Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 07-08 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 8, 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 - June 24, 1985 - Regular Session * 7. Performance Bond Reduction: a. The Pond's, Plat 2nd Circle � 5; 7 and Unity Avenue .North 8. Resolutions: *a. Acknowledging - Gift from the Brooklyn Center Rotary Club *b. Acknowledging Gift from the Brooklyn Center Lion's Club *c- Acknowledging Gift from the Brooklyn Center Jaycee Women *d- Declaring Surplus Properties *e- Declaring Property at 58th & Drew Avenues North as Hazardous f. Receiving Engineer's Report, Establishing Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1985 -21, Approving Specifications and Ordering Advertisements for Bids (Contract 1985 -L) -This item calls for replacing the fuel tanks at the Municipal Service Garage with those removed from the 7- Eleven site and installing new dispensers. *g. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1985 -G (Xerxes Avenue Street Improvement Project No. 1985 - 09) *h. Establishing Project No. 1985 -16, Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Carpet Replacement in the Civic Center (Contract 1985 -I) *i. Establishing Project No. 1985 -17, Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Painting in the Civic Center and at the Municipal Service Garage (Contract 1985 - J) * j. Authorizing Execution of an Agreement between Cromer Management, Incorporated and the City of Brooklyn Center for an Employee Assistance Program r CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- July 8, 1985 9. Ordinance: (7:30 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of . Irving Avenue North as Platted within the Hellsted Addition -This ordinance was first read on June 10, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on June 20, -1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. This ordinance provides for vacation of a platted, but never developed 30' wide street right -of -way, i.e. Irving Avenue North from 69th Avenue North to its dead end approximately 490' south of 69th Avenue North. 10. Public Hearings: (7 :30 p.m.) a. Establishment of a Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing District 1. Resolution Establishing a Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing District b. Establishment of a Multifamily Housing Bond on Brookwood Condominiums 1. Resolution Adopting a Housing Bond Program for the Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds for the Brookwood Estates Project and Authorizing Submission of Same to the Minnesota Housing Finance, Agency and the Metropolitan Council 11. Planning Commission Item: (7 :30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 85016 submitted by Village Properties for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the zoning ordinance to allow a temporary one foot setback off Highway 252 right -of -way and to allow a density variance of two units at the Evergreen Park Apartments, 7200 to 7224 Camden Avenue North. The City Council tabled the application and continued the public hearing on June 24, 1985• The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal and offers additional regarding the noise wall. 12. Conditions for Employment of Henry (Bo) Spurrier for the Position of City Engineer *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF ° HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION --JUNE 24, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER _e Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7 :05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Public Works Coordinator Joe Oster, Director of Recreation Arnie Mavis, and Deputy City Clerk Geralyn Barone. Councilmember Celia Scott was absent from this evening's meeting. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Stanley Aukema of Northbrook Alliance Church. OPEN FORUM My — or 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 yFla or Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Theis requested that item 12e - be removed and Councilmember Lhotka requested that item 12h be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mayor Nyquist also removed item 7 from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 3 1985 - BOARD OF EQUALIZATION There was a motion by Council'member Theis andseconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the Board of Equalization meeting of June 3, 1985 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1985 SPECIAL SESSION There as a motion by Council'member Theis and ,seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the special session of the City Council meeting of June 3, 1985 as .submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE FOR CAR X MUFFLER SHOP There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to release the performance guarantee, in the amount of $5,000, for Car X Muffler Shop, 6810 Brooklyn Boulevard (Planning Commission Application No. 81023)• Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 6 -24 -85 -1- PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE FOR ROSEMARY TERRACE, HUMBOLDT PLACE There was a motion by Counclmember Theis and seconded. by Councilmember Hawes to release the performance guarantee, in the amount of $1,500, for Rosemary Terrace, 1501 -1555 Humboldt Place (Planning Commission Application No. 80030). Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTIONS �. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -105 Member Rich is introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR YEARS IX AND X TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR A CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE URBAN HENNEPIN`COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and ' Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -106 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING GERALYN BARONE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -107 Member Rich is introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CITY HALL /COMMUNITY CENTER LANDSCAPING PROJECT NO. 1984 -12 PHASE III The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -108 Member ' Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER SHINGLE CREEK TRAILWAY LANDSCAPING PROJECT NO. , 1984 -15 6 -24 -85 - The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -109 Member ber Rich Theis introduced the following esolution and moved its adoption: g RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12, WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13, AND 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14 (CONTRACT 1985 -K) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -110 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CAULKING /SEALANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -22 AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR COMPLETION THEREOF The ti mo on for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b member P g n8 Y Y Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none whereupon g , on said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT There was a- motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to authorize the City Manager and Mayor to sign a revised Joint Powers Agreement on the Senior Transportation Project. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICE OPERATOR Brookdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Dr. Brookdale Plitt Theater 2501 County Rd. 10 Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Red Lobster 7235 Brooklyn Blvd. T. Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR Advance Carter 850 Decatur Avenue Twin City Novelty Co. 9549 Penn Ave. S. 6 -24 -85 -3- CIGARETTE LICENSE fiF Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. S. T. J. Applebee's Brookdale Ctr. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE 507s Grill 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Donaldson's Brookdale Ctr. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Show Biz Pizza 5939 John Martin Dr. GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Bautch Disposal Service 10264 Xylite Street NE Hilger Transfer Co. 8550 Zachary Lane Peterson Brothers 18605 Lk. George Blvd. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE roof' - klyn Center Jaycees 2106 55th Ave. N. Central Park Carnival Site 60th & Earle Brown Dr. Earle Brown Days Committee 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Alaire Heating & Air Cond. 9000 Annapolis Ln. Comfort Heating & Air Cond. 4721 33rd Ave. N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Ganto's Brookdale Ctr. Earle Brown Farm Apts. 1701 69th Ave. N. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Richard D. Bergstrom 5400 Russell Ave. N. Renewal: Lang- Nelson Associates Chalet Courts NormanChazin Four Courts Apts. Norman Chazin Northlyn Apts. Shingle Creek Tower Shingle Creek Tower Apts. James Maas 6234 Brooklyn Blvd. Richard Gautsch 5541 Bryant Ave. N. Bill Arendt 5813 Dupont Ave. N. Virgil L. Hillstrom 5907, 09 June Ave. N. Jeffrey K. Vest 5557 Knox Ave. N. Steve Bruggeman 4201 Lakeside Ave. #307 Patrick & Susan Mooney 4735 Lakeview Ave. N. Richard & Elfreda Ploof 5319, 21 Queen Ave. N. Robert Baltuff 5930 Xerxes Ave. N. Cosmopolitan Apts. 3401, 3413 47th Ave. N. G &.B Enterprises 3501 47th Ave. N. John & Susan Byrnes 3019 63rd Ave. N. 6 -24 -85 -4- I__ T.W. Thorbus 4300 63rd Ave. N. Joe Hamm 4010 65th Ave. N. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 10, 1985 There was a motion by Counciiaember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the Council meeting of June 10, 1985. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, "Councilmembers Theis and Hawes. Voting against none. The motion passed. Councilmember Gene Lhotka abstained from the vote as he was not present at the June 10, 1985 meeting. PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARDS Mayor Nyquist made a presentation of Community Service Awards to Vincent Tubman and William Hannay for serving eight years each on the Charter Commission. Mr. Tubman and Mr. Hannay were present to accept the awards. PRESENTATION OF CONFERENCE OF MAYOR'S AWARD FOR YOUTH ACTIVITIES EMPHASIZING PUBLIC- PRIVATE '— Mayor Nyquist announced that he had received an award at the Conference of Mayor's Annual Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska awarded annually by Xerox to those emphasizing public- private partnership. Mayor Nyquist recognized three individuals who have been very involved in various programs that have made the award possible, Lonni McCauley, Barbara Jensen, and Dennis Morrow, and presented them with the award for youth activities emphasizing public- private partnership. Mayor Nyquist recognized Barbara Jensen, who stated the part of the concept of volunteerism often overlooked is the encouragement of the Mayor, City Council, and City staff for the type of activity for which this award was given. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) + The City Manager introduced a Resolution Receiving Engineer's Report, Establishing Seal Coating Improvement Project No. 1985 -15, Approving Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1985 -H). Councilmember Theis inquired as to why granite is used in some areas and buckshot is used in others. The Director of Public Works stated that granite or trap rock is used on arterial streets while buckshot is used on residential streets. Councilmember Theis noted that several years ago there had been discussion about realigning 69th Avenue North to Shingle Creek Parkway, and now the discussion includes seal coating. He asked if this means 69th Avenue North will not be realigned. The Director of Public Works explained the right -of -way has to be obtained, and this still has not been completed. Although a verbal agreement exists, there are legal problems, and he expects another three to five years to pass before anything can be done. He noted that the road is overdue for a seal coat, and if this is not done the street will rapidly deteriorate. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -111 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING SEAL COATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -15, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIAS (CONTRACT 1985 -H) 6 -24 -85 -5- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Receiving Engineer's Report, Establishing Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1985 -21, Approving Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1985 -L). Councilmember Lhotka inquired about the cost of new gas pumps, and asked about the condition of the current pumps. The Director of Public Works explained that he did not have an itemization of the total cost, but would, be able to present the information if so - desired. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to table this resolution until the next City Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.; The motion passed. The/City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Parking Restrictions for Xerxes Avenue North Between C.S.A.H. 10 and 170 Feet South of 59th Avenue North and 200 Feet North of 65th Avenue North to Bridge No. 27927 over F.A.I. 94. He noted that the State of Minnesota requires a resolution to be passed establishing and recognizing parking restrictions. Councilmember Lhotka asked if "no parking" restrictions were already in place, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -112 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR XERXES AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN C.S.A. H. 10 AND 170 FEET SOUTH OF 59TH AVENUE NORTH AND 200 FEET NORTH OF 65TH AVENUE NORTH TO BRIDGE NO. 27927 OVER F.A.I.94 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene - Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Indemnifying the State of Minnesota from Any Claims Resulting from the Issuance of a Variance from Established Street Width Standards as They Relate to Xerxes Avenue North From Northway Drive to F.A.I. 94, adding this is a State requirement. The City Manager responded to questions from Mayor. Nyquist and Councilmember Lhotka asking for clarification of this resolution. The City Manager stated that at one time there had been no standard, but that now it is necessary to have a variance. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -113 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION INDEMNIFYING THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FROM ANY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE ISSUANCE OF A VARIANCE FROM ESTABLISHED STREET WIDTH STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO XERXES AVENUE NORTH FROM NORTHWAY DRIVE TO F.A.I. 94 6 -24 -85 -6- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 29 on Filing for Municipal Office. He explained the ordinance is offered for "a first reading this evening because of a new state law requiring the preparation and delivery of absentee ballots at least 30 days before an election, and requiring filing of affidavit of candidates not less than six weeks nor more than eight weeks before a municipal primary and at least 18 weeks before the general election. He stated an additional two weeks is needed to allow for handling and delivery of absentee ballots. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 29 of Filing for Municipal Office and to set the public hearing date on the ordinance for July 22, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. Voting in favor Mayor Nyquist, Couneilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING ON PRIVATE KENNEL APPLICATION The City Manager noted that a public hearing is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on an application for a private kennel license from Carolyn E. Duerr of 6900 Regent Avenue North. He stated the applicant has three dogs and wants the dogs to be housed inside the residence at 6900 Regent Avenue North. He added the City ordinance requires a 0 private kennel license where more than two dogs, exceeding six months of age, are kept in a household. He referred the City Council to a notice of public hearing ,sent to area residents, the application for the private kennel license, a report from the police department of activity at the applicant's residence, and two petitions received from area residents. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on a private kennel license application from Carolyn E.- .Duerr, 6900 Regent Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on a private kennel license application from Carolyn E. Duerr, 6900 Regent Avenue North. At this time, the applicant entered the Council Chambers and indicated that she wished to speak. Councilmember Lhotka withdrew his motion and Councilmember Hawes did not object. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to reconsider opening the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant, Carolyn E. Duerr of 6900 Regent Avenue North who stated she has one dog, and her daughter who is living with her temporarily has two dogs. Mayor Nyquist inquired as to when Ms. Duerr's daughter is moving out, and Ms. Duerr responded saying her daughter is separated, so it may be six months before her daughter leaves. 6 -24 -85 -7- Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one ;requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on a private kennel license application from Carolyn E. Duerr, 6900 Regent Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to deny the application for a private kennel license at 6900 Regent Avenue North. Councilmember Lhotka ,stated that after reviewing the information provided, he questioned the treatment of the animals. Councilmember Hawes also questioned the care given the animals, noting from the information he received the dogs are tied with chains for hours each day which most likely encourages the dogs to be noisy. He added that as a temporary situation, the activity has been going on for quite some time. Mayor Nyquist inquired as to the procedure if the private kennel license were denied. The City Manager responded saying it is reasonable to allow a period of time for the applicant to comply with the ordinance, and then proceed with enforcement. Mayor Nyquist reiterated the motion for denial. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting .against: none. The motion passed. Mayor Nyquist asked the City Attorney what a reasonable length of time for compliance would be, and the City Attorney responded that 30 days is reasonable. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to allow Carolyn E. Duerr of 6900 Regent Avenue North 30 days to comply with the City's animal ordinance. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. CONSIDERATION OF ON -SALE 3.2 BEER LICENSE FOR THE 50'S GRILL The City Manager noted that an application for on-sale 3.2 beer license for the 50 Grill had been received for a restaurant to be located at 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard, formerly Farrell's Restaurant. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the on -sale 3.2 beer license for the 50's Grill. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM RECOMMENDATION FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S POLICY FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The Director of Public Works referred the City Council to information prepared by the Public Works Department regarding deferral of special assessments. He stated a need has existed for the last several years to review the City's current policy, and a survey of 25 other communities was conducted before proposing amendments to the City's policy. Councilmember Hawes requested clarification of the examples 6 -24 -85 -8- presented and the Public Works Coordinator reviewed the examples and how they would be applied in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Theis asked what the consequences would be in the third year if a homeowner's assessment were deferred for the first two years. The Public Works Coordinator responded that the homeowner would begin payment in the third year. The Director of Public Works stated that the proposal includes deferral of the entire assessment rather than deferral of installments. Councilmember Theis suggested placing limitations on the installments rather than deferral of the entire assessment, and the City Attorney noted that this would create an accounting problem that the County may not accept. The Director of Planning & Inspection entered the Council Chambers at 7:55 p.m. Councilmember Theis asked if the entire assessment role could be certified annually by the City, thus eliminating the County's problem. The City Attorney responded affirmatively, and Councilmember Theis added that the problem would then be transferred to the City. Mayor Nyquist stated he felt uncomfortable about requiring some homeowners to pay at 1.99%, while those at 2.1% would receive complete deferral. The Director of Public Works responded that most property owners are reluctant to request deferral because of the continually accruing interest rates. As a result, deferral is used as a last resort. The Public Works Coordinator suggested that the policy could allow for at least partial payment of any assessment. Councilmember Theis noted that those who do not choose deferral because of the choice of either paying all or nothing could be allowed to pay at least something under this proposal. Councilmember Hawes inquired as to the number of affected households, and the Director of Public Works said since 1978 only one person has utilized the current deferment option. He added that more will be eligible under the new proposal, but it is difficult to predict the number of applicants. The City Manager stated that census data can be reviewed and Councilmember Lhotka asked that the current and proposed policies be reviewed taking into consideration the number and -which people will be affected by the policies. The Director of Public Works stated he would prepare additional information and present it at a future meeting of the City Council. RECESS The Brooklyn City Center Council recessed at 8:07 p.m. and reconvened at 8:19 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEM PROPOSED MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE The City Manager stated this is the third public hearing on the proposed Municipal Golf Course, and briefly reviewed the history of this proposal. ` He reviewed the locations of the public golf courses now located in the metropolitan area, and stated there is a lack of golf courses, especially of the par three type. The City Manager presented the final preliminary sketch of the golf course, and noted the concern of golf balls being hit onto T. H. 100 and neighboring homes can be alleviated by changing one of the holes on the south side of the proposed golf course. He added with adjustments in design of the golf course, some of the expected problems can be mitigated. He reviewed the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Habitat Analysis, showing the difference between existing wildlife and that expected following the development of the project. The population of some types of wildlife would decrease, while others would increase in numbers with a net affect of an increase in 6 -24 -85 -9- wildlife. Next the City Manager reviewed the financial data for the proposed golf course. With regard to traffic levels in the area, he stated that an increase in traffic levels would occur, but the amount of traffic would be spread out during an entire days period. Councilmember Lhotka expressed some concern with the appearance of the golf course, particularly with the flatness of the course. The City Manager stated some elevation would occur, particularly with the tees and greens which would be above flood level. He added that a considerable amount of water is planned for the golf course, and indicated which area of the golf course would include water. Councilmember Theis asked how many holes would have water around them and the City Manager responded that golfers would be required to hit over two areas of water, would be surrounded by one, and would golf alongside three areas of water. Councilmember Theis asked if too much water would create a negative factor, and the City Manager stated he felt this would not be a problem. Councilmember Theis asked if allowance had been made in the plan for green replacement in of vandalism or freezing of the greens. The City Manager stated a very heavy contingency is included in the proposal, and added that fencing will completely surround the facility with the hope of minimizing vandalism. Councilmember Theis asked if a provision is included for a putting green, and the City Manager responded negatively. Councilmember Lhotka expressed interest in the amount of staffing for the golf course, and the City Manager stated that staffing had been included as an expense based on the New Hope and Roseville experiences. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the proposed Municipal Golf Course, and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on the proposed Municipal Golf Course. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -11 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE ENTERPRISE FUND AND AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the amount of money expended so far on this project, and the City Manager stated between $7,000 and $10,000 had already been spent. Councilmember Lhotka asked how much additional money would be spent, and the City Manager responded that $70,000 was expected to be spent for the total completion of the project. He added that the City Council must give final approval of the project at the time of bid letting. Upon vote being taken on Resolution No. 85 -114, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same:. none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 6 -24 -85 -10- RESOLUTION NO. 85 -115 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -23 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH BRAUER AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. FOR THE DESIGN OF SAID IMPROVEMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85015 SUBMITTED BY S & G PROPERTIES FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO LOTS THE TRACT `OF SAND ON WHICH THE EARLE BROWN FARM APARTMENT'S IS LOCATED AT 1701 b9TH NORTH The City Manager explained the Planninig o fission recommended approval of Application No. 85015 at its June 13, 1985 meeting. The Director of Recreation left the City Council Chambers at 8:45 P.m. The Director of Planning & Inspection briefly reviewed Application-No. 85015, stating excess land will be available that could be used in a future addition. The Director of Public Works left the Council Chambers at 8:50 p.m. and returned at 8:55 p.m. The Director of Planning & ,Inspection stated that conditions of approval for Application No 85015 have all been met with the submission of °the revised preliminary plat. He added the public hearing had been scheduled and notices were posted. Councilmember Hawes inquired as to the possibility of construction of a new building with the creation of a new lot and expressed concern over how much of a new building could - be constructed based on the setback limits. The Director of Planning & Inspection responded that at this time no plans have been reviewed for another building, but with the current setbacks enough space exists for an approximately 24 unit building. He added that the ordinance allows service or office facilities to be installed in the area, but added most likely residential units would be added. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 85015• He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Application No. 85015• Voting, in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and ,seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Application No. 85015 subject to the following condition: 6 -24 -85 -11- - 1. The common property line shall be moved eastward to provide a 5' greenstrip adjacent to the curb line of the existing parking lot. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85016 SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE PROPERTIES FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 35 -400 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY 1' SETBACK OFF HIGHWAY 252 RIGHT- OF -WAY D TO ALLOW A DENSITY VARIANCE OF TWO UNITS AT THE EVERGREEN PARK APARTMENTS, 7200 -72'24 CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH eT e Dire ctor of Planning & Inspection stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85016 at its June 13, 1985 meeting. He added that there would be modifications of the variance request based on a new highway department proposal. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated the applicant, Mr. Ken Solie, requested to make a presentation anyway. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Ken Solie, representing Village Properties. Mr. Solie reviewed the changes made by the State of Minnesota, and indicated his desire to modify the variance application regarding setbacks. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated a public hearing had been set for this evening for this application, and requested that if the application is tabled,, that the public hearing be continued. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a,public hearing on Application No. 85016. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs. Patty Lee of 7223 Camden Avenue North. Mrs. Lee expressed concern over the possibility that parking spaces would be eliminated with the construction of this project. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Solie-, who stated that none of the parking spaces would be eliminated. The Director of Planning & Inspection and Mr. Solie discussed the area that the highway department would be taking as right -of -way. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to continue the public hearing to the July 8, 1985 City Council meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and ,seconded by Councilmember Theis to continue the public hearing of Application No. 85016 to the July 8, 1985 meeting of the City Council. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to table Application No. 85016 to the July 8, 1985'City Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM SCHEDULING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS The City Manager discussed the possibility of changing the meeting nights of the 6 -24 -85 -12- City Council from the second and fourth Mondays of each month to the second and fourth Tuesdays because of conflicts with Monday holidays. He added that City Councilmembers had requested additional time to review the agenda packets prior to the City Council meetings. He suggested that no changes be made until at least the 1986 Council meeting schedule is set. Mayor Nyquist stated he has some personal conflicts, but these could be resolved if need be. Councilmember Hawes noted that he receives a great deal of material at the last minute, which does not provide enough time for review. He added that changing the meeting nights of the Council meetings may help eliminate the problem. Councilmember Lhotka suggested that no matter what night the Council meets, there will always be last minute items. He requested that last minute items of significance or of any great length should not be given to the City Council until the following meeting. Councilmember Theis suggested that agenda `packets be distributed on Thursday evenings rather than Fridays to provide for additional reviewal time by the City Council. Councilmember Lhotka stated he preferred the Monday evening meetings. Councilmember Theis stated Thursday evenings may be better than a Tuesday meeting which would allow for more interaction between staff and the City Council in answering questions about specific items. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mary Jane Gustafson of the Brooklyn Center Post, who stated that from a newspaper's point of view, it would be impossible to print the news from Tuesday evening.Council meetings in the paper in the same week as the meeting. The City Manager stated that no action was required of the City Council at this time, but City staff will attempt to deliver agenda packets at an earlier time. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Quotations and Awarding Contract for the Purchase of Two Snow Box Inserts. He explained it necessary to order the inserts at this time in order to receive them by this year's snowfall. The City Attorney asked what a snow box insert is, and the City Manager explained it enlarges the front of a snowplow to haul more snow. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -116 Member Rich is introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO SNOW BOX INSERTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT OF RICHARD PLOUMEN FOR THE POSITION OF SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS —& PARKS he ity Manager stated it would be necessary for the City Council to approve special conditions for employment of Richard Ploumen for the position of Superintendent of Streets & Parks. Councilmember Hawes inquired as to the background of Mr. Ploumen, and the City Manager stated Mr. Ploumen had spent eight years in Bloomington and more recently six years in Mendota Heights as Superintendent of Streets, Parks, and Public Utilities. The Director of Public Works stated 25 applications had been 6 -24 -85 -13- received and a very extensive selection process had been followed. He added the salary for Mr. Ploumen is within the existing salary schedule. The City Manager noted that it is not unusual to ,specify special conditions for filling management positions. Councilmember Theis stated he felt allowing for special conditions is a good way to attract experienced applicants. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the hire date for Mr. Ploumen is, and the Director of Public Works responded that Mr. Ploumen would begin July 18, 1985. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to allow Mr. Richard Ploumen to receive three weeks vacation accrual upon employment and a bank of 100 hours of sick leave to be available in the event of illness during the first year of employment. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,` Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 6 -24 -85 -14- MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross Planner RE: Performance Guarantee DATE: July 3,`1985 The following performance guarantee is recommended for reduction as specified: 1. The Ponds, Plat 5 72nd Circle and Unity Avenue North Planning Commission Application No. 79031 Amount of Guarantee: $50,000.00 Obligor: Meadow Corporation Utilities, private streets and curbing have been completed for some time. A dam to control water elevation in the Ponds development has been completed. The landscaping is about 80% p P P 9 complete and appears viable. Recommend reducing bond from $50,000.00 to $10,000.00. Approv by Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT WHEREAS, the BROOKLYN CENTER ROTARY CLUB has presented the City a gift of eight hundred dollars ($800) and has designated that it be used for the purchase of flowers for the Central Park Plaza; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Brooklyn Center Rotary Club for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the gift of $800.00 be appropriated to the General Fund Parks Maintenance Budget to be used to purchase flowers for the Central Park Plaza. 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. gb Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT WHEREAS the BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB has resented the it gift of � C a P Y g two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and has designated that it be used for the purchase of flowers for the Central Park Plaza; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the gift of $250.00 be appropriated to the General Fund Parks Maintenance Budget to be used to purchase flowers for the Central Park Plaza. 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 solution was declared duly passed and adopted. Y A P Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT WHEREAS, the BROOKLYN CENTER JAYCEE WOMEN have presented the City a gift of fifty dollars ($50) and has designated that it be used for the Children's Puppet Wagon Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends the Brooklyn Center Jaycee Women for its civic efforts: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City Y of Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude; and BE IT FURTHER .RESOLVED that the gift of $50.00 be appropriated to the General Fund Children's Recreation Programs Budget to be used for the Puppet Wagon Program. 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 ng voted against the same: whereupon e eupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. got z Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the coolers at the Humboldt Avenue Liquor Store and 28 battery packs from the Police Department are hereby declared surplus property and the City Council authorizes the sale of the same. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: July 2, 1985 SUBJECT: Surplus Property The Council is being asked to declare as surplus property, the coolers at the Humboldt Avenue Liquor Store and to authorize the sale of the same. Also, per the request of the Chief of Police, (see attached memo), the Council is also being asked to declare twenty -eight (28) battery packs as surplus and authorize the use as parts. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager: FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police \,E U DATE: June 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Disposal of Property The Police Department currently has twenty -four (24) General Electric rechargeable battery packs and four (4) Motorola rechargeable battery packs which have been checked over by their respective repair facilities and deemed to be unrepairable. We would like to request permission to use parts from some battery packs to try and make other packs useable. Then we would like to dispose of the unuseable parts. .o J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND HAZARDOUS CONDITION OF REAL ESTATE EXISTING AT 5800 DREW AVENUE NORTH IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Section 19 -101, Subdivision 2, defines a public nuisance as anything that, "Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, public streets, highway or right -of -way, or waters used by the public..."; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes No. 463.15 et. seq. permits the City Council to correct the hazardous condition of any parcel of real estate; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Section 35 -560 states that "nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, maintained, or allowed to grow on a corner lot... in such a manner as materially to impede vision...; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has made written report to the City Council relative to the condition of the property located at 5800 Drew Avenue North which creates such a public nuisance and hazardous conditions; and WHEREAS, said report has been examined and considered by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. That a portion of the hedge and bushes located on the property at 5800 Drew Avenue North are in violation of Brooklyn Center Ordinance 35 -560 _are found to be a public nuisance and a hazardous condition of real estate for the reasons set forth in the written report from the Chief of Police, a copy of which is attached to this resolution and incorporated by reference. 2. That abatement of the nuisance and hazardous condition of real estate is hereby ordered by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3• That a written order directing the property owner, Catherine Armstrong, to correct the condition within twenty days of service of the order be served on the property owner and all lien holders of record. 4. If the condition is not corrected within that time, the City will obtain a judgment in court allowing the City to abate the nuisance and hazardous condition and assess the costs of abatement to the property owner under Brooklyn Center City Ordinance Section 19 -105 and Minnesota Statutes No. 463.21 (1984). Date Mayor RESOLUTION N0. 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ------------------------------- In the Matter of the Nuisance and Hazardous Condition of Real Estate Located at 5800 ORDER FOR ABATEMENT OF Drew Avenue North, Brooklyn NUISANCE AND HAZARDOUS Center, Minnesota CONDITION OF REAL ESTATE ------------------------------- TO: CATHERINE ARMSTRONG, 5800 DREW AVENUE NORTH, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, 55429. The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center orders that, within twenty (20) days of the service of this Order upon you, the nuisance and hazardous condition of real estate of your property located at 5800 Drew Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, be abated. Pursuant to Brooklyn Center Ordinance 19 -105 and 35 -560, and Minn. Stat. §463.15 through §463.261, the City of Brooklyn Center, in Resolution No. 85 -122 a copy of which is attached and by this reference made a part of this Order, finds that the bushes on your property constitute a nuisance and a hazard due to the facts set forth in the resolution. In order to eliminate the nuisance and hazardous condition, the following corrections must be made: 1. Remove the portion of the hedge and bushes that impede vision at the intersection of County Road 10 and Drew Avenue North in the triangle bounded by the property lines of such corner lot and a straight line joining points on such property lines 25 feet from their intersection of the ., property lines, in the City of Brooklyn Center. If corrective action is not taken by complying with this Order within twenty (20) days from the date of service upon you, or, if within twenty (20) days no Answer of this Order has been served upon the undersigned, a Motion for Summary Enforcement of this Order will be taken by the City of Brooklyn Center in the Hennepin County District Court, to allow the City to abate the nuisance and hazard- ous condition, and to assess the property for the cost of such work. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Mayor LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ is By James J. Thomson Jr. Attorney No. 145300 Assistant City Attorney City of Brooklyn Center 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: 612- 333 -0543 DATED: I I i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: June 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Hazardous Nuisance at 5800 Drew Avenue North The City has been experiencing a hazardous nuisance on the property located at 5800 Drew Avenue North for the past several years. The property is owned by a retired woman by the name of Catherine Agnes Armstrong.. She has planted and grown a hedge from the corner of her house diagonally out to the corner of the lot. (See attached diagram.) You will note that this is a corner lot on County Road 10 and Drew Avenue North. The hazard occurred for those vehicles driving southbound on Drew attempting to enter County Road 10. The hedge creates a total blind to the east. It hinders the driver's line of sight whether they are turning left or right. We have been working with the problem since 1978. Citations were written then as well as in 1984. It has been a continuing nuisance during this time. The elevation of the ground plus the height of the hedge obscures the driver's view.` Even trimming the hedge to the required height is only a short- term solution as it grows back within a matter of weeks. The hedge is very dense and creates an obstruction even during the wintertime when there are no leaves. The City staff, as well as our Attorneys, believe the City would be liable if this condition is not eradicated. We have had numerous complains from private citizens about the obstructed _ -view. Although Drew is a short street at this point, the Cross of Glory Church parking lot exits into this street. Therefore, at certain times of the week, the street is heavily used. It is recommended _ that the City Council declare that portion of the hedge a nuisance under Section 19 -101 and order the abatement of that nuisance per Section 19 -105 of the City Ordinance. Supporting documents including letters from the City Attorney and copies of the section of the City Ordinance are attached. Q 3'• N � Sro T - BASS LA, E APO. EDG .S s -louLO as — rR1m "IFD To 2.5' �,IFrG�1T �u i rN �N Tf,�E ZS' -SAvNr 7'ejA 6 F LeFevere - Lefler Kennedy O'Brien & Drawn June 5, 1985 A Profe»ionat Ass"iation 2000 First Bank Place West Mr. James Lindsay, Chief n M Brooklyn y Center Police Department Minnesota 55402 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Telephone(612)333 -0543 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55340 Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 Clayton L. LeFevere RE: Catherine Armstrong; Obstruction at 58th and Drew Herbert P. Lefler Avenue North J. Dennis O'Brien John E.Drawz Dear Chief Lindsay: David J. Kennedy John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue I have not received any response from Mrs. Armstrong to my let Richard J. Schieffer ter dated May 3, 1985, concerning the bushes on her property Charles L. LeFevere that obstruct the visibility at the intersection of 58th and Herbert J. Strand Lefler ill Avenue North. Jeffrey e l Drew Aven I attempted to call Mrs. Armstrong but I Mary J. Biorklund was unable to find a telephone number f John G. Kresset P or her. C Cindy y has two options The City available to correct the problem. We Cindy N avorato Michael A. Nash could issue another misdemeanor citation to Mrs. Armstrong. Rice The disadvantage of using this procedure is that it could take Tho gg up to six months to obtain a conviction 4 ki Thomson.Jr. if she pleads not -es M. Strommen guilty and demands a trial. Another disadvantage is that we r L ry C. Nielsen would still need to convince the judge to order 'nald.B the bushes as a condition of probation. hers remove aonatdH.Batty p ( Some' judges do not believe that the criminal process is the appropriate method .of handling these types of situations.) Another device that the City could use would be to abate the nuisance pursuant to Section 19 -105 of the City Code-and the Hazardous Building Act, Minn. Stat. 463 § .15 et se q . 4 y re- search has not revealed any situation similar to the present one in which either one of these two provisions has been used, however, I believe that the abatement procedure set forth in those sections is appropriate. Section 19 -101 defines a pub- lic nuisance as anything that interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, public streets, highways, or right of ways. Minn. Stat. §463.161 states that the ..governing body of any city may "correct the hazardous condition of any .parcel of real estate." If the City chooses to use the abatement process, I recommend that the procedure set forth in the Hazardous Building Act be followed. Enclosed is a copy of the Act. The general proce- dure to be followed is that the City Council should adopt a resolution declaring Mrs. Armstrong's property to be a public nuisance and a hazardous condition of real estate. The City Council should then issue a written order directing Mrs. Armstrong to correct the condition within twenty days of Mr. J ames es L' indsa Ch' _ Y, Chief Page 2 June -5, 1985 service of the order. If the condition is not corrected within that time, the City obtains a judgment in court al- lowing the City to correct the condition and assess the property for the cost. I will be able to assist you in preparing the necessary documents. Please let me know which method you wish to use. Sincerely yours, LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ J mess J. Thomson;, Jr� JJT /rat Enclosure i2l ` t,? BUILDING LINE EASEMENTS; BUILDING REGULATIONS 463.152 463.08 [Repealed, 1949 c 119 s 110] 463.09 MS 1967 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70] d - "+- 463.10 MS 1967 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70] 4x3.11 MS 1967 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70] ' Y 463.12 MS 1967 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 701 —;Y 463.13 MS 1967 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70] 1 ' HAZARDOUS AND 1 j SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS 40.15 DEFINITIONS. r . - Subdivision 1. For purposes of sections 463.15 to 463.26 the terms defined in 1 •::iti section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. Building. "Building" includes any structure or part of a structure. Subd. 3. Hazardous building. "Hazardous building" means any building _ hick because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary q P P Y g . or abandonment, constitutes a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or •�F'K t tom" Subd. 4. Owner, owner of record and lien holder of record. "Owner ", iwner of record" and "lien holder of record" means a person having a right or .�; ..arrest in property to which Laws 1967, Chapter 324, applies and evidence of which tiled and recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles in the :ounty in which the property is situated. -^- -' History: 1965 c 393 s 1; 1967 c 324 s 1; 1976 c 181 s 2 463.151 REMOVAL BY MUNICIPALITY; CONSENT; COST. The governing body of any city or town may remove or raze any hazardous A j ^uilding or remove or correct any hazardous condition of real estate upon obtaining :he consent in writing of all owners of record, occupying tenants, and all lien holders 2 - of record; the cost shall be charged against the real estate as provided in section � a 4 b3.2 I. except the governing body may provide that the cost so assessed may be paid t in not to exceed five equal annual installments with interest thereon, at eight percent per annum. � History: 1967 c 324 s 2; 1974 c 341 s 1 i a s+^ 463.152 EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN. " Subdivision 1. Purpose, public interest. In order to maintain a sufficient '* '.upply of adequate, safe, and sanitary housing and buildings used for living, t -• rnMerciai, industrial, or other rP u oses or any combination of purposes, it is found P :hat the p ublic interest req uires that municipalities be authorized to acquire build- . - P i q P q ` :n¢s, real estate on which buildings are located, or vacant or undeveloped real estate Which are found to be hazardous within the meaning of section 463.15, subdivision J. and the acquisition of such buildings and real estate is hereby declared to be a ' public purpose. ! { Subd. 2. Acquisition; procedure. In furtherance of the public policy declared l ! l ut wbdivision 1, the governing body of any city or town may acquire any hazardous , •.udding, real estate on which any such building is located, or vacant or undeveloped r:al estate by eminent domain in the manner provided by chapter 117. i History: 1974 c 341 s 3, 1976 c 2 s 140 ` ' i s 463.16 BUILDING LINE EASEMENTS, BUILDING REGULATIONS 8524 463.16 REPAIR OR REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING. The governing body of any city or town may order the owner'of any hazardous .: building within the municipality to correct the hazardous condition of such building or to raze or remove the same. History: 1965 c 393 s 2 1973 c 123 art S s 7 463.161 ABATEMENT. In the manner prescribed in section 463.21 the governing body of any city or town may correct the hazardous condition of any hazardous building or parcel of real estate; the cost of which shall be charged against the real estate as provided in F• section 463.21 except the governing body may provide that the cost so assessed may �.. be paid in not to exceed five equal annual installments with interest therein, at eight percent per annum. History: 1974 c 341 s Z 463.17 THE ORDER. Subdivision 1. Contents. The order shall be in writing; recite the grounds therefor; specify the necessary repairs, if any, and provide a reasonable time for •ram, compliance; and shall state that a motion for summary enforcement of the order will be made to the district court of the county in which the hazardous building is situated unless corrective action is taken, or unless an answer is filed within the time specified in section 463.18. S +. Subd. 2. Service. The order shall be served upon the owner of record, or his agent if an agent is in charge of the building, and upon the occupying tenant, if there =!' is one, and upon all lien holders of record, in the manner provided for service of a «e summons in a civil action. If the owner cannot be found, the order shalT be served = upon him by posting it at the main entrance to the building and by four weeks' _ publication in the official newspaper of the municipality if it has one, otherwise in a legal newspaper in the county. - =: -: Subd. 3. Filin f service shall be filed with .�-• _. g. A co of the order with roof o PY P a the clerk of district court of the county in which the hazardous building is located not less than five days prior to the filing of a motion pursuant to section 463.19 to enforce the order. At the time of filing such order the municipality shall file for ' record with the county recorder or registrar of titles a notice of the pendency of the proceeding, describing with reasonable certainty the lands affected and the nature of shall within ten days _ the order. If the proceeding be abandoned the municipality Y P B P thereafter file with the county recorder a notice to that effect. History- 1965 c 393 s 3; 1976 c 181 s 3 `...: 463.18 ANSWER. t' .- Within 20 days from the date of service, any person upon whom the order is - served may serve an answer in the manner provided for the service of an answer in a civil action, specifically denying such facts in the order as are in dispute. History: 1965 c 393 s 4 463.19 DEFAULT CASES. If no answer is served, the governing body may move the court for the enforcement of the order. If such a motion is made the court may, upon the presentation of such evidence as it may require, affirm or modify the order and enter judgment accordingly, fixing a time after which the governing body may proceed 15 J � S 8525 BUILDING LINE EASEMENTS; BUILDING REGULATIONS 463.22 with the enforcement of the order. The clerk of the court shall cause a copy of the s judgment to be mailed forthwith to persons upon whom the original order was served. History: 1965 c 393 s S p . . 463.20 CONTESTED CASES. If an answer is filed and served as provided in section 463.18, further proceed- ings in the action shall be governed by the rules of civil procedure for the district courts, except that the action has priority over all pending civil actions and shall be K tried forthwith. If the order is sustained following the trial, '`'� • g the court shall enter judgment and shall fix a time after which the building shall be destroyed or repaired, c as the case may be, in compliance with the order as originally filed or modified by the court. If the order is not sustained, it shall be annulled and set aside. The clerk of the court shall cause a copy of the judgment to be mailed forthwith to the persons upon whom the original order was served. History: 1965 c 393 s 6 , 463.21 ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT. • If a judgment is not complied with in the time prescribed, the governing body may cause the building to be repaired, razed, or removed or the hazardous condition to be removed or corrected as set forth in the judgment, or acquire the building and real estate on which the building or hazardous condition is located by eminent domain as provided in section 463.152. The cost of such repairs, razing, or removal shall be a lien against the real estate on which the building is located or the s �� hazardous condition exists and may be levied and collected only as a special p assessment in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes 1961, Sections 429.061 to 429.081, but the assessment shall be payable in a single installment. When the i 3' :r building is razed or removed by the municipality, the governing body may sell the salvage and valuable materials at public auction upon three days' posted notice. History: 1965 c 393 s 7 1974 c 341 s 4 463.22 STATEMENT OF MONEYS RECEIVED. The municipality shall keep an accurate account of the expenses incurred in j t -+ carrying out the order and of all other expenses theretofore incurred in connection with its enforcement, including specifically, but not exclusively, filing fees, service fees, publication fees, attorney's fees, appraisers' fees, witness fees, including expert Witness fees, and traveling expenses incurred by the municipality from the time the 1 ; order was originally made, and shall credit thereon the amount, if any, received from the sale of the salvage, or building or structure, and shall report its action under the 1 order, with a statement of moneys received and expenses incurred to the court for approval and allowance. Thereupon the court shall examine, correct, if necessary, ,' + and allow the expense account, and, if the amount received from the sale of the - salvage. or of the building or structure, does not equal or exceed the amount of expenses as allowed, the court shall by its judgment certify the deficiency in the I + amount so allowed to the municipal clerk for collection. The owner or other party in interest shall pay the same, without penalty added thereon, and in default of 1 Payment by October 1, the clerk shall certify the amount of the expense to the county auditor for entry on the tax lists of the county as a special charge against the real estate on which the building is or was situated and the same shall be collected in the same manner as other taxes and the amount ti.: zollected shall be paid into the municipal treasury. If the amount rece:%•ed for sale of the salvage or of the j 1 ' A - 463.22 BUILDING LINE EASEMENTS; 3 ' = E`TS; BUILDING REGULATIONS 8526 r building or structure exceeds the expense incurred by the municipality as allowed by the court, and if there are no delinquent taxes, the court shall direct the payment of the surplus to the owner or the pa ym e nt sections 463.15 to 463.26. If there are delinquent t taxes i against r the property, the court shall direct the payment of the surplus to the county treasurer to be applied on F such taxes. History: 1965 c 393 s 8; 1974 c 329 s 1 463 .23 , P AYIIENT, TE DEPOSIT IN COURT. ` The net proceeds of a sale under section 463.21 or section 463.2 shall to persons designated in the judgment in the proportions as their n eresteshall ' appear therein. Acceptance of such payment shall be taken as a waiver of all objections to the payment and to the proceedings leading thereto on the part of the -tr payee and of all persons for whom he is lawfully empowered to act. In case any party to whom a payment of damages is _ made g be not a residen t of the state, or place of residence be unknown, or he be an infant or other person under le disability, or, being legally capable, refuses to accept payment, or if for any reason it � be doubtful to whom any payment should be paid, the municipality may pay the same to the clerk, to be paid out under the r, d i erred direction of the appeal be taken such deposit with the clerk shall be de court; and, unless an a payment of the award: History: 1965 c 393 s 9 ` . 463,24 PERSONAL PROPERTY OR FIXTURES. l ri - If any building ordered razed, removed, or made safe and sanitary by repairs contains p ersonal pro ,;.. P pro ert or fixtures which will unreasonably interfere with the Q. razing, removal, or repair of such building, or if the razing or removal of the building makes necessary the removal of such personal property or fixtures, the original order of the governing body may direct the removal of such personal property or fixtures within a reasonable time. If the property or fixtures are not der. removed by the time specified, and the governing body subsequently desires to enforce a judgment under sections 463.15 to 463.26, it may sell the same at public '-' auction as provided in section 463.21, or if without appreciable value, the governing body may destroy the same. ww. History: 1965 c 393 s 10 463.25 HAZARDOUS EXCAVATIONS. If in any city, an excavation for building purposes is left open for more than six months without proceeding with the erection of a building thereon, whether or not completed, or if any excavation or basement is not filled to grade or otherwise protected after a building is destroyed, demolished or removed, the governing body may order such excavation to be filled or protected or in the alternative that erection building begin forthwith if the excavation is f or building purposes. The order of a buil shall be served upon the owner or his agent in the manner provided by section 463.17. If the owner of the land fails to comply with the order within 15 days after the order is served upon him, the governing body shall cause the excavation to be filled to grade or protected and the cost shall be charged against the real estate as provided in section 463.21. History: 1965 c 393 i 11; 1973 c I2:. 5 s 7 2C111 It 1 ;11111 gg ,';�;; ...� , 5 2) 7 BUILDING LINE EASEMENTS: BUILDING REGULATIONS 463.261 t• 363.251 SECURING VACANT BUILDINGS. !); + i If in any city a building becomes vacant or unoccupied and is deemed hazardous due to the fact. that the building is open to trespass and has not been '_w''�� �ccured and the building could be made safe by securing the building, the governing '' -`• hody may order the building secured and shall cause notice of the order to be served upon the owner of record of the premises or his agent by delivering a copy to him or ny mailing it to him at his Iast known address. Service by mail is complete upon . ;nailinz. If the owner of the building fails to comply with the order within ten days ..1ter the order is served upon him, the governing body shall cause the building to be z properly secured and the cost thereof may be charged against the real estate as provided in section 463.21. History: 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 520 s I alt' - :63.26 LOCAL ACTS AND CHARTER PROVISIONS. c Sections 463.15 to 463.26 are supplementary to other statutory and charter =' • : ^rovisions and do not limit the authority of any city to enact and enforce ordinances on the same subject. ` rx. History: 1965 c 393 s 12; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7 :63.261 RELOCATION BENEFITS. Notwithstanding the provisions of section n 117.56, or any other law to the ntrarv, all acquisitions of buildings and real estate upon which buildings are � �cated by governmental subdivisions �- pursuant to the exercise of the power of - minent domain as provided in section 463.152 shall be acquisitions for the purposes X ` It sections 117.50 to 117.56. Iiistory: 1974 c 341 s 5; 1976 c 2 s 141 ' - e l I! ` r r Ewa 1 .z • ,I. 1 ,,1 t I LeFevere Lefler Kennedy O'Brien & Drawn May 3, 1985 A Professional Association Mrs Catherine Agness Armstrong 2000 First Bank Place west 5800 Drew Avenue North Minneapolis Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333 -0543 Dear Mrs. Armstrong Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 Clayton L. LeFevere On March 19, 1985, you pled guilty to obstructing visibility Herbert P. Lefler at an intersection. The incident involved bushes on a por- J. Dennis O'Brien tion of your property y John E. Drawn pert that obstruct visibility at the inter David J. Kennedy section of 58th and Drew Avenue North. John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue The City has previ Richard J.Schieffer ousl y attempted to cooperate with you by Charles L. LeFevere marking the maximum height of the bushes so that you would Herbert P. Lefler III know . where to trim them. The bushes continue to exceed that Jeffrey reyJ. Strand height and the are sti ry Biorkund y 11 obstructing the visibility at the John G.Kressel intersection. The obstruction constitutes a significant Dayle Nolan safety hazard, which must be rectified immediately. Cindy L. Lavorato M' ael A. Nash f Rice The City is willing to assist you to correct the problem. eS.Clugg Subject to your approval, the City will do the Same Thomson. Work to remove those bushes that create the obstruction .lames M. Strommen en Mary C. Nielsen problem. Once the offending bushes are removed, you will Terry L. Hail no longer need to worry about being continual3y cited for Ronald H. Batty having the bushes exceed the maximum height. If you agree with my proposal please sign the statement be- low and - return it to me in the enclosed envelope by May 13, 1985. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, LeFEVER E LEF LER KENNEDY, r , NNE DY O r BRIEN & DRAWZ JJT/;J mes J. Thomson, J . JJT /ra cc: hief James Lindsay Mrs. Catherine Agness Armstrong Page 2 May 3, 1985 I grant the City of Brooklyn Center permission to enter my property and to remove the bushes that are in violation of Section 35 -560 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance which- states: Section 35 -560 VISIBILITY AT INTERSECTIONS. In order to preserve and promote the public safety, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, maintained, or allowed to grow on a corner lot in any district in such a manner as materially to impede vision between a height of two and one -half feet and 10 feet above the centerline grades of the intersection streets in the triangle bounded by the property lines of such corner lot and a straight line joining points on such property lines 25 feet from their intersection of the property lines Catherine Agness Armstrong DATED: CHAPTER 19 PUBLIC NUISANCES AND PETTY OFFENSES ITUISMICES _ Gr"1. `1ERALLY Section 19 -101. PUBLIC NUISANCE DEFINED. Whoever, by act or failure to perform a legal duty, intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, and is punishable as set forth herein: 1. Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any number of members cf the public; or 2. Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, public streets, highway or right -of -way, or waters used by the public; or 3. Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by statutory law, the common law, or this ordinance to be a public nuisance, whether or not any sentence is specifically provided therefor; or 4. Permits real property under his or her control to be used to maintain a public nuisance or rents the same, knowing it will be so used. Section 19 -102. DEFINITIONS. The following words, when used in, this ordinance, shall have the meanings ascribed to them: I. Garbage includes all putrescible animal, vegetable or other matter that attends the preparation, consumption, display, dealing in or storage of meat, fish, fowl, birds, fruit, or vegetables, including the cans, containers or wrappers wasted along with such materials. 2. Rubbish is nonputrescible solid wastes such as wood, leaves, trimmings from shrubs, dead trees or branches thereof, shavings, sawdust, excelsior, wooden waste, printed matter, paper, paper - 'board, paste boards, grass, rags, straw, boots, shoes, hats and all other combustibles not included under the term garbage. Section 19 -103. PUBLIC NUISANCES FURTHER DEFINED. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, maintain, or harbor any of the following: 1. Diseased animals, fish or fowl, wild or domestic, whether confined or running at large. 2. Carcasses of animals, fish or fowl, wild or domestic, not buried or destroyed within 24 hours after death. 3. Garbage not stored in rodent free and fly -tight containers, or; garbage stored so as to emit foul and disagreeable odors, or; garbage stored so as to constitute a hazard to public health. 4. Accumulations of rubbish as defined herein. 5. The dumping of any effluent, garbage, rubbish, wastewater, or other noxious substance upon public or private property. 6. Any open well, pit, excavation, structure, barrier or other obstruction which endangers public health, safety or welfare. 7• The pollution of any public or private well or cistern, any public stream, lake, canal, or body of water by effluent, garbage, rubbish or other noxious substance. 8. Any noxious weeds, or any other vegetation which endangers public health, safety or welfare, or which is contraband within the meaning of state or federal laws. ' 9• The emitting or production of dense smoke, foul odor, noise, noxious fumes, gases, soot, cinders or sparks in quantities which unreasonably annoy, injure, or endanger the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any number of members of the public. 10. The public exposure of persons having a contagious disease or condition which endangers public health, safety or welfare. 11. Accumulation of junk, disused furniture, appliances, machinery, automobiles and parts thereof or any matter which may become a harborage for rats, snakes or vermin, which creates a visual blight, or which may be conducive to fire, or which endangers the comfort, repose, health, safety or welfare of the public l Section 19 -104. LITIITATIOPTS ON TEEPIITG OP ANIMALS. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, maintain or harbor any of the following: -1. Three or more dogs, six months old or older, unless a kennel license is obtained. 2. Four or more cats six months old or older, unless,a kennel license is obtained. 3. Chickens and other domestic fowl. 4• Live wild animals not native to Minnesota, except household pets confined to a cage within a dwelling. 5• Live wild animals native to Minnesota which in their wild state pose a threat to humans or domestic animals, including but not limited to, wolves, bear, cougar, lynx and bobcat. 6. Arty combination of animals and /or fowl of any age kept in such numbers 1 or under conditions which unreasonably annoy, injure, or endanger the health, safety, comfort, repose or welfare of the public or of said animals or fowl. Section 19 -105. ABATDINT OF NUISANCE AND ASSESST OP COST. When any nuisance is found exist, the Health Officer of the City shall order the owner or occupant thereof to remove the same, at the expense of the owner or occupant, within 19 -105 a period not to exceed 10 days, the exact time to be specified in the notice. Upon failure of the owner or occupant to abate the nuisances the Director of Planning and Inspection shall cause said nuisance to be abated, shall certify the cost thereof to the City Clerk, and the City Clerk shall certify said costs to the County Auditor to be extended on the tax roll of the County against - the real estate from which the nuisance has been abated, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 145.22, 145.23, and 412.221. Section 19 -106. PENALTY. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of not more than $700 and by imprisonment for a period of not exceeding 90 days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Each day that violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. RELATING TO PETTY OFFENSES IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Section 19 -201. LOITERING. Any persons who shall hereafter be found lurking, lying in wait, or concealed in any house or other building, or in any yard premises, or street within the limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, with the intent to do any mischief, or to pilfer, or to commit any crime or misdemeanor whatever shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Section 19 -202. DISTURBING THE PEACE. Any person or persons who shall make, aid, countenance, or assist in making any noise, riot, disturbance, or improper diversion, and all persons who shall collect in bodies or crowds in said City for unlawful purposes, or to the annoyance or disturbance of the citizens or travelers, shall, for each offense on conviction before the Justice of the Peace of the City of Brooklyn Center, be liable to the same fine and imprisonment provided for in Section 19 -201 of this ordinance. Section 19 -203. FIGHTING AND BRAWLING. Every person who engages in brawling or fighting shall be guilty of disorderly conduct and upon conviction thereof shall be liable to the same fine or imprisonment provided for in Section 19- 201 of the City Ordinances. Section 19 -204. ASSAULT. Every person who shall commit an assault, or an assault and battery, not amounting to a felony, upon conviction therefor, shall be liable to the same fine or imprisonment provided in Section 19 -201 of the City Ordinances. Section 19 -205. THEFT AND RELATED OFFENSES. Subdivision 1. Every person who commits a theft as defined in Section 609.52 of the Minnesota Criminal Code, Laws of 1963, as amended by Laws of 1976 which is not punishable as a felony under the State law, upon conviction therefor, shall be liable to the same fine or imprisonment as is provided in Section 19-201, the Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. 35 -510 incident to the development of the municipality, including the construction of streets and gutters, ditches, etc. to cause considerable increases or decreases in the amount of water which would in a state of nature flow into and through such natural water channel or drainage swale. Section 35 -520. FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY. Eve parcel z'Y Pte' proposed for some use permitted by the terms of this ordinance shall abut 'a public right -of- way , - provided that where unusual circumstances prevail, the City Council may waive this requirement in favor of a reasonable alternative. If a parcel does not abut a public right -of -way, the applicant may cause an appropriate right -of -way to be dedicated to the municipality provided that any such dedication must conform to the official street layout plan, or in the event the official plan does not comprehend such an appropriate right -of -way, the dedication shall conform to a street layout plan meeting the requirements of Section 15 -1 C6 of these ordinances, approved by the Director of Public Works and adopted by the City Council. Section 35 -530. BUILDINGS IN R1 AITD R2 DISTRICTS. In R1 and R2 districts eve building hereafter erected or structurally r h located n a lot every g c a1 altered shall be loc o 1 .Y and in no case shall there be more than one principal building on one lot. The term "principal building" shall be given its common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt, or on any question of interpretation, the decision shall rest with the zoning official. 1. No accessory building, unless an integral t of the principal g �' Pte' P Pal building, shall be erected altered,* or moved within six feet of the g > > principal building, as measured from exterior wall to exterior wall.: No accessory building shall be erected, altered, or moved within six feet of another accessory building, as measured from exterior wall to exterior wall. 2. Accessory buildings may not be erected within the side yard adjacent to the street of a corner lot. 3. No accessory building shall exceed 15 feet in height 4. No basement, cellar, garage, tent, or accessory building shall at any time be used as a residence or dwelling, temporarily or permanently. 5. All dwellings shall be on permanent ,foundations which comply with the State Building Code and which are solid for the complete circumference of the dwelling, except that accessory uses such as screened or enclosed porches, canopies, decks, balconies,'- stairs, etc. may be placed on a noncontinuous permanent foundation as approved by the Building Official. 6. The width and the depth of the main portion of any dwelling built after July 23, 1 983 shall be no less than 18'. Section 35 - 540. COMBINATION OF LAND PARCELS. Multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and adjacent and which are proposed to serve a single development use and which are under common ownership shall be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey. Section 35 -560. VISIBILITY AT INTFRSECTICNS. In order to preserve and promote h�bh s c atety, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, maintained or allowed to grow on a corne l ot'in any di:7+rict1in such a manner.as mat er al_ly tq, impede vison�pei~ween a hei €ht of two and one -half feet and 10 feet. above the centerline €rages of the= intersection streets in the triangle bounded by the property lines of such corner lot and a stra _ t line joining points on such property fPPt= from their intersePti r- if nrnnPrty 1 i nPG . i` Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -21, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, AND.DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1985 -L) 'WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report regarding the feasibility of replacing the existing fuel dispensing system at the Municipal Service Garage at an estimated cost of $56,930; and WHEREAS, the City Council considers it to be in the best interests of the City to provide for the replacement of said fuel dispensing system at the cost estimated; . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1 The City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted 2. The following project is hereby established: f MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -21 3. The specifications for Contract 1985 -L for said improvement project prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on July 18, 1985, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at 7:00 P.M. on July 22, 1985, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check,.bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. RESOLUTION NO. 5. Financing for Improvement Project No. 1985 -21 shall be provided through the transfer of $10,000 from Division 40 of the Capital Projects Fund and $55,500 from Division 38 of the Capital Projects Fund to Division 09 of the Capital Projects Fund. 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 CENTS R TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public - Works DATE: July 3, 1985 RE: Fuel System Replacement Y P Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1985 -21 g P 7 In response to the City Council's request for additional information regarding replacement of the fuel dispensers in conjunction with this project, the following information is submitted: Description of Existing Dispensers -r Two of the dispensers are more than twenty years old (they were moved from the old garage site at 69th and Dupont to the new garage in 1970). Both of these dispensers have suction -type pumps which are very slow. - The third dispenser (for unleaded gasoline) was new at the time the new garage was constructed (in 1970) This dispenser has a submersible -type pump which we propose to utilize in conjunction with the new system. - Along with the former 7 -11 fuel tanks which were salvaged and reconditioned, the City also salvaged 3 submersible pumps. It is ro osed to recondition P P and install these submersible pumps (With the one noted above, we will have a spare pump.) History of Repair During 1984, the existing dispensers required 6 service calls, at a total cost of $882.82. Each service call involved several hours of "down- time ", causing operational problems At this time, one pump needs a new meter (estimated cost = $185.00) if it is not replaced. July 3, 1985 Page 2 Estimated Cost for New Dispensers The estimated cost for installing new dispensers, reconditioning and installing the submersible pumps and all associated work is $4,500. Recommendation I recommend that the project, as proposed be approved. This recommendation is based on: 1. the repair cost history 2. the faster pumping speed of the submersible pumps; and 3. (most importantly) the dramatically improved reliability of the system. A resolution this purpose is provided. If the Council wishes to delete the new dispensers from the project, I would recommend that the Council's action be in two steps, i.e.: 1. a motion to direct our office to revise the specifications to delete the dispensers; and 2. adoption of the resolution. If approval is given at the July 8, 1985 Council meeting we would expect completion of the project by about November lst, i.e.: .Council approval 7/8/85 Advertise for bids 7/11/85 Open bids 8/1/85 Award contract 8/12/85 Finalize contract documents 8/22/85 Contract provisions include requirements for shop drawings, scheduling according to City's fuel supply, testing of tanks and equipment to meet local and state codes, etc. (i.e. approximately 60 to 70 days). Respectfully submitted, Sy/ Knap SK:jn TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer DATE: June 20, 1985 RE: Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1985 -21 The City awarded a contract for the removal and reconditioning of the three fuel tanks (2- 10,000 gallon and 1- 12,000 gallon) at the former 7- Eleven site at 69th and Humboldt Avenues. That contractual work has been completed and staff has prepared plans and specifications for the removal and disposal of the four existing tanks (1 -8,000 gallon and 3- 10,000 gallon), and installation of the three reconditioned tanks. Also proposed in conjunction with the tank replacement is the installation of a cathodic protection "package" wherein each tank will be protected against corrosion. In addition, the proposal provides for installation of an observation well system that may be monitored regularly to insure that no tank leakage has occurred. Both proposed systems are required by the state to insure that positive steps have been taken to protect the environment. • Finally, it is proposed that the existing outdated pump island dispensers be replaced with new dispenser units and that the new units be electrically interconnected with the fuel security system. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The estimated cost of the proposed project is as follows: Contract $45,000 Contingencies 6,750 Subtotal $51,750 Engineering 4,660 Administration 520 Total $56,930 It is proposed that a separate division be established within the Capital Projects Fund (Division 09) and that the project be financed through the transfer of funds as follows: Division 40 Municipal Garage Improvements Unencumbered funds available - $15,660 Proposed transfer to Division 09 - $10,000 Note: this leave $5,660 available for use in the installation of a fire alarm system in 1986. June 20, 1985 - Project 1985 -21 Page 2 Division 38 Evergreen Park /Area Improvements Unencumbered funds available $116,630 Proposed transfer to Division 09 - $55,500 Note: The City Council had previously transferred $40,000 to this Division from Division 40 when the financing plan was adopted. Essentially, the unused $40,000 is returned for use at the-garage, only under Division 09. The resultant unencumbered balance for Division 38 would be $61,130. As a result of these transfers, Division 09 would receive $65,500, or $8,570 more than needed to finance the cost of this project. This amount would be held until all portions of the project have been completed, at which time an appropriate transfer would be made to the Liquor Store fund to reimburse it for the value of the reconditioned tanks from the 7- Eleven Store. (The Liquor Store fund originally paid for tank removal and reconditioning.) The attached resolution which establishes the project and its funding is submitted for City Council review at its June 24th meeting. Respectfully submitted, Recommende 'for Approval, Jim Zube Sy app City Engineer Director of Public Works l Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1985 -G (XERXES AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1985 -09, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 27th day of June, 1985. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Alber Construction $259,246.40 Hardrives, Inc. 273,754.10* C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 299,130.00 *Denotes Engineer's Correction Upon Extension WHEREAS, it appears that Alber Construction, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $259,246.40 with Alber Construction, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1985 -09 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2 The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall_ be retained until a contract has been signed. RESOLUTION N0. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1985 -09 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid r Contract $321,760.00 � $259,246.40 Engineering 28,960.00 23,332.00 Administration 3,220.00 2,592.00 Legal Cost 370.00 370.00 Capitalized Interest 4,980.00 4,980.00 $359,290.00 $290,520.40 .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: Dave Anderson, Engineering Tech IV DATE: July 3, 1985 RE: Evaluation of Bids Contract 1985-G Xerxes Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -09 Pursuant to City Council authorization, bids were received for street improvements along Xerxes Avenue North from C.S.A ".H. 10 to F.A.I.'94. A review of the submitted proposals shows that the lowest responsible bid was sbmitted by Alber Construction, Inc., of Plymouth, Minnesota. A summary of the interviewed references is as follows: Westwood Planning (Fran Hagen) Crystal Green The contractor has an excellent rating with completion of their project 30 days early. City of Blaine (C.E.D.- Donahue, John Bertleson) This contractor has performed successfully and in a timely manner. Quality of work is rated as excellent. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Eden Prairie office - Dennis Wildermuth) Mr. Wiidermuth has worked with Tim Albers, President and Tom Ash and both are reputable and reliable. Further review of the proposal forms show that Alber Construction, Inc. has listed a reputable subcontractor, Thomas and Sons, for the concrete portions of the work. Accordingly, it is recommended that 'a contract be awarded to Alber Construction, Inc. as provided on the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for approval, David S Anderson Sy Xnapp Engineering Tech IV Director of Public Works DSA: jn U Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1985 -I (CARPET, REPLACEMENT IN THE CIVIC CENTER, PROJECT NO. 1985 -16) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1985 -16, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 18th ,day of June, 1985. Said bids were as follows Bidder Bid Amount Carpet Center, Inc. Alternate No. 1 $ 34,870 Minnetonka, Minesota Alternate No. 2 36,763 'Alternate No. 3 38,680 Alternate No. 4 39,443 Alternate No. 5 47,637 Commers Interiors, Inc. $ 40,720 Bloomington, Minnesota Murray Floor Covering Co. Alternate No. 1 $ 41,968 Alternate No. 2 45,945 Donohue Construction, Inc. $ 52,'224 Hopkins, Minnesota WHEREAS, it appears the Carpet Center, Inc. of Minnetonka, Minnesota, 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 $34,870 with The Carpet Center, Inc. of Minnetonka, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1985 -16 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. RESOLUTION NO. 3. All costs for _Project No. 1985 -16 shall be charged to the 1985 Operating budget for Capital Outlay in the General Fund. Costs for carpetinn City Hall shall be charged to the Government Buildings Division. Costs for carpeting at the Community Center shall be charged to the Community Center Division. 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. s Fi Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1985 -J (PAINTING IN THE CIVIC CENTER AND AT THE MUNICIPAL GARAGE, PROJECT NO. 1985 -17) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for . Improvement Project No. 1985 -17, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 25th day of June, 1985. Said bids were as follows: Municipal Community Combined Bidder City Hall Garage Center Proposal J & M Painting & $ 9,908 $ 6,366 $14,185 $30,459 Decorating, Inc. St. Paul, MN Werckman Paint & $15,722 $ 7,412 $18,726 $41,860 Decorating, Inc. Foley, MN J.M.G. Contracting $15,940 $ 4,250 $34,750 $54,940 Co., Mpls, MN Painting Systems $16,880 $ 5,500 $19,500 $41,880 Mpls., MN J.R. Jensen $12,994 $ 4,290 -- -- Blaine, MN Valley Contracting -- -- -- $42,254 Stillwater, MN Enterprise Decorating $16,500 $ 7,000 $20,900 $44,400 Minnetonka, MN Swanson & Youngdale, $12,805 $ 7,570 $39,270 $58,645 Inc., Mpls., MN Colorcraft Painting, $ 9,980 $ 9,980 $25,680 $45,640 Inc., Mankato, MN WHEREAS, it appears the J & M Painting and Decorating, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder for specified painting at the City Hall and at the Community Center; and I RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, it appears that J.M.G. Contracting Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder for specified painting at the Municipal Garage. 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 $24,093.00 with J & M Painting and Decorating of St. Paul, Minnesota for painting at the City Hall and at the Community Center according' to plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to ent r into the attached contract, in the amount of $4,2 0.00 with J.M.G. Contracting Company of Minneapoli , Minnesota for painting at the City Garage according to plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit,QF =the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder for each section of the project shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 4. All costs for Project No. 1985 -17 shall be charged to the 1985 Operating budget for Capital outlay in the General Fund. Costs for painting at City Hall and at the Municipal Garage shall be charged to the Government Buildings Division. Costs for painting at the Community Center shall be charged to the Community Center Division. Date Mayor -� ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing, resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B ROOKL YN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE R TO Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: July 3, 1985 RE: Carpeting and Paint Projects Bids Received Attached is a report from Bob Pierce in which he recommends that' bids for carpeting and painting be awarded to the low bidders as detailed in his memo. Mr. Pierce has assured me that he has received favorable references regarding each of the firms in question, and that he has talked to each of them and he is of the opinion that they fully understand their responsibilities Since the total costs are substantially below our budgeted appropriations, I recommend award of these contracts as recommended by Mr. Pierce. Resolutions for this purpose are provided for consideration by the City Council. Mr. Pierce will attend the Council meeting on July 8,1985 to review the project details and answer questions. Respectfully submitted, S Knapp _.Director of Public Works SK: jn "7lce .Soxetlsurg nZ once L� '" Lindberg Pierce, Inc. Architects Suite 710 t 600 First Ave. North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 James H. Lindberg, (612) 332 -3339 Robert L. Pier G O � r 5 MEMORANDUM June June 27, 1985 To city of Brooklyn Center Attn: Mr. 'Sy Knapp f . i. J ' From: �. o d P Lindberg be L Pierce, I r'9 n c �- fi Re: Caulking Carpet - >Painting Projects 1. Exterior concrete caulking quotations were.received"on June 17, 1985. 4/w�Yr Three firms submitted proposals. The low proposal was- submitted 'by << Carcifini Caulking Company,.St. Paul, Minnesota. Their proposal,�� including alternate No. l is for $5,620. Lindberg Pierce estimate ` based upon earlier proposal was $15,000 We recommend acceptance - of the Carcifini proposal. 2. .Proposals for re-carpeting 'the City Hall and portions 'of the Community '.Center were received on June 18,'1985. Four proposals were - received. The .Carpet Center, Minnetonka, submitted the low proposal­ &`$34,870. The Lindberg `Pierce estimate r 34 800. °We recommend. t to fo this work w as acceptance of.the bid from the Carpet Center F` a pt ilY Jl 3. Proposals for complete painting and vinyl work at the 'City Hall "upper <ievel, interior painting work of certain areas in the Community Center and exterior painting of the Municipal Garage were received on June 25, _-1985. Mine firms submitted proposals for'this work.,� The City was given the option of selecting`ndividual bids on each pro- . ject or a lump sum for all work. We are recommending the City select: two contractors for this work. v A. City Hall and Community Center Painting proposals as s.u�bmitted by J &M Painting of St. Paul are the lowest and total $24,093 ($9,908 - City Hall and $14,185 Community Center). B. The lowest proposal for the Garage- Building Painting was submitted, T` , by ",JMG Contracting, Minneapolis. Their proposal is for $4,250. l'�,:aTotal Painting proposals total $28,343.. The Lindberg Pierce estimate for this work was $59,370. s _ 4 ; X S { ° ��S &,+ ✓x^'a• " 'R .x ,. � s .Cf e.. d)P.Y "ArE .zae. e. 'GS i ;s f ` ° C'"`, . +t' �� � MEMORANDUM Lindberg Pierce, Inc Page 2 of 2 Architects Re Caulking- Carpet - Painting Projects June 27, 1985!;,; i E 4 r 1 We have reviewed the proposals as submitted with each contractor and each has agreed to proceed with the work upon acceptance of their bi ds. We have contacted references offered by each firm and have verified that ' they have,performed well on previous projects of'similar-or larger scope. A re -cap of all proposals is as follows: s i to S Project 'ec t Contra .. �•� � 's d Bud 9 et Caulking: Carcifini $5,620 $ 15,000 Carpet: The Carpet Center $34,870 34,800 Painting: J &M Paintin City Hall/Community C enter 24 093 , 4 i JMG.Contracting Garage $ 4,250 t ii (28,343) 59,37: w+ Totals $68,833 $169,170 ` r r y r - �r i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 0 L :. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING E)MCUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM that: BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute an agreement with Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inca to provide an Employee Assistance Program for permanent full -time City employees and their dependents and household members. 2. The cost of the Employee Assistance Program shall not exceed $1,875 for the 1985 -1986 contract period. 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. E MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn Barone, Administrative Assistant DATE: July 2, 1985 SUBJECT: Employee Assistance Program In 1977 the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted a "Statement of Policy for the Employee Assistance Program ". The policy (attached) established a program in Brooklyn Center and defines the purpose of the program. The policy established a procedure whereby employees experiencing chemical, financial, marital or other problems which could affect job performance, could voluntarily seek professional diagnostic and referral services. When possible, employee benefits, such as sick leave, hospitalization, etc. can be used for treatment or counseling. All contact with the diagnostic and referral service is confidential One other option available under the program is a supervisory referral, in contrast to the self referral, under which the employee voluntarily uses the service, under a supervisory referral, a supervisor may refer an employee to the diagnostic and referral service if job performance is affected. The City Council selected the Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc., now part of Cromer Management Inc., to provide diagnostic and referral services under the City's program. The service is provided through an annual contract paid by the City and there is no direct charge to employees. If an employee is referred to some form of treatment and the employee chooses tc participate in the recommended treatment, such cost is assumed by the employee or his or her medical insurance coverage. COST OF PROGRAM The Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling (Cromer Management Inc.) offers a fee schedule to public sector employers which is based on a utilization rate of the program. Private sector employers are charged a flat rate. Essentially the cost of a program with a utilization rate increases as usage increases. The past cost of the program and the utilization rates are shown in the following table: CONTRACT PERIOD COST TO CITY UTILIZATION RATE 1977 -1978 $119 (City information not received a available 90% reim- bursement from State of MN 1978 -1979 $605 (50% information not reimburse available ment from State) -2- CONTRACT PERIOD COST TO CITY UTILIZATION RATE 1979 -1980 $1,020 4.3% 1980 -1981 $1,476 7.3% 1982 -1983 $ 854 less than 1% 1983 -1984 $1,457.50 4.8% 1984 -1985 $ 875 3.2% The fee schedule for the 1985 -1986 period has increased by 6.7% from the 1984 -1985 period and is as follows: Base retainer fee $7.50 x 125 = $937.50 (0 - 3% utilization)- UTILIZATION FEE 3,01 - 4% $2.50 x 125 = $312.50 4.01 - 5% $2.50 x 125 = $312.50 _ 5.01 and over $2.50 x 125 = $312.50 Maximum Fee $15.00 x 125= $1,875.00 Maximum cost of the program will not exceed $1,875.00 HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS The services to employees provided by the employee assistance program include an assessment of the problem and its severity, the development o£ an individ- ualized treatment plan, assistance in obtaining appropriate and effective treat- ment and follow up to review the treatment results. If the employee and the employee assistance counselor decide that further professional treatment is advisable, the cost of future treatment will be the responsibility of the employee or his or her insurance provider. A confidential summary report of the 1984 -1985 contract period is attached to this memorandum. During the 1982 -1983 contract period the program was used by only one employee. As a result the City Council requested that the utilization of the program be monitored for the 1983 -1984 contract period. The utilization had increased substantially for the 1983 -1984 contract period, and the level of use has been maintained during the 1984 -1985 contract period. Therefore, the staff is recommending renewal of the employee assistance program through Cromer Manage- ment. Statement of Policy Employee Assistance Program City of Brooklyn Center The City of Brooklyn Center recognizes. that a wide range of problems, not directly associated with an employee's job responsibilities, can affect job performance. In most cases, the employee will overcome such personal problems independently and the employee's job performance will not be - affected. ' In other cases, usual supervisory assistance or discipline will serve to motivate or guide the employee to solve his or her problems and the employee's job performance will return an acceptable level. In some instances, neither the efforts and resources of the employee nor the guidance by the supervisor has the desired effect of resolving the employee's problems. In such cases, unsatisfactory job performance persist over a period of time, either on a constant or intermittent basis. The City of Brooklyn Center believes it is in the best interest of the employee', the employee's family and the City to provide an employee service which deals with such persistent problems. Beginning June 15, 1977 it is the policy of the City of Brooklyn Center to handle such employee problems within the following framework: ' 1. The City of Brooklyn Center is" concerned with the health and well -bein g employees of its but it has no desire to interfere with employees' private lives. The administration will be concerned with an employee's personal problems only when job performance is adversely affected or when problems reflect dis- credit on the City. _ 2. This policy applies to all regular full -time employees of the • City of Brooklyn Center regardless of their job title or responsibilities. 3. The program is available to families and dependents of • employees as well as the employees themselves since it is recognized that problems at home can have an adverse effect on an employee's ability to function while at _work. • 4. If employees or their dependents. realize that they have personal problems that may benefit from the assistance provided by the Employee Assistance Prbgram, they are encouraged to seek assistance on their own and will be supported in efforts to do so. 5. in the program will not eo' employee's ardize an em to Participation p g 3 P p Y Job security, promotional opportunities, or reputation: Page t Statement of Policy Employee Assistance Program 6. All records and discussions of personal problems will be handled in a confidential manner as are other medical records. Records will be kept by the diagnostic and referral agency and will not become part of the employee's personnel file. 7. Past experience shows that a significant portion of the problems encountered in such programs are related to problems involving • the use of alcohol and /or other drugs. It will be a policy of the - City of Brooklyn Center that chemical dependency is generally recognized as a treatable illness and assuming the cooperation of the employee in treatment, will be dealt with as such. 8. When performance problems are not corrected with normal super- visory attention, employees may be referred to assistance to ._ determine if personal problems are causing unsatisfactory per- formance. If performance problems are corrected, no further action will be taken_. If performance problems persist, the employee will be subject to normal corrective procedures. 9. In cases where it is necessary, employees may be granted sick leave, vacation or unpaid leave of absence for time for treatment or rehabilitation on the same basis as it is granted for health or disability problems. 10 Employee compliance with the program is strictly voluntary. "If an employee is referred to the Employee Assistance Program in lieu of other corrective or disciplinary measures and chooses not to participate in the Employee Assistance Program, then normal corrective measures will apply. Refusal to participate ' cannot be used as evidence to evaluate job performance. 11. There is no charge for the diagnostic and referral services, however, if costs are incurred for rehabilitation services that are not covered by insurance or other benefits, that cost will be the responsibility of the employee. 12. The program is not designed to provide ongoing treatment or counseling, but rather to provide early identification, motivation, and referral to appropriate care - giving resources in order to facilitate the resolution of any serious personal problems the - employee might have. 13. This policy does not alter or replace existing administrative ' Policy or contractual agreements, but serves .. as an adjunct to - assist in their utilization ` Ci of Brook Center` Employer y y v , CROMER ;. 1403 Harmon Place Minneapolis, MN 55403 (612) 333 -7233 Employee Assistance Program Report For the period July 1, 1984 to June 30 1985 (Contract expiration date Tune 30 19s5 Utilization Referrals 125 Total employees covered Inpatient 5 Number of EAP clients Outpatient 0 /6 Annualized utilization AA /Alanon Self -help Legal Client Classification Male Female Financial Management/Supervisor 2 1 Other CD Assessment Union /Non -union Employee 1 1 Spouse /Dependent /other 1 Problems 1 Alcohol /drug(dependency) Alcohol /drug (abuse, misuse) Sexuality Referral Source 1 Relationship 3 Self 1 Divorce /separation 1 Spouse /Dependent Incest Co-worker Child abuse 1 Supervisor Battered woman Nurse, medical department, Adolescent family physician Financial - School Legal Other Health -- 2 Careen No Referrals 3 Personal/emotional- Resolved by EAP counselor Job Refused referral Parenting Client failed initial Grief & loss EAP appointment Aging Client started, but did not Stress complete EAP assessment 1 Other Information 2 Average # of Visits Employer City of Brooklyn Center Contract Date J U L Y 1 (Revised, 7/3/85) 1984 No of Refers Cunt CD Caents Source Closs't cot on Rebtea W / Suoervisory Employee /Frpndy New This ��emder JUL Month Fo I I 1 1 C 0 r � New This O !� AUG Month Year To Date ' 71 New This O Month S E P Year To Dote New This O Month O CT Year To Date New This {� O Month �J Year To m NOV Date New This ^ O I ' I 00 Month Cl� Y DEC ate a a o z® New This O Month m JAN Year To 0 21 a O / / r D Date i z New This O ' 0 D V/ Month 0 \j ' FEB Y Dare �z New This O Month M AR Yeo To Date New,This ^ Month Ot O 1 Q APR Year To Dote New This O Month MAY Year T Dote New This O JUN Month Total For ( I This Contract 1[)* 010 Employer Ci of B rook 1 yn (,antPr of Employees Contract Date JULY 1 No o per erra CMenr C D Cbnrs IWce C�o TSRK0 On Reio+ec Sen , 9,oar Empbvee% New This I F m J U L Month W New This O AUG Month Year To �I©/ Dote ' 7 New This Q Month S E P Year To Date New This O Month OCT Year To Date New This O O Month Yeor To T m NOV Dore New This ) O } D 00 Month / J f Df C v ear To � � 0 j � z New This V � r Month m JAN v Date ! © ( ( �- z z New This Month FE Yeor To I r . Dote Z -� New This \ / Month 0 MAR Y ea r To Dote 1 New This ^ ^ � O Month � p( (J APR Year To � 3 Dote _ l New This O Month MAY Y eaDate New This JUN Month - - - -- J U I This �o For - -� ----- . -- —� - MCC 10 -8T g CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8 th day of J)ul:7 19 at 7-30 P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Irving Avenue North as Platted Within the Hellsted Addition. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF IRVING AVENUE NORTH AS PLATTED WITHIN THE HELLSTED ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That portion of Irving Avenue North as platted in Hellsted Addition, Office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies South of the following described line a line 50.00 feet South of and parallel to the North line of Section 35, Township 119, Range 21 is hereby vacated. Section 1. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 h Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date I � MEMORANDUM TO - Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: July 2, 1985 SUBJECT: Tax Increment Public Hearing and Purchase of Earle Brown Farm At the request of our financial advisor ( Springsted), I am recommending that the Council not take any action Monday evening relative to the public hearing establishing a tax increment district or the purchase of the Earle Brown Farm (an HRA agenda item). Bob Pulsher from Springsted has requested additional time to complete the financial computations necessary for Council presentation. At this time, I understand he needs additional information and clarification in order to complete his task. Given the short week we would not be able to complete the task and provide the Brooklyn Center School District an ample opportunity to review the material as they have requested and that I promised them at their School Board meeting. This action or non - action will not have an adverse effect upon the project. At the time of the Council meeting, we should also know if Gustafson has signed a purchase agreement. It is my recommendation that the public hearing be opened and comments from those interested party's be taken. The Council should then adjourn -the public hearing to the next meeting (July 22, 1985) and at that meeting, a determination should be made. 10,b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A HOUSING BOND PROGRAM FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BROOKWOOD ESTATES PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF SAME TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Housing Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act "), the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota the "City" is authorized to adopt a housing plan and carry out programs for the financing of multifamily housing which is affordable to persons of low and moderate income; and WHEREAS, the Act requires adoption of the housing plan after a public hearing held thereon after publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least thirty days in advance of the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the City's Housing Plan (the "Plan ") on September 21, 1982, after holding a public hearing, all in accordance with the requirements of the Act; and WHEREAS, in accordance with its requirements, the Plan provides for programs for the issuance of bonds to finance multifamily housing development which are affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income and are consistent with the goals, conditions and requirements of the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has received from Brookwood Estates Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, a proposal to construct amultifamily housing development of approximately 73 units on property located north of the intersection of Girard and North Lilac Avenue in the City (the "Project "), and a request for the City to issue housing revenue bonds in the amount of approximately $4,500,000 for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Act requires adoption of a program after a public hearing held thereon after publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least fifteen days in advance of the hearing before the issuance of bonds for the Project; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on a proposed housing program for the Project (the "Program ") was published on June 20, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City has on this date conducted a public hearing on the Program; and WHEREAS, the Act further requires submission of the Program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (the "MHFA") for its approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. That the Program for the issuance of up to $4,500,000 of the City's RESOLUTION NO. multifamily housing revenue bonds (the "Bonds ") is hereby in all respects adopted. It is hereby found, determined, and declared that it would be in the best interests of the City to issue the Bonds and, therefore, the City hereby gives preliminary approval to issuance of the Bonds in the approximate amount of $4,500,000 subject to the City, Brookwood Estates Limited Partnership (the "Developer "), and the purchaser of the Bonds reaching agreement on the terms under which the Bonds will be issued. 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the Program to the MHFA and the Metropolitan Council, and to do all other things and take all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Program in accordance with the Act and any other applicable laws and regulations. 3• The Developer has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the project is approved by the MHFA; whether or not the project is carried to completion; and whether or not the bonds or operative instruments are executed. 4. The. adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the bond as requested by the Developer. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the bond should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is lip in the best interest of the City not to issue the bond or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. 5• The Mayor, City Manager, other officers, employees, and agents of the City, and Counsel to the City are hereby authorized, in cooperation with bond counsel, to prepare, execute, and deliver documents in conjunction with review and approval of the Program and to prepare documents with respect to the Bonds. 6. Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. is hereby designated underwriter of the Bonds to be issued in connection with the Project, its fee to paid out of the proceeds of the Bonds when issued. 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 aga;nst the same: - whereupon - said -resolution_- �� -declar_ed duly -passed - and - adopted - -:- - -- - PROGRAM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BROOKWOOD ESTATES PROJECT Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act "), the City of Brooklyn Center (the "City ") has been authorized to develop and administer programs of multifamily housing developments under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth in the Act. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 provides that such programs for multifamily housing developments may be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City. The City has received a proposal from Brookwood Estates Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Developer "), that, pursuant to the authority found in the Act, the City approve a program providing for the acquisition of land and construction of approximately 73 units of rental housing ( "Housing Units ") located north of the intersection of Girard and North Lilac Avenue in the City (the "Project "). The acquisition of land and construction of the Project is to be funded through the issuance of up to $4,500,000 in revenue bonds issued by the City (the 'Bonds "). Following construction of the Project, the Developer, or a related entity, will own and operate the Project as a multifamily residential rental project. The 73 units will be both one and two bedroom apartments, of which twenty percent (20 %) of the units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are not greater than eighty percent (80 %) of the area median income. It is estimated that rents for the Housing Units will range from $550 per month and $650 per month. The City, in establishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program "), has considered the information contained in the City's 462C Housing Plan (the "Housing Plan"), including particularly (i) the availability and affordability of other government housing programs; (ii) the availability and affordability -of private marketing financing for the construction of multifamily housing units; (iii) an analysis of population, unemployment trends and projections of future population trends and future employment needs; (iv) the recent housing trends and future housing needs of the City; and (v) an analysis of how the Program will meet the needs of persons and families residing and expected to reside in the City. The City, in adopting the Program, has further considered (i) the amount, timing and sale of Bonds to finance the estimated costs of the housing units, to _ - fund the appropriate reserves and to pay the cost of issuance; (ii) the method of monitoring and implementation of the Program to insure compliance with the City's housing plan and its objectives; (iii) the method of administering, servicing and supervising the Program; (iv) the cost of the City, including future administrative expenses; (v) the restrictions on the multifamily development to be financing under the Program; and (vi) certain other limitations. The City, in adopting the Program, considered the potential financing impact of a bond issuance on affected public agencies. In addition, the City reviewed the method of marketing the Program. Such review examined the equal opportunity for participation by (i) minorities; (ii) households with incomes at the lower end of the range that can be served by the Program; (iii) households displaced by public or private actions; (iv) families with children; and (v) accessibility to the handicapped. The Project will be constructed and financed pursuant to Subdivisions land 2 of Section 462C.05 of the Act. Subsection A. Definitions The following terms used in this Program shall have the following meaninas, respectively: (1) "Act" shall mean :Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.01, et seq., as currently in effect and as the same may be from time to time amended. (2) "Adjusted Gross Income" shall mean gross family income less $750 for each adult and less $500 for each other dependent in the family. (3) "Bonds" shall mean the revenue bonds to be issued by the City to finance the Program. (4) "City" shall mean the City of Brooklyn Center, State of Minnesota. (5) "Developer" shall mean Brookwood Estates Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership. (6) "Housing Plan" shall mean the City of Brooklyn Center 462C Housing Plan, as amended, setting forth certain information required by the Act. (7) "Housing Unit" shall mean any one of the market rate apartment units located in the Project, occupied by one person or family, and containing complete living facilities. (8) "Land" shall mean the real property upon which the Project is situated. (9) "Program" shall mean the program for the financing of the Project pursuant to the Act. - (10) "Project" shall mean the multifamily housing development consisting of approximately 73 market rate Housing Units to be constructed by the Developer on the Land. Subsection B. Program For Financing the Project It is proposed that the City establish this Program to provide financing for acquisition and construction of 73 Housing Units to be owned by the Developer, or a related entity, at a cost and upon such other terms and conditions as are set forth herein and as may be agreed upon in writing between the City, the initial purchaser of the Bonds and the Developer. To do this, the City expects to issue Bonds the proceeds of which will be loaned to the Developer for construction and financing of the Project. It is expected that a trustee will be appointed by the City to monitor the construction of the Project and any payments of principal and interest on the Bonds. The cost of any additional Security Services for the Bonds will be borne by the Developer and payable in addition to the principal and interest on the Bonds. - -- - 2 It is contemplated that the Bonds shall contain a maturity of at least thirty (30) years and will be priced to the market at the time of issuance. The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the Program. The City intends to select and contract with a trustee, experienced in trust matters to administrate the Bonds. + Insofar as the City will be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel, bond counsel, the trustee, and others, all of whom will be reimbursed from bond proceeds and revenues generated by the Program, no administrative costs will be paid from the City's budget with respect to this Program. The Bonds will not be general obligation bonds of the City, but are to be paid only from properties pledged to the payment thereof, which may include additional security such as additional collateral, insurance or a letter of credit. Subsection C. Local Contributions To The Program It is not contemplated that the City will use other financial initiatives in conjunction with the project. Subsection D. Standards and Requirements Relating to the Financing of the Project Pursuant to the Program The following standards and requirements shall apply with respect to the operation of the Project by the Developer pursuant to this Program: (1) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of the Project, which will provide approximately 73 market rate residential Housing Units. The funds will be made available to the Developer pursuant to the terms of the Bond offering, which may include certain covenants to be entered into between the City and ` the Developer. (2) The Developer or subsequent owner of the Project, will not arbitrarily reject an application from a proposed tenant because of race, color, creed religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance or disability. (3) No Housing Unit may be in violation of applicable zoning ordinances or other applicable land use regulations, including any urban renewal plan or development district plan, and including the state building code as set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 16.83, et seq. - (4) Pursuant to Section 462C.O5, Subdivision 2 of the Act, at least 'twenty percent (200 of the Housing Units will be held for occupancy by families or individuals with Adjusted Gross Income not in excess of eighty percent (80%) of the median family income as estimated by the United States Department of Housing nd Urban Development for the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. g A P P (5) Pursuant to Section 462C.O5, Subdivision 2 of the Act,l the Project shall be designed to be affordable by persons and families with adjusted gross income not in excess of the greater of (a) 110 percent of the median family income as estimated by the United States department of housing and urban development for the Minneapolis -St. Paul standard metropolitan statistical area or (b) 100 • 3 percent of the income limits established by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency in which the city is located and by other persons and families to the extent determined to be necessary by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency in furtherance of the policy of economic integration. Subsection E. Evidence of Compliance The City may require from the Developer or such other person deemed necessary at or before the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of the ability and intention of the Developer to complete the Project, and evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the standards and requirements for the making of the financing established by the City, as set forth herein; and in connection therewith, the City or its representatives may inspect the relevant books and records of the Developer in order to confirm such ability, intention and compliance. In addition, the City may periodically require certification from either the Developer or such other person deemed necessary concerning compliance with various aspects of the Program. Subsection F. Issuance of Bonds To finance the Program authorized by this Section, the City may be resolution authorize, issue and sell its Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount estimated to be up to $4,500,000. The Bonds shall be issued pursuant to Section 462C.07, Subdivision 1 of the Act, and shall be payable primarily from the revenues of the Program authorized by this Section. Subsection G. Severability The provisions of this Program are severable and if any of its provisions, sentences, clauses or P aragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or Y inoperative b an court of competent jurisdiction, the decision P Y P of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. Subsection H. Amendment The City shall not amend this Program while Bonds authorized hereby are outstanding, to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds. 4 MINUTES .OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JUNE 27, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7 :37 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom,' Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Malecki had called to say that she would be late if she could make the meeting at all. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to approve the minutes of the June 13, 1985 Planning Commission as submitted. Voting in favor:` Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Sandstrom, Nelson, and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. EARLE BROWN FARM REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND TAX INCREMENT PLAN Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the discussion of the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Program and Tax Increment Plan. He explained that the Planning Commission is required by law to comment on the Land Use implications of the proposed redevelopment program and tax increment 'plan for the Earle Brown Farm. He noted that rezoning of land and amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan is implied by some of the development scenarios in the plan. He noted particularly the possibility of high rise residential development north of Summit Drive on land that is presently zoned I -1 and is recommended for high -rise office development in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary also referred the Commission to sections of the report dealing with public improvements and stated that the Commission should comment on them as well. The Secretary added that the proposals for reuse of the Farm are not cast in concrete. He stated that the Earle , Brown Farm Committee has recommended that proposals be solicited for the reuse of the Farm. The Secretary explained that one proposal that is already under consideration is for high -rise residential development in the area south of the Farm. He noted that this would require an amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan and rezoning of the land. The Secretary stated that a positive recommendation of the proposed redevelopment program and tax increment plan would indicate a willingness to look at residential use in this area, but would not necessarily prejudge any future request for a rezoning. Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant in the City Manager's office, noted that the new draft of the redevelopment program and tax increment plain included a financial analysis of the tax increment district. He asked whether there were any questions regarding the draft proposal. Commissioner Bernards asked what would happen if Deil Gustafson, the present owner of the property, did not accept the City's offer by Saturday, June 29, 1985. Mr. Hoffman answered that the City would probably walk away from the project. He added that he expected Pair. Gustafson to accept the offer by that time. 6 -27 -85 -1 t . Commissioner Bernards asked whether the Brooklyn Center School District had taken a position on the redevelopment and tax increment plan. Mr. Hoffman stated that the School Board had not officially taken _a position at this time, but added that he thought the Board was reasonably comfortable with the proposal. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the School Board expected future benefits to justify the loss of revenue. Mr. Hoffman answered in the affirmative, noting the likely increase in school aids to offset the loss in property tax revenue. The Secretary explained that although the City would be acquiring 15 acres of land, it would only retain the area around the historic site itself and that the rest of the land would be sold off for development. Mr. Hoffman added that the tax increment plan uses fairly pessimistic numbers in assessing future costs to the City and likely revenues. He stated that the actual payback of the tax increment bonds might be quicker if costs are lower and revenues are better than expected. Commissioner Manson asked whether the City would own the office building expected on the land to the west of the Farm site. Mr. Hoffman answered in the negative. He stated that development of that land could be controlled through a deed restriction, however. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the City was plowing new ground with this tax increment plan or whether it was similar to what has been done in other cases. Mr. Hoffman responded that other cities have used tax increment financing for the purpose of historic preservation. Commissioner Bernards noted the general purpose of tax increment financing was to rehabilitate blighted areas. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged this, but added that blighted areas have been considered to include deteriorating historic structures in the past. Chairman Lucht asked whether the zoning of the land would specify what ;structures could be built. The Secretary stated that the precise types of buildings would not be controlled through zoning, but rather through a contract to sell the land to future developers. He stated that this consisted essentially in a form of contract zoning. He also added the possibility of the City adopting a planned unit development which could be applied to the property and more _closely control development of the land. There followed a brief discussion regarding the mixture of uses that were possible under planned unit development zoning that would not normally occur under single purpose districts. Fir. Hoffman noted that residential use has not been f this large commercial area ut that n contem lated in the middle o b P g it would be beneficial from a traffic standpoint because of the diffuse traffic pattern of high -rise residential development. Mr. Hoffman then went on to discuss a number of details regarding the finances of the tax increment plan including its advantages over general obligation bonding with respect to capitalized interest costs. Commissioners Bernards asked whether the term of the tax increment district 'is'25 years. Mr. Hoffman answered that the tax increment district could legally run for 25 years, but added that there was no intent at this time to go beyond 10 years which was the expected time to pay off the original redevelopment program. Mr. Hoffman explained that, for any additional expenditures to be authorized in the district, the redevelopment program and tax increment plan would have to be amended and the entire public hearin g review process would start over. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the tax increment financing plan was a good plan from a financial standpoint and asked who was on the Earle Brown Farm Committee. Mr. Hoffman listed about a dozen citizens from the community who are on the Committee. Commissioner Ma reference Manson asked f error o refe s ed or clarification typographical n page in 0 ofat or P P 5 YP g g 200,000 square feet of retail development. 6 -27 -85 -2- J The Secretary stated that historic preservation in this case would mainly be in terms of the building exteriors, not in terms of the actual use of the buildings. He stated that it was necessary for the City to acquire the buildings and restore them before they fall down. Commissioner Malecki arrives at 8:14 p.m. There followed a discussion as to the nature of the, action the Planning Commission should take on the redevelopment program and tax increment, plan. Regarding potential land use, Commissioner Manson stated that she could not see the area as good for young families with children, although she would not rule out other nonfamily residential use. Mr. Hoffman agreed stating that it is the developer's intent to build senior housing on the site with services offered to the residents more extensive than is the case in Brookwood. The Secretary added it is his understanding that the type of housing to be built could be restricted through a planned unit development zoning of the property. Chairman Lucht also noted the traffic advantages of residential development in this area. The Secretary pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan does call for historic preservation of the Earle Brown Farm and that the redevelopment program and tax increment plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that respect. He stated that the change in land use had not been comprehended in the City's Comprehensive Plan. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF EARLE BROWN FARM REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND TAX INCREMENT PLAN There was motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Program and Tax. Increment P g acknowledging I Plan, c nowledging the inconsistency of the proposed plan with the City s existing Comprehensive Plan. The motion also noted that the Planning Commission is willing to consider modifications to the City's Comprehensive Plan at the time a specific development proposal is forward. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. Commissioner Bernards stated that he was not opposed to a possible rezoning of a portion of the land for high-rise residential. He did state however, that he had reservations regarding g > > g ng the projects envisioned in the plan, with the impact on School District No. 286, on the cost of the ro'ect an the d ongoing maintenance costs an finally, p J g g tenant cos d with the general practice of the City being involved in the real estate business. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Village Properties Variance The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to a letter from the Minnesota Department f Transportation p o Transpo ion and attached drawing which showed acquired and excess right -of -way adjacent to the Evergreen Park. Apartments property. He also referred the Commission's attention to a letter from Ken Solie outlining a new proposal for the variance sought under Application No. 85016. Finally, the Secretary also referred the Commission to footnote 10 of Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for a setback of less than 50' from a major thoroughfare if there is present a noise wall or berm constructed by MN/DOT. He explained that the applicant and the Department of Transportation had tentatively 6 -27 -85 -3- r agreed on the construction of a 6' high noise wall rather than a berm in the area adjacent to the apartment property. He stated that one of the questions the Commission should comment on is whether a 6' high wood fence would be considered a noise wall as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary further explained that the applicants now wish to relocate the 7212 building as before, but to leave the easterly four units on the end of the 7206 building. He noted that because of the noise wall requiring less right -of -way than a berm, the future right- of line for Highway 252 would be 41' from the existing 7206 building without any units taken off. He stated that the applicants now wish to leave the four units on the 7206 building nd seek a density variance of two its f uni t the g v o un or 80 u is to al Y � total land area available to the apartment com plex c being greater because f th e p p o � g additional right-of-way to be turned back by MN /DOT). The Secretary then returned to the question of whether a 6' high wood fence should be considered a noise wall as allowed under footnote 10 of Section 35 -400. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there were any objective standards for such noise walls. The Secretary stated that he was not aware of any, but stated his own feeling that a 6' wood fence is not adequate as a noise wall. Commissioner Sandstrom wondered whether the wall should be made higher whether the setback was 41' or 50'. The Planner then briefly explained the density side of the application. He reviewed the land area that would be left after the Highway Department gave back excess right -of -way and concluded that 77 units could be allowed. He stated that the three additional units sought by the applicants meant that the land area available was only 96% of what is normally required rather than the 98% that was achieved under the previous original proposal. He also discussed the possibility of reducing the number of units in the project by rebuilding the lower floor of the 7212 building after it is relocated. He stated that this lower floor would probably not survive intact and would have to be rebuilt more or less from scratch anyway. The Planning Commission then reconsidered the question of what is a noise wall. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the 6' wood fence meets the simple wording of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Manson stated that she did not feel that it met the intent of a noise wall because it did not sufficiently mitigate dust, noise, etc. as outlined in the ordinance. The Planner agreed noting that, in the case of a two storey structure, a 6' noise wall would be very ineffective. He added the possibility of building modifications which would reduce the impact of noise on the residential units. Mr. Ken Solie agreed that that could be done as in building wing walls onto the end of the 7206 building. Commissioner Nelson stated that he saw no difference between the finding that a 6' high wood fence is a noise wall and granting a permanent variance since both would allow the building to be less than 50' from the right -of -way line. The Secretary pointed out that another option is to require the applicant to take the four units off the 7206 building and meet the setback requirement. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt it would be a hardship require uire that the four units be removed q from r m the building. he Secretary stated that the applicant w have t o work ng s ted t lzc would ve kout Y PP that financial problem with the State. There followed further discussion regarding acceptable noise wall dimensions. Mr. Solie asked that the City define what size noise wall they require in order to have a reduced setback and that he and Mr. Cowan would go back to the State and inform them what was required. The Secretary stated that the main question is whether 6' is high enough for a noise i 6 -27 -85 -4- wall. Commissioner Nelson stated that the Commission would have to get information on the structural possibilities of reducing the number of units on the first floor of the 7212 building or whether the same number of units would be preserved. Mr. Cowan stated that they would not know whether the first floor could be kept intact until the building has been picked ,up by the base of the second floor. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the noise wall should be at least 12' high in the area where a substandard setback existed and that he would allow a density variance for up to 78 units. The applicants explained that their calculations as to the land area that would be available indicated that no density variance was needed for 78 units and that they requested a density of two units for a total of 80 units. - After further discussion, it was agreed that the density variance would be allowed for 80 units if the 7212 building could be moved in its entirety, but that if it could not, the normal allowable density would have to be observed. Commissioner Manson suggested that the fence be stepped up from 6' to 12' rather than simply increase in height at one point. MOTION ACKNOWLEDGING 12' WOOD WALL AS A NOISE WALL There was a motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to acknowledge that a 12' wood wall would meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance for a noise wall in cases where a reduced setback can be allowed. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malenki, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. LETTER FROM BROOKDALE CHRISTIAN CENTER Chairman Lucht then read to the Planning Commission letter from Pastor Cilke of the Brookdale Christian Center updating them on the problems that had been brought up at the Planning Commission public hearing for the new gymnasium expansion at the Church. The letter related how most all of the concerns had been answered since that meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Manson -to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion, passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Chairman 6 -27 -85 -5- a L- Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. V APPLICATION NO. 85016 (Village Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a temporary 1' setback off Highway 252 right -of -way and to allow a density variance of two units at the Evergreen Park Apartments, 7200 to 7224 Camden Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report ( See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85016 attached). The Secretary also noted that the agenda contained copies of letters of intent to acquire the property to the east after the Highway Department declares what is excess right -of -way. The Secretary also pointed out that a letter from MN /DOT had been submitted which skirts the issue of available right -of -way. He stated that this letter is contrary to Condition No. 3 recommended in the staff report. He stated that he 'felt the condition is necessary and that the applicant should work out with Mkt /DOT some definite arrangement for acquisition of adequate right -of -way. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Ken Solie of Village Properties stated that the problem was getting the State to agree to give up 50' of excess right -of -way. He pointed out that the ordinance allows for a 40' setback if mitigating circumstances such as a marginal access street or noise wall or berm were provided within the right -of -way area. The Secretary explained the ordinance referred to by Mr. Solie, footnote 10 from Section 35 -400. He added, however, that he did not think MN /DOT would be constructing a frontage road or a noise wall. Mr. Jerry Cowan, also with Village Properties, stated that MN /DOT was planning to construct a 6' berm within the right -of -way. He went on to discuss various problems of getting the state to commit to a future scenario. Mr. Solie asked that any variance action be flexible enough to help in their negotiation with the State. The Secretary stated that there was no assurance that a noise wall or berm would be built. Chairman Lucht asked whether it might be appropriate to amend Condition No. 3 to allow a 40 setback if a berm were provided. The Secretary stated that the basis for the variance is that the required setback will ultimately be met. Mr. Solie again stated that he was looking for flexibility in dealing with the State. The Planner pointed out that if the State is unwiliingly to commit to returning 50' of excess right -of -way, they may be unwilling to commit to turning back 40' as well. In this case, he stated, there would be no basis for a temporary variance. Mr. Solie suggested that perhaps the State could be persuaded to build a noise wall in this area. There followed a discussion regarding the problems of negotiating with the State and meeting the requirements of the City fora variance. The applicant stated that they were left with very little negotiating room between the requirements of the two governmental units. Mr. Cowan asked whether a permanent variance could be granted. The Secretary stated that that would be a separate question and would have to be evaluated on the basis of the Standards for Variances contained in the Zoning Ordinance. There followed further discussion regarding recommended Condition No. 3 and the difficulty of dealing with the State. Mr. Solie stated that if a 40' setback with a noise wall would be allowed, this might add flexibility to the negotiation with the State. There was discussion regarding allowing this under Condition No. 3• 6 -13 -85 -3- t' PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85016) Ma rman Lu cht th • en opened the meeting for a public hearing: He noted that there was no one besides the applicant to speak on the application and called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Lotion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Manson asked whether people living in the building at present would have to leave and new tenants would come in. Mr. Cowan answered in the affirmative and added that those tenants would get relocation benefits as well. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85016 (Village Properties) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend' approval of Application No. 85016, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is justifiable on the basis of a physical hardship created by the highway taking and the public ;interest in preserving real property, and is not justifiable on the basis of the owner's financial interests alone. 2. The applicant shall secure from the relevant parties the repurchase ri to an excess right-of-w to the east of the g Y Y g Evergreen Park Apartments property, prior to the issuance of permits for relocation of the 7212 building. 3. The applicant shall submit prior to the issuance of permits for �p P building relocation, a letter from MN /DOT acknowledging that g g there is adequate excess right -of -way and /or potential mitigating improvements in the future to provide for required ordinance setbacks 4. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council a site and building plan application for the ro ert with new building and parking P P Y g p g locations and an other site modifications comprehended, rior Y P to the issuance of permits for relocation and reconstruction. 5. In the event that the 7212 building is "substantially destroyed" by the attempted relocation, the density variance shall be voided and any new construction shall conform to the density limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Following construction of the new Highway 252, the applicant shall acquire the excess right -of -way immediately to the east of the apartment complex and maintain the area in a manner consistent with the proposed site plan and the Housing Maintenance an d Occupancy Ordinance. 7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, in a manner approved by the City Attorney, assuring that they will acquire excess right -of -way from the MN /DOT and shall combine this property to the Evergreen Apartment complex through platting or registered land survey. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property prior to issuance of permits for relocation or remodeling. 6 -13 -85 -4- r . Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Sandstrom and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and resumed at 9:05 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEM Tax Increment Plan for the Earle Brown Farm' Following the recess, the Secretary briefly introduced a discussion of a tax increment financing plan and redevelopment plan for the Earle Brown Farm. He noted that the plan had only been given to the Commission that evening and encouraged the Commission to review it over the next two weeks. He pointed out that the Tax Increment District proposed in the plan was much smaller than originally contemplated about three months ago. He stated that the Commission's primary responsibility is to comment on the land use aspects of the proposed plan and any other comments it wished to make. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the City was going to buy the Earle Brown Farm. Mr. Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant in the City Manager's office, stated that it depends on the present owner of the property N1r. Deil Gustafson. He stated that the City had made an offer for the property that Mr. Gustafson thinks is inadequate. Mr. Hoffman reviewed with the Commission the new district; boundaries: the freeway on the north, Shingle Creek Parkway on the west, John Martin Drive on the south and Earle Brown Drive on the east. He stated that the development concept was to build 269 apartment units on the Earle Brown Farm site in the southerly portion of the property and on an adjacent property to the south. He stated that there would also be a parcel containing the Farm buildings and that a third parcel on the west and north of the site would be for either more residential development or possibly office development. Chairman Lucht asked what parcels were being acquired. Mr. Hoffman showed on Figure 2 of the report the primary parcel on which the Farm buildings were located and a parcel to the south on which an older office building is located. He stated that the Earle Brown Task Force recommends acquisition of the Farm, Mr. Hoffman stated that the cost of restoring and reusing the Farm buildings would be approximately $75.00 to $100.00 per square foot of building area. Mr. Hoffman then reviewed Table 1 of the plan with estimated project costs and also reviewed the revenues outlined in the plan, notably about $400,000.00 in federal community development block grant funds. Mr. Hoffman noted that the gross impact on the school district would be approximately $420,000.00 per year, but that this would be offset considerably by an increase in State aids. Commissioner Nelson asked why general obligation bond financing is not practical. Mr. Hoffman answered that it was mainly from a timing perspective, that the time it would take to hold a referendum would cause the loss of federal funds available for acquisition of the property. He stated that the property would be bought without an explicit plan and that the community would be paying capitalized interest on money that was not being put to work immediately. He explained that the tax increment generated by the district would not have this negative cost to it. Commissioner Nelson noticed that the size of the district had been reduced and asked why this had been done. Mr. Hoffman stated that it was principally to satisfy the concerns of the school district. Commissioner Nelson noted that ancillary uses in the former 6 -13 -85 -5- r Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. .85016 Applicant: Village Properties Location: 7200-7224 Camden Avenue North (Evergreen Park Apartments Request: Variance The applicant requests two variances from the Zoning Ordinance, to allow a lesser set- back on a temporary basis from the new Highway 252 westerly right -of -way line, and to allow more units on the remaining property than normally permitted (a density vari- ance). The property in question is the Evergreen Park Apartments. It is zoned, R4 and is bounded on the north by the Church of the Nazarene and a City well house; on the east by Highway 252 and by two single- family homes that are being condemned and removed by MN /DOT; on the south by vacant City -owned property; and on the west by Camden Avenue North. The variance is occasioned by MN /DOT acquiring a square of land at the southeast corner of the property, approximately 205' x 205'. The taking will include the easterly most apartment building on the property, 7212 Camden Avenue North which is presently attached along a fire wall with 7206 Camden Avenue North. Since the taking would leave the 7206 building only 11' from the new highway 252 right -of -way line, the City. has informed the owners that no permit would be issued to rebuild the fire wall at such a substandard setback (see letter dated September 14, 1984 attached). The highway department has accordingly agreed to acquire the 7206 building also. However, Village Properties has the right to buy back both buildings and relocate them. The disposition of the 7206 and the 7212 buildings is the cause of this application. The applicant, Mr. 'Ken Solie, has submitted a letter (attached) explaining what Village Properties wishes to do with the condemned buildings and why. He explains that any compensation, from the State for the existing buildings would, under the terms of the contract for deed, have to be applied toward the remaining principle. This would make their investment less attractive financially. Village Properties, there- fore, wishes to relocate and preserve the existing buildings as much as possible. They wish to relocate the 7212 buildling to the northeast portion of the property, set back only one foot from the adjacent residential property which is being ac- quired by MN /DOT. The westerly part of this land is expected to be -so'ld back to private owners after the new highway is constructed and the resulting setback would be 52' (the required setback from :Wjor thoroughfares is 50',). The setback variance would, therefore, be temporary in nature. Mr. Solie states that he and co -owner Jerry Cowan are seeking to obtain the underlying rights to buy back the excess right- of-way in the future so that the 50' setback can be achieved. Meanwhile, the 7206 building would be shortened by removing the four units on the east and resulting in a setback of more than the minimum of 50'. The other aspect of the variance request relates to allowable density. Mr. Solie explains in his letter that the land available for the Evergreen Park Apartment complex, after the highway acquisition and the repurchase of excess right -of -way, would be. 267,898 sq. ft. At 3,600 sq. ft. per unit, this amount of land would support 74.4 or 74 units. There are 80 units in the complex now. After the demolition of 4 units at the east end of the 7206 building and relocation of the 7212 building, there would be 76 units, two more than allowed by ordinance. Mr. Solie concludes his letter by arguing that the variance request is justified because of the following factors: "1. Evergreen Apartments were purchased in 1978 as a long term investment without knowledge of the pending highway construction. 2. The property and its financing package cannot be replaced in its present condition today at any cost r ,, suiting in a significant financial hardship to the owners. 6 -13 -85 -1- Application No. 85016 continued 3. The property is the largest taking involved in the Highway 252 project and accordingly, does not set a precedent for future variances in Brooklyn Center for this construction. 4. No additional construction on adjacent land can be forseen. The land to the south is reserved for public use: to the west, development is complete. The church to the north does not plan expansion at this time according to Pastor Errol Webb. The land to the east is reserved for highway right -of -way. Accordingly, after construction is complete, the site will appear exactly as it does now. Staff are unable to make a very clear connection between the applicant's arguments and the Standards for a Variance contained in Section 35 -240 (attached). Financial problems of the kind cited by the applicant do not constitute a "hardship in the sense of physical use of the property. They are not related to "physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions." Mr. Solie asserts that the Evergreen Apartments property is the largest taking involved in the Highway 252 project and accordingly, does not set a precedent for future variances. However, size of parcel or extent of condemnation is not really important. What is important is the physical constraints posed by surroundings, topography, lot lines, etc. in conjunction with ordinance requirements. Such constraints may be essentially the same no matter what the size of a parcel is. The applicant concludes by saying that the relationship of the complex to its surroundings will be exactly the same after ( Highway? building ?) construction as now. This is glossing over a lot of changes outlined in the letter, but brought on by the construction of the highway. Nevertheless, this last point moves toward a valid concern, namely the physical difficulties brought on by the construction of • Highway 252. This is indeed the most basic question which must be answered: does the circumstance t of the highway construction create a particular hardship to the owner so that he is unable to make reasonable use of his property if the strict letter of the regulations is carried out. Our first reaction to this hardship.question is that the buildings involved are being acquired by the State and the owner is, therefore, really presented with clear ground on which conforming structures can be built. On the other hand, this may be ignoring too much the potential and the intrinsic value (aside from the owner's financial interest) of preserving the buildings as much as possible. Should considerable real property be destroyed over what may be technical<circum- stances? On the face of it, we believe that it is appropriate to preserve the buildings if setbacks can be attained and resulting density is only incidentally and marginally in excess of ordinance requirements. The applicant's proposal seems capable of living within these bounds. A physical hardship may said to exist i,f preservation of the buildings is considered to be generally in the public interest. A density variance may be considered a use variance where different densities are allowed in different zoning districts, ie. density is.a distinguishing characteristic between zoning districts. _ Use variances are not permitted under State law. In the present case, the proposal to allow two - excess units in the complex reduce the land area per unit fmm 3,689 sq. ft. per unit at present to 3,525 sq. rt. per unit under the proposal. The ordinance requirement in the R4 zone is 3,600 sq. ft. per unit. In the R5 zone, the requirement is 2,700 sq. ft. per unit. Clearly,. the resulting situation is much closer to the R4 requirement than the R5 requirement. The land area available under the proposal is 97.9% of the ordinance requirement, ,a variance of 2.1%. The Commission must make a judgment whether the density variance sought in this case is, or is not, a use variance (allowing what amounts to a higher land use classification in the R4 C_ zone)in addition to whether the requested vary -nce meets the standards set forth in _ Section 35 -240. 6 -13 -85 - -2- r Application No. 85016 continued The circumstance of the highway taking is, the cause of the physical hardship in this case. That is a unique circumstance, not common to other property in the R4 district. The physical hardship results from applying he ordinance requirements to the property 9 q P P Y after the taking and has not been created by the owner of the property. Finally,we agree that the physical arrangement of buildings will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood so long as an effective 50' setback from the highway right -of -way can be achieved. Although we feel approval of the variance is possible based on the Standards for a Variance, it is recommended that any such approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is justifiable on the basis of a hyp sical hardship created by the highway taking and the public interest in preserving real property, and is not justifiable on the basis of the owner's financial interests alone 2. The applicant shall secure from the relevant parties the repurchase rights to any excess right -of -way to the east of the Evergreen Park Apartments property, prior to the issuance of permits for relocation of the 7212 building. 3. The applicant shall submit, prior to consideration by the City Council, a letter from the MNDOT acknowledging that there is at least 50' of excess right -of -way available with the acquisition of the residential lots immediately east of the Evergreen Park Apartments. 4. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council a site and building plan application for the property with new building and parking locations and any other site modifications comprehended, prior to the issuance of permits for re- location and reconstruction. 5. In the event that the 7212 building is "substantially destroyed" by the attempted relocation, the density variance shall be voided and any new construction shall conform to the density limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Following construction of the new Highway 252, the applicant shall acquire the excess right -of -way immediately to the east of the apart- ment complex and maintain the area in a manner consistent with the proposed site plan and the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. 7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, in a manner approved by the City Attorney, assuring that.they will acquire excess right -of -way from the MN /DOT and shall combine this property to the - Evergreen Apartment complex through platting or registered land survey. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property prior to issuance of permits for relocation or remodeling. 6 -13 -85 -3- MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager _ FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: July 3, 1985 SUBJECT: Conditions for Employment of Henry (Bo) Spurrier for the Position of City Engineer It will be necessary for the City Council to approve by a motion the special conditions for employment of Bo Spurrier for the position of City Engineer. A' motion is necessary so as not to conflict with City Ordinance Section 17 -111, subdivision l on vacation and Ordinance Section 17 -112, subdivision l on sick leave. The special conditions will allow Mr. Spurrier to receive three (3)" weeks vacation accrual upon employment and a bank of 100 hours of sick leave to be available in the event of illness during the first year of employment. As time passes during Mr. Spurrier's employment with the City of Brooklyn Center, he will be earning regular sick leave which will eventually supplant the 100 hours of bank sick leave. • SYNOPSIS RESUME OF Henry Reese "Bo" Spurrier` 1717 Presidential Lane Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 EMPLOYMENT 1978 - Present Shakopee Engineering Dept., Shakopee, MN: City Engineer 1975 - 1978 Aurora Public Works Dept., Aurora, CO: Project Engineer 1971 - 1975 Eldorado Engr. Co. Inc., Glenwood Springs, CO: Project Engineer EDUCATION 1972 - Present Professional development short courses and seminars in the field of public works with emphasis on management. surface water management, pavement management and construction claims 1969 - 1972 Kansas State University, Manhattan, KA Degree: BSCE 1967 - 1969 Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas Pre - Engineering Courses 1961 - 1963 St. Thomas Seminary College, Denver, CO Catholic Seminary PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS City Engineers Association of Minnesota; Secretary in 1983, to Press dent 1985 Minnesota Public Works Association; Board of Directors, 1984 - 1985 REGISTRATION Colorado Professional Engineer, October 1, 1975, Registration No. 13698 Minnesota Professional Engineer, February 23, 1979, Certificate No. 13689 SERVICE 1964 - 1967 United States Marine Corps: Served in the United States and in Viet Nam. Honorable Discharge. Not in Reserves. PERSONAL Married: 10 years to Gwen D., four daughters Phoebe (12- 23 -76) Anne (11 -3 -78) Date of Birth: February 6, 1943 Gena (5- 25 -80) Milinda (5- 26 -85) Health: Excellent, No physical limitations EMPLOYMENT HIGHLIGHTS 1978 - Present City of Shakopee, Engineering Department, Shakopee, MN: City Engineer Responsibilities: Direct the Engineering Department (4 full time, 1 part time). The Department is responsible for study:, design, inspection and administration of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) of $1 million or more annually except for Canterbury Downs in 1984 when CIP was 03.1 million offsite and onsite responsi- bility was $4.7 million in addition to the routine responsibil- ities that include preparation of an annual Department budget, Capital Improvement Program additions, street preservation and rehabilitation programs, subdivision review, street openings, overlot grading, formulating technical criteria for design and construction, review of public improvements, contract administration, administration of special improvement districts, maintaining City maps and record drawings, preparing reports for State Aid and providing technical support to the Planning Commission and other Boards Personal Accomplishments: Standardized the review process for new subdivisions by compiling standard design criteria and specifications for roadway, sanitary sewer, watermain and drainage, which standards and specifications were adopted by the City and regulate all construction and reconstruction particularly new development Prepared policy for the preservation and rehabilitation of streets that was approved and implemented by the City Coordinated the activities of the City during the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for a 070 million parimutuel racetrack where the City was the Responsible Governmental Unit Maintained computer literacy Elected member of the Board of Directors of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Public Works Association (1984 -1985) Elected Secretary, progressing to President of the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (1983 - 1985) and as such became corresponding officer of the Municipal Screening Committee of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Departmental Accomplishments: Altered the role of the Engineering Department to include study and design of roadway, sanitary sewer, watermain and drainage facilities Standardized City maps and record drawings p Employment Highlights Page 2 Initiated a pavement evaluation program and evaluated all of the City's streets (64 miles) Improved construction inspection and contract administration so that the Department was able to handle the additional inspection responsibility for Canterbury Downs.and a new Women's Reformatory that increased the Capital Improvement Program by more than 08.5 million for 1984 construction 1975 - 1978 Aurora Public Works Department, Aurora, CO: Project Engineer Responsibilities: Design of public works facilities, contract and specification writing, construction inspection and contact with the public, developers, consultants. local, state and federal agencies Personal Accomplishments: Developed design skills in utility design, roadway design, pumping systems and drainage systems that helped in evaluating plans and other technical submittals Produced elements of a drainage criteria manual that simplified its use Was able to work productively in the Utility Design, Roadway Design and Plan Review Sections of the Engineering Department Departmental Accomplishments: Set high standards for public improvements and made timely public improvements while the City was the fastest growing city of its size (100,000 - 300,000) in the United States 1971 - 1975 Eldorado Engineering Co. Inc., Glenwood Springs, CO: Project Engineer Responsibilities: Water system and sewer system design,,particularly smaller plants, contract and specification writing, construction inspection and contact with the public, developers, consultants, local state and federal agencies Personal Accomplishments: Designed plants that met strict effluent standards while needing minimal training to operate Licenses to be approved by the City Council on July 8 1985 / 3 AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR eacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. rooklyn Center Community Ctr. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. Davanni's .5937 Summit Dr. Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. Show Biz Pizza 5939 John Martin Dr. United Artists Theater 5810 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. au ✓ of of Police ,} AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR Century Corp. 2910 W. Montrose Ave. i f of Police GARBAGE & REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Fragrance Trucking 99 NW 99th Ln. Klein Sanitation Co. 10690 100th Ave. N. Metro Refuse 8168 W. 125th St. Waste Management 10050 Naples St. NE Art Willman & Son 62 26th Ave. N. ani arian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE J.K. Heating 11150 Buchana Ave. NE Build g Official READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd._ Sanitarian SWIMMING POOL LICENSE North France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. Sanitarian , GENERAL APPROVAL: 0. f-1 Gerald G. Splint , City erk