (5) working days so that members of the bargaining unit can be considered for such vacancies. -8- ARTICLE XIX INSURANCE 19.1 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of one hundred fifty -five dollars ($155) per month per employee for group health and life insurance including dependent coverage for calendar 1985. 19.2 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of ($ ) per month per employee for group health and life insurance including dependent coverage for calendar 1986. 19.3 By mutual agreement employees may use fifteen dollars ($15) of the per month per employee health insurance dollars in 19.1 and 19.2 for dental insurance for all unit employees. 19.4 Employees not choosing dependent coverage cannot be covered at EMPLOYER expense for any additional insurance than the individual group health and group life insurance. Additional life insurance can be purchased by employees at the employee's expense to the extent allowed under the EMPLOYER'S group policy. 19.5 Individual employees may provide for an increased EMPLOYER contribution for insurances over that amount stipulated by 19.1, 19.2 and 19.3 by lowering their salary from the rates stipulated in APPENDIX A to provide for an increased EMPLOYER contribution which will fully pay for the employee's health, life and dental insurance, including dependent coverage. ARTICLE XX HOLIDAYS The EMPLOYER will provide eleven (11) paid holidays. ARTICLE XXI SCOPE OF AGREEMENTS No addendum to this MASTER AGREEMENT can be in conflict with this MASTER AGREEMENT. ARTICLE XXII WAIVER 22.1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, are hereby superseded. 22.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any terms or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this AGREEMENT. The EMPLOYER and the UNION each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this AGREEMENT, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both parties at the time this contract was negotiated or executed. -9- ARTICLE XXIII DURATION This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of January 1, 1984 and shall .remain in full force and effect until the 31st day of December, 1986, except that either party may reopen for negotiations for calendar 1986 the wage rates in APPENDIX A and the amount of insurance to be shown in Article 19.2 and the local issues as shown in the individual city's APPENDIX B - LOCAL ADDENDUM to the MASTER AGREEMENT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on this day of , 198 . FOR THE METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (MAMA): FOR THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49, AFL -CIO: FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER: -10- APPENDIX A WAGES A. The following wage schedule will be in effect from the first payroll period in 1985 through the last payroll period in 1985: MAINTENANCE III . . . . . . . . . . $11.78 per hour MAINTENANCE II . . . . . . . . . . $11.30 per hour MAINTENANCE I . . . . . . . . . . .$ 8.14 per hour MECHANIC. . . . . . . . . . .$11.78 per hour NIGHT SERVICE PERSON. . . . . . . . .$11.11 per hour WELDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$11.54 per hour CREW LEADER . . . . . . An employee assigned in writing by the Department Head to assist a- Supervisor as a Crew Leader shall be paid an additional $.48 per hour while performing such duties. B. All employees hired after February 7, 1984 may be classified at the sole discretion of the individual cities covered by this AGREEMENT as MAINTENANCE I and receive Working Out of Classification pay as provided by Section C of this APPENDIX. C. WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION PAY C -1 Employees required by the EMPLOYER and who are adjudged by the EMPLOYER to be qualified to operate the following items of equipment will be paid the MAINTENANCE III rate of pay for those hours assigned to the unit: Caterpillar 12F Grader - Unit #12 Int. 1710 Elgin Sweeper - Unit #15 Bros SP3000 10 12 Ton Roller - Unit #18 Caterpillar #12 Grader — Unit 21 Caterpillar #950 Fr End Loader - Unit #27 Caterpillar Fr End Loader Model 930 - Unit #13 Ford Backhoe 24 In Bucket - Unit #49 -A John Deere Crawler Dozer - Unit #55 Elgin Pelican Americana Sweeper - Unit #28 Dragline (rental units) Oil Distributor - Unit #14 C -2 Employees hired after February 7, 1984 in the MAINTENANCE I classification who are required by the EMPLOYER and who are adjudged by the EMPLOYER to be qualified to operate the following items of equipment will be paid the MAINTENANCE II rate of pay for those hours assigned to the unit: A -1 The list of equipment to be shown in the individual City's agreement under C -2 for calendar 1984 will be as follows, except that equipment designated by any individual city as Heavy Equipment in the City's 1983 Agreement will be deleted from this list: Paekl;Ge - Waeep 451 Reaela Blacktop Paver Bobcat - Bombardier or MT Trackless Boom Truck Boom Truck - 30' and Over Brush Chipper Cement Mixer Chip Spreader /Self - Propelled spawles Tpaetep - Elsdes 5e N -,PT Loader - 1 Yd. or More beaeeps FFQAt -9Rd 4WD - 4 Ydv to 2Tg yds: 8 .il P "tPibWte Paint Striper - Truck Mounted kelleps ksteel aPl swbb@4 Gwep 6 TQA Pelleps - 6 Ten aae Gvep Sewer Cleaner, Hydraulic and Vacuum Steam Boiler gtpeet 9weepess - P -iekwp Type Tandems Tree Spade Trucks - 10 Ton, 4 WD Trucks - Single -Axle Over 24,000 GVW Any vehicle requiring a State of Minnesota Class B Operators License C -3 Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to Utility Operator will be paid the wage rate of the job classification to which the employee is assigned. A -2 APPENDIX B LOCAL ADDENDUM This supplementary agreement is entered into between the City of Brooklyn Center and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49, AFL -CIO, for the period beginning July 1 , 1983 and terminating on December 31, 1985 unless renewed or extended by mutual agreement of the parties. Nothing in this supplementary agreement may be in conflict with any provision of the MASTER AGREEMENT between MAMA, the City of Brooklyn Center, and IUOE, Local No. 49, AFL -CIO. In the event of conflict the MASTER AGREEMENT will prevail. ARTICLE B -I RELIEF AND MEAL PERIODS a. Two relief periods not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes are authorized at a practicable time within each employee's shift. One relief period maybe taken during the first half of the shift and the second relief period may be taken during the second half of the shift. b. Each employee shall be authorized one unpaid thirty (30) minute meal period per shift. ARTICLE B -II SICK LEAVE a. Eligibility. Sick leave with pay shall be granted to probationary and permanent employees at the rate of eight hours for each calendar month of full -time service or major fraction thereof, except that sick leave granted probationary employees shall not be available for use until satisfactory completion of the initial probationary period. b. Usage. Sick leave may be used only for absence from duty because of personal illness, injury, legal quarantine, or because of serious illness in the immediate family. Immediate family shall mean brother, sister, parents, parents -in -law, wife, or children of'the employee. Sick leave may be used for the purpose of attending the funeral of immediate family members plus brothers -in -law, sisters- in -law, grandparents, grandparents -in -law, and grandchildren of the employee. C. Accrual. Sick leave shall accrue at the rate of eight hours per month until 960 hours have been accumulated and at the rate of four hours per month after the 960 hours have been accumulated. Employees using earned vacation leave or sick leave shall be considered to be working for the purposes of accumulating additional sick leave. Worker's Compensation benefits shall be credited against the compensation due employees during sick leave. d. Procedure. In order to be eligible for sick leave with pay, employees must: 1. Notify their superior prior to the time set for the beginning of their normal work day. B -1 _ 2. Keep their superior informed of their condition. 3. Furnish a statement from a medical practitioner upon the request of the Employer for absences in excess of three (3) work days, or where the Employer has reason to believe that an employee has abused or is abusing sick leave. e. Misuse Prohibited. Employees claiming sick leave when physically fit, except as otherwise specifically authorized in ARTICLE B -II, b shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and and including discharge. ARTICLE B -III SEVERANCE PAY Severance pay in the amount of one -third the accumulated sick leave employees have to their credit at the time of resignation shall be paid to employees who have been employed for at least five consecutive years. If discharged for cause, severance pay shall not be allowed. ARTICLE B-IV VACATION LEAVE a. Amount. Permanent employees shall earn vacation leave at a rate of 6.67 hours for each calendar month of full -time service or major fraction thereof. Permanent employees with five consecutive years of service through ten consecutive years of service shall earn vacation at the rate of 120 hours per year. Permanent employees with more than ten consecutive years of service shall earn vacation leave according to the following scheduler During 11th year of service 128 hours per year. During 12th year of service 136 hours per year. During 13th year of service 144 hours per year. During 14th year of service 152 hours per year. During 15th year of service 160 hours per year. Employees using earned vacation leave or sick leave shall be considered to be working for purposes of accumulating additional vacation leave. b. Usage. Vacation leave may be used as earned, except that the EMPLOYER shall approve the time at which the vacation leave may be taken. No employee shall be allowed vacation leave until after satisfactorily completing his initial probationary period. Employees shall not be permitted to waive vacation leave and receive double a p Y• C. Accrual. An employee may accumulate no more than 200 hours of vacation in addition to the vacation leave the employee earns during the current calendar year. d. Termination Provisions. Employees leaving the service of the EMPLOYER in good standing, after having given the EMPLOYER proper notice of termination of employment, shall be compensated for vacation leave accrued and unpaid, computed to the date of separation. B -2 k ARTICLE B-V HOLIDAY LEAVE. a. Holidays Defined. Holiday leave shall be granted for the following holidays. New Year's Day, January 1; Washington's & Lincoln's Birthdays, third Monday in February; Memorial Day, last Monday in May; Independence Day, July 4; Labor Day, first Monday in September; Christopher Columbus Day, second Monday in October; Veteran's Day, November 11; Thanksgiving Day, fourth Thursday in November; Post Thanksgiving Day, Friday after fourth Thursday in November; Christmas Day, December 25; and one floating holiday annually to be scheduled with permission of the employee's supervisor. Floating holidays Y must be taken within the calendar year; they cannot be accumulated. b. When New Year's Day, Independence Day, Veteran's Day or Christmas Day fall on Sunday, the following day shall be observed as a holiday. When they fall on Saturday, the preceding day shall be observed as a holiday. Employees' absence from f work on the day following or the day preceding such a three -day holiday weekend without the express authorization of the EMPLOYER shall forfeit rights to holiday pay for that holiday. C. Employees working a normal Monday through Friday workweek, who are required to be on duty on any holiday, shall be paid time and one -half for the hours worked in addition to the base pay rate. ARTICLE B-VI COVERALLS a. The EMPLOYER will purchase and maintain sufficient sets of work coveralls to be available and specifically assigned for wear by employees, other than mechanics, when engaged in unusually dirty tasks for the respective job classification. A determination of coverall assignments shall rest exclusively with the EMPLOYER. Mechanics shall be provided coveralls. ARTICLE B -VII STANDBY PAY a. Public Utility employees who are designated by their Supervisor to serve in a "standby" status on behalf of the City on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday will receive as compensation for such service two (2) hours of overtime pay for each day served in such status. Such standby pay shall be in addition to other compensation which the employee is entitled to under this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE B -VIII PART -TIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Part -time employees shall not be eligible to receive fringe benefits under this AGREEMENT. u FOR THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49: DATED DATED B-3 a MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson, and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Manson and Ainas were excused from the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 31, 1985 Motion b Commissioner Nelson seconded b Commissioner Bernards to a pprove the Y Y Pp minutes of the January 31, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not Voting: Commissioners Malecki and Sandstrom. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 85001, 85002, AND 85003 (RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) Following the Chairman's explanation, there was a motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to remove Application Nos. 85001 and 85002 from the table. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then introduced Application Nos. 85001, 85002, and 85003 for consideration. He reviewed the staff report for Application No. 85001, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 105,000 square foot Target store on 34,160 square foot attached retail center on the land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85001 attached). The Secretary also reviewed many details of the site plan that had been negotiated with Target and Ryan Construction Company. He also reviewed the definitions for various levels of service and discussed the traffic analysis prepared by Barton Ashman. Chairman Lucht noted that no handicap parking stalls had been indicated on the plan, except near the restaurant site. The Secretary acknowledged this and stated that the plan would have to be revised to show those stalls. Commissioner Sandstrom referred to a recommended 17th condition regarding negotiations between Target and LaBelle's or the purpose of providing a common loading facility area. He asked whether this condition was mandatory or simply an encouragement. The Secretary responded that it was more in the way of an encouragement. In response to a question from Commissioners Bernards regarding the location of the sidewalk, the Secretary pointed out the location of the existing sidewalk along Summit Drive and the area of sidewalk on Shingle Creek Parkway to be relocated. He also noted that the applicant would provide a sidewalk entrance to the Target store off Summit Drive. Commissioner Bernards expressed concern that landscaping be set back enough so that it does not present a visibility problem for pedestrians or motorists coming to and from the site. The Secretary agreed with this concern and stated that he did not think there would be any visibility problems with the proposed landscape plan. 2 -14 -85 -1- a Commissioner Nelson inquired as to the location of Earle Brown Drive relative to the Target site. The Secretary pointed out that the Earle Brown Drive intersection with Summit Drive would be immediately across from the Target access. Commissioner Nelson stated that he thought such an access arrangement was being discouraged The Secretary explained that the problems with the original access arrangement across from Earle Brown Drive were more with the design on the site than with the location of the access across from Earle Brown Drive. Commissioner Nelson asked whether the traffic analysis indicated that there was a need for traffic signal at that location. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that a subdivision agreement should plan for the possibility of signals at that location. The Secretary then introduced Application No. 85003 and reviewed the staff report for the preliminary plat (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85003 attached). Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add Mr. Thomas Bonneville of Target asked whether the City preferred right -of -way dedication to an easement for sidewalk along Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary stated that the easement would be acceptable to the City. Mr. Bonneville asked about the need to upgrade existing signals as a result of the Target development. The Secretary stated that the main concern was that regarding the possible installation of signals at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive. Mr. Bonneville expressed some concern regarding the sharing of costs for signals when Target does not cause all of the traffic demand that results in the signalization of an intersection, even though they may have added the increment that justifies the signal. The Secretary stated that he understood the concern of Target and that the portion of the cost of any signal assessed to Target would be proportional to the benefit received by Target from those signals and would be provided for in the Subdivision Agreement. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85003) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the preliminary plat application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There was a brief discussion regarding Application No. 85002, the request for a special use permit for an auto center in the Target store. Mr. Bonneville explained that a smaller version of the auto center was being considered, and that a final decision as to whether to make a new proposal for the auto would be made in the near future. He asked the Commission to table the application indefinitely until Target would either propose a smaller auto center or withdraw the application entirely. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85002 INDEFINITELY AND CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to table Application No. 85002 and continue the public hearing indefinitely at the request of the applicant. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85001 (Ryan Construction Company) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend 4 0 approval of Application No. 85001, subject to the following conditions: 2 -14 -85 -2- � L 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement_ and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas, including parking lot islands. 9. The replat of the property shall receive final approval by the City Council and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The applicant shall amend the name of the development and the plat so as not to be confused in any way with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval. 11. Plan approval excludes the restaurant portion of the project which is subject to future review and approval. 12. All outside storage in the garden center area shall be effectively screened from view by an opaque masonry wall. Excepted from this condition are the tops of tree seedlings. However, no packaged merchandise shall be visible from outside the garden center. There shall be no outside storage of semi trailers on the site with the exception of trailers parked at the P P loading docks. 2 -14 -85 - 13. Plan approval acknowledges a roof -of- -parking which g P P g meets the minimum requirement of the City Ordinances for 880 spaces. The applicant (Target and Ryan Construction) shall acknowledge in writing that, if the City deems it necessary, they shall install parking as required by City Ordinances (up to 880 spaces). 14. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to install all on -site traffic control signs as approved by the Director of Public Works. 15. The landscape plan shall be modified prior to City Council consideration, to include or acknowledge the following: a. The relocation of shrubs for the island areas to other appropriate locations on the site. b. Additional shade trees at the southeast portion of the site in the greenstrip between the LaBelle's property and the proposed shopping center. 16. That exterior modifications to the Target building, such as rounded corners, be indicated on the site plan prior to City Council consideration. 17. The applicant is encouraged to continue negotiation g g with LaBelle's for the purpose of providing a common loading area. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85003 (Ryan Construction) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 85003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. v 3. The plat shall be modified to include sidewalk easements in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 4. The name of the preliminary plat shall be revised so as to avoid any confusion with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval. 2 -14 -85 -4- L 5. The applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City stipulating responsibility for and assessment of costs for certain improvements to public facilities within the public right -of -way, including, but not limited to: a. potential installation of traffic signals at John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway and at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive (west). b. installatin of deceleration lanes serving accesses on Shingle Creek Parkway and on Summit Drive. c. relocation of public sidewalks as necessary. 6. The applicant shall execute cross easements for access and parking between Lots 1 and 2 prior to final approval by the City Council. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then explained that because a moratorium on retail development would go into effect on February 23, 1985, the applications would not be considered by the City Council until the May 20, 1985 meeting when the moratorium would expire. APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Rausch) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct a home beauty shop with one non- resident employee in the existing family of the residence at 3000 63rd Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85004 attached). The Secretary noted that a previous home beauty shop with a part -time nonresident employee was approved in the past, but this was before on- street parking was allowed for home occupations. The Secretary also discussed other situations in which on- street parking has been allowed, primarily for group lessons. Commissioner Sandstrom noted that it was possible for three cars to be parked on 63rd Avenue North and noted that the conditions of approval would limit parking to two cars on 63rd Avenue North. The Secretary stated that on- street parking should be minimized, but that two additional spaces would probably be needed in addition to the three stalls that were possible on the lot. Further discussion ensued regarding the need for parking and the location of parking with respect to the home occupation. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. The applicant's husband, Mr. Duane Rausch, submitted a scaled drawing to the Planning Commission that provided for five cars to be parked on the site in addition to the garage. Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Rausch whether they were interested in on- street parking at all. Mr. Rausch answered in the negative, stating that he felt all parking could be handled on -site. 2 -14 -85 -5- Commissioner Malecki asked Mrs. Rausch whether she had a beauty shop at present. Mr. Rausch answered in the affirmative. There followed a brief discussion regarding the traffic to the site. Mrs. Rausch stated that the addition of an employee created only about one extra car per hour. The Secretary asked how many cars were generated when she worked by herself. Mr. Rausch answered that there would generally be two cars present at a time. The Secretary stated, upon looking at the submitted scaled site plan, that he did not think five stalls could be accommodated on the site because of greenstrip requirements on private property. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 8500 Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mrs. Loretto Witrind of 3006 63rd Avenue North expressed a number of concerns. She stated that she was concerned about parking on 63rd because no one parks close to the intersection, fearing that they will be hit by cars coming around the corner. She stated that she was afraid they would park in front of her house. She also expressed concerns regarding odors from permanent treatments, conversion of the area to commercial, and interference on her TV from the hair dryers. Mrs. Rausch stated that the State Board of Cosmotology requires doors and windows to be shut when haircutting and permanents are being done. She staged that the State would not allow customers to be exposed to chemicals that would be of any harm £o neighbors. She also stated that the ventilation of the beauty shop would be adequate. She noted that the home has central air. Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. No one addressed the Commission. Chairman Lucht, therefore, called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant if she could manage the operation without any on- street parking. Mrs. Rausch answered that she could handle it h perhaps through scheduling certain types of .appointments . together so that there would never be more than three cars coming to the property at one time. There followed a discussion regarding how the parking arrangement might work. Mrs. Rausch concluded that she would need at least one on- street parking stall if she had a part -time employee. The - Planner discussed with the Planning Commission briefly the considerations in the ordinance for allowing on- street parking. He stated that they basically relate to such parking not infringing on the rights of other residents in the area to have visitors park on- street and generally with respect to the residential character of the neighborhood. He noted that, in this case, the parking could be accommodated in front of the applicant's property and that it was a fairly busy area to begin with. The Secretary suggested that the Commission, first of all, decide whether to allow any on- street parking at all and then to look at the nature of the proposed home occupation. 2 -14 -85 -6- Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the applicant has the same right to have a client park on the street as a neighbor has the right for a visitor to park on- street. Commissioner Malecki suggested that perhaps the condition should be changed to allow only one on- street parking stall since that was all that seemed to be absolutely necessary. Commissioner Nelson stated that he had no problem with on- street parking. Commissioner Bernards, on the other hand, stated that he objected to customer parking on 63rd Avenue North and related his own experience with a home occupation that had significant on street parking. There followed a brief discussion of limiting the on- street parking to one stall. The majority of the Commission generally agreed that this would be an acceptable solution. There then followed a discussion whether the home occupation was incidental to the residential use of the property. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the size of the room being used was incidental to the larger home. Commissioner Malecki expressed uncertainty regarding the matter. Commissioner Nelson agreed that it was incidental. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had no objection to a second employee. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not want to see a commercial endeavor created on the corner that would change the character of the neighborhood. Regarding concerns over motors and noise, the Secretary stated that the special use permit would be issued subject to compliance with codes, ordinances and regulations including these areas. He stated that any complaints regarding odor could be reviewed as nuisance complaints. Chairman Lucht then polled the Commission regarding their feeling about the hours of operation, as to whether they constituted an incidental use of the property. No Commissioner voiced any objection to the proposed hours. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Raausch) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 85004, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 3. A current copy of the applicant's state operator's license shall be kept on file with the City. 4. The hours of operation shall be: 9 :00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Wednesday and Thursday; 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. , Tuesday and Friday; and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Saturday. The home occupation shall be conducted on an appointment only basis. 2 -14 -85 -7- 5. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges one, part - time, non- resident employee working in the beaut g Y shop. 6. c S e ial Use Permit approval o val is exclusive AA u of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7• Special Use Permit approval acknowledges on- street parking of not more than one customer vehicle on 63rd Avenue North only. 8. The existing driveway off Xerxes Avenue North shall be widened to 26' with a throat on Xerxes Avenue North of approximately 22 No removal of curb or improvement within the Xerxes Avenue North boulevard shall be commenced prior to approval by the City Engineer. 9. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges the use for the home beauty shop of an existing 11' x 28' family room. No greater area within the home for the home occupation is comprehended by this approval. 10. The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any structural alterations recommended by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. 11. A 10 lb. fire extinguisher shall be placed within the home beauty shop area. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards stated that he voted against the application because of his objection to on- street parking. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:48 p.m. and resumed at 10:03 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 84008 (Outreach Group Homes, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the last item of business, an appeal from a determination by staff that group care of more than six wards or clients is neither a permitted or a special use in the R1 zoning district. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 84008 attached). Chairman Lucht asked whether the ordinance does not limit the occupancy of special use situations on a case -by -case basis regarding the liberty to go beyond six wards or clients. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that a special use could be limited to a specific number, thereby setting some upper limit on what could be approved in the Rl district. The Secretary responded that no such number presently exists in the 40 ordinance and that that was part of the problem with the application. Commissioner Nelson asked whether the limit could not be determined on 2 -14 -85 -8- a case -by -case basis. The Secretary answered that if the City does not have a limit, there will be no limit on the occupancy of such uses • except that which is set by the State. He stated that City presently does not have a basis for determining the maximum occupancy for a residential facility in the-Rl district. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the building in question could hold eight residents since there are four bedrooms. The Secretary commented that, under the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance, an even higher occupancy might be allowed. In response to another question from Commissioner Sandstrom, the Secretary explained that, under State law, seven or more clients in a residential facility is classified as a multiple family use. He stated that multiple- family uses are not permitted in the R1 zoning district. He added that eight clients were allowed in a similar residential facility located in the R2 zone which could have accommodated up to 12 residents as a two - family use. There followed a discussion as to what is mandated by the State in terms of residential facilities in residential districts. Chairman Lucht stated that the issue hinges to some extent on what is required for the public welfare. The Secretary agreed, stating that if more clients are acceptable, language in the zoning ordinance should be developed. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that occupancy could be limited on a case -by -ease basis in consideration of what seems tolerable in the neighborhood. The Secretary pointed out that the public hearing process for a special use permit opens such residential facilities up to neighborhood antagonism and predicted, if the issue were left to the neighbors, that no more than the required mandated number of clients could be allowed in a residential facility. He went on to point out that suburbs have been criticized for having public hearings to approve residential facilities. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that, in the present case, the neighbors can testify that there has been no problem with the home in question. There was continued discussion on the question of limiting occupancy for such residential facilities in the Rl district. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr -. Wes Kooistra handed out to the Planning Commission a list of facilities with more than six residents. He also gave the Commission copies of letters from the County and the State supporting the request for expanded occupancy at the Outreach Group Home at 507 69th Avenue North. Mr. Kooistra also clarified that his organization was seeking a potential of eight residents rather than seven, although seven would occupy the residence immediately. Ms. Eileen Harris with Outreach Group Homes, Inc. briefly discussed with the Commission the types of facilities that her organization operates. Mr. Kooistra added that the parents and families of retarded persons see residential facilities as required for the public welfare. He added that other cities generally use a special use permit procedure to allow more than six wards or clients in a residential facility. Mr. Kooistra also reviewed the section of the minutes from Application No. 78005 (a group home application by 2 -14 -85 -9- Residential Alternatives) that the request in that case would have been considered a special use permit in the R1 zoning district because it was a use required for the public welfare, not because the property in question was located in the R2 district. He stated that Outreach Group Homes, Inc. was asking for the right to apply for a special use permit rather than it being determined arbitrarily by the staff that an occupancy of more than six residents was not required for the ,public welfare. Mr. Bruce Rashke, an attorney for Outreach Group Homes, Inc., said that he appreciated the difficulty that the City was having regarding residential facilities. He stated that the statutes do not define residential care facilities with 7 to 16 clients as multiple- family uses per se'. He quoted the statute as saying that nothing in the statute is to be construed as limiting such facilities in a single- family residential district to six clients or less. Mr. Rashke stated that Outreach Group Homes was not trying to cram State regulations down the City's throat. He stated that Brooklyn Center's Zoning Ordinance is capable of accommodating eight clients as a special use as presently written. Regarding whether eight clients versus six clients was required for the public welfare, Chairman Lucht noted that a greater number of clients would certainly be a financial benefit to the care providers. Mr. Rashke stated that Outreach Group Homes was a nonprofit organization that was simply seeking the right to 'apply. He stated that, under the present situation, staff has in effect, determined that a residential facility with more than six wards or clients does not enhance the public welfare. Chairman Lucht stated that his interpretation of the staff position was that they have determined that more than six wards or clients is not a single- family use. Mr. Rashke accepted this, but added that State law does not limit single- family uses to six wards or clients. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Rashke how he would define "the public welfare ". Mr. Rashke stated that the general concept of "mainstreaming" has been considered in the public interest by the State Legislature which is trying to reduce the clientele in 'large State institutions. He explained that the best way to do this was to located clients in smaller facilities in residential neighborhoods. In response to another question from Commissioner Bernards,Mr.Rashke - pointed out that residents of Brooklyn Center are served by the facility. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not disagree that these homes were enhancing the public welfare, but there was a concern as to what the upper limit of occupancy is for such facilities in the Rl district. Mr. Rashke answered that the City could restrict such occupancy through the special use permit procedure. The Secretary pointd out, however, that the City argued for just that right in the Northwest Residence case and lost. He stated that the City has to look at what standards will be applied by the courts in determining the validity of City decisions regarding such special use permits. He stated that suburbs have been criticized for not allowing more residential facilities, but, he asserted, the City has a right to set standards for such facilities before they are approved. 2 -14 -85 -10- Ms. Eileen Harris asked that the Commission separate the issues of serving more people and the issue of setting standards for occupancy. The Secretary stated that he did not know how these issues could be separated. Ms. Harris stated that she sensed the City's Ordinances were not clear on residential facilities. She stated that the lack of clarity should not prevent the right of the group home to apply for a special use permit. The Secretary again discussed the criticisms that had been made of suburbs in a County report in zoning practices regarding residential facilities. There followed a discussion on how to resolve the issue. The Secretary stated that he felt the Commission should look at the larger picture and seek advice from the City Attorney on how to regulate all types of residential facilities in all zones. Ms. Harris stated that she did not want to be an adversarial relationship with the City and hoped that some agreement could be arrived at by working together. The Secretary stated that he had concerns regarding setting a precedent by approving a special use permit application without written standards. He also stated that he had concerns with the state preempting the City's right to set such standards. Mr. Kooistra stated that he would be willing to work on changing the City's ordinance, but that Outreach Group Homes has had a client waiting for over a year for a decision on this matter. The Commission discussed how they should dispose of the application. Commissioner Bernards stated that he would like the City Attorney to look at the question of zoning for residential facilities and advised the City on how to handle them in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Sandstrom also recommended research on the question in a timely manner. Commissioner Nelson stated that he had no problem with researching the issue of ordinance standards, but that the question before the Commission is whether the applicant has a right to apply for a special use permit. He noted language in the Zoning Ordinance which describes special uses as uses which do not ordinarily fit within the district. He stated that, on this basis, he felt the applicant did have a right to apply. Commissioner Malecki stated that she would like the City Attorney to research the issue. Chairman Lucht stated that he agreed somewhat with Commissioner Nelson, but then wondered what standards would apply to such facilities in the Rl zoning district. He wondered whether the State would preempt such standards if the City did not clearly spell them out in their ordinance. Commissioner Nelson pointed to the standards and wondered whether occupancy could be limited on a case -by -case basis using those standards. There then followed a lengthy discussion regarding the question of setting standards in the ordinance and how that process would fit into disposing of the application. It was finally agreed that the application should be denied with direction to develop standards to set forth in the Zoning Ordinance what types of facilities would be allowed in the R1 zoning district. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84008 WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO DRAFT ORDINANCE STANDARDS Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson'to 2 -14 -85 -11- i recommend denial of Application No. 84008 and direct staff to draft ordinance standards relating to residential facilities in residential districts. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then briefly discussed a tax increment financing plan for the commercial area south of the freeway and north of County Road 10 that would encompass rehabiliationof the Earle Brown Farm. He stated that more information would be upcoming at the February 28, 1985 meeting. He also briefly discussed with the Planning Commission the action by the City Council to establish a moratorium on retail development in the City._ ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commisioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, unless Commissioner Bernards was serious in voting against adjournment. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:39 p.m. Chairman I 2 -14 -85 -12 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85001 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company an PP : Y Location: Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin. and Summit Drives Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 105,000 sq. ft. Target store and 34,160 sq. ft. attached retail center on the parcel of land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive. The land in question is zoned C2 and the proposed retail use is a permitted use in that zoning district. This application was reviewed by the Commission at its January 17, 1985 meeting and tabled with direction to the applicant to revise the proposed plan in accordance with the recommendations of the staff report submitted at that meeting. Most of those recommendations have been acted on favorably and still more revisions are being considered. The most significant revision: to the overall proposal has probably been the elimination of the auto center on the northeast side of the building. (This results in the withdrawal of Special Use Permit Application No. 85002.) The garden center which is to remain on the northeast side will be surrounded by an 8' high masonry wall to provide effective screening. In addition, the building exterior of the Target store is to be brick, compatible with the brick exterior of the retail center. Rounded corners will provide some vertical relief on the Target building similar to the retail center. The retail center has been shrunk in size by 4,800 sq. ft. at the south end to allow better truck movements to and from John Martin Drive. Another significant change in the plan is regarding the access arrangements. A right- turn -in access and right- turn -out access on Shingle Creek Parkway are proposed. No median cut, will be granted. A deceleration lane adjacent to northbound Shingle Creek Parkway will be installed requiring a relocation of the public sidewalk onto the Target property within an as- yet- to -be- obtained easement. Parking stalls adjacent to Shingle Creek Parkway will be left in the green - strip, counted as proof- of- parking.(Staff recommend this based on a traffic analysis by Dean Wenger of Barton- Aschmann Associates for this project which projects a total parking demand on the site of 772 spaces while 880 are possible.) Concrete medians in two parking rows are also provided to reduce cut - through traffic. The accesses on John Martin Drive and Summit Drive now have extended throats with no intersecting driving lanes or parking for approxi- mately 100' in from the property line. Medians have also been extended. A third access on Summit Drive is also proposed to serve the Garden Center. Staff recommend this access rather than a con- nection between the Garden Center and the main Summit Drive access which could cause difficulties in the proper function of the main access. The latest plan submitted provides 880 parking stalls which meets the retail parking requirement for 139,160 sq. ft. of retail space and a restaurant of up to 120.seats. (This number of seats works out to 35.4 sq. ft. per seat with a 4,250 sq. ft. restaurant which is more realistic than the earlier estimates. Again, however, no approval of a specific restaurant is implied by this action.) 2 -14 -85 -1- Application No. 85001 continued Some reduction in the number of parking stalls is probably necessary to accommodate truck movements south of the building to exit the site onto John Martin Drive. This stall reduction will presumably impact the restaurant seating. Regarding the traffic analysis for the site, Dean Wenger has provided further information as requested by the City. Mr. Wenger has in- corporated alternate assumptions about the direction of approach of the customer traffic coming to the Target site. Based on either assumption, however, Mr. Wenger concludes that the level of service at all relevant intersections will be "A ". Staff and the City's traffic consultant (Glen Van Wormer of Short- Elliott - Hendrickson) are more of the opinion that the level of service will be "B" and perhaps "C" during certain peak periods at certain intersections. This, however, is still an acceptable level of service. It appears, therefore, that traffic impact should not be a reason for denying or altering the project. Regarding the landscaping plan, the new plan uses smaller tree stamps and some increased landscaping will be provided adjacent to the garden center. Staff have also asked for a reduction in the number of Ash trees (with a concomitant increase in other shade trees), more berming along Shingle Creek Parkway, more landscaping in front of the restaurant pad and landscape islands in the parking lot. All but the landscape islands have been agreed to. The grading plan has been modified to provide higher berms in the large green areas and normal berms approaching a 3 :1 slope in most greenstrip areas The catch basin in front of the John Martin Drive entrance has been relocated. The plan notes curb and gutter around all parking and driving areas. The applicant wishes to be excused from the requirement to provide curb and gutter around parking lot islands. However, this is a long standing policy that should not be altered without further review apart from consideration of this application. Staff have also drawn attention to the high finished floor elevation of Target and have warned the applicant that this may lead to grade problems from the main Summit Drive access to the store entrance. The applicant has assured us that this matter will be considered to try to minimize these grade problems. In general, the plans for the proposed Target development do appear ,to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City 40 Manager) shall be submitted ;prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 2 -14 -85 -2- Application No. 85001 continued 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from, view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accord- ance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas, including parking lot islands. 9. The replat of the property shall receive final approval by the City Council and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits 10. The applicant shall amend the name of the development and the plat so as not to be confused in any way with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval. 11. Plan approval excludes the restaurant portion of the project which is subject to future review and approval. 12. All outside storage in the garden center area shall be effectively screened from view by an opaque masonry wall. Excepted from this condition are the tops of tree seedlings. However, no packaged merchandise shall be visible from outside the garden center. 2 -14 -85 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85003 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin and Summit Drives Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine six lots and resubdivide into two lots the land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin and Summit Drives. The land in question is zoned C2 and is the site of the proposed Target store and retail center (see Application No. 85001). The proposed legal description of the property is simply Lot l and Lot 2 of Block 1, Brooklyn Centex Village Addition. Staff have requested an alternate name to avoid confusion with the City. Lot 1 L is the location of the retail center. Lot 2 is the location of Target. The total area of the plat i 13,432 g p s acres. No lot areas have been provided, but Lot 2 is by far the larger lot. Existing grades are provided on the preliminary plat survey. A 10' wide utility easement is g rovided along John Martin Drive P . and along Shingle Creek Parkway. We are seeking sidewalk easements along Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive to accommodate sidewalks in areas where turn lanes are proposed. In general, the plat appears to be in order and approval is recom- mended subject to at least the following conditions: I. The final plat is subject to review and approval . by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The plat shall be modified to include sidewalk easements in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 4. The name of the preliminary plat shall be revised so as to avoid any confusion with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to preliminary plat approval. 5. The applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City stipulating responsibility for and assessment of costs for certain improvements to public facilities within the public right -of -way, including, but not limited to: a! potential installation of traffic signals at John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway and at Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive (west). b. installation of deceleration lanes serving accesses on Shingle Creek Parkway and on Summit Drive. C. relocation of public sidewalks as necessary. 2 -14 -85 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85004 Applicant: Cathy Rausch Location: 3000 63rd Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit /Home Occupation The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a home beauty shop in the residence at 3000 63rd Avenue North (the northwest corner of 63rd and Xerxes Avenue North). The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by 63rd Avenue - North, and on the west and north by single - family residences. Home beauty shops are considered special home occupations and are thus subject to the Standards for Special use permits con - J P P tained in Section 35 -220 (attached). The applicant has submitted a letter and site sketch (attached) explaining the proposed home occupation. She states that the hours of operation would be 9:OO a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday and Thursday; 9:OO a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday and Friday; and 9:OO a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Saturday for approximately 40 hours per week. The home beauty shop would be on the main floor of the home in the existing family room on the west end of the house. This room measures 28'_x 11' (a total of 308 sq. ft.). It is basically a converted one -car garage. Customers will enter and exit via the rear (north) entrance. She states that parking is to be provided on the lot and that a sidewalk is to be installed leading from the parking area (by the new garage off Xerxes Avenue North) to a deck off the family room. Access to parking is to be off Xerxes Avenue North. Mrs. Rausch also states that there would be one part -time (20 hrs. per week) non- resident employee working with her. A sign within the limits (2.5 sq. ft.) of the Sign Ordinance would be placed at the corner of 63rd and L Xerxes Avenues North. In response to the applicant's letter and sketch, staff have retrieved the latest site drawing of the property from a 1980 building permit for a deck. That site drawing shows the existing two -car garage to be set back 25' from Xerxes Avenue North rather than the presumed 35'. The existing driveway is 16' wide. From this site drawing, it would appear there will be less room for parking than depicted on the appli- cant's sketch. If a - -15' "greenstrip" is required inside the property line, the existing 25' setback would allow only one parking stall to the north of the garage. If the applicant's cars are parked inside the garage, there would be room for two cars unobstructed on the driveway. It may be best to simply widen the existing driveway to 26' (with a narrower throat at the curbline if possible) and have three cars abreast since a car pulled onto a perpendicular parking space (parallel to the street) would be blocked by cars parking on the driveway. It appears, therefore, that the property cannot accom- modate more than three -cars , nobs true ted with certain improvements. Staff would recommend that four parking spaces be assumed necessary for a two - operator shop. Parking is allowed on both 63rd Avenue North and on Xerxes Avenue North, but it would be preferable for such parking to be on 63rd Avenue North. Also, customers coming from the south may tend to park on 63rd rather than make a U -turn around the Xerxes median at O'Henry Road. On- street parking associated with a home occupation may only be authorized in consideration of the Standards for Special Use Permits and of the following: 2 -14 -85 -1- f Application No. 85004 continued a. The amount of the applicant's street frontage b. The rights of adjacent residents to park on the street C. Preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood. (from Section 35- 406.7) Staff do not feel there would be traffic congestion in the _public streets if no parking were allowed on Xerxes Avenge North. The lot in question is 94.48' wide,providing plenty of room for two or even three cars to park on 63rd Avenue North in front of the applicant's property. No infringement should be made on the frontage of other residences. As to the residential character of this neighborhood, it should be noted that there are no nearby commercial establishments. Nevertheless, the lot in question is located at the intersection of two collector streets. Therefore, a higher- than - average level of traffic already exists The Commission should p weigh, during its public hearing process, the perceived impact of the proposed two- operator beauty shop on this neighborhood. It is staff's judgment that, if clients are properly educated as to parking options this home occupation could function adequately at this location. However, the area devoted to the use and the fact that apart- -time non - resident employee will be engaged does make the proposed beauty shop more intense than the average home occupation. We do not, in any way, foresee the conversion of this intersection to a commercial mini- district. Strict conditions should, therefore, be applied to any approval of the home occupation special use permit. As far as the special use standards not related to traffic and park- ing, staff do not feel that noise, odor, light, glare, etc. from the home beauty shop will diminish property values or impede the use of neighboring property. As proposed, the home beauty shop does live within the letter of the Zoning Ordinance. It is always a matter of collective judgment whether a home occupation is secondary and in- cidental to the residential use of the premises. The area of the house dedicated to the home occupation and the hours of operation make the beauty shop a secondary, but perhaps not an incidental use of the property. Nevertheless, there has been at least one case of a home beauty shop with a non - resident employee approved in the past. , If the Planning Commission is disposed to recommend approval of the application, the following conditions are recommended: 1. The special use permit 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 as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 3. A current copy of the applicant's state operator's license shall be kept on file with the City. 2 -14 -85 -2- Application No. 85004 continued 4. The hours of operation shall be: 9:00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m.,Wednesday and Thursday; 9:00 a.m. to 8 :00 p.m., Tuesday and Friday; and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Saturday. 5. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges one, part - time, non - resident employee working in the beauty shop. 6. Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges on- street parking of not more than two customer vehicles on 63rd Avenue North only. 8. The existing driveway off Xerxes Avenue North shall be widened to 26' with a throat on Xerxes Avenue North of approximately 22'. No removal of curb or improvement within the Xerxes Avenue North boulevard shall be commenced prior to approval by the City Engineer. 9. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges the use for the home beauty shop of an existing 11' x 28' family room. No greater area within the home for the home occupation is comprehended by this approval. 10. The premises shall be inspected by the Building Official and any structural alterations recommended by him shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. 11. A 10 lb. fire extinguisher shall be placed within the home beauty shop area. 2 -14 -85 -3- s .. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84008 Applicant: Outreach Group Homes, Inc: Location: 507 69th Avenue North Request: Appeal This application is an appeal from a determination by planning staff that group care of more than six wards or clients is neither a permitted nor a special use in the R1 Zoning District. The application arises from a desire by the Outreach Group Home at 507 69th Avenue North to increase the number of mentally retarded adults at the facility from 6 to 7. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue North (Columbus Village Apts. on the north side of 69th) , on the east and south by single- family homes, and on the west by a large, vacant R1 -zoned lot. The existing group home is classified as a permitted use in the R1 zone because one of the definitions of a family in Section 35 -900 of the Zoning Ordinance is: "Group or foster care of not more than six wards or clients by an authorized person or persons, related by blood, marriage, or adoption, to- 1 maintaining ether with his r it domestic servants or gratuitous guests, al may to g t s o the do est c se is g g � 9 a common household in a dwelling unit approved and certified by the appropriate " n a a 1' comprehended ded s permitted public agency." The existin g roup home is therefore co P 9 Y 9 9 P P P single-family use of the property. 9 Y Appellant's Position The appellant has submitted aletter (attached) in which he sets forth information about the group home and arguments against the staff position. It is noted that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees began construction of the home in early 1974. By November, 1974, the home was occupied. The interior layout of the house is similar to a single- family dwelling with four bedrooms, a family room, den, dining room, and kitchen available to four men and two women who live there (two rooms have two persons and two rooms have one person). There are no signs in the front yard. The lot on which the home is situated is fairly deep (almost 400'). No addition to the home is proposed. The appellant explains that the City was contacted regarding approval of a seventh client at 507 69th Avenue North in December of 1983. The Planning Director responded to the inquiry in a letter dated December 20, 1983 (attached) stating that the "request to increase the number of wards or clients from six to seven exceeds the parameters allowed by our ordinance. It is also felt that this type of request is not contemplated as a special use." The appellant goes on to make three basic arguments in favor of the appeal: 1. Section 35 -220 defines special uses as those uses "which may be required for the public welfare in a given district, but which are, in some respects incompatible with the permitted uses in the district." The appellant argues that the above definition comprehends uses that exceed the normal limita- tions for a given district if the use is required for the public welfare in that district. The appellant, of course, believes this use is so required. 2. Other cities in the metro area, including Minneapolis, have granted special use permits for the purpose of expanding populations of group home facilities beyond the normal limitations of City Zoning Ordinances. 3. Brooklyn Center has previously granted a special use permit to another group home organization for a similar purpose (Residential Alternatives; Application No. 78005). This should serve as precedent. 2 -14 -85 -1- + Application No. 84008 continued (The letter also requests simultaneous consideration of a special use.permit appli- cation. However, this would not be in order until the City Council has acted on the appeal and a public hearing can be duly called). Application No. 78005 Before articulating the staff position on the appeal, it is important to review the City's action in Application No. 78005 submitted by Residential Alternatives. The Planning Commission and City Council minutes pertaining to that application are attached for the Commission's review. In that case, the City approved a special use permit for a group home involving eight clients, - in addition to a resident family, at 5449 Lyndale Avenue North. That property is located in the R2 Zoning District which allows one -or two- family dwellings. The group home in that case was a single- family dwelling with occupancy over and above the normal maximum of 6 c ients. (The maximum clientele for a permitted two - family dwelling would be 12. Hence,a clientele of 8 in the R2 zone does not seem unreasonable on its face. We now believe, however, that the grounds for granting the special use permit in the case of Application No. 78005 were insufficient). The basis on which the group home with 8 clients was approved was that it was a "noncommercial use required for the public welfare in an R2 district" which met the Standards for a Special Use Permit set forth in Section 35 -220 of the Zoning Ordinance. This is the same basis on which Outreach Group Homes seeks to make application for a special use permit. Staff Reasoning We are not certain that a group care facility with over six clients is required for the public welfare in the R1 district. State law mandates that a Stat icensed group care home "serving six or fewer mentally retarded or physically handicapped 9oP 9 Y PY persons shall be considered a permitted single- family residential use of property for purposes of zoning." (MS462.358, Subdivision 7). Another subdivision of that section also states that: "a State - licensed residential facility serving from seven through sixteen mentally retarded or physically handicapped persons shall be considered a permitted multi - family residential Use of property for purposes of zoning." (emphasis added . This section certainly does not prohibit the City s from allowing a residential facility with over 6 clients from being a P ecial use in the R1 zone. However, it does define such a facility as a multiple- family use. It is the staff's position that, as a multiple - family use, a group home with over six clients is not allowed in the R1 zone; and that, to allow it, would, in effect, constitute a use variance which is illegal. The appellant has argued that the very purpose of special use permits is to allow uses in a given zoning district which do not fall within the normal limitations of that district, but which can meet the Standards for a Special Use Permit. He states that the fact that a public hearing is held and neighboring residents are informed is sufficient to insure that total occupancy would never actually r become detrimental to the residential neighborhood. We have some problems with these arguments. First, a use which is defined as a multiple- family use ought normally to be located in a multiple- family zoning district. Secondly, if there is no guideline as to maximum occupancy in an R1 district, uses which are clearly not consistent with the R1 zoning classification could be allowed in the R1 dis- trict; ie. what becomes the upper limit on client occupancy in an Rl district? -14 -85 -2- Application No. 84008 continued The only guideline presently provided in the Zoning Ordinance and in State law for the Rl zone is 6 wards or clients. We do not feel at liberty to go beyond that limit at present. Finally, to allow whatever occupancy the surrounding neighborhood will tolerate would, in the end, actually endanger the rights of such facilities to locate in residential neighborhoods. No one reading the record of Application No. 78005 can conclude that the neighbors, in that case, willingly accepted the presence of six mentally retarded residents, much less eight. Staff agree that a group care facility with over six wards or clients could meet the Standards for a Special Use Permit in the Rl zone. But, we do not believe that the parameters of the present Zoning Ordinance provide sufficient basis for such an application. Staff are concerned that consideration of a special use permit for more than six wards or clients simply on the basis of general standards with no upper limit on occupancy may be a serious erosion of the City's zoning authority. If the Commission feels that more than six wards or clients in a group care facility can be comprehended in the Rl zone by special use permit, we recommend that it direct staff to develop a draft ordinance setting occupancy limits for such special uses rather than build on the open -ended precedent of Application No. 78005. Though we acknowledge that the appeal can be affirmed on the basis of the precedent set by Application No. 78005, we recommend denial of the appeal on the grounds that occupancy by more than six wards or clients in a group care facility in the Rl zone has in- sufficient basis in City ordinance or State law. Further advice from the City Attorney regarding such an action may also be in order. • 2 -14 -85 -3- February 21, 1985 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Wykrent 3006 63rd Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Councilman Richard C. Theis 3006 Thurber Road Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55429 Subject: Special Use Permit Petitioner: Duane and Cathy Rausch Property: 3000 63rd Avenue North Dear Sir: We purchased our home at 3006 63rd Avenue North in 1958 as a place to spend our working and retirement years. We have lived here for over 26 years and have enjoyed the benefits of a residential single -home neighborhood. Now that we are retired we expect to continue to enjoy our property without the fear that its value will be diminished in any way by the completely unnecessary introduction of Special Use Permits. We vehemently oppose the establishment of a public business next to our property. Furthermore, it is clearly not in the best interest of the neighborhood as a whole. We trust this Special Use Permit will be denied. We respectfully request that this letter be entered: into the public records. Yours truly, Joseph Wykrent Loretta Wykrent !. 4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of _ February , 1485 at 8 :00 at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 4 of the City Ordinances. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE C ORDINANCES S REGARDING ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 4 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 4 -301. CONNECTIONS TO SEWER REQUIRED. Every dwelling building or other structure in which plumbing exists or is to be installed shall be connected with the City sanitary sewer system whenever such system is available as determined by the Director of Public Works. Connections shall be made within one year after the City sanitary sewer system is made available. All buildings' liquid waste systems shall be connected to the City Sanitary Sewer. Where no sanitary sewer is available the onsite system shall be approved by the Health Authority utilizing the criteria specified in MPCA -WPC 40, Individual Onsite Sewage System. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) I 503 6 MCAR § 4.8040 I 4,VAO Individual sewage treatment systems standards. ; A. Intent. Tae improper design, location, installation, use and maintenance of indivi_`ual sewage treatment systems adversely affects the public health, 1 safety ane general welfare by discharge of inadequately treated sewage to sur- face and oun d waters In accordance rdance with the authority granted in Minn. a- � Stat. ch. 104, 105, 115, and 116 (1976), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, hereinz.fter referred to as the Agency, does hereby provide the mini - s mum stw.dards and criteria for the design, location, installation, use and maintenx ze of individual sewage treatment systems, and thus protect the E, surface 2: d ound and promote the public health and gr wate rs of the state P general welfare. Further, it is intended that the administration and enforcement of these Stan - dards be conducted by local units of government, since experience has shown • e t h e administered a th e local that sanrz ordinances c most effectively b rY an s an mo y c level. B. Definitions. For the purposes of these standards, certain terms or words used herein s h a ll be interpreted as follows: the word "shall" is mandatory, the distances, unless otherwise e w distanc s nl ord.. `shoal ' e permissive. All , d 'and "may" ar Y P specified, shall be measured horizontally. x I. Aerobic tank. Any sewage tank which utilizes the principle of oxida- tion in the decomposition of sewage by the introduction of air into the sew- age. _ 2. Agency. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 3. Alternative system. An individual sewage treatment system employ- ing such =ethods and devices as presented in section I. 4. Baffle. A device installed in a septic tank for proper operation of the tank, and to provide maximum retention of solids. Includes vented sanitary tees and submerged pipes in addition to those devices that are normally called baffles. 5. bedrock. That layer of parent material which is consolidated and un- weathered. 6. bedroom. Any room within a dwelling that might reasonably be used as 2 sleeping room. 7. 3uild..g drain. That part of the lowest piping of the drainage system s which reron•es the sewage discharge inside the walls of the building and con- vet's it tc the h•Vldi:ig sewer beginning at least one foot outside the building _ footings. r r;±y i 6 MCAR § 4.8040 504 8. Building sewer. That part of the drainage system which extends from the end of the building drain and conveys its discharge to an individual sew- age treatment system. 9. Capacity. The liquid volume of a sewage tank using inside dimen- sions below the outlet. 10. Cesspool. An underground pit into which raw household sewage or other untreated liquid waste is discharged and from which the liquid seeps into the surrounding soil. See section C. 2. d, 11. Distribution pipes, Perforated pipes or agricultural drain tiles that are used to distribute sewage tank effluent in a soil treatment system. 12. DNR. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 13: Dosing chamber (or pump pit or wet well). A tank or separate com- partment following the sewage tank which serves as a reservoir for the dosing device. 14. Dosing device. A pump, siphon, or other device that discharges sew - age tank effluent from the dosing chamber to the soli treatment system. 15. Dwelling. Any building or place used or intended to be used by human occupants as a single family or two family unit. 16. Filter material. Clean rock, crushed igneous rock or similar insoluble, durable and decay- resistant material free from dust, sand, silt, or clay. The size shall range from three - fourths inch to two and one -half inches. 17. Greywater. Liquid waste from a dwelling or other establishment pro- duced by bathing, laundry, culinary operations and from floor drains, and specifically excluding toilet waste. 18. Holding tank. A watertight tank for storage of sewage until it can be transported to a point of approved treatment and disposal. I 19. Impermeable. With regard to bedrock, a bedrock having no cracks or crevices and having a vertical permeability less than one inch in 24 hours shall be considered impermeable. With regard to soils, a soil horizon or layer having a vertical permeability, less than one inch in 24 hours shall be considered im- permeable. 20. Individual sewage treatment system. A sewage treatment system, or part thereof, serving a dwelling, or other establishment, or group thereof, which utilizes subsurface soil treatment and disposal. 21. Local unit of government. A township, city or county organized .order the laws of the State of Minnesota. 22. Mottling. A zone of chemical oxidation and reduction activity, ap- pearing as splotchy patches of red, brown, orange and gray in the soil. 23. Mound system. A system where the soil treatment area is built above the ground to overcome limits imposed by proximity to water table or bed - rock, or by rapidly or slowly permeable soils. 24. Other establishment. Any public or private structure other than a dwelling which generates sewage. 25. Percolation rate. The time rate of drop of a water surface in a test hole as specified in section D. 3. b. of this regulation. 26. Permitting authority. Any State agency or local unit of government which administers the provisions of these standards. 27. Plastic limit. A soil moisture content below which the soil may be manipulated for purposes of installing a soil treatment system, and above which manipulation will cause compaction and puddling. 28. Sand. A soil texture composed by weight of at least 85 percent of soil particles ranging in size between 0.05 and 2.0 mm. 29. Seepage pit (or leaching pit or dry well). An underground pit into which a sewage tank discharges effluent or other liquid waste and from which the liquid seeps into the surrounding soil through the bottom and openings in the side of the pit. 30. Septage. Those solids and liquids removed during periodic mainte- nance of a septic or aerobic tank, or those solids and liquids which are re- moved from a holding tank. 31. Setback. A separation distance measured horizontally. 32. Sewage. Any water carried domestic waste, exclusive of footing and roof drainage, from any industrial, agricultural, or commercial establishment, or any dwelling, or any other structure. Domestic waste includes but is not limited to liquid waste produced by bathing, laundry, culinary operations and liquid wastes from toilets and floor drains, and specifically excludes animal waste and commercial process water. 33. Sewage flow. Flow as determined by measurement of actual water use or, if actual measurements are unavailable, as estimated by the best avail- able data provided by the Agency. 34. Sewage tank. A watertight tank used in the treatment of sewage. In- cludes, but is not limited to septic tanks and aerobic tanks. 35. Sewage tank effluent. That liquid which flows from a septic or aero- bic tank under normal operation. 6 MCAR § 4.8040 _)Ua 36. Septic tank. Any watertight, covered receptacle designed and con - structed to receive the discharge of sewage from a building sewer, separate j solids from liquid, digest organic matter, and store liquids through a period of I f detention, and allow the clarified liquids to discharge to a soil treatment sys- tem. 37. Shoreland. Land located within the following distances from public waters: (1) 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark of a lake, pond or flowage; and (2) 300 feet from a river or stream or the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on such a river or stream, whichever is greater. 38. Site. The area bounded by the dimensions required for the proper location of the soil treatment system. 39. Slope. The ratio of vertical rise or fall to horizontal distance. 40. Soil characteristics, limiting. Those soil characteristics which pre- clude the installation of a standard system, including but not limited to evi- dence of water table or bedrock closer than three feet to the ground surface, and percolation rates faster than one -tenth or slower than 60 minutes per inch. i 41. Soil textural classification. Where soil particle sizes or textures are i specified in this regulation, they refer to the soil textural classification in the Soil Survey Manual, Handbook No. 18, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1951. i 42. Soil treatment area. That area of trench or bed bottom which is in direct contact with the filter material of the soil treatment system. 43. Soil treatment system. A system whereby sewage tank effluent is treated and disposed of below the ground surface by filtration and percola- Includes those systems commonly lion through the soil. Y Y known as seepage gh bed, trench, drainfield, disposal field, and includes mounds, Electroosmosis systems, and seepage pits. 44. Standard system. An individual sewage treatment system employing a building sewer, sewage tank and the soil treatment system commonly known as seepage bed or trenches, drainfield, or leachfield. 45. Surface water flooding. The 100 year flood plain along rivers and streams as defined by the DNR, or in the absence of such data, as defined by the largest flood of record. On lakes, high water levels as determined or re- rnrded by the DNR or, in the case of no DNR record, by local records or ex- perience. Other surface water flooding or high water areas should be deter- mined ,by local information. 46. Ten year flood. That flood which can be expected to occur, on an svelage, of once in ten years; or the level to which flood waters have a ten -rc ntchance of rising in any given year. i 507 6 MCAR § 4.8040 47. Toilet waste. Fecal matter, urine, toilet paper and any water used for flushing. 48. Valve box. Any device which can stop sewage tank effluent from flowing to a portion of the soil-treatment area. Includes, but is not limited to caps or plugs on distribution or drop box outlets, divider boards, butterfly valves, gate valves, or other mechanisms. 49. Water table. The highest elevation in the soil where all voids are filled with water, as evidenced by presence of water or soil mottling or other information. 50. Ordinary high water mark. A mark delineating the highest water n maintained for a sufficient level which has bee period of time to leave evi- m p dence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water mark"is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. 51. Watertight. Constructed so that no water can get in or out below the level of the outlet. " 52. Wild and scenic river land use district. Those lands designated by the Commissioner of the DNR as the protected land corridor along those rivers or river segments designated as wild, scenic or recreational rivers. C. General provisions. 1. Applicability. a. Administration by State Agencies. (1) Individual sewage treatment systems which serve a single facility generating greater than 15,000 gallons per day shall conform to the requirements of these standards and shall make application for and obtain a State Disposal System Permit from the Agency. (2) Collector systems which serve 15 dwelluigs or 5,000 gallons per day, whichever is less, shall conform to the requirements of these stan- dards and shall make application for and obtain a State Disposal System Per- mit from the Agency. (3) Individual sewage treatment systems serving establishments or facilities licensed or otherwise regulated by the State of Minnesota shall conform to the requirements of these standards. (4) Any individual sewage treatment system requiring approval by the State of Minnesota shall also comply with all local codes and ordi- nances. b. Administration by local units of government. 6 MCAR § 4.8U40 508 (1) Shoreland and floodplain areas, and wild and scenic river land use districts. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., § § 104.04, 104.36 and 105.485 (1976), certain counties and municipalities must enact ordinances which com- ply with the appropriate regulations of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, some of which in turn require compliance with the regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2) Other areas. Outside of the above mentioned areas, these standards provide recommended guidelines for the adoption of local ordi- nances and for the design, location, construction, use and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems. (3) Localized standards. Nothing in these standards shall prevent local units of government from enacting ordinances which provide more ade- quate sewage treatment under local conditions. R 2. General. a. Surface discharge. Unless specifically permitted by the Agency', sewage, sewage tank effluent, or seepage from a soil treatment system shall not be discharged to the ground surface, abandoned wells, or bodies of sur- face water, or into any rock or soil formation the structure of which is not conducive to purification of water by filtration, or into any well or other excavation in the ground. b. Treatment required. The system, or systems, shall be designed *to j receive all sewage from the dwelling, building, or other establishment served. I Footing or roof drainage shall not enter any part of the system. c. System components. The system shall consist of a building sewer, sewage tank and soil treatment system. All sewage shall be treated in a sewage tank or toilet waste treatment device, and the sewage tank effluent shall be discharged to the soil treatment system. i d. Prohibited installations. Cesspools shall not be installed. e. System sizing. Where the construction of additional bedrooms, the installation of mechanical equipment or other factors likely to affect the operation of the system can be reasonably anticipated, the installation of a system for such anticipated need shall be required. 3. Advisory committee. a. There is' hereby created an Advisory Committee on Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) hereinafter referred to as the Committee. All new or existing systems which discharge to surface waters or the ground surface must obtain either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimina- tion Systeuv (NI'DES) or State Disposal System Permit from the Agency and sliall comply with all requirements pertaining thereto. � 509 6 MCAR § 4.8040 a b. The Committee shall, subject to the approval of the Agency: (1) Review and advise the Agency on revisions of standards and legislation relating to ISTS. (2) Review technical data relating to ISTS. (3) Develop and revise a technical manual on ISTS. (4) Develop educational materials and programs for ISTS. (5) Advise the Agency and local unit of government or. the ad- ministration of standards and ordinances pertaining to ISTS. c. The Committee shall consist of 16 voting members. Of the 16 voting members: i One shall be a citizen of Minnesota, representative of the public; One shall be from the Agricultural Extension Service of the U.S.D.A. and the University of Minnesota; Six shall be county administrators (such as zoning administrators, sanitarians, etc.), one from each of the five Agency regions and one from the seven -coun- ty metropolitan area; One shall be a municipal building inspector; Six shall be sewage treatment contractors, one from each of the five Agency regions and one from the - county metropolitan area; and One shall be a water well contractor. d. The following agencies and associations shall each have one non - voting ex officio member to assist the Advisory Committee and to be advised, in turn, on matters relating to ISTS: the Agency, the DNR, Department of Health, the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the Metropolitan Council, the Association of Minnesota Counties, the Minnesota Association of Township Officials, the League of Minnesota Cities, and the Minnesota Society of Pro- fessional Engineers. e. All members shall be appointed by the Agency Board from rec- ommendations by the affected groups. All members shall serve for two years, with terms staggered so as to maintain continuity. f. In the case of a vacancy, an appointment shall be made for the unexpired balance of the term. The administrators, inspectors, and contrac- tors shall have been bona fide residents of this state for a period of at least three years prior to appointment, and shall have had at least three years ex- perience in their respective businesses. u,v1k_ltm y 'MSU+u 510 g. Robert's Rules of Order shall prevail at all meetings of the Ad- visory Committee. D. Site evaluation. 1. All proposed sites for individual sewage treatment systems shall be evaluated as to: 6. a. Depth to the highest known or calculated ground water table or bedrock; b. Soil conditions, properties and permeability; ' C. Slope; d. The existence of lowlands, local surface depressions, and rock outcrops; i e. All legal setback requirements from: existing and proposed build- ings; property lines; sewage tanks; soil treatment systems; water supply wells; buried water pipes and utility lines; the ordinary high water mark of lakes, rivers, streams, flowages; and the location of all soil treatment systems and water supply wells on adjoining lots within 150 feet of the proposed soil f treatments stem sewage tank and water supply well; Y g P , , PY f. Surface water flooding probability. 2. A preliminary evaluation shall be made of publicly available, existing data. if this evaluation, in the opinion of the permitting authority, yields enough information that the site is suitable, approval may be given for the installation of a standard system as specified in section li. 2. If a preliminary evaluation does not produce sufficient information, a field evaluation shall be made to determine the necessary information as specified in section D. 1. 3. Procedures for soil borings and percolation tests. a. Soil borings. Where soil borings are required, they shall be made as follows: (1) Each boring or excavation shall be made to a depth at least three feet deeper than the bottom of the proposed system or until bedrock or a water table is encountered, whichever is less. (2) A soil texture description shall be recorded by depth and notations made where texture changes occur. (3) Particular effort shall be made to determine the highest known water table by recording the first occurrence of mottling observed in the hole, or if mottling is not encountered, the open holes in clay, or loam soils shall be observed after standing undisturbed a minimum of 16 hours, and depth to standing water, if present, shall be measured. i i 1 Z 511 6 MCAR § 4.8040 b. Percolation tests. Where percolation tests are required, they shall be made as follows: (1) Test hole dimensions and locations: (a) Each test hole shall be six to eight inches in diameter, have vertical sides, and be bored or dug to the depth of the bottom of the proposed individual sewage treatment system. (b) Soil texture descriptions shall be recorded noting depths where texture changes occur. (2) Preparation of the test hole: (a) The bottom and sides of the hold shall be carefully scratched to remove any smearing and to provide a natural soil surface into which water may penetrate. (b) All loose material shall be removed from the bottom of the test hole and two inches of one - fourth to three - fourths inch gravel shall be added to protect the bottom from scouring. (3) Soil saturation and swelling: (a) The hole shall be carefully filled with clear water to a minimum depth of 12 inches over the soil at the bottom of the test hole and maintained for no less than four hours. (b) The soil shall then be allowed to swell for at least 16, but no more than 30 hours. In sandy soils, the saturation and swelling pro- cedure shall not be required and the test may proceed if one filling of the hole has seeped away in less than ten minutes. (4) Percolation rate measurement: (a) In sandy soils adjust the water depth to eight inches over the soil at the bottom of the test hole. From a fixed reference point, the drop in water level shall be measured in inches to the nearest one - eighth inch at approximately ten ininute intervals. A measurement can also be made by de- termining the time it takes for the water level to drop one inch from an eight - inch reference point. If eight inches of water seeps away in less than ten min- utes, a shorter interval between measurements shall be used, but in no case shall the water depth exceed eight inches. The test shall continue until thr;,e consecutive percolation rate measurements vary by a range of no more than ten percent. (b) In other soils, adjust the water depth to eight inches over the soil at the bottom of the test hole. From a fixed reference point, the drop in water level shall be measured in inches to the nearest one-eighth inch at approximately 30 minute intervals, refilling between measurements to main - 512 tain an eight -inch starting head. The test shall continue until three consecu- tive percolation rate measurements vary by a range of no more than ten per- cent. The percolation rate can also be made by observing the time it takes the water level to drop one inch from an eight -inch reference point if a constant water depth of at least eight inches has been maintained for at least four hours prior to the measurement. (5) Calculating the percolation rate: (a) Divide the time interval by the drop in water level to ob- tain the percolation rate in minutes per inch. (b) Percolation rates determined for each test hole shall be averaged to determine the final soil treatment system design. (6) For reporting the percolation rate,* worksheets showing all calculations and measurements shall be submitted. ' (7) A percolation test shall not be run where frost exists below the depth of the proposed soil treatment system. E. Building sewers. The design, terials for use in building sewer are presently construction, and location the and the ota Building Code which, in Minn. Reg. SBC 8701, in orporat s by refer nc s ethe Minnesota Plumbing Code, Minn. Reg. MHD 120 -135, and by specific pro- visions of the Minnesota Water Well Construction Code, Minn. Reg. MHD 217 (cXIXdd), (ee) and (ff). Relevant portions of the Minnesota Plumbing Code, as of the date of enactment of this rule, are reproduced in Appendix C. Minn. Reg. MHD 217(c)(1 Xdd), (ee) and (ff), as of the date of enactment of this rule, is reproduced in Appendix D. F. Sewage tanks. i 1. General. be: a. All tanks, regardless of material or method of construction shall (1) Watertight. (2) So designed and constructed as to withstand all lateral earth pressures under saturated soil conditions with the tank empty. j (3) So designed and constructed as to withstand a minimum of seven feet of saturated earth cover above the tank top. i (4) Not subject to excessive corrosion or decay. b. Any tank not having an integrally cast bottom shall not be in- st ill 1 when the water table is closet than three inches to the bottom of the e :. ion at the ti-[Ac of construction. 513 6 MCAR § 4.8040 2. Septic tanks. a. Design. All tanks, regardless of material or method of construc- tion, shall conform to the following criteria: (1) The liquid depth of any septic tank or compartment thereof shall be not less than 30 inches. A liquid depth greater than six and one -half feet shall not be considered in determining tank capacity. (2) No tank or compartment thereof shall have an inside hori- zontal dimension less than 24 inches. (3) Inlet and outlet connections of the tank shall be submerged by means of baffles. (4) The space in the tank between the liquid surface and the top of the inlet and outlet baffles shall be not less than 20 percent of the total required liquid capacity, except that in horizontal cylindrical tanks this space shall be not less than 15 percent of the total required liquid capacity. (5) Inlet and outlet baffles shall be constructed of acid resistant concrete, acid resistant fiberglass or plastic. (6) Sanitary tees shall be affixed to the inlet or outlet pipes with a permanent waterproof adhesive. Baffles shall be integrally cast with the tank, affixed with a permanent waterproof adhesive or affixed with stainless steel connectors, top and bottom. (7) The inlet baffle shall extend at least six inches but not more than 20 percent of the total liquid depth below the liquid surface and of least one inch above the crown of the inlet sewer. (8) The outlet baffle and the baffles between compartments shall extend below the liquid surface a distance equal to 40 percent of the liquid depth except that the penetration of the indicated baffles or sanitary tees for horizontal cylindrical tanks shall be 35 percent of the total liquid depth. They also shall extend above the liquid surface as required in section F. 2. a. (4). In no case shall they extend less than six inches above the liquid surface. (9) There shall be at least one inch between the underside of the top of the tank and the highest point of the inlet and outlet devices. (10) The inlet invert shall be not less than three inches above the outlet invert. (11) The inlet and outlet shall be located opposite each other along the axis of maximum dimension. The horizontal distance between the nearest points of the inlet and outlet devices shall be at least four feet. (12) Sanitary tees shall be at least four inches in diameter. Irilet 6 MCAR § 4.8040 514 i baffles shall be no less than six inches or no more than 12 inches measured from the end of the inlet pipe to the nearest point on the baffle. Outlet baf- fles shall be six inches measured from beginning of the outlet pipe to the nearest point on the baffle. (13) Access to the septic tank shall be as follows: (a) There shall be one or more manholes, at least 20 inches least dimension, and located within six feet of all walls of the tank. The man- hole shall extend through the cover to a point within 12 inches but no closer than six inches below finished grade. The manhole cover shall be covered with at least six inches of earth. (b) There shall be an inspection pipe of at least four inches diameter or a manhole over both the inlet and outlet devices. The inspection pipe shall extend through the cover and be capped flush or above finished grade. A downward projection of the center line of the inspection pipe shall be directly in line with the center line of the inlet or outlet device. (14) Compartmentation of single tanks. (a) Septic tanks larger than 3,000 gallons and fabricated as a single unit shall be divided into two or more compartments. (b) When a septic tank is divided into two compartments, not less than one -half nor more than two - thirds of the total volume shall be in the first compartment. (c) When a septic tank is divided into three or more com- partments, one -half of the total volume shall be in the first compartment and the other half equally divided in the other compartments. (d) Connections between compartments shall be baffled so as to obtain effective retention of scum and sludge. The submergence of the inlet and outlet baffles of each compartment shall be as specified in sections F. 2. a. (7) and (8). (e) Adequate venting shall be provided between compart- inents by baffles or by an opening of at least 50 square inches near the top of the compartment wall. (f) Adequate access to each compartment shall be provided by one or more manholes, at least 20 inches least dimension, and located within six feet of all walls of the tank. The manhole shall extend tluough the cover to a point within 12 inches but no closer than six inches below finished grade. The manhole cover shall be covered with at least six inches of earth. (15) Multiple tanks. (a) Where more than one tank is used to obtain the required :;quid volume, the tanks shall be connected in series. 515 6 MCAR § 4.8040 (b) Each tank shall comply with all other provisions of sec - tion F. 1. (c) No more than four tanks in series can be used to obtain the required liquid volume. _ (d) The first tank shall be no smaller than any subsequent tanks in series. b. Capacity. (1) Dwellings. The liquid capacity of a septic tank serving a dwelling shall be based on the number of bedrooms contemplated in the dwelling served and shall be at least as large as the capacities given below (see sections B. 6. and C. 2. e.): Number of Bedrooms Tank Liquid Capacities (gallons) 2 or less 750 3 or 4 1,000 5 or 6 1,500 7, 8 or 9 2,000 For ten or more bedrooms, the septic tank shall be sized as an other estab- lishment. See section F. 2. b. (2). (2) Other establishments. The liquid capacity of a septic tank serving an establishment other than a dwelling shall be sufficient to provide a sewage detention period of not less than 36 hours in the tank for sewage flows less than 1,500 gallons per day, but in no instance shall the liquid ca- pacity be less than 750 gallons. For sewage flows greater than 1,500 gallons per day the minimum liquid capacity shall equal 1,125 gallons plus 75 per- cent of the daily sewage flow. c. Location. (1) The sewage tank shall be placed so that it is accessible for the removal of liquids and accumulated solids. (2) The sewage tank shall be placed on firm and settled soil capable of bearing the weight of the tank and its contents. (3) Sewage tanks shall be set back as specified in Table IV fol- lowing section If. 2. d. (3). (4) Sewage tanks shall not be placed in areas subject to flooding or in flood plains delineated by local ordinances adopted in compliance with the "State -wide Standards for Management of Flood Areas of Minnesota" (Minn. Reg. NR 85 -93), or in areas for which regional flood information is 6 MCAR § 4.8040 516 available from the DNR, except that in areas where ten year flood informa- tion is available from and /or approved by the DNR, sewage tanks may be in- stalled in accordance with all provisions of Appendix A, section C. 6. of these standards. d. Mainten The owner of any septic tank or his agent shall regularly inspect and arrange for the removal and sanitary disposal of septage from the tank whenever the top of the sludge layer is less than 12 inches be- low the bottom of the outlet baffle or whenever the bottom of the scum layer is less than three inches above the bottom of the outlet baffle. 3. Aerobic tanks. Aerobic tank treatment systems shall comply with the general requirements for sewage tanks set forth in section F. 1., and with the following: a. The treatment system including each individual unit or compart- ment shall be easily accessible for inspection and maintenance and shall be provided with secured covers. b. The raw sewage flow from the dwelling shall be intercepted by a trash trap prior to its entering the aeration compartment. The trash trap shall have a net holding capacity of not less than 20 percent of the average daily flow. The invert level to the trap shall be above the liquid level and discharge directly into the trap. The outlet from the trap to the aeration compartment shall be deep baffled or equipped with a tee or long ell. . c. The trash trap shall be readily accessible for inspection and ef- fective cleaning and shall be so constructed as to prevent unauthorized entry. d. The aeration compartment shall have a minimum holding capa- city of 500 gallons or 120 gallons per bedroom, whichever is greater. e. The method of aeration shall be accomplished by mechanical aeration, diffused air, or both. The method used shall maintain aerobic con- ditions at all times. f. The settling compartment shall have a minimum net holding ca- pacity equal to 20 percent of the volume of the aeration compartment. The design shall provide for effective settling and continuous return of settled sludge to the aeration compartment. g. A minimurn 'one year warranty and an initial two year service contract which specifies regular inspection calls and effluent quality checks s shall be provided as a part of the purchase agreement. h. All other features of the aerobic tanks not specifically mentioned above shall comply with National Sanitation Foundation Standard No. 40 ('1lovernber 1970)., . Distribution and dosing of effluent. � 517 6 MCAR § 4.8040 1. Distribution. a. Gravity distribution. (1) Level ground. Where the elevation difference of the ground surface does not exceed 28 inches in any direction within the soil treatment system, the sewage tank effluent may be directed to the soil treatment sys- tem through a system of interconnected distribution pipes or trenches in a continuous system. (2) Slightly sloping ground. (a) Sewage tank effluent may be distributed by a distribu- tion box provided the final ground surface elevation of the lowest trench is at least one foot higher than the outlet inverts of the distribution box. (b) Distribution box. (i) The box shall be watertight with a removable cover and shall be constructed of durable materials not subject to excessive corro- sion or decay. (ii) The inverts of all outlets shall be at the same eleva- tion as measured froin a Iiquid surface in the bottom of the box. (iii) The inlet invert shall be at least one inch above the outlet inverts. (iv) The outlet inverts shall be at least four inches above the distribution box floor. (v) Each drainfield trench line shall be connected.sepa- rately to the distribution box and shall not be subdivided. (vi) When sewage tank effluent is delivered to the dis- tribution box by pump, either a baffle wall shall be installed in tine distribu- tion box or the pump discharge shall be directed against a wall or side of tine box on which there is no outlet. The baffle shall be secured to the box and shall extend at least one inch above the crown of the inlet flow line. (3) Sloping ground. (a) Where the elevation difference of the ground surface exceeds 28 inches in any direction within the soil treatment system and a distribution box cannot be used as specified in section G. 1. a. (2), a drop box shall be installed at the head end of each lateral line. Connections between drop boxes shall be by watertight pipes. (b) Drop boxes. 6 MCAR § 4.8040 518 r ' (i) The drop box shall be watertight and constructed of durable materials not subject to excessive corrosion or decay. (ii) The invert of the inlet pipe shall be at least one inch higher than the invert of the outlet pipe to the next trench. (iii) The invert of the outlet pipe to the next trench shall be at least two inches higher than the invert of the outlet pipe of the trench in which the box is located. (iv) When sewage tank effluent is delivered to the drop box by a pump, the pump discharge shall be directed against a wall or side of the box on which there is no outlet. (v) The drop box shall have a removable cover either flush or above finished grade or covered by no more than six inches of soil. b. Pressure distribution. (l) Pressure distribution laterals shall be sized as shown in Ta- ble 1. (2) Laterals shall be spaced no further than 20 inches from a trench or but wall. (3) Laterals shall be spaced no further than 40 inches apart. ' y .. (4) Laterals shall be connected to a header pipe which is at least one and one -half inch and no more than two inches in diameter. TABLE I Maximum Allowable Lateral Lengths In Feet From Header Pipe Perforation Spacing Perf. 2.5 Feet 3.0 Feet Dia. Pipe Dia. Pipe Dia. 1" 1 -1/4" 1 -1/2" 1" 1 -1/4" 1 -1/2" 3/16" 34 52 70 36 60 75 7/32" 30 45 57 33 51 63 1/4" 25 38 50 27 42 54 2. Dosing% a. Dosing chamber. A dosing device is not necessary in all situations j but, where used, shall comply with the following requirements. ! (1) The dosing chamber shall be watertight and constructed of sound and durable materials not subject to excessive corrosion or decay. (2) There shall be one or more manholes, at least 20 inches least 519 b Mt Alt g lf.ov -ry dimension and preferably located directly above the dosing device. The man- hole shall extend through the dosing chamber cover to final grade and shall be so constructed as to prevent unauthorized entry. (3) The size of the effluent dose shall be determined by design of the soil treatment unit but in no case shall the dosing chamber be sized to provide a dose of less than 75 gallons. b. Dosing devices for gravity distribution. (1) Where a dosing device is employed, a pump or siphon shall d the soil treatment unit for gravity deliver the ose to g y distribution over the soil treatment area. (2) For dwellings, the dosing device shall discharge at least 600 gallons per hour but no more than 2,700 gallons per hour. (3) For other establishments, the dosing device should discharge at a rate at least ten percent greater than the water supply flow rate but no faster than the rate at which effluent will flow out of the distribution device. (4) if the dosing device is a siphon, a maintenance inspection shall be made every six months by the owner or his agent. The siphon shall be maintained in proper operating condition. (5) If the dosing device is a pump, it shall be cast iron or bronze fitted and with stainless steel screws or constructed of other sound, durable and corrosion- resistant materials. (6) Where the soil treatment area is at a higher elevation than the pump, sufficient dynamic head shall be provided for both the elevation dif- ference and friction loss. (7) Where the dosing device is .a pump, an alarm device shall be installed to warn of pump failure. e. Dosing devices for pressure distribution. (1) The dosing device shall be a pump which is cast iron or bronze fitted and with stainless steel screws or constructed of sound, durable and corrosion - resistant materials. (2) The pump discharge capacity shall be at least seven and oine- half gallons per minute for each 100 square feet of soil treatment area. (3) The pump discharge head shall be at least five feet greater than the head required to overcome pipe friction losses and the elevation dif- ference between the pump and the distribution device. (4) The quantity of effluent delivered for each pump cycle shall be no greater than 25 percent of one day's sewage flow. 9 I' 6 MCAR § 4.8040 520 (5) An alarm device shall be installed to warn of pump failure. N. Final treatment and disposal. 1. General. Final treatment and disposal of all sewage tank effluent shall be by means of soil treatment and disposal. 2. Standard system. a. Sizing. (1) The required soil treatment area shall be determined by the daily sewage flow and the percolation rate of the soil. (2) Acceptable methods for estimating sewage flow for dwellings are given in Table II. The minimum daily sewage flow estimated for any dwelling shall provide for at least two bedrooms. For multiple residential units, the estimated daily sewage flow shall consist of the sum of the flows of each individual unit. TABLE II Sewage Flow (Gallons Per Day) Number of Classification of Dwelling' Bedrooms I 11 III IV 2 300 225 180 — 3 450 300 218 — 4 600 375 256 — 5 750 450 294 — 6 900 525 332 — • Table II is based on the following formulas: Classification I: Sewage Flow = 150 (No. of Bedrooms) Classification II: Sewage Flow = 75 (No. of Bedrooms + 1) Classification III: Sewage Flow = 66 + 38 (No. of Bedrooms + 1) Classification IV: If a greywater system is employed pursuant to Appendix A, section D. 2., estimated sewage flow shall equal 609o' of the arnount provided in column 1, I1, or III of Table I1. (3) For other establishments, the daily sewage flow shall be de- termined as provided in section B. 33. Table lit. . (4) The soil treatment area shall be at least as large as set forth in 521 6 MCAR § 4.8040 TABLE III Percolation Rate Required Soil Treatment Area in Square Feet (Minutes per inch) (Per Gallon of Sewage Flow per Day) Faster than 0.1 ** _ 0.1 to S* ** 0.83 6 to 15 1.27 16 to 30 1.67 31 to 45 2.00 46 to 60 2.20 Slower than 60 * * ** _ ** Soil is unsuitable for standard system if percolation rate is less than 0.1 minutes per inch. See Appendix A, section C. 5. ' * ** Consider alternative sewage treatment systems for soils with this per - colation rate range. See Appendix A, section C. 5. * * ** Soil is unsuitable for standard system if percolation rate is slower than 60 minutes per inch. See Appendix A, section C. 4. (5) Table III gives the required bottom area assuming six inches of filter material below the distribution pipe for trenches and beds. The re- quired bottom area may be reduced, for trenches only, by the following per - centages: 20 percent for 12 inches of filter material below the distribution pipe; 34 percent for 18 inches; and 40 percent for 24 inches. The filter ma- terial shall completely encase the distribution pipe to a depth of at least two inches. b. Location. (1) On slopes in excess of 12 percent, the soil profile shall be carefully evaluated in the location of the proposed soil treatment system and downslope to identify the presence of layers with different permeabwties that may cause sidehill seepage. In no case shall a trench be located within IS feet of where such a layer surfaces on the downslope. (2) Bed construction shall be limited to areas having natural slopes of less than six percent. (3) Soil treatment systems shall be located as specified in Tattle IV following section ff. 2. d. (3). (4) Soil treatment areas shall not be placed in areas subject to flooding or in flood plains delineated by local ordinances adopted in compli- ance with the "State -wide Standards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Areas of Minnesota" (Minn. Reg. NR 85 -93), or in areas for which re- gional flood information is available from the DNR, except that in areas where "ten year flood information is available from and /or approved by the DNR, soil treatment systems may be installed in accordance with the pro- visions of Appendix A, section C. 6 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PENALTY SECTIONS OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO REFLECT THE CHANGES IN MINNESOTA STATUTE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 1983, Chapter 331, Section 5, Subd. 3 of the following numbered City Ordinances which prescribe a maximum fine of $500 or imprisonment for 90 days for an ordinance violation are hereby amended to prescribe a maximum fine of $700 or imprisonment for 90 days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Section 1 -120, an ordinance relating to animal control. Section 3 -102G, an ordinance relating to the building code. Section 3 -104E, an ordinance relating to the addressing of buildings. Section 4 -501, an ordinance relating to water and sewer. Section 5 -114, an ordinance relating to conduct at the scene of a fire emergency. Section 5 -211, an ordinance relating to the fire prevention code. Section 5 -304, an ordinance relating to fire prevention provisions in industrial, commercial and residential districts. Section 5 -402, an ordinance relating to the establishment of fire lanes. Section 7 -108, an ordinance relating to garbage and sanitation code. Section 7 -206, an ordinance relating to public swimming pool rules, regulations and licensing provisions. Section 7 -402, an ordinance relating to connection of drain pipes and the sewer system. Section 7 -504, an ordinance relating to cleaning of septic tanks and cesspools. Section 7 -607, an ordinance relating to lodging establishments. Section 9 -2, an ordinance relating to Northwest Suburbs Joint Cable Communications. Section 9 -303, an ordinance relating to burial of certain electrical and communication lines. Section 12 -910, an ordinance relating to license suspension or revocation in housing maintenance and occupancy. Section 12 -1205, an ordinance relating to compliance orders in housing maintenance and occupancy. ORDINANCE NO. Section 12 -1302, an ordinance relating to execution of housing compliance orders by public authority. Section 15 -114, an ordinance relating to the platting code. Section 19 -106, an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of any nuisance or offensive matter. Section 19 -201, an ordinance relating to loitering. Section 19 -212, an ordinance relating to cruel treatment to animals. Section 19 -215, an ordinance relating to vagrancy. Section 19 -307, an ordinance relating to curfew. Section 19 -404, an ordinance relating to firearms, fireworks and other dangerous devices in the City. Section 19 -502, an ordinance prohibiting destruction or theft of City property. Section 19- 601.2, an ordinance prohibiting the issuance of worthless checks. Section 19 -702, an ordinance prohibiting door to door solicitation under certain circumstances. Section 19 -805, an ordinance regulating the carrying of pistols or revolvers. Section 19 -902, an ordinance prohibiting the obstruction of sidewalk and_ walkways. Section 19 -1005, an ordinance providing for the abatement of abandoned motor vehicles. Section 19- 1103, an ordinance establishing standards for the operation of drive -in restaurants. Section 19 -1104, an ordinance defining unlawful conduct in a drive -in restaurant. Section 19- 1105, an ordinance defining unlawful assembly in a drive -in restaurant. Section 19 -1106, an ordinance prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages in a drive -in restaurant. Section 19 -1108, an ordinance relating to the public nuisances and petty offenses code. Section 19 -1126, an ordinance regulating the possession and purchase or delivery of barbituates and other prohibited drugs. Section 19 -1132, an ordinance regulating the sale and possession of codeine. ORDINANCE NO. Section 19 -1138, an ordinance prohibiting the inhaling, breathing or drinking of certain substances commonly known as glue and regulating the purchase, sale and possession thereof. Section 19 -1203, an ordinance providing for the abatement of noise. Section 19 -1307, an ordinance regulating the operating, parking, storing, repairing, servicing and maintaining of junk vehicles. Section 19 -1403, an ordinance requiring fencing around all outdoor swimming pools. Section 19 -1506, an ordinance relating to the detection and control of Dutch elm disease. Section 19- 1604, an ordinance providing for the control of noxious weeds. Section 19 -1705, an ordinance prohibiting prostitution, nudity and other lets. Section 19- 1805, an ordinance prohibiting pornography and related materials. Section 21 -111, an ordinance relating to the public transportation code. Section 23.012.02, an ordinance establishing general licensing regulations. Section 23 -107, an ordinance relating to special license. Section 23- 201.02, an ordinance providing for the licensing of pool, billiard and bumper pool tables in the City. Section 23- 209.06, an ordinance regulating bowling alleys. Section 23 -303, an ordinance relating to licensing of certain public dancing in the City. Section 23 -410, an ordinance providing for regulations and the licensing of filling stations. Section 23 -508, an ordinance regulating the operation of bicycles. Section 23 -609, an ordinance regulating the game of bingo as authorized by Minnesota statute. Section 23 -709, an ordinance relating to the appointment of special police officers. Section 23 -1008, an ordinance licensing and regulating the operation of coin - operated and self- service dry cleaning machines. Section 23- 1111, an ordinance providing standards for parades and regulating the conduct of parades. Section 23 -1222, an ordinance relating to the sale of motor vehicles, establishing regulations and providing for licensing. ORDINANCE N0. Section 23 -1305, an ordinance relating to the sale of Christmas trees. Section 23 -1416, an ordinance regulating the construction, maintenance and operation of nursing homes and boarding care homes. Section 23 -1502, an ordinance requiring the licensing of mechanical contractors and house moving contractors. Section 23 -1614, an ordinance relating to saunas or sauna baths. Section 23 -1719, an ordinance relating to massage parlors. Section 23 -1814, an ordinance relating to rap parlors, conversation parlors, adult encounter groups, adult sensitivity groups, escort services, model services, dancing services, or hostess services. Section 23- 1909, an ordinance relatin g p to operation of certain gambling g devices. Section 23- 2009.2, an ordinance relating to alarm systems. Section 23- 2117, an ordinance relating to amusement devices. Section 25 -102, an ordinance relating to public streets and drainage ways. Section 25 -304, an ordinance relating to weight limits on streets and highways. Section 27 -101 an ordinance regulating motor vehicles and other conveyances g g within the City. Section 27 -203, an ordinance regulating safety aspects regarding on street soliciting and vending by catering food. Section 27 -908, an ordinance regulating the use and operation of snowmobiles. Section 31 -250, an ordinance relating to the civil defense code. Section 34 -210, an ordinance relating to signs. Section 35 -1040, an ordinance relating to the zoning code. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1984. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date Published Effective Date CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing ill be held on the 25th day Y of March, 1985 at 8:00 P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Vacating A Street Easement on the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 119 North, Range 21 West. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A STREET EASEMENT ON THE NORTH 198 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 119 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the street easement on the Easterlv 30 feet of the North 198 feet of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 119 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota is hereby vacated as a street easement. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1985. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk r Date of Publication Effective Date TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer DATE: February 21, 1985 RE: Ordinance Vacating Street Easement On December 17, 1984, the City Council approved the preliminary plat of Corner Addition, the resubdivision of abutting properties into two residential lots in the southeast corner of the 63rd Avenue -Unity Avenue intersection. A specific condition placed upon the final plat required that "a determination of the existing easement on the property shall be made and said easement shall be removed prior to final plat approval ". Research indicates that the easement in question was granted for street purposes prior to 1955. A review of 1952 maps shows that the easement area coincided with the easterly 30 feet of a much larger tract, thereby providing a natural location for a street. Subsequent development resulted in the actual location of the street (Unity Avenue) some 150 feet westerly, rendering the previously granted easement nonessential. Necessary paperwork which would have vacated the City's interest in the easement was never drafted, therefore, it is recommended the City Council now release its interest in the easement as specified in the conditions for final plat approval. Attached herewith is an ordinance which vacates the easement as recommended. It is offered for a first reading at the February 25, 1985 Council meeting. JNG : j n t `I Norfh M?e of EA of Wi¢ o,r NW% o / S)Vy4 of SEA AVENU of See. 33 T/i9.1,?l NORTH — /53.02 enr.., san,a.r sewer A sal.:rary M..k.14 srv. ' BSr. ze 1 Itl 1 fnrot�n� Watt ,w a.r. I I 1 O It M&Y 0 4V 49S " AY 616 k � � ra a is�oR 94 2 I I I e I 1 I i 4 � 9� I 1 � W •� /7 751 M, 418 \a � ' � Weed Frame 1 I •°� � �,,� c:a\ 1 M Z House � It � h � p� <'�1.1♦ R L r v 8rj . Z I C 'ti A 4p s VIP u 5 �„ ♦ r 0 1 p � y -- - -- - 1 - --- Gravel- Dr_ve_ --��/ t C f Z \ a � S'U1i /ly(Oroino9e Esmf �/ 9ti W 1 Far.e1 //257 Iev GC.C7 ti I 1 rte ;- — 15304— 1V89 °4803 "l'v t Gara�G 5 1 Sou /h /ine o! the 1 %rth 19B f/ of E%1 afiY/ of SE %Q o /' See 33 - 119, q,?l I i House t5��• ONE SUNWOOD DRIVE • BOX 399 • ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA 56302 • TEL. 612/252.6262 February 23, 1985 Brad Hoffman Administrative Assistant 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Brad: On Friday, February 22, 1985, you requested that I send you information regarding how Brutger Companies, Inc. has handled the settlement with the residents at Brookwood Estates. The-following outline is - provided in an effort to help you understand the process. Please bear in mind that it has been my intention to deal with each individual resident on a one -to -on basis, due to the various residents' situations. What may be appropriate and comfortable for one resident may not work for the next resident. 1. Jay Cook (Brutger Companies, Inc..'s legal council for Brookwood Estates) and myself began phoning the residents and their attorneys after Ys ter an J. Brut s meeting City Officials and Jean Champlin on Febuaryhll Center I usually made contact with the residents; Jay usually made contact with the residents' attorney. 2. During the time period of February resent a Y J and I have contacted each resident and /or their attorney. The following is a breakdown of items which all residents (we have settled with) have in common: a. Free rent in year one b. Reduced rent in year two c. Capped rental rates for years 3, 4 and 5 d. Free underground heated garage stall (5 years) plus selection of any garage stall not in current use by another resident e. BCI purchased all improvements residents have made: ' Washer /dryer, freezers; drapes /curtains, wallcoverings, upgraded appliances, mirrored walls, additional light ° fixtures, shelving units, microwaves', extra costs due to phone outlets, phone installation, electrical outlets. f. BCI agrees to leave all purchased personal property in residents' home for their use as long as they choose to live at Brookwood Estates. g. Reimbursement for reasonable attorney fees h. Reimbursement for moving costs i Reimbursement for closing costs j. Reimbursement for storage costs k. Reimbursement for labor provided {{ I i �, Brookwood Estates Settlement Page Two i 1. Repurchase of condominium unit rn. BCI agrees to pay each resident's taxes due and payable in 1985. ,n. Resident can give BCI 60 days written notice and break their lease agreement at any time for any reason. o. Commitment to rent the buidling to 54 and older age groups 3. The involvement Jay and I have had with the residents during the past two weeks has usually involved two meetings (in their homes) ; and an average of five follow -up phone conversations. All five could have opted to move out of the building and not participate 3 in any form of lease with BCI. The fact that all five have chosen ! this option speaks well for our future relationship at Brookwood Estates. I am delighted that this unpleasant situation could be turned around for at least five of our eight residents and hopefully ; all eight. 4. Jay and I will continue to keep the lines of communication open ' with the other residents. As I told you in our phone conversation, two residents have expressed a willingness to sit down and discuss their situation, but due to scheduling (on their part) have not been able to meet with us. At this point, we have only one resident who remains unreachable. The attorney in this case has told Jay that he will let us know when they are ready. In conclusion, I welcome you to contact any of the five residents and visit with them regarding our settlement. Sincerely, BRUTGER COMPANIES, INC. Sham Melberg 'tt Director of Marketing SMW /cc ! cc: Phil Cohen 3 i i Licenses to be approved on February 25, 1985 AMUSEMENT DEVICE OPERATOR LICENSE Chuck Muers 2101 Freeway Blvd. a, P. Ch of Police BAKERY FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Good Earth Restaurant 5717 Xerxes Ave. N. Sanitarian BULK VENDING LICENSE K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Sanit riam CATERING FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Green Mill Restaurant 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Lanars Plumbing and Heating 6945 Queen St. Buildin fficial NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Cass Screw Company 4748 France Ave. N. Chuck's Q. 1505 69th Ave. N. i F & M Marquette National Bank 5825 Xerxes Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Major Vending 7440 Major Ave. N. M & S Drug Emporium 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Midwest Vending 8900 "B" Wentworth Ave. S. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Miernik Vending 7258 Commerce Circle Brookdale Towers 2810 County Rd. 10 Earle Brown Apts. 1701 69th Ave. N. Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. Marc's Budgetel 6415 James Circle NSI /Griswold 8300 10th Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Plitt Brookdale Theater 2501 County Rd. 10 Viking Gym 6504 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. , Sanitarian OFF -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Brookdale Mobil Inc. 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. � . C i f of Po ice PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Miernik Vending 7258 Commerce Circle Brookdale Towers 2810 County Rd. 10 Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. Mares Budgetel 6415 Countyd. 1 Circle Plitt Brookdale Theater 2501 Count Rd. 10 Sanitarian READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Ted Burlingame 5919 June Ave. N. Sani arian FP RENTAL LICENSE Renewal: Invespro II Limited Partnership Columbus Village Apts. Village Properties Evergreen Park Manor Apts. C. J. Schaber 5341 Brooklyn Blvd. Eugene J. Sullivan 5401 Brooklyn Blvd. Julia G. Paulson 5315 Knox Ave. N. Gary Scherber 4708 Lakeview Ave. N. Harold Swanson 7230 W. River Rd. Harold Swanson 7250 W. River Rd. Edward C. Sass 5101, 03 Xerxes Ave. N. Donald Kutz 6837 York Place H. Oien, E. Sullivan 3606 58th Ave. N. Leo J. Vogel 2841 67th Lane Ruth Kalanquin 5348 70th Circle Curtis H. Cady 1312 72nd Ave. N.Q.�.�.�1. Director of Planning and Inspection SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Maid of Scandinavia Co. Westbrook Mall Viking Gym, Inc. 6504 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. s Sanitarian TAXI CAB LICENSE Town Taxi 11318 Olson Highway Yellow Cab 127 1st Ave. NE C i f of Po ice ff 6N GENERAL APPROVAL: Gerald d. n e , Clty Clerk • 1