Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 08-08 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 8, 1983 7:00 p.m. 1 Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. *6. Approval of Minutes - July 25, 1983 7. Presentation of Resolution to Mr. Harry Bradford in Recognition of His Service to the City as a Member of the Park and Recreation Commission 8. Discussion: At the request of Senator Boschwitz's office, a.representative from the Senator's office (Don Mosher) will be at the meeting for a question and answer session with the City Council. *9. Final Plat - Hahn First Addition (Subdivision of Residential hot along 69th Avenue North and between Grimes and Halifax Avenues North) Planning Commission Application No. 83013 10. Resolutions: *a. Accepting Bid for Pedestrian/Bicycle Trailway Improvements -This resolution provides for construction of the last segment of the regional trail system, connecting the trails in Lions Park to the pedestrian bridge over T.H. 100. Also included is a trail segment in Evergreen Park connecting the existing trail to 70th Avenue. *b. Accepting Work Performed Under Contract 1982-L (Central Park Site Improvement Project No. 1982 -24) -This contract provided for installation of the plantings in Central Park. c• Accepting Quotation for Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning System Improvement at West Fire Station CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August $, 1 983 *d. Providing for Hearing on Proposed Assessments on September 26,'1983 This resolution provides for establishment of an assessment hearing for: Delinquent Public Utility Accounts Delinquent Weed Destruction Accounts *e. Authorizing Execution of an Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County Regarding Contingency Plan for Emergency Communications -This resolution would authorize a contingency plan for police and fire emergency calls in the event of the failure of the City's emergency communications (911) system. 11. Planning Commission Items (7:30 p.m.): a. Planning ommission Application N . � pp o 83021 submitted by Diane Wright for a special use permit to operate a board and care facility for up to 18 mentally ill adults in the four -plex at 4408 69th Avenue North. The City Council considered Application No. 83021 at the May 23, 1983 City Council meeting at which time a public hearing was held on the application. At its June 13, 1983 meeting, the City Council denied Planning Commission Application No. 83021 by Resolution 83-89. The case was appealed to district court by the applicant. The district court judge hearing the case has postponed his decision on the matter until Tuesday, August 9, 1983 and has asked the City Council toconsider additional evidence and reconsider the application. b. Planning Commission Application No. 83039 submitted by Zantigo Mexican Restaurants for a site and building plan and special use permit approval to use the property at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard for a convenience food restaurant and to install a drive -up window. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application 83039 at its August 4,1983 meeting. c. Planning Commission Application No. 83040 submitted by Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. The application is an appeal from Section 35 -322, Subsection 3(d) requesting that an athletic club be allowed adjacent to R2 zoned property at the southeast corner of hakebreeze Avenue and Azelia Avenue. The Planning Commission recommended denial of Application 83040 at its August 4, 1983 meeting. 12. Public Hearings (8:00 p.m.) a. Hearing on Proposed Assessment for 1982 Diseased Shade Tree Removals - Resolution Certifying Diseased Shade Tree Removal Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls b. Hearing on Proposed Assessment for Public Utility Hookup Charges Resolution Certifying Public Utility Hookup Charges to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls c. Hearing on Proposed Assessment for the Cost of Hazard Abatement at 5006 Prance Avenue North Resolution Certifying the Cost of Hazard Abatement to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls *13. Licenses .14. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HEPUTEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 11, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER e�BrooTclyn Center City Council- met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:00 p:m. ROLL CALL Mayor - I eaan Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene hhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, Mr. Jim Thompson, representing the City Attorney's office, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz.. INVOCATIOTT The invocation was offered by Councilmember Theis. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired of the audience if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he proceeded with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA �Z or Nyquist inquired whether any Council members had any agenda items they wished removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Theis requested item 8j be removed, and Councilmember Lhotka requested items 8f and 8g be removed from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1983 There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of June 27, 1983 as .submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council-members Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT - EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES FIFTH ADDITION There was amotion by Council-member Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the final plat of Earle Brown Farm Estates'Fifth Addition (Planning Commission Application No. 83025) subject to the following conditions: 1. Receipt and approval of Homeowners' Association Annexation Documents b the C Attor Y tY . Y 2. Receipt of certification that all taxes currently due on the property to be subdivided have been paid in full. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against. none. The motion passed unanimously. 7 -11 -83 -1- RESOLUTIONS R1MLUTIW 83 -92 Dlember ill awes-introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -D (CENTRAL PARK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -05 AND KYLAWN PARK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. . 1982 -06 ) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -93 gem er ill ntroduced the following resolution and moved its 'adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982-H (69TH -70TH AVENUE STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1982 -09, 1982 -10, 1982 -11, AND EVERGREEN SOCCER FIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -16 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against *the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -94 Member 111 - 79wes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -N (LIFT STATION NO. 3 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -26 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof,. the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -95 Member BI introduced the following•resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1983 -D ( 63RD AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN I11PROVET.1ENT PROJECT NO. 1.983 -02 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted: against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 8 3 -96 Member ill —awes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • 7 -11 -83 -2- RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON 'PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS ON AUGUST 8, 1983 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 83 -97 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PROPOSALS FOR TWO ELECTRONIC CASH REGISTERS AND TO AMEND THE 1983 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich. Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -98 ZF - ember Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF 1118. HARRY BRADFORD The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean.Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LICENSES: her�re was a motion by COuncilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Brookdale Plitt Theater 2501 County Rd. 10 Budgetel Motel 6415 James Circle Denny's Inc. 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Farrell's 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. Ground Round 2545 County Rd. 10 Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Meriwother' 2101 Freeway Blvd. Show Biz Pizza 5959 John Martin Dr. AMUSEMENT DEVICE VENDOR Century-Corporation 2910 W. Montrose Ave. Dahlco Music 119 State St, National Amusement Co. 3925 Louisiana Circle 7 -11 -83 -3- FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Munch Box Snack Service 6840 -20 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Browning- Ferris Industries of MN 9813 Flying Cloud Dr. Hilger Transfer Co. 8550 Zachary In. Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P.O. Box 2222 Shobe & Sons 3621 85th Ave. N. -Art Willman & Son 62 26th Ave. N. Woodlake Sanitary Service .4000 Hamel Rd. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Jaycees 2106 55th Ave. N. Palmer Lake Park Evergreen Park Central Park MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Burnomatic Company 206 lst St. N. Prestige Heating & Air Cond. 7800 Main St. N.E. SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Scenic Sign Corp. 0 Box 881, St. Cloud TEMPORARY BEER LICENSE Brooklyn Center Jaycees 2106 55th Ave. N. Central Park Evergreen Park Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, Hawes,` and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Bid for Swimming Pool Ventilation Revisions in Civic Center HVAC- .System (Project 1983 -07). The Director of Public Works recommended the low bid of Rouse Mechanical, Inc., in the amount of $15,840 be accepted. He noted that there would be a deduction of $850 in the quote. if the cutting and patching work was done by other than the contractor. Council-member hhotka expressed a concern with the items left out of the bid by the consulting engineer. The Director of Public Works commented that this project was the first time the City has worked with this particular firm, and that normally, the work is conducted through an engineer or architect with the mechanical engineer . providing only consulting on the mechanical aspects of the project. He explained that the first estimate prepared by the consultant was for mechanical work only, and that the best explanat on , he - could offer, with regard to Councilmember Ihotka's concern, was that there was a. problem with communication between the consulting engineer and the-City engineer's office. 7-11 -83 4 Councilmember Theis inquired whether the work comprehended by the deletion of the $850 in the quote would still have to be completed. The Director of Public Works stated that the work would still have to be done and that some of the work could be done with City personnel. He explained the specifications stated that the cutting and patching work should not be bid . He pointed out. that the contractor submitting the low bid was aware of the $15,000 limit for invitations for informal quotations. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -99 Me mUerGene_Fio�a introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR SWIIMING POOL VENTILATION REVISIONS IN CIVIC CENTER HVAC SYSTE4 (PROJECT 1983 - 07) The motion for the `adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene- Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted ,against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilmember Theis stated that the displeasure with the work of the consultant should be relayed to the consultant The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establiphing Park Shelter Improvement Project No. 1983 -10, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1983 -I). Councilmember Lhotka expressed a concern regarding the expenditure of $7,000 for architectural fees for the types of renovations and remodelings contained in the resolution. The City Manager explained that because of the cut backs full time staff, and the lack of specific expertise in the architectural areas, the staff was recommending the use of a consultant for the preparation of plans and specifications and also for contract administration. The Director of Public Works pointed out that the consultant's fee includes, not only the design and specification work, but also construction supervision'. Councilmember Theis inquired how the architect would be paid and whether it was a percentage of the total contract. The Director of Public Works explained that the consultant's fee was a flat fee for design work, and then a fee per hour for contract supervision. Councilmember Theis stated that he would like to see the contract between the City and the architect for this project. The Director of ,Public Works stated that the bid date specified in the resolution should.be changed to August 11, and the bid award date to August 22. RESOLUTION NO. 83-100 em er ill�iawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARK SHELTER IMPROV17T TT PROJECT NO. 1983 -10, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISF11EVT FOR BIDS ( CONTRACT 1983 -1) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member 7 -11 -83 _5` Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same:• Gene Lhotka; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83 - `Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE SITE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -28, PHASE III (COMPLETION OF STORAGE YARD AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS), APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS. (CONTRACT 1983 -J The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Designating the City Manager as Signatory for Peace Officer Standards and Training Board Training Reimbursement Funds. He explained that state statute requires a Council resolution which would authorize- and designate a City representative to sign for reimbursement funds received from the POST Board. He noted the 'funds are obtained from the 10% surtax on traffic fines, 90% of which goes to municipalities for police training. Councilmember "Theis requested the City Manager, to explain some of the background information on the program. The City Manager stated that he had testified against the legislation in the Senate and House Committees. He pointed out that the POST Board approves all training for police departments in the State. He explained the League of Minnesota Cities opposed the 1C% surcharge because of the possible tendency of judges to reduce fines because of the 10% surtax. He added that there is no proof that this will happen but only experience with the surtax will tell. Councilmember Theis then inquired as to the cost of inservice training for police officers. The City Manager explained that any training done with existing police department staff is considered inservice training. He also reviewed the municipal budget for police department training. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -102 Member Gene —hotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BROOKLYN CENTER CITY MANAGER AS SIGNATORY FOR PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING BOARD TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following, voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene hhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PLANNING CODTIISSION ITIT'(S Mayor Nyquist noted that it was 7 :30 p.m., the appointed time for consideration of the Planning Commission items.- The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that 7 -11 -83 -6- the applicant for the first three Planning Commission items had not yet arrived. Because the applicant was not present, Mayor Nyquist proceeded to the next Planning Commission item. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 83031 SUBMITTED BY BROOKDALE CAR WASH FOR SITE A ND THE CAR RASH A 55OO_ _ BRO= BOUIT'VARD The Director of Planning & Inspection presented'and reviewed for Councilmembers pages 7 and 8 of the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83031. The Director of Planning & Inspection proceeded to review the applicant's request and location of the subject parcel. He explained a car wash is a special use in the C2 zone. He then reviewed the site plan showing the proposed addition to. the car wash, and also reviewed the proposed modifications to the curb delineators in order to adjust the traffic flow into the stacking area and into the entrance to the car wash at the south end of the building. The Director of- Planning & Inspection stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83031 , after a public hearing at its June 30, 1983 meeting, subject to six conditions which he reviewed for Councilmembers.` He explained the applicant requested a waiver of Condition No. 3 of the Planning Commission's conditions, in light of the applicant's past performance, and since the proposal does not include any landscaping. The Planning Director stated that, he would have no problem waiving this condition, based on the past performance at the car wash. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the required notices of this evening's hearing had been sent and that the applicant was present this evening. Councilmember Hawes inquired -what the cost of the bond would be to comply with Condition No. 3. The Director of Planning &Inspection stated the amount of work comprehended by the bond would amount to between- $1 , 000 and $1,500, and that generally,'the applicant would post cash for such a small amount. At the request of Councilmember Lhotka, the Director of-Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed the building elevations for Council members. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what would happen if something in the application would go wrong and the bond is waived. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained, that if the applicant'fails to perform, he would be cited for violation of the zoning ordinance, and because of the nature of the modifications, he would not be able to drive out of the car wash entrance and exit since the bond covers curb and ' gutter construction.. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of Mr. Thompson, representing the City Attorney's office., if he had any problem with waiving the condition. Mr. Thompson replied that he had no problems with waiving Condition No. 3. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83031. -He 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 Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to 7 -11 -$3 -7- close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application Yo. 83031• Voting in favor: Mayor Nyduist, Counci7members Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 83031, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by' the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits.. 3. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 4. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council members Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISS APPLICA NO. 83018 SUBMITTED BY HOWE, INC. FOR VARIA FROM SECTION 35 - 700OY THE CTTY`Z ING RDINATICE TO ALLOW A 5 F OT WIDE G M TRIP ADJAC ENT T BROO PLANTING COMMISSION APPLICATION N0. 83026 - SUBMITTED BY HOWE, INC. FOR SITE PLAN AFP INSTALL 1 PARKING 7 Sfi C =1 7 ; = 8z XERXES AVENDE NORTH THE INTERSECTIIM OF 49TH AVENUE N(5RTH ATT_BR_ 0= BOULEVARD. PLANNING 1MISSION APPLICATION N0. 83027 SUBMITTED BY HOWE, INC. FOR PRELIMINARY MT APPROVAL TO COS'7BINE INTO ONE PARCEL THE FXISTITIG HOWE S17LE AND A PARCEL OF LAND B I ;G VA= B DTI �HVAY 1 ,, IT 1 S S _ . AND PRMKLYN BOULEV The irk ector ofPlanning' & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 9 and 10 of the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheets prepared for Application Nos. 83018, 83026, and 83027. The Planning Director reviewed the appeal matter previously before the City Council regarding the use of the highway department property, by the.applicant, for parking purposes. He reviewed the agreement between the City and the applicant regarding this matter. He noted the agreement has been executed by the City and Howe, Inc., but has not yet been filed, because it has been held up by a legal description which Howe, Inc. is to receive from the highway department. 7 -11 -83 -8- The Director of Planning &Inspection reviewed the location of the subject parcel, and also a site plan of the subject parcel comprehending the variance contained in Application No.' - 83018. He noted. that if the variance is not approved several parking stalls would have to be eliminated in the proposed area. The Planning Director pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended approval- of Application No. 83018, subject to the condition that a preliminary plat and site plan agreeing with the proposed variance be submitted. The Planning Director reviewed the site plan submitted with * Application No 83026. N He explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application a P g PP P 83026 at its June 30, 1983 meeting, subject to six conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He also noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No. 83027 at its June 30, 1983 meeting, subject to three conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He added that Condition No-3 be striken from the conditions since no easements exist. The Planning Director noted the Planning Commission held the required public hearing on the applications, and that notices of this evening's required public hearings had been sent, and that the applicant is present this evening. Councilmember Lhotka. recalled the discussion regarding the consideration that the use of the property does not constitute an expansion of the manufacturing operation. The Director of Planning noted that the stipulation in the agreement between the City and Howe, Inc. covers this, and that Mr. Bill Howe and the City Manager have signed the agreement. Mayor Nyquist opened the meetin g for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83018. He 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 Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83018. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed- unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83018 °on the grounds that the standards for a variance are met. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council-members Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83026, subject to the following conditions, 1 The applicant shall enter into a performance agreement with a supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) prior to final plat approval. 2. Underground irrigation shall be provided in all landscaped areas within the project. 7 -11 -83 -9- 3. 13612 curb and gutter shall be provided around the 14 parking spaces proposed on the plan. 4• A 5' high privacy fence shall be deemed adequate screening if placed atop the 3' berm to provide the required 8' of screening. The plan shall be modified to indicate such a 5' high opaque fence. 5. Plan approval is subject to the provisions of the stipulation agreement entered into by Howe, Inc.,, and the City in resolution of Application No. 83001. 6. 14 employee parking spaces west of the middle building (granted by variance) will be discontinued for use pursuant to the above stated agreement, and will be used exclusively for buffer setback area in accordance with the zoning ordinance, and for access purposes pursuant to previously granted City Council approval. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83027. He 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 Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83027. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmember-s Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83027, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.' Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Leo Hanson who thanked the Council for all their efforts over the last several years with regard to Howe, Inc. and the surrounding neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 83028 SUBMITTED BY MTUCKY FRIED CHICMT FOR SITE AFID BUILDIT,;G PLAN AE'r S USE PfFMIT7PTROTAL TO C IS .TDIIII�:UF =1 OV 7 1 J15 1II BR�O E B 7b( 1 UARL. hhee ol Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council - members 7 -11 -83 -10- pages 2 and 3 of the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83028. He then proceeded to review the location of the subject parcel and the zoning of the area, and pointed out that convenience food restaurants in a C2 zone are special uses. He then reviewed the site plan submitted by the applicant, the proposed modifications to the entrances at the site, and also the proposed landscaping. The Director of Planning &,Inspection noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83028, subject to seven conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He pointed out Condition No. 6 requiring a landscape plan and schedule had already been met by the applicant He stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Application No. 83028 at its June 30, 1983 meeting. He stated that the required notices for the public hearing this evening had been sent, and a' representative of the applicant was present this evening. Councilmember Scott commented that the cars leaving the drive -up window would have to cross the traffic lane of on- coming traffic. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that this would be true, but that the entrance is 24' wide and that cars at the drive up window have good visibility of the area, and that this should be no problem. The Council discussed the vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation on the subject parcel. Councilmember Theis suggested moving the pedestrian crossing east from its present planned location so the cars in the drive -up lane would not block it. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83028 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. Mayor Nyquist recognized the representative of the applicant who stated that the restaurant only waits on one customer at a time, and that cars will be either at the menu board or the window. He noted that other fast food restaurants take three or four orders concurrently, but that Kentucky Fried Chicken only waits on one customer at a time.. He explained the vehicle on the drawing immediately behind the car at the drive -up window is not a reflection of how Kentucky Fried Chicken waits on customers, and that the second car is really a misrepresentation. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83028. Voting in favor: Nayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis Voting against: none The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and `seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83028, subject to the following conditions: I. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 7 -11 -83 -11- i 2. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 3. Arty' outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. 8612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 6. Underground irrigation shall be provided in all landscaped areas. 7. A directional sign indicating pedestrian crosswalks shall be installed in the median south of the building and west of the crosswalk indicating that the crosswalk must not be blocked to pedestrians. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION N0i 83030 SUBMITTED BY BRUTGER COMPANIES, INC. FOR FRELIMINARY PLAT APPRO*VAL TO SULTIVIDE IfiTO 37 TOt TS L1 1 CTTJ T_= T THE P E =S HE RTh A T C= �F DUP Nfi AMU 14 i7M DRIVE. The ity Manager explained the applicant is returning to the traditional approach with regard to subdividing property for townhouse lots, and has chosen not to condominiumize the townhouse portion of the development. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted the plat submitted is noncontroversial and that the Council could waive the requirement that the applicant be present, if the Council wishes. There was a consensus among Council members to waive the requirement that the applicant for Planning Commission Application No. 83030 be present. The Director of Planning &Inspection reviewed the application and location of the subject parcel for Council members. He proceeded to review the site plan of the proposed senior housing project. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed for Council members page 6 of the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83030. The Director of Planning noted the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on June 30, 1983, and no one appeared to oppose the project. He added the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application, subject to three conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He noted the applicant is proposing to begin construction on the project before the plat is filed, and that the final site plan will be based on an as -built survey. 7 -11 -83 -12- . Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the,purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission'Application No. 53030, 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 Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on, Planning Commission Application No'. 53030. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83030, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The Homeowners' Association documents shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. AIRPORT ZONING BOARD Councilmember Scott questioned why she was appointed to the Airport Zoning Board since she was under.the impression that Councilmember Hawes expressed an interest in this area. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that there are two organizations dealing with the airport, one being, the Airport Zoning Board and the other being, a Tri -City group organized to review and study the Crystal Airport. Councilmember Theis stated, that he would be willing to be involved in the Airport Zoning Board, if Councilmember Hawes did not want to become a 'member. Councilmember Scott suggested that Councilmember Theis could serve as the alternate to the Zoning Board, since Councilmember Hawes was already involved with the Tri City organization. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to appoint Councilmember Hawes to the Crystal Airport Zoning Board, and to appoint Councilmember Theis as the alternate to the Crystal Airport Zoning Board. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF WATER PROBIRIS IN 6300 TO 6500 BLOCKS OF ORCHARD AND UNITY AVENUES. Councilmember Lhotka noted he had received a call from a resident regarding water problems in the 6300 to 6500 blocks of Orchard and Unity Avenues. The Director of Public Works stated that'the staff was aware of this problem and that this is an area where rusty water has been coming through the pipes. Ile added that the staff is looking at various options but at this point has found nothing that the staff feels comfortable with to solve the problem. 7 -11 -83 -13- Councilmember Lhotka inquired'whether the pipe was installed erroneously. The Director of Public Works explained that the pipe in this area was the only water main available after World liar II,_and that there are no records in the project files regarding ow much of this type of pipe there is in the City. Councilmember Lhotka g YP P P tY• then asked how long the problem has been going on. The Director of Public Works replied that he was aware of the problem for the past five years, but it is estimated that the problem has been experienced in the area for the last 15 to 20 years. The City Manager explained the problem appears to be scattered since some homes have the problem and some don't. Ile added that the staff has ;worked with Mr. Al Weyrauch regarding several attempts to solve the problem, including flushing the -pipes, and super chlorinating the pipes. At first, he explained the staff thought it might be an individual problem but it has become apparent that it is an area wide problem. He explained the staff has considered several alternatives to the problem, including internally lining the pipe, replacing the pipes, and chemical treatment of the water at the well site. The Director of Public Works explained that, even if the water lines are replaced, in one area, this would not guarantee the problem would be solved, since the problem could still migrate in from other areas. He. explained that past actions in the area to deal with the problem, included flushing, and super chlorination. He explained- the super chlorination apparently did the job for a short time but the problem came back. He added that the alternative which appears to have the best possibility," presently, is treating the water at the well site. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would like to be kept informed and updated on the situation. The Director of Public Works stated that the staff would be coming to the Council with a report on the situation within the next 30 to 60 days. Councilmember Lhotka commented that the period of 5 to 15 years during which the problem has occurred is a considerable - amount of time. The Director of Public Works stated that he cannot speak for what went on before but the present staff has spent a considerable amount of time on the problem. The City Manager commented that the staff wants to assure that any.solution that is undertaken will actually work to solve the problem. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he is concerned that the person that he spoke with felt the answer he was getting was that "something is being done," but that was the extent. The Director of Public Works asked Councilmember Lhotka, that if the name of the person could be relayed to the staff, he could follow up on the situation. LIONS PARK TENNIS COURTS Councilmember Hawes inquired if there were any problems with regard to the construction of the Lions Park Tennis Courts. The Director of Public Works commented that the contractor hired to do the surfacing feels that the subgrade is not adequate for his requirements. He added that'the.staff maintains that the specifications indicated the existing conditions of the site and that the contractors protests are not warranted. Councilmember Hawes then inquired whether Twin City Testing has confirmed the contractor's belief with regard to the site. The Director of Public Works stated that there has been no testing of area done by Twin City Testing to his knowledge. He added that, the staff suggested the hiring of a consultant, but as of last Friday afternoon the contractor had not done this. ADJOUR There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott. to 7- 11-83 -14- adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,'Counailmembers' Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center. City Council adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Clerk Mayor 7 -11 -83 -15 -. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 25, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The RrooEl City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL fF yoor elan Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Ihotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, and Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman. INVOC Me invocation was offered by Father Shea of St. Alphonsus Catholic Church. OPEN FORUM yor Ryquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired of the audience if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he proceeded with the regular agenda items CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Fy quist inquired whether any Council members had any agenda items they wished removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Theis requested items 9c and 9f be removed from the Consent Agenda, and the City Manager requested that item 9b be removed from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 11, 1983 There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of July 11, 1983 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Theis, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLATS - A PROPOSED REGISTERED LAND SURVEY There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the Final Plat of Proposed Registered Land Survey (Planning Commission Application No. 82004) Site of Spec. 10 and 11 and Adjacent Property along Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard, subject to the following requirements: 1. Receipt and approval of the required registered property report and utility as built information. 2. Execution of subdivision agreement. 3. Furnishing financial guarantees as required by the subdivision agreement. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. a 7 -25 -83 —1— There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka. and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the Subdivision Agreement, subject to the removal of the dirt stock pile on the site by October, 1 Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 83-103 Member Gene Ihiot - lEa introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBDIVISION AGRM2VT'FOR SUBDIVISION OF REGISTERED LAND SURVEY 110. 1537 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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PERFOR1 BOND RELEASE - DALE TILE, 4815 FRANCE AVENUE NORTH There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Council - member Scott to approve the Performance Bond Release for Dale Tile. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS S T vO. 83 -104 Member ne Ihot a introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to obtaining an alternate bid for the construction of the northwest half of 69th & Humboldt also. RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING HUMBOLDT AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -11, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1983 -K) 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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Manager noted the necessity to change several items in the next resolution before the Council. First, he noted, that the last sentence in paragraph 5, should be changed to reflect a specific 12% interest rate as opposed to an interest rate to be established by the Council in conjunction with these proceedings as stated in the resolution.. Second, in paragraph 8, the wording should be changed to read hots 1 and 2, as opposed to Lots 2 and 2 of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Evergreen Estates. RESOLUTION NO. 105 Lember Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to changes requested by the City Manager. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 69TH -70TH AVENUE STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS 7 -25 -83 -2 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution.was declared duly passed and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 83 -106 'iember RiEh Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 51ST AVENNE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PLO. 1982 -07 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene I.hotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -107 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH LINDBERG PIERCE INC. FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RELATING TO PARK FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1 983 -10 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, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: Gene Lhotka, and Bill Hawes, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83-108 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION TO APPROVE A REDUCTION OF THE SPEED LIMIT ON 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TO HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor - thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83-109 .em er Bill Haawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR TENNIS COURT RESURFACING AT WEST PALMER, KYLAWN, AND , GRANDVIEW PARKS 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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7 -25 -83 -3- RESOLUTION NO. -110 Member F1 a Fes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMT FOR SOIL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CENTRAL PARK TENNIS COURTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Ihotka, Celia Scott, Lill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Truck Rental and Leasing as a Special Use in the C2 Zone, and explained the ordinance was first read on June 27, 1983. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Truck Rental and Leasing as a Special Use in the C2 Zone. He 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 Scott and seconded by Councilmember I,hotka to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Truck Rental and Leasing as a Special Use in the C2 Zone. ORDINANCE NO. 83 -10 Member Uelia Sc - off introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption; AN ORDINAT - iCE A14E DING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW TRUCK RENTAL AND LEASING AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE C2 ZONE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof : Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted The City Mlanager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Manufactured Housing in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts. He stated this ordinance was first read on June 27,,1983, and published on July 7, 1983, and is _recommended for a second reading this evening. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow I'rianufactured Housing in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts. He 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 Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Manufactured Housing in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts. Voting in favor 7 -25 -83 -4- Mayor Nyquist, Councilmember Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ORDIYANCE PyO. 83-11 erne 1hoT a introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN THE R1 AND R2 ZONING DISTRICTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, - and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lh tka Celia Scott, Bill Hawes and Rich Theis; and the i t Ge o Y4 , el co following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Classify a Portion of 69th Avenue North as a Major Thoroughfare. He noted this ordinance was first read on June 13, 1983, and published on June 23, 1983, and is recommended for a second reading this evening. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Am ending f the C ity Ordinances to Classify a Portion of 69th Avenue North g Cha ter 35 P tY Y as a Major Thoroughfare. He 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 Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Classify a Portion of 69th Avenue North: as a Major Thoroughfare. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 83 -12 Member Rich Theis introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO CLASSIFY A PORTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH AS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS TIDING C P -1I �A=ATION N0. 83032 SUBMITTED BY SHAWN TAYLOR FOR PRELIMINARY PIAT AM= TO MDIVID =7RFM=S THE LARGE P7MEL 7= 5435 n= A= NORTH The Di re of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members Commission meeting minutes , and also the s 1 and 2 the J 1 1 Pla o P� of � 4 � 983 � g Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83032. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83032. He inquired if there was anyone present who 7 -25 -83 -5- 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 Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83032. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83032, subject to the following conditions: 1: The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall remove driveway segments which encroach; into the proposed Lots 1 and 3 and install a new driveway on Lot 2 prior to final plat approval. 4. 'The existing 15' x 30' brick shed on the proposed Lot 1 may continue as an accessory structure. However, this building may not be used as "a dwelling by either the current or future owners. 5. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City prior to final plat approval for payment of deferred assessments for water service. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COD1 APPLICATION ISO. 8 3033 SUBMITTED BY HILLTOP BUILDERS, INC. FOR SITE AITD BUILDIITG =TAPPROVAL O COfi TM �7MI BUILDING THE ITOTTIT OF BASS LAKE ROAD AT A PARCEL ADDRESSED 5839 TAJOR AVEI?UE NORTH. TLA=G F� , `S'1 F APPLT `A l l�h 7 .734 [3Yfi It 'I, [fiO��II,DFRS , INC. FORA FRONT AF415 REAR SETBAC KSS 7M FRONT G ' ;STEP TUBE 1MS iT THAT R.EQUTF D 1 K977. — T he Dire r of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 2 through 6 of the July 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes. He noted that the applicant was requesting site and building plan approval for an 11 unit apartment building to be contructed on an irregularly shaped lot which would require a variance from set back requirements of the City ordinance. Following the Planning Director's presentation, Councilmember Hawes inquired as to the potential number of townhouses that could be built on the site. The Director of Planning &. Inspection stated that the site could accommodate five or six townhouses. The City Attorney informed the Council that the law on substandard lots allowed the Council to reduce standards when the use of the land can't be realized. He briefly reviewed the history of the lot noting the taking of land from the site for Bass Lake Road. He noted that the question before the Council is a classic case for a variance and how much of a variance should be allowed . He noted that the Council does not have to provide maximum density, and the Council would not be establishing a 7 -25 -83 -6 I precedent. He concluded that the Council has a great deal of latitude in their determinations. RECESS McTrooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. CONTINUATION OF PhANN1ING CONIIISSION NdOS. 83033 AND 83034 Mayor FIyquist opene e meeting for -Fe purpose` a pub is hearing on Planning Commission Applicaton Nos. 83033 and 83034. Mayor Diyquist recognized Evelyn Schmidt who introduced herself as a realtor handling the property. She spoke in support of the application. Councilmember Scott inquired of Ms. Schmidt if she could recall how much land had been taken from the site for the roadway. Ms. Schmidt could not recall. The City Manager noted that the City Engineer had checked City records during recess, and it appeared that 7' had been taken from the site. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Kathy Moore, attorney for the owners of Twin hake North Apartments. Ms. Moore spoke in opposition to the application indicating that she feels the standards for our variance had not been met. She further stated that she did not feel that the site was compatible to the surrounding area without the landscaping. She also added that there was not room for children to play, and that there were other alternative development potentials. She stated that the rear of the building does not lend itself to fire fighting with only a 10' setback. She also indicated their concern because of the proximity of the Twin hake North garages at the rear setback. - Councilmember Theis inquired of Ms. Moore whether the land had been offered for sale to Twin hake North. Ms. Moore indicated that sometime ago, it had been, but that she had not been personally involved in those negotiations. She also added that Twin Take North had been approached about a joint driveway and that Twin hake North had not refused the proposal. Nis. Moore then submitted a petition to the Council with signatures objecting to the proposed variance. Mayor Nyquist requested that petitions be entered into the record. The concern was raised relative to children living in the units, and the lack of ample playground space for them. Councilmember Thotka inquired if the proposed rental units would be for adults only The architect, Mr. Harry Gerrisch for Hilltop Builders, replied that it was not an adults b i t were available for children only building, and pointed out that vacant spaces e to play in. Mr. Dahly Archibald, a Twin Take North resident, objected to the application for a variance. Evelyn Schmidt, a realtor, indicated that she did not believe that people with children would locate in this particular building because of the high rents and because of the lack of playground space. Following the comments from those in attendance, Mayor Nyquist entertained a motion to close the public hearing.. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded r by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application Nos. 83033 and 83034. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Thotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Theis indicated he felt that the applicant should try to obtain a joint access and that he found fault with the proposed driveway. Councilmember hhotka indicated that he had a problem with granting such a large variance to a developer who is trying to maximize development on the site. He indicated that the project was just too big for the site. 7 -25 -83 -7- There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka to deny Planning Commission Application No. 83034. The motion died for lack of second. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to - table Planning Commission Application Nos. 83033 and 83034 until August 22. Councilmember Theis suggested that the applicant meet with the owners of Twin Lake North and try to arrange a joint access for the proposed development. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against:- none. The motion passed unanimously. ° PLANNING COV T4ISSION APPLICATION NO. 830 35 SUBMITTED BY PAUL DESVERNINEATEN A� SING FORITE AID BUI LDING PLAN AND SPECTAZ USE PM1IT APPRJVAI, TO REM . EST C 1 RC I7T - B IKG AT 4301 8i F AV ' 1 N RT T OTSU r 7 S AN U RUC 9 7 `.LAS, A�b1 LEA SIEG CIPTER. 70 C6 T-TTSSION APPLICATION NO. 83036 SUBMITTED BY PAUL DESVERNINEATEN IFASING A AJ, FR E SIGN AT 70 7 =,FT v =, G ;C NFORI T SIGTT E A 3 � ' I :i T, OVER 1 R — .F7 I1�1 YEARS AFTER TEE PREVIOUS FESSAGF HAD BEEPr RH OVED. 7Fe� sire - mac ar oT wing nspectlon presented an reviewed for Council members pages 6 through 7 of the July 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes. He noted that Application No. 83035 was a request for a site and building plan and a special use permit for the approval to remodel the commercial building at 4301 68th Avenue North, formerly the Servomation Building._ He also noted that the building would be used as an auto and truck rental leasing center. Following the Planning Director's presentation, Mayor Nyquist opened the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83035. Appearing before the application was Joe Iten, from Iten Chevrolet. He requested approval of both applications noting that the sign was necessary in order to be seen by individuals traveling from the south. He further stated he felt that the signs were in good taste. He stated that the signing that would be allowed under the ordinance was not visible to people from the south, and that such signing was necessary for his business. Councilmember Scott inquired as to how an individual could see the sign from the south. Mr. Iten indicated that the billboard had signing on both sides. There being no further comment for or against the application, Mayor Nyquist entertained a motion to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83035. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83035. Voting in favor: Payor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember hhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83035. Voting in favor: Councilmembers Lhotka., Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Mayor Nyquist abstained from the vote. Mayor Nyquist then opened the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No 83036. There being no one to speak for or against the application, Mayor Nyquist 7 -25 -83 -8 entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83036. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to deny Planning Commission Application No. 83036. Voting in favor: Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Mayor Nyquist abstained from the vote. CONSIDER OF LOCAL ADDH DUI TO IUOE, LOCAL NO. 49 MASTER LABOR AGRMUNT Th City Manager briefly addressed the addendum to the 11aster Tabor Agreement noting several changes in the state law. Councilmember Lhotka inquired the implications of the contract language -directed at "working out of classificiation ". The City Manager indicated that contract language means people temporarily working in higher paying job classification would be paid at that rate. Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the addendum to Local No. 49 Master labor Agreement. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.,The motion passed uananimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS CONTINGII1CY FLAN FOR WATER USE RESTRICTIONS The City Engineer reviewed a contingenc plan for restricted water use. He briefly reviewed the approach of using an oddeven day approach for watering, noting that the plan before the Council is just a tentative plan . Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to how the City intended to notify residents in case it is necessary to implement the plan. The City Manager indicated that the City would use television to inform the residents of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Theis noted that on July 14 there was less than a half million gallons left in the City's water tank. He also noted that the City had a 15 million gallon capacity per day, and that only slightly more than 12 million gallons of water had been used. He wondered where the other 3 million gallons had gone to. The City Engineer replied that the capacity to pump water is dependent upon a place to pump the water to. He noted that the tanks were full in the morning and that when -peak demand started in the afternoon, the City can pump at a rate of 625,000 gallons per hour, and that the demand was 1 million gallons per hour. Discussion then ensued about potential future alternatives available to the City upon completion of the well now being developed by the City. AGREIl' MNT WITH HOWE, INC. Mayor Nyquist noted that Tom Howe had been present earlier, and that he had informed Tom Howe that his presence would not be necessary. The City Attorney then reviewed the agreement between the City and Howe, Inc., and noted that the addition of bagging equipment would not constitute an expansion of the business. General discussion then ensued, and Councilmember Lhotka inquired if each additional addition didn't eventual become an expansion f The City Attorney ly .pan o the business. e ty ensured th e Council that it was not the case. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the agreement acknowledging that the expansion of the building on Howe,. Inca -25 -83 -9- would not constitute an expansion of the use of the manufacturing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers ILhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE - OPERATOR Brookdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Drive Chuckwagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE VENDOR Gene Winstead & Co. 9624 Lyndale Ave. S. r FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Los Primos Brookdale Center GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Big Garbonzo 15238 Central N.E. Gallagher's Service, Inc. 1691 91st Ave. N.E. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. (7 stands) MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Comfort Heating & Air Cond. 3111 California St. N.E. Hoove- Aire, Inc., 6840 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. NON - PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd, Duke's Standard 6501 Humboldt Ave. Skelly Service 63rd Brooklyn Blvd. Vicker's Oil 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Lucille M. Pagel 6031 Brooklyn Blvd. Gary & Vicki Zimmerman 6527 Brooklyn Blvd. Gale W. Pierce 6538 Drew Ave. N. Doyle & Jennifer Henning_ 5200 France Ave. Ken Larson 6225 France Ave N. William E. Goins i 4100 Janet Lane Vernon Vender 5651 Knox Ave. N.. Henry Johnson & Joe Thomas 6736 Scott Ave. N. George H. Boomer 4518 63rd Ave. N. Richard R. Dawson 3955 69th Ave. N. 7 -25 -83 -10- Renewal: Irvin & Ruth Schloff . 4819 Azelia Ave. N. Eugene J. Sullivan, Harold Hubert, Howard Oien 5407 Brooklyn Blvd. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE cont. Howard A. Oien & Eugene Sullivan 5809 Brooklyn Blvd. Donald.L. Parkin 5624 Camden Ave. N. Daniel Gronseth 5306 Howe Lane Michael & Donna Kaplan 5715 Knox Ave. N. Amos Levang 4100 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Le Ray & Keith Mortensen 4110 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Randy Elam 4200 Lakebreeze Ave. N. James & Shirley Anderson 4204 Lakebreeze Ave. N. James & Bobbie Simons 4210 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Outreach Group Homes, Inc. 507 69th Ave. N. TEMPORARY ON -SALE BEER LICENSE St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. l'he motion passed unanimously. ADJOUR ENT here was a motion by Councilmember Ihotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:02 p.m. Clerk 11ayor 7 -25 -83 -11- MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistan -y DATE: August 5, 1983 SUBJECT: Appearance by Field Representative of Senator Boschwitz's Office at August 8 Council meeting At the request of Senator Boschwitz's office one of the Senator's local representatives has been laced on the August 8 Council agenda for a P P 5 question and answer session with the Council. The appearance by Senator Boschwitz's Field Representative will hopefully estions of the Senator's 'afford the Council an o artunit to ask u PP Y q representative and to express any comments or concerns the 'Council may want to relay to Senator Boschwitz. I PETE V. OOMENICY. W MEX., CHAIRMAN WILLIAM L. ARMSTRONG. COLO, LAWTON CHILES. fU NANCY LANDON NASSESAUM, KANS. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS. S.C. RUDY 90SCHWIT2. MINN. JOSEPH R. SIOEN,JR.. OIL OWN G. HATCH. UTAH J. SENNETT JOHNSTON, U JOHN TOWER, TEX. JIM SASSER, TENN.����� `������ AVE&ND"(WI N. DAK.. GARY HART. COLO. E YMM IOAH - S S. O NOWARO M METLENSAUM, OHIO GRASSLEY. IOWA DONALD W. RIEGLE. JR.. MICH. W. KASTEN. WIS DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN. N.Y. COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET DAN QUAYLE. MD. A JAMES EXON. NE80. SLADE GORTON. WASH. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 STEPHEN SELL STAFF DIRECTOR WCHARO N. BRANDON. MINOMW STAFF DIRECTOR August 3, 1983 The Honorable Dean Nyquist Mayor of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek P kwy- kwy. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mayor Nyquist: Thisis to confirm our meeting scheduled for Monday, August 8, at 7 pm. I'm looking forward to visiting with you and learning more about the Brooklyn Center area and your local needs in the hope that Rudy can be of some aid in your dealings with the federal government. Please give me a call at 612/221 -0904 or 800/652 -9771 (toll free) if you have any questions prior to our meeting. Sincerely, Don Mosher Projects Director RB /qb cc: Gerald Splinter CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B RBROOKLYN OOL K Y N CENTER, . MINNESOTA 55430 1 \ TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works . FROM: Jim Grube, Assistant City Engineer DATE: August 5, 1983 RE: Final Plat of Hahn First Addition (Planning Commission Application No. 83013) Mr. Stanley Hahn has petitioned the City to final the referenced plat. The following conditions were placed on the plat by the City Council at its May 9, 1983, meeting: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. - 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The existing barn shall be removed prior to final plat approval. 4. The plat shall be modified to eliminate the 5 foot wide utility and drainage easements along the north side lot lines of Lots 1 and 2. 5. -The plat shall be modified to indicate dedications of 7 feet of additional right -of -way- adjacent to 69th Avenue North. 6. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City to provide for the payment of hookup charges and assessments for water at the time residences within the subdivision connect to water service. - Upon review of the final plat, it has been determined that condition 5 has been met. further research has revealed that condition 4 may be eliminated due to the existence of a five foot easement on the underlying property. Conditions 3 and 6 have been met by the owner. To date, the owner has not submitted the necessary Abstract of Title for review by the City Attorney. It is recommended, however, that the final plat be approved by the City Council, contingent upon receipt.and approval of an updated Abstract of Title. JNG:jn t� / &aq� Note &0" HAHN 1ST ADD.. jo ty 144 I J io so Q y J .y4 � �. -- H89 °49 oo "w 270.00 -- W Q ks 11 �i. /3500 � I •,; � ----- ` - ziaoo NB9 °a9oow •� _ k. �� OG� 3 $ O y � i so .w 27000 1 30 30 �J zoo _ 589 ° 49'00 Ej 270.00 `^ /. lh n '^ 14 "' � L 69'NAvEniuE N. '^ .! ' FORMERLY C O RD Mr, 130 , fi 9 'r q A V£ v 4,* .c •M: a _a... Oroin ono'Uti /l (:1?. j 4`B /� a3. ?5 f�'LS �i? 161 t i VD SU8 D9e r Eose�enfs A-10 15 ore show» fhvs: i t • 5..t 1 xD 6671 so Aet� in w.ileh and od 0inin9 10e tines, as shown on the p/af. • - VRA SrAIX W Left • D 34 — _.. _--_DSO o DENOTES /ROw A*w(/MfNF BEARINGS Sgown/ ARE .4SStdN6o / OA Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE TRAILWAY IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 1982 Section 471.345 has been amended by the adoption of H.F. 68 (S.F. 56) Laws 1983 to provide that for contracts from $10,000 to $15,000 the contract may be made by obtaining two or more quotations; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received quotations for the construction of bituminous pedestrian /bicycle trails within Lions Park and Evergreen Park, said quotations as follows: Bidder Quotation Bury & Carlson, Inc. $ 6,921.00 C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 10,130.00* *Add $1,000.00 if excavated material must be hauled away. WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised the City Council that the quotation of Bury & Carlson, Inc. in the amount of $6,921.00 is the lowest responsible bid received and recommended that a contract firm be awarded to said in that amount: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The bid of Bury & Carlson, Inc. in the amount of $6,921.00 is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized f' in that amount. 'd firm to n y n directed enter and er into a contract with said 2. All other bids are hereby rejected. 3. Financing for the trail construction shall be by appropriation of funds from the City Municipal State Aid Fund Account No. 2600. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoin resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following r 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 YN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ROO KL TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 5, 1983 RE: Review of Bids for Pedestrian /Bicycle Trailway Construction in Lions and Evergreen Parks Staff has solicited proposals for the completion of the regional trail system - connecting the existing park trail to the recently completed 70th Avenue. It was determined that it would be most advantageous to place the Lions Park trail construction under contract so that work could be completed in conjunction with the bridge construction. The Evergreen Park Trail construction has been made necessary by the completion of the 69th -70th Avenue connection, said construction necessary to connect the system with the City's street system. A review of the bids follows: Bid of Bid of Park Staff Estimate Bury & Carlson, Inca C.S. McCrossan, Inc. Evergreen Park $1,930.00 $2,250.00 $ 2,485.00 Lions Park 4,350.00 4,671.00 7,645.00 TOTAL $6,280.00 $6,921.00 $10,130.00 Staff considers the bid of Bury & Carlson, Inc. to be realistic (within 10.2% of the staff estimate) insofar as the work is limited in scope (125 feet in Evergreen Park and 285 feet in Lions Park), while spread over two parks. Staff recommends the proposal of Bury & Carson, Inc. be accepted and a resolution reflecting the recommendation is submitted for City Council consideration. SK: _ ?� So.KCticucg �1t au j lob Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ° RESOLUTION NO.' RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -L (CENTRAL PARK SITE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -24) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1982 -L signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Fair's Garden Center of Osseo, Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: CENTRAL PARK SITE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract and change order is accepted and approved according to the following: As Authorized Final Amount Original Award $ 84,152.00 $ 84,382.00 Change Order #1 4,020.00 4,020.00 TOTAL $ 88,172.0 $ 88,402.00 { � ' 2. The value of-work performed is more than the sum of the original contract and change order by $230.00 due to a general underestimation }� of planned quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $88,402.00. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:- 1. There is appropriated the sum of $230.00 for additional costs. 2. The appropriation will be financed by appropriation of $230.00 from the Capital Projects Fund (Division 47). Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by t member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following E voted in favor thereof: G and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ROOKLY TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 5, 1983 RE Final Project Cost for Contract 1982 -L (Central Park Site Improvement Project No. 1982 -24) Fair's Garden Center has completed the site improvements to Central Park as comprehended under Improvement Project No. 1982 -24. As noted on the attached resolution to accept the work, the final contract amount is $230.00 greater than the sum of the original contract and change order No. 1. The reason for the increased contract amount is that additional plantings were placed along the Civic Center /City Hall access to provide continuity with the planting plan established for the complex. SK:jn ,, ,71st .So.rcttlsi.cg X11 azc Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoptions RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A THREE TON AIR CONDITIONERMEATER AT THE WEST FIRE STATION . WHEREAS, the City Council has provided funding for remodeling expenditures at the East and West Fire Stations in the total amount of $32,000.00 in the 1983 Budget; and ti WHEREAS, it had been anticipated that $5,000.00 of the 1983 appropriation for fire station remodeling be used for the addition of a roof mounted air conditioner at the West Fire Station; and WHEREAS, the following quotations for the furnishing and installation of heating and air conditioning units have been received by the Fire Chief and the Director of Public Works, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes 471.345; Rouse Mechanical Company Alternate No. 1 - for 1983 Bryant System Cooling unit only $ 5,375.00 Heating unit addition 590.00 TOTAL $'5,965.00 Alternate No. 2 - for 1981 Singer System 10 with full warranty Combined Cooling and Heating unit $ 4,960.00 Egan and Sons Air Conditioning Company Cooling unit only $ 5,730.00 Heating unit addition 690.00 TOTAL $ 6,420.00 AND, WHEREAS, the Fire Chief and Director of Public Works have advised the City Council that, in their opinion, the Alternate No. 2 proposal by Rouse Mechanical Company to furnish and install a 1981 Singer System with cooling and heating ability at a total cost of $4,960.00 is the lowest bid received, that it will adequately and efficiently t 1 the designated areas of the West Z a a el a e cientl heat and coo �N Y Y g Fire Station, and that acceptance of this proposal is in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the purchase of one three ton Singer heating and air conditioning unit from Rouse Mechanical Company for $4,960.00. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. F ° CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B RK OOLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER EMERGENCY— POLICE —FIRE 911 MEMORANDUM TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM:. Ron Boman, Fire Chief DATE: August.3,:.1983 SUBJECT: The Addition Of Air Conditioning To West Fire Station. In the 1983 Budget, we had $30,000.00 for the remodeling of the fire stations. Of this, we had anticipated using about $5,000.00 for a three ton roof mounted air conditioner. As anticipated, the existing window unit was removed and made unuseable after the back window replacement, an earlier 1983 project. We have received quotes from Egan Company and Rouse Mechanical for this work. The low bid is from Rouse Mechanical Company. Their quote of $4,960.00 is on a combination heating /cooling unit. The unit used as their alternate #2, which is the low bid, is an unused close out air conditioner with a heating capability. Their company purchased a large quantity of these air conditioners and, thus, they were able to give us a.low purchase price on these units. The current heating situation at'the West Fire Station has made us very aware of the need for a backup unit for heating, that would be able to take over heating the building permanently if the existing 25 year old boiler is replaced. There are currently several cold areas in the building which would be covered by this heater. The worst situation is in the radio area and sleeping room, where winter temperatures make it very uncomfortable. This heating unit would be able to supply 100% of the heating in the kitchen, meeting room, entryway, bathroom, radio room and bedroom. As the existing fire station boiler is currently 25 years old (the complex opened in October of 1958), the replacement of the boiler can be expected within the next five years. The apparatus room of this complex is currently served.by the existing boiler. Provisions would not be made to include this in the heating /cooling zones of the new rooftop unit. As the apparatus room is attached to the open areas of the garage, with doors continually opening to the outside, when it does become necessary to replace the current boiler, it would be to our advantage to use an infra -red heater. This type of heater warms the cement floor, not just the air, so energy is not wasted when the garage doors are opened. "74e Som&44ef Mau Memorandum to 5y Knapp August 3, 1983 Re: Addition of Air Conditioning to West Fire Station The single.three ton unit from Rouse Mechanical Company provides 36,000 BTUs cooling and 125,000 BTUs heating. Its ability to both adequately and efficiently cool and heat all areas we have requested cooling and heating for (without any other cooling or heating units) is being substantiated in a letter from Clint Anderson of Rouse Mechanical Company. It has been verified by Robert Callander, Street Department Supervisor, and the Assistant Fire Chief that we have the 220 volt three phase power that is needed for this unit. The liquor store would not be serviced by this unit and an additional roof heating unit would be needed when the existing boiler fails. We are requesting the purchase of the combination heating /cooling unit listed as alternate #2 from Rouse Mechanical Company. This was the low bid and is less expensive than the single cooling units which were quoted from Rouse Mechanical and which were quoted from Egan Company. We are attempting to expedite this purchase as we are in the middle of the cooling season. We have currently spent about $5,000.00 of the allocated $30,000.00 for the fire stations. This $5,000.00 was used on the back window replacement at the fire station and on electrical parts and electrical installations. The remaining funds are to be used for the remodeling of the West Fire Station building. t Recommended For Approval: Approved: RB:ps cc: Craig O. Hoffmann Buildings and Grounds Superintendent lod Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1983 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 26th day of September, 1983, in the City Hall at 8:00 P.M. to pass upon the proposed assessments for the following charges: Delinquent Public Utility Accounts and Delinquent Weed Destruction Accounts at such time and place all persons owning property to be assessed for such charges will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessments. 2. The City Clerk with the assistance of the City Engineer, shall forthwith prepare assessment rolls for the above charges, and shall keep them on file and open to inspection by any persons. _3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the V4 proposed assessments to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. 4. The City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in such assessment rolls not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. { Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS WHEREAS, "PSAP" or "Public Safety Answering Point" means a communication facility which receives 911 calls and either dispatches, entends, transfers, or relays the calls to appropriate public safety agencies; and WHEREAS, the experience of public safety officials and other emergency public service providers indicates a specific need for back -up .contingency plans for all PSAP'S operating within the County of Hennepin in the event of a PSAP failure, for the express purposes of obtaining emergency public assistance; and WHEREAS, an agreement has been proposed between the City of Brooklyn Center. and Hennepin County to establish procedures for providing back -up public safety communications for the City of Brooklyn Center in the event of the failure of the City's Public Safety Answering Point. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of- Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it hereby authorizes and directs its Mayor and City Manager to enter into and execute on behalf of.the City of Brooklyn Center an agreement to establish procedures for providing back -up communication suppoft so that the appropriate emergency service agency will provide assistance to the 0 caller, in the event of a PSAP failure in the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Splinter 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. SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT b Courthouse _ < Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 ENE, HENNEPIN LFU Don Omodt, Sheriff _ .. July 7, 1983 Chief James Lindsay Brooklyn Center Police Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Chi Lindsay: The of public safety officials and other emergency service providers indicates a specific need for back -up plans for all Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), operating within Hennepin County, in the event of a PSAP failure for the express purpose of obtaining emergency public safety assistance. In consideration of this need, Captain Vodegel of my staff has conferred jointly with various PSAP managers including Russ Husten from your Department to discuss the development and implementation of a mutually - acceptable Agreement which should establish procedural safeguards for providing back -up public safety communications for your community in the event of a localized PSAP failure. Due to your input, and that of the other conference participants, the enclosed Agreement was drafted and is recommended for submission to your City Council for approval. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the enclosed Agreement with your city on June 14, 1983. Your cooper- ation in recommending this Agreement for approval by your city officials is greatly appreciated. If you would like further information about this, please call either Captain Don Vodegel at 348 -3771, or myself. Sincerely, SHERIFF DO:cjt Encl. cc: Captain Vodegel HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer CONTRACT NO. 30382 AGREEMENT G THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the County of Hennepin and the City of Brooklyn Center, both bodies politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, the experience of public safety officials and other emergency public service providers indicates a specific need for back -up contingency plans for all PSAPs operating with the County of Hennepin in the event of a PSAP failure, for the express purposes of obtaining emergency public assistance, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants set forth herein,*the aforementioned agree as follows: ARTICLE I. GENERAL PURPOSE It is the purpose of this Agreement to establish procedures for providing back -up communications support so that the appropriate emergency service agency will provide assistance to the caller, in the event of a PSAP failure. ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS A. "PSAP" or "Public Safety Answering Point" means a communications facility which receives 911 calls and either dispatches, extends, transfers, or relays the calls to appropriate public safety agencies. B. "Alternate Routing" refers to the capability of transferring calls when PSAP failure conditions are encountered. C. "Support Personnel" means qualified personnel capable of providing communications assistance to the alternate location by the disabled PSAP. ARTICLE III. CONDITIONS A. The services provided as a result of this Agreement are considered services to the general public and this Agreement shall not be construed to create an employer - employee relationship, principal -agent or co- partnership relationship between the parties. B. The cost of operating the respective dispatch centers of Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Center shall remain the responsibilities of the respective PSAP agencies, except as herein provided. C. This Agreement applies to 911 telephone calls which are subject to response by an emergency public service agency within the jurisdiction of an affected PSAP but are alternately routed due to a PSAP failure. ARTICLE IV. PROCEDURES A. Identified PSAP failure, once encountered, shall be communicated to the alternate location and respective telephone company. B. Once notification has been provided to the alternate location, support personnel shall be dispatched to the alternate location, if requested, for the purposes of providing necessary support to their communications center. C. The Hennepin County PSAP shall receive 911 calls and, depending on the condition of the PSAP failure, shall relay them to personnel of the affected PSAP or alternatively, dispatch them on appropriate radio frequencies as determined by Hennepin County PSAP. The following data shall be maintained by the Hennepin County PSAP: 1. Type of incident /action requested; 2.. Location or address where emergency'` service is needed; 3. Community or jurisdiction; 4. Name and telephone number of caller, if known; 5. Time call -was received. D. In the event it is determined at a later date that it is necessary to provide other telephone equipment or procedures to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, amendments to the Agreement may be executed 2 - - identifying the cost or obligations of each party for such additional equipment or service, E. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Hennepin County PSAP to establish specific operational policy and procedures connected with the full implementation of this Agreement. ARTICLE V. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTIES In consideration of the mutual services provided herein, both parties agree that nothing contained herein is intended to be or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co- partners between the parties hereto or as constituting an agency relationship in any manner, whatsoever. The individual agencies identified within this document are and shall remain independent entities with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. Each of the agencies identified represents that it has, or will secure at its expense, all personnel required in performing its service obligation under this Agreement and that the acts of P g g g its employees are the responsibility of that agency alone. The County and the City hereby mutually agree to defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other against any and all claims or actions in law or in equity arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of their respective officers, agents or employees while engaged in the provisions of the community support services described herein; subject to the provisions of M.S. 466.02 and 466.04. Each agency identified agrees that in the performance of this mutual service its employees shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the other agency identified in this Agreement, including, without limitation, _ 3 _ z 3 tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, disability, Worker's Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, severance pay and pension. The parties having signed this contract and the Henn Min County Board of �1 Commissioners having duly approved this con tract on .�2 / 1983, ��._ and the proper City officials and County officials ving signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this Agreement COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and binding. will be legally valid . STATE OF MINNESOTA g s 4cha Its Co my Board Assistant County Att Date: And: Chet_ (`= Acanr; atp lDepu ty County Administrator Approved as to execution: ATTEST,: U erk of the County Board vN ssistant County Att„p�rneyr/J Date: Approved as to legality, form, and execution. CITY OF By: Its Mayor City Attorney for Date: ATTEST: City Clerk EXCERPT 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 AUGUST 4, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER_ The Planning 'Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Mary Simmons, and Nancy Manson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer ineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commmissioner Versteeg had called to say he would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 14, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the July 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, and Manson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. 8 -4 -83 -1- i + { S APPLICATION NO. 83041 (Zantigo Mexican Restauran,tsi hat Application lication.No. 83041 was 'n Chairman Lucht then informed the a nni g ommission t being withdrawn. The Secretary recommended that the Planning Commission take a formal action acknowledging the withdrawal of the application. ACTION ACKNOWLEDGING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83041 (Zantigo Mexican Restaurants) Motion Malecki seconded b Commissioner Simmons to acknow edge with- n b y Commissioner drawal of Application No. 83041, a request for a variance from Section 34 -140, Sub- section 3.A(3) of the Sign Ordinance, in light of revised plans by the applicant. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO.83039 (Zantigo Mexican Restaurants) Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and The Sec y . building plan and special use permit approval to use the property at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard for a convenience food restaurant and to install a drive -up window. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83039 attached). The Secretary stated that he was not sure if the site presently had underground irrigation. He stated that if the site did not have underground irrigation, an additional condition should be added. Chairman Lucht stated that he had seen the irrigation working at the property on the day of the meeting. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. K. C. George, representing Zantigo Mexican Restaurants, stated that he had nothing further to add to the staff report. Chairman Lucht asked whether he had a problem with extending the median. Mr. George answered that he had no problem with extending the median. He explained that the opening in the media n was designed to allow cars that would have a break down to be pushed out of the line in order to keep traffic moving. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83039) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present was p on wished to speak theapplication. Hearing none, he called for a motion pp to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING otion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Lucht then asked the Planning Commission whether they had any comments on the application. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the residents across Brooklyn li Boulevard had been notified of this application. Chairman Lucht checked the list of addresses receiving notices and confirmed that they did receive notices. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83039 (Zantigo Mexican Restaurants) 'Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 83039, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes,, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 8 -4 -83 -2- 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be dertermined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. The plan shall be modified to indicate a closed drive -up lane bounded by a 3' si.de median and curb and gutter on the south and east prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83040 (Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, an appeal from Section 35 -322, Subsection 3 (d) of the Zoning Ordinance regeuesting that ° an athletic club be allowed adjacent to R2 zoned property at the southeast corner of Lakebreeze Avenue and Azelia Avenue. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No.83040 ,attached). The Secretary explained that the staff did recommend denial of the appeal, but noted that the appeal application is a vehicle by which the Planning Commission can undertake a review of its ordinance relating to athletic clubs. Commissioner Simmons was curious as to why a racquet club is lumped with a bowling alley in the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that a racquet club certainly seems more park - like.. The Secretary explained that the ordinance uses the term "athletic club" which may comprehend more than racquet and swim clubs. He noted that the proposed use is more similar to a park. He noted that there are outdoor tennis courts adjacent to a residential property at Grandview Park and at other parks around the City. He suggested that the ordinance provision was a throwback to an era when gymnasiums had a bad connotation where bookies hung out along with other unsavory characters. The Secretary pointed out that a food store would probably have a much greater impact on the adjacent residential property than the proposed racquet and swim club. Commissioner Simmons clarified that that impact would be negative. The Secretary agreed, noting that the property could be developed for a shopping center use as a permitted use in the zoning district. In response to another question from Commissioner Simmons, the Secretary stated that not a lot of communities have the kind of abutment restrictions that the City's Zoning Ordinance contains regarding certain uses. The Secretary added that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits saunas, massage parlours, school bus garages from abutting any residential property. Commissioner Malecki noted that a club can be a more restricted use and would likely have less impact on abutting property. The Secretary answered that it was difficult to distinguish in the ordinance between a use that is open to the public and one that is limited to a membership. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission should look at the use generally rather than considering only the type of establishment proposed in this case. 8 -4 -83 -3 Commissioner Ainas asked whether there.was any ordinance requirement relating to temporary infl able structures. The Secretary nswered that he was not aware of inflatable any, stated that such a structure would be subject to Bud require- Code ments and normal setback requirements. The Secretary then pointed out to the Planning Commission that a small portion of the seven acre site actually lay within the R2 zoning district and would have to be rezoned for the site plan to be effect- arding a connection between there would be a concern re uated. He also stated that 9 Lakeside Ave. and Lakebreeze.Ave, i.f the club were built as proposed. He explained that Grimes Avenue would have to be vacated and that traffic from the Beach Apart- ments might be forced up to Lakebreeze Avenue if the Indiana Avenue access onto Highway 100 were closed. He also noted that Azelia Avenue would perhaps have to have a cul -de -sac or turnaround dedicated at the southern end,or that it might extend through to Lakeside Avenue. He suggested, however, that the Planning Commission not labor over the specifics of this particular site plan, but concen- trate on the general planning question as to how the Zoning Ordinance should treat athletic clubs. The Planning Assistant then reviewed a brief survey of ten municipalities that he had contacted on the day 9 of the meeting. He explained that most of the communities P allow athletic clubs as a special use or a permitted use in a retail /co mme r ce zoning district.' He noted that a few communities allow athletic clubs in more limited commercial zones, similar to the City's Cl zoning district. Finally, he noted that in one or two cases such athletic clubs are allowed in residential zoning districts by a conditional use permit. He stated that none of the com- munities surveyed have a restriction on whether athletic clubs can abut residential uses. He noted, however, that a number of communities do impose an extraordinary setback when such uses abut residential property. The Planning Assistant then briefly reviewed data received from Short-Elliott-Henderson, a traffic consultant often used by the City. He explained that racquet and swim clubs might generate around twelve trips per thousand square feet of building area, whereas a retail center, which would be a permitted use in the C2 zoning district, could generate as much as 80 trips per thousand square feet of net leaseable area. Commissioner ..Simmons asked what might be meant by athletic club " in the ordinances in other communities. The Planning Assistant answered that, during his survey of other cities, he specifically told other planning personnel that he was referring to a racquet and swim club type use. Commissioner Simmons asked what type of uses should be grouped together with athletic clubs if the ordinance were to be changed The Planning to do .away with the abutment restrictions. g Assistant stated that would be up to the Planning Commission, but noted that within the group of uses with which.athletic clubs are associated, there are two categories which break down to those involving more or less active exercise and those involving more passive recreation or entertainment. He stated that those involving active exercise might be allowed next to residential, while keeping the other establishments separate. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that if the abutment restriction were removed, the special use standards would still apply and could be used to prevent certain uses from abutting residential property on a case -by -case basis. The Secretary agreed, recommending that the Planning Commission still keep such uses as special uses within the C2 zoning district in order to have greater control over their location. He pointed out that presently the ordinance assumes that a use such as an athletic club which abuts R1, R2 or R3 property will have a detrimental effect on the sur- rounding property. He explained that the ordinance, therefore, assumes that the Standards for a Special Use Permit cannot be met by such uses when abutting resi- dential property. 8 -4 -83 -4- Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt there were other uses, which under the Zoning.Ordinance .can abut residential property, which have a greater impact on surrounding property than an athletic club. The SecreLary agreed and pointed to auto dealerships as an example. Chairman Lucht stated that the Commission should probably deny the appeal, but look at a change in the Zoning Ordinance. There followed a discussion regarding various options open to the Planning Commission for classifying the proposed use. The Secretary pointed out that the Planning Commission could consider the use similar in nature to other permitted uses and bypass the entire special use permit process. He also noted that the Commission could deny the appeal and change the ordinance to do away with the abutment restriction altogether. He added that the Commission could split off some of the uses which are presently prohibited from abutting R1, R2, and R3 property and allow those uses, including athletic clubs, to abut resi- dential property. Commissioner Simmons expressed some concern about the potential activity in the parking lots of athletic clubs. She stated that alot would depend on the.clientele as to whether problems arose. Chairman Lucht asked what controls could be used if the parking for the use was not adequate. The Secretary answered that he was not sure what formula in the Zoning Ordinance would be applied to the proposed use. He stated that it might fall under the category of: spaces as required b the City 9 9 Y P q Y Y Council for the particular use. Chairman Lucht noted that parking could still be controlled under special use permit review. The Secretary stated that the first question the Commission should address is whether the abutment restrictions should con Commissioner Ainas stated that he had no objection to such a use abutting residential property. He stated that the Planning Commission should look at such uses on a case -by -case basis and that the ordinance should be left as is without the abutment restriction. The Secretary pointed out in response that eliminating the abutment restriction from all the uses would shift the burden to the City to show that there is an adverse impact on residential property presented by certain uses. Chairman Lucht asked whether it was necessary to list athletic clubs at all or whether they could just be considered similar in nature. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance is an ex- clusive ordinance and that, unless a specific use is listed, it is prohibited. Commissioner Simmons asked what a "gymnasium" would include. The Secretary pointed to the special use permit granted to Viking Gym in the Industrial Park as an example of what is meant in the ordinance by gymnasium. He also stated that many of the activities in the Community Center might be part of an athletic club use. Chairman Lucht suggested the possibility of having a separate category for racquet and swim clubs. The Secretary tated that that was an option for the Commission, Y P _ or that the Commission could group such uses with athletic clubs, gymnasiums. health spas, etc. Chairman Lucht asked what is meant in the ordinance by a "recreation center. The Secretary pointed to the Community Center as perhaps the best example of a recreation center. Commissioner Simmons asked whether that included establish- ments with electronic games. The Secretary explained the ordinance has a separate classification for "amusement centers" which are not permitted to abut any residential property. Chaairman Lucht suggested that the ordinance eliminate the term "recrea- tion center" because it is too vague. The Secretary noted that the applicant was present. Chairman Lucht called on the applicant and asked whether he had anything to add. Mr. Alan Kimpell, of H. W. Fridlund, Architects, showed the Planning Commission an aerial photograph of the racquet and swim club at 98th Street in Bloomington. He noted that the use is bounded by single - family residences on two sides and noted the dense landscape screening., Chairman Lucht asked what activities were carried on within the athletic club. Mr. Kimpell answered that there were tennis and racquet ball courts; swimming 8 -4 -83 -5- pool, a running track, sauna and steam rooms, a pro shop, and a vending and snack area. He also noted that there is a party room which can be reserved. He noted that the club was for private members and was not open to the public generally. In answer to Commissioner Simmons, Mr. Kimpell explained that there was no liquor available on the premises and that any member of the public could join the club. Chairman Lucht asked what would be done to control the parking problem. Mr. Kimpell n noted that people who belong to the club pay membership fees a d .rent out certain courts at specif is times. He stated that there was more control in this type of use than in an athletic club or gymnasium that is open to the public. He explained the experience that Normandale Tennis Clubs has had in other communities and stated that their operations have no parking problems. He also noted that the establishments are _ meant b Y family-oriented. Mr, family- oriented. - Commissioner Simmons asked what w as Y Marvin Wolfenson of Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. explained to the Planning Com- mission that there are 18,000 memberships in the nine clubs in the Metro area. He ' explained that 10,000 of these memberships are family memberships. He state d t hat the racquet and swim club would be a positive asset to the community and noted that it would cost between six and seven million dollars. Chairman Lucht then polled the Planning Commission as to how they felt regarding the application. Commission Ainas stated that he preferred to allow athletic clubs to abut R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. Commissioner Manson a g reed as did Commissioner Simmons. Commissioner Malecki stated that she would do away with the abutment re- striction for this particular use, but not for bowling alleys and other similar uses. She noted that a private club allows for more control. Commissioner Manson dis- tinguished the proposed use from a public rink which would be open certain hours with large numbers of people going and coming at certain times. She stated that the coming and going all the time. d use would have a few g 9 9 propose people c p Chairman Lucht asked whether there would be a problem with dropping the term re- creation center from the list of uses in Subsection 3(d) of Section 35 -322 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary stated that he would have no problem with such a change. He suggested that the Planning Commission might want to change the ordi- nance by taking the uses listed after "skating rinks" and put them in a separate categroy which would be allowed to abut R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. He recom- mended that the Commission keep such uses as special uses in the Zoning Ordinance. gg He suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the appeal, but a change in the Zoning Ordinance to allow such uses to abut resi- dential property. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83040 (Normandale Tennis Clubs,Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend denial of Application No. 83040. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The.motion passed. The Commission then discussed how it would recommend a change in the Zoning Ordi- nance to the City Council. Commissioner Malecki stated that she had a problem with allowing gymnasiums to abut residential property. The Secretary stated that a gym- nasium could include a boxing club, racquet ball courts, etc. Mr. Allen Kimpell asked the Planning Commission to consider setting up racquet and swim clubs as a specific use by themselves. He stated that he did not want to be denied the possibility of a special use permit because the use they proposed was not adequately defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Manson stated that she would not want an athletic club with a liquor license next to Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property. Chairman Lucht stated that he thought liquor establishments could not abut Rl, R2 or R3 property anyway. The Secretary clarified that such establishments may abut Rl, R2 and R3 zoned property . Chairman Lucht concluded by saying that the Planning Commission would need a little more time to develop better language to recommend to the City Council. 8 -4 -83 -6- ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE CHANGE Motion Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend that the City Council direct staff to develop ordinance language listing tennis and swim clubs . as a permitted special use in the C2 zoning district without an abutment restriction and also, to look at other uses listed in Subsection 3(d) of Section 35 -322 for possible change of status. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Whi e the Secretary briefly reviewed upcoming business items for the August 11 Planning Commission meeting, there was a•motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:16 p.m. Chairman 8 -4 -83 -7- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83041 Applicant: Zantigo Mexican Restaurants Location: 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 34 -140, Subsection 3.A.(3) to allow for a roof sign in addition to a freestanding identification sign at the proposed Zantigo Restaurant (presently Happy Dragon) at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is zoned C2 and is bounded by the Green Mill restaurant on the north, by a private service road on the east, by Farrell's on the south, and by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west. The Sign Ordinance states that "each establishment or enter- prise eligible for a freestanding sign may instead elect to have a roof sign for identification (in lieu of a freestanding identification sign), provided that the sign does not extend more than six (6) feet above the roof line or more than the respective height as prescribed in Table 34A, whichever is lesser, and further provided that the sign does not exceed the respective area as prescribed in Table 34 A." The proposed sign does not extend more than 6 feet above the roof line nor is it too large in area, but it is not in lieu of a freestanding sign. It is in addition to a freestanding sign. Therefore, a variance is being sought essentially to aTwan extra sign, although the same sign would be permitted if it were located below the roof line. The applicant has submitted a letter (copy attached) in which he addresses the Standards for a Sign Variance (also attached). The applicant explains that the chimney wall sign (which lies above the roof line - see elevation attached) and the - building design are standard features of Zantigo restaurants. He states that eliminating this sign would create a particular hardship to their building design. The applicant also argues that the location of the standard Zantigo chimney wall sign is unique to the Zantigo building. He points out that other restaurants in the area do not achieve a similar image or design and, therefore, do not need a sign located above the roof line. Finally, the applicant states there will be no detrimental effect resulting from the sign. Staff are opposed to the granting of the requested variance because allowing both a freestanding and a roof sign for the same property would seriously undermine the Sign Ordinance. Regarding hardship, it appears tows that a smaller chimney sign could be placed below the roof line or that the chimney could be moved somewhat westward to'allow the same sign below the roof line The building is not really unique, nor is the parcel of land on which it is located. Many buildings have distinctive treatments along the roof line which, by themselves, attract attention to the building. Such treatments do not justify extra signery above the roof line. Finally, we would argue that it is detrimental to allow both a freestanding sign and a roof sign to a single, small establishment (establishments with 400' of frontage on two major thoroughfares are entitled to an extra freestanding or roof sign). Such a variance would open a floodgate of demands for additional signery not now permitted under the Sign Ordinance. Action on this application should serve as a signal to other potential applicants that additional..signs beyond what is com- prehended by the ordinance, will not be permitted.,Denial is, therefore, recommended. 8 -4 -83 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83039 Applicant: Zantigo Restaurants Location: 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard ! Request: Site and Building Plan, Special Use Permit ! The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel the existing Happy Dragon restaurant at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard to a Zantigo restaurant (classified as a convenience food restaurant) with a drive -up window. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by the Green Mill restaurant, on the east by the private access road serving establishments between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by Farrell's and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Convenience food restaurants are special uses in the C2 Zoning district which cannot abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property at either a property line or a street line. The land across Brooklyn Boulevard is zoned Rl. However, abutment across a major thoroughfare with a right -of -way as extensive as in this case (e.g. over 100') and a frontage road has not been deemed to constitute abutment for the purposes of this section of the ordinance. Also, the land west of the frontage road is proposed for C1 uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Seating for the restaurant is to remain at 62 seats. There will be six (6) employees on the maximum shift. Thus, the parking requirement is 34 stalls. This amount has been provided, including two handicapped stalls. Access to the site is via two openings off the private access road. Although none of the stalls are angle stalls, an entrance sign at the north access and an exit -only sign at the south access create a counter- clockwise, one -way traffic flow. Two of the stalls have limited accessi- bility because of the movements of cars leaving the drive -up window. These should be designated for employee parking. The proposed drive -up window is to be located on the east side of the restaurant. A 10' wide driving lane is provided along the south and east sides of the building. There is stacking space for about five cars. A 3' wide concrete island is proposed south of the drive -up lane with an opening to allow cars to get out of the line and exit, if desired. Staff recommend that the proposed opening be closed and the 3' wide median be carried continuously around the driving lane. It should also be surrounded with B612 curb and gutter in accordance with Section 35 -710 of the Zoning Ordinance. The landscape plan calls for a number of new plantings around the building and in three landscaped islands on the east side of the site. Thirty -three (33) Goldfinger Potentilla are indicated along the west and south sides of the building. Along the east side of the building, 15 Broadmoor Junipers, 5 Goldfinger Potentillas and 10 Columnar Buckthorn are shown. Plantings in the landscaped islands include: Broad - moor Junipers Purple Leaf Plums, Varigated Dogwoods, Japanese Redleaf Barberry and Proebeli Spirea. No real changes are proposed in the drainage or utility plans. Curb delineation will be changed somewhat at the southwest and southeast corners of the site to better shape the new parking layout which includes four parallel stalls along the south, side of the site. Zantigo does plan to change the exterior of the building from brick and .exposed aggregate to stucco. The shingled mansard roof will be changed to a mansard with clay tile. Decorative wood posts will be placed on the .east and west walls to add to the Mexican style being sought. The existing floor plan will not change drastically. All access to the building will be from the west side, while the existing east entrance will be converted to the drive -up window. The restrooms will be rearranged and a counter area roughly in the center of the building will be installed. Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject 8 -4 -83 -1- Application No. 83039 continued to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. The plan shall be modified to indicate a closed drive -up lane bounded by a 3' wide median and curb and gutter on the south and east prior to the issuance of permits. 8 -4 -83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83040 Applicant: Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. Location: Southeast corner of Lakebreeze and Azelia Avenues Request: Appeal This application is an appeal from the restrictions of Section 35 -322 Subsection 3(d) which lists athletic clubs as a special use in the C2 zoning district, but which prohibits such uses from abutting an R1, R2, or R3 zoning district, including abutment at a street line. The appellant wishes to establish a racquet and swim club on three parcels of land located immediately west and south of the Denny's restaurant at Highway 100 and France Avenue North. The three parcels are bounded by Denny's on the east, by Highway 100 right -of -way on the south, by a single- family home and Azelia Avenue on the west, and by Lakebreeze Avenue on the north. Single - family homes(zoned R2)are located on the west side of Azelia Avenue so that the site in question does abut R2 zoned land both at a property line and at a street line. The appellant has submitted two letters, one from Alan Kimpell of H. W. Fridlund Architects- Planners and one from Arlyn Grussing, Director of Planning for the City of Bloomington. Mr. Kimpell's letter states a number of arguments as to why an athletic club should be allowed to abut Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property. The letter from Mr. Grussing describes a similar use in Bloomington, which does abut single- family uses, and it also gives information about the City's action regarding the facility. This report primarily reviews the letter from Mr. Kimpell. In his letter Mr. Kimpell acknowledges the conflict which the proposed use has with the Zoning Ordinance and makes the following arguments as to why an athletic club should be allowed in the proposed location: 1. The principal building is set back 372' from the residential district. The land coverage of the building is less than 12% of the 7+ acre site. 2. The land between the building and the residences will be used for tennis courts and parking. The tennis courts will not be illuminated during the summer. During the winter, two air structures will enclose the tennis courts. 3. Unlike many permitted uses, there are no peak periods of traffic for this type of use. 4. Truck traffic for the athletic club would be less than for a restaurant or supermarket which are permitted. 5. There is little noise generated by this use other than an occasional human voice or starting of a car better than a service station (staff note: a service station would not be permitted to abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned land either). 6. Athletic clubs do not produce or release offensive odors into the air; nor do they harbor or contribute to the rodent population as other permitted uses (restaurants, food stores) -often do. 8 -4 -83 -1- Application No. 83040 continued 7. The large amount of open area on the proposed plan (attached) will be heavily landscaped giving a park -like appearance, unlike that of a construction contractor's office and storage yard (staff note: outside storage in the C2 zone must be screened from residential property). Mr. Kimpell concludes his letter by saying that the 'Racquet and Swim Club on 98th Street in Bloomington relates closely to the proposed club in Brooklyn Center. He notes that meetings with the City and the neighborhood developed a site and landscaping plan agreeable to all. It should be clearly understood that this is not an application for site and building plan approval or a special use permit. Staff did not accept such an application because of the conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. Granting a special use permit for an athletic club at the location in question would constitute a zoning violation. Moreover, any variance to allow the abutment with R1, R2, or R3 zoned property would constitute a use variance which is expressly prohibited by the Zoninq Ordinance and also by State law. The only real solution to the appel- lant's dilemma is a change in the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance to take athletic clubs out of the category of C2 special uses which cannot abut Rl, R2, or R3 zoned property and put that use into a category of uses which may so abut. The purpose of Mr. Kimpeil's letter is really to argue the merits of this particular case for s a 9 9 such n ordinance change. The Planning Commission, however, should consider any change to the Zoning Ordinance not merely on the basis of a particular site plan, but on the basis of whether athletic clubs generally are a type of use which may abut R1, R2, or R3 zoned property without violating the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (See Section 35 -100 attached). The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance may be summarized as seeking to provide for an values. 'm protecting property a s n ern of land use while at the same time 9 P P Y ffi ie t pattern e c p P Abutment restrictions between various uses are primarily intended to protect property values by keeping certain uses separated. Zoning is also aided by a Com- P 9 P 9 rehensive Plan and Zoning Ma which arrange zoning districts so that low intensity uses are buffered from high intensity uses by uses of intermediate intensity. Regarding the intensity of the athletic club use, we would agree with the appel- lant's assertions that an athletic club would tend to have less impact on Rl, R2, or R3 zoned property than some uses which, under the ordinance, are allowed to abut. For instance: the sale of'motcr vehicles at retail (a special use), educa- tional uses, hospitals, eating establishments, and the retail sale of food (all are permitted C2 uses) On the other hand, gymnasiums and athletic clubs are grouped with a number of other reasonably similar uses, such as health spas, recreation centers, skating rinks, bowling alleys and sports arenas (all listed in Section 35 -322 3(d)). If athletic clubs are allowed to abut Rl, R2 and R3 zoned property, it would seem to follow that these other uses should also be allowed to abut. (We would note, however, that the City of Bloomington does distinguish between racquet clubs and "commercial recreation." The applicant has argued to staff that the tennis courts - adjacent to Azelia Avenue are no different than a public park. That is true. However, we do not.believe that the Zoning Ordinance can make distinctions between accessory or partial uses and the whole use regarding abutment restrictions (though certainly the site and special use review process may examine the best arrangement of a use on a site. The Planning Commission must make a judgment that athletic } clubs per se (and other similar uses) may abut R1, R2, or R3 property without diminishing property values, or whether they may not. Staff will attempt to have I additional information regarding traffic generation and regulations of other { communities at Thursday night's meeting 8 -4 -83 _2- 4 Northwest Residence, Inc. Diane 011endick Wright, ACSW - 1848 Pumice Point f Eagan, MN 551 452 -3145 August 2, 1983 Mr. Gerald Splinter, City Manager City of Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55 Dear Mr. Splinter: Enclosed, please find a copy of the parking plan and floor plan for occupancy, Both plans have been reviewed and approved by members of the Planning Office, Mr. Shallcross and Mr. Warren, between the May 23rd and June 13th City Council meetings. Mr. Thompson has requested that I submit to you the plans for review and consideration by the City Council. Should you determine that there is a problem with either plan,.please call me or my Counsel immediately. We are must willing to review and discuss any concerns you may have with the plans. Thee attorneys and myself Will be present at the City Council meeting August 8th. Thank you for your consideration. a Sincerely, ) _ Diane 011endick Wright, ACSW cc Mr. Thompson Mr. Wilson Ms. Lentz and Mr. Janus i Northwest Residence - '03 - 69th Avenue North Not drawn to scale by DMIOrt 1st FLOOR Bedroom Bath- Bedroom Laundry Bedroom Bath- Bedroom room room (2. resiients) (2 residents) (2 residents) {2 residents) Bedroom Be3roon Living Room Living Room (1 resident) gtairwell, (1 resident) 3456 ,7�, ( ee -� G 1983 tV ED GEfi�1ER, P�1'u�1. ra Northwest- Reside ;ice - ':%;U3 69th Nor-,h Not drawn to scale by D1,OW 2nd FLOOD Bedroom Bath Bedroom Office Bedroom Bath- Bedroom (2 residents) room (2 residents) (2 residents) room (2 residents) 1 Kitchen Dining and Living Roam Living Room Office Stairwell �, CEl Entrance to K'LAHr 5(_W4 UULE j i 1 101 EY yvLKLt' 1_aNtc6R� JtrNIPlFPUS HOkILOHtRUS h Q L PHILADF [OZO .F'114 r ` A :\ ; 11.t �FRAXIMUS PI'MMIMN. l rr }`i . EX15rINt� -rctetk. S lulllt, 1, Al r, ' L•�tAtit.. _ tti '�_ y A. XI (_I ;3U LD c ► ' �{ Pt-Ex 3 4 -" P '_ [ f• {ail t� x Ca o id 1 01 11`1 t V tQ� 11111[ %I�' It (.(�F,t ( :�� I ! it I� N Y s, tt 1 LkAtl 4A i tri tf+ !t ` ..r A-1A1 t' to 1 � 3 .Q. 6 '8 �..rt.. LAW ti 41 , 1 t, ' !( AUG 1983 RECEIVED.. rl 1 TMOKIYN CENTER, MNA. mo I cit( 0 11r ►'I t �i 1t,t PLO _F .PLAJ-4 rOP PROP ;tb TPZW1T o CENTS 140H Gi CAL It, z ' — v {?DAFT. Kst+ 9883 � -1 69 T14 AV t- 0. v�lrt� DIANA WRtvi—fT i8 .443 pr. F.Ait`,�Atj Mtn 55122— to the issuance of permits. 2. The new building plan is limited to lots abutting 72nd Circle. 3. Plan approval is subject to all conditions pertaining to the original plan approval for Plat 5 under Application No. 79031. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Pialecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83021 (Diane Wright) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for a special use permit to operate a board and care facility for up to 18 mentally i -ll adults in the four -plex at 4408 -69th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83021 attached). The Secretary pointed out that the parking lot at the four- plex is in poor shape and needs resurfacing. He recommended changes in the con - ditions to limit the occupancy to that allowed under the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance, to require resurfacing of the parking lot, and to limit the number of cars at the facility owned by clients. Commissioner Malecki referred to Condition No. 4 and noted that the clients would have no past history of violence and yet would be allowed if they had attempted suicide more than six months previously. She asked for clarification. The Secretary stated that he understood the condition to preclude those with a history of violence or suicide attempts within the last six months. Commissioner Simmons stated that violence towards self and others more than six months previous to placement in the facility was not good enough. Commissioner Sandstrom asked how the staff would calculate whether the parking provided on the site was adequate. The Secretary stated that there was no similar use in the Zoning Ordinance to use as a parking formula. He did point out that visitors would probably come to the site when staff were not there. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mrs. Diane Wright explained that the program would exclude persons who had attempted suicide within the last six months. She explained that people with a history of violence prior to six months previous would also not be considered. She stated that the program day at the facility would be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. with 2.5 staff persons on duty during that time. She stated that there would be one staff person at the facility from 8,.00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m, and that that person would be awake. In answer to a question from Commissioner Simmons, Mrs. Wright stated that there would be an extra person on the premises to do cooking and clerical work. Commissioner Simmons asked for the minimum qualifications of the people working at the facility. Mrs. Wright stated that the minimum qualifications would be a 8A degree in behavioral science and one year of experience in a mental health facility. The Secretary asked for a clarification on the past history of violence of the clientele. Mrs. Wright answered that the clients would have no past history of violence toward themselves or- others. She stated that no one who had attempted` suicide within the past six months would be admitted to the program. Commissioner Malecki asked for an explanation of the difference between aggression towards self and suicide. Mrs. Wright stated that aggression towards self would consist of actions to harm oneself, but not with the intention of killing oneself. Commissioner Ainas aksed what was the average age of program.participants. Mrs. Wright answered that it was about 26 to 28 years. She explained that the average length of stay in such .a facility would be lZ to 2 years with a minimum of six months.. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether one staff person after 8:00 p.m. was enough. Mrs. Wright.stated that, at this level of care, it was adequate. Commissioner. 5 -12 -83 -3- Sandstrom asked what would be done if there was a disturbance after 8:00 p.m. Mrs. Wright answered that there was a back up person to help with any emergencies. Commissioner Malecki asked what the qualifications of the night person would be. Mrs. Wright stated that the person would have to have a BA degree and at least 2' years of experience as a mental health worker. Commissioner Malecki asked where clients who had been in the program would go after. their stay at this facility. Mrs. Wright answered that they .would go into a more independent living situation most likely. Commissioner Malecki asked where the clients generally would come from. Mrs. Wright answered that they would be from a number of places including similar facilities in Minneapolis, the VA Hospital at Fort Snelling and occasionally g Anoka. Commissioner Simmons asked what a typical day would be like for a client and how clients would move toward more independence. Mrs. Wright answered that the program would begin with an individual assessment of P the. person's problems, eeds and goals. P A program plan would then be developed and implemented on a day to day basis. In answer to another question from Commissioner Simmons, Mrs. Wright stated there are vocational outlets for the clients working in volunteer activities. Commissioner Simmons asked whether they would need to be supervised off the premises. Mrs. Wright answered that the clientele would have access e e s tothe community without supervision. In response to Commissioner Simmons, Mrs. Wright explained that one of the kitchens would be remodeled to a sleeping room. Commissioner Simmons asked whether Mrs. Wright felt the residents would be too crowded at two to a bedroom, Mrs. Wright answered in the negative. Chairman Lucht asked whether some of the clients would be driving. Mrs. Wright explained that most of the clients live on $35 to $45 per month and cannot afford a car. She added, however, that there are some Veterans in the program with a greater stipend who can afford a car. Commissioner Simmons asked whether people in the programs would not get-jobs. firs. Wright answered that there is hop e that O some could maintain a job, but that the program tends to be prevocational. Chairman Lucht asked whether some of the clients would go back to live with their families. Mrs. Wright responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there would be group therapy sessions where people would help each other with their problems. Mrs Wright answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the program would make use of sheltered workshops to help clients move toward a vocation. Mrs. :!right responded in the affirmative, but added that there is a limited number of such workshops in the Twin Cities area and that only -a few of the clients could be placed in those facilities. Chairman Lucht asked Mrs. Wright what her past experience was as a mental health worker. Mrs. Nright answered that she had spent seven years working in the mental health field and that she has most recently been administering the Park Manor in Minneapolis. Commissioner Malecki asked whether it was the same type of program in Park Manor. tars. alright answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the service providing agency would be incorpor- ated. Mrs. Wright answered in the affirmative, but that she would be the sole person in the corporation. i In response to a question from Commissioner Malecki, Mrs. Wright explained that there were 13 such facilities in Minneapolis. Chairman Lucht asked what was the history_ �of these facilities in other neighborhoods. Mrs. Wright stated that the facility that she is familiar with has no problems with the neighborhood. Commissioner Malecki asked whether there had been any contacts with people in the neighborhood in question adjacent to 69th Avenue North. Mrs. Wright answered that she had only spoken with one of the tenants in the building and that she had sent letters to people within the neighborhood explai the facility. 5 - -83 - Commissioner Versteeg asked what was the average length of stay of one of the clients. firs. ! answered that it was about P years with a minimum of 'about six months. Chairman Lucht asked Mrs. Wright how it was decided when someone was ready to leave. firs. Uright answered that a person would be ready to leave when they have completed the program plan established at the beginning of their stay. She stated that the decision is made with the client, the family of the client and other mental health professionals that are treating the client. She also stated that the client is con - sidered an adult and is free to leave at any time. She stated that they are not bound to stay in the facility, but are there voluntarily. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether a doctor or psychiatrist isn't required to decide whether someone is nal are in- leave the facility. firs. Wright answered. that those s e ready to l e e h ty . P i ,, t professionals volved in the decision, but that other people are also involved. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the clients go to another facility for more intensive care or less intensive care. Mrs. Wright answered that she would hope that they would go to a place for less intensive care. Commissioner Simmons asked where clients usually go when they leave. Mrs. !.!right answered that they usually go to another facility with a more independent living situation. Commissioner Malecki asked for an explanation of the Vulnerable Adults Act. Mrs. Uright stated that it is a State law requiring people who work with mentally ill or mentally handicapped people to report incidents where they know such persons have been abused by others. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Ms. Jean Boutang, 4408 68th Avenue North, read a lengthy statement to the Planning Commission opposing the proposed boarding care facility. She pointed out that she was a graduate student of social work herseif and that she was not ignorant as to the clientele or the facilities that are used to house mentally ill. She urged the Planning Commission to be intelligent consumers and objected to the haste with which the application seemed to be pursued. She stated that the people in the program often suffer from severe psychosis and that these people are not at all the same population as mentally retarded and troubled youth. She stressed that she has experienced dealing with mentally ill adults. Ms. Boutang stated that people who are in programs where they are supposed to self medicate often do not keep self medicating with harmful results. She pointed out that anyone can act aggresively from time to time. She pointed out that John Hinckley was considered a sell functioning individual by his psychiatrist before the assassi- nation attempt. She also related a story of a young person she had met who felt that his actions were constantly led by the devil and that he occasionally felt the need to kill. Ms. Boutang stated that the tenants of the apartment building helped pay taxes in the community and patronize local businesses. She asserted that property values would be affected by the proposed facility. She also questioned the location of the property, noting that it was close to a major intersection. Ms. Boutang also asserted that it was impossible to house two adults in each of the bedrooms in the four -plex building. She concluded her remarks by registering a complaint that she had not been notified until two days before the public hearing and recommended that the Planning Commission "proceed slowly and table the matter seeking more in- formation. She also noted a 1980 study of mentally ill group care facilities across the country that contained useful information for the Commission to consider. Commissioner Sandstrom asked Ms. Boutang whether she felt that services for the mentally ill should be in the same area as they are from. Ms Boutang answered that the reason the facilities are in MInneapolis is because of the Hennepin County Medical Center which provides most of the treatment in the area for mentally ill She stated that she did not know of any facility to treat mentally ill persons in northwest Hennepin County. Commissioner Simmons suggested that there was perhaps a 5 -12 -83 -5- need for more boarding care homes because the State had cut the budget for mental hospitals and had forced a number of the patients out into less intense treatment facilities. Ms. 6outang stated that she did not know if the individuals in question needed to be hospitalized, but stated that the DPW Rule 36 facilities are better than board and care homes. She again urged the Planning Commission to slow down in its consideration of the special use permit. Commissioner Sandstrom expressed the concern for equal housing opportunity for - minority groups and people of low and moderate income and also mentally ill patients in suburban locations as well as the central city. Ms. Boutang stated that she agreed with this philosophy, but that the building in question is too small for the purpose proposed. Chairman Lucht stated that the County would require a minimal amount of space per person before they would license the facility. He also pointed out that a private owner could buy the building and convert it to condominiums and move the existing tenants out just as easily as in the present case. Chairman Lucht then recognized Ms. Marge Wherley from the Hennepin County Human Services Division. She explained that she would be one of the people to regulate the proposed facility. She also recited for the Planning Commission the history of the funding for board and care facilities and the reason why the County had so little time to enter into a contract for this facility if it was to obtain funding for it. Ms. Wherley stated that Diane Wright was considered a leader in the mental health field and a very capable administrator. She explained that most mentally ill people are fearful and have a poor self concept, but are not necessarily dangerous. She also stated that the people would be closely supvervised in the proposed facility. Finally, Ms. Wherley stated that there was a substantial need in the community for this kind of facility so that not everyone would have to be cared for in Minneapolis, but could be closer to home. Commissioner Simmons asked Ms. ' Wherley whether people left on their own can be relied upon to self medicate. Ms. Wherley answered that they generally can. She added that a professional mental health worker can tell fairly easily when medications are not being taken. Commissioner Simmons noted the poor bus service to downtown Minneapolis. Ms. Wherley answered that the facility would have a van and staff cars. available to take persons to downtown Minneapolis for medical appointments. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons regarding family visits, Ms. Wherley stated that clients were more likely to have visits from their families if the facility is located in the community. She also stated that the clients would feel more comfortable about going out to see their families. Commissioner Simmons asked whether Ms. Wherley thought that six stalls on the property were adequate. Ms. Wherley answered that the County has a facility with only three parking stalls and they are usually not all filled. She stated that she did not expect a problem with parking. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there were doctors in the northwest area who could treat the patients. Ms. Wherley answered in the affirmative. In response` to a question from Commissioner Maiecki, Ms. Wherley stated that the 1980 study' referred to earlier, showed that there was no evidence of a decline in property values in neighborhoods adjacent to such facilities. , She also stated that surveys of neighbors of regulated facilities showed that there were no problems caused by such facilities. Commissioner Simmons cited the fact that there have been extensive budget cuts in government generally. She asked Ms. Wherley if the County was short of staff to supervise these facilities. Ms. Wherley answered that there was actually more money available now for such'supervision than there had been in the past. Commis S sioner Simmons asked whether this was because patients were being pushed out of State hospitals. Ms. 14herley explained that the State had established the legal obligation to license group care facilities, but had not provided any funding to implement the licensing procedure. She stated that, when this was discovered, 5 -12 -83 -6- more funding was actually made available to properly license board care facilities. Mr. Traxel of Apartment 2, 4408 -69th Avenue North, stated that he was very much against the proposed board and care facility. He stated that he had lived in Brooklyn Center for 14 years. Mr. Traxel asserted that the building was too small for 18 people. He stated that there is parking in the lot for no more than five cars. He stated that he presently had one child and one on the way and that it would be difficult to move out. He suggested that the people who want to put the facility in his building look for a four -plex that is vacant. He concluded by asking whether the people who would use the facility come from Brooklyn Center. Commis- sioner Simmons stated that it was her understanding that patients from Brooklyn Center would have priority in being placed in the facility. Mr. Traxel stated that the bedrooms were too small. He asked the Planning Commissioners whether they could live in a room that was 8' x 12' He also pointed out that Mrs. Wright's first five years of experience as a mental health worker were with.children rather than adults. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the County seems to have a lot of faith in Mrs. [[right. Commissioner Sandstrom pointed out that the current owner of the building could convert the building to condominiums and the tenants would still have to move out. Mr. John Lazinski of Families and Friends for Mental Health Action in the northwest area explained to the Commission that he had fathered a mentally handicapped daughter. He stated that he favored the facility because it was difficult to find a residential facility within the community. - He stated that the environment in which mentally ill persons live is very important. He pointed out that the objective of the program is to help return mentally ill people to the mainstream of society. Mr. Don Lowry of 6914 Lee Avenue North stated that people on the average move every five years, but that the people on that block have lived there for an average of 25 to 30 years. He told the Commission that the neighborhood had long ago fought a battle to keep a commercial use out of the property in question and were able to get an apartment instead. He presented a petition to the Planning Commission signed by a number of local residents who were opposed to the proposed use. Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Lowry why he was opposed to the proposed facility. Mr. Lowry stated that he simply did not want it to be there. He stated that the neighbors were in the neighborhood first and had fought the location of a body shop at 4408 -69th Avenue North in order to get the four -plex. He stated that there would be more people residing within the building than at present and that 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard is a bad corner for all these people to be living near. Commissioner_ Simmons noted that Mr. Lowry was concerned about what was happening outside the building. She suggested that Mr. Lowry was afraid of something and wanted to know what. She stated. that she herself was concerned regarding the adequacy of the treatment at the facility. Mr. Lowry stated that there were too many people that would be living in the building that would have no interest in the property. Chairman Lucht stated that Mrs. Wright would own the property and would have an interest. Commissioner Malecki asked Mr. if he would object if there were only 10 residents in the building. Mr. Lowry stated that he still would not want the use in that particular building. He stated that it should be kept residential. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the petition is not specific regarding its objection to the facility. He pointed out that Mrs. Wright would own the and would have an interest in maintaining it. He stated that Mr. Lowry was assuming that the building would not be kept up. There was a complaint by Mr. "Traxel that there had not been enough tine to respond to the proposal by the neighborhood. Commissioner Malecki agreed stating that time was needed to work the .proposal out. She also stated that the objections voiced by the residents had been heard before in other public hearings, but she sympathized with their need to get together to discuss the matter. Chairman Lucht also appreciated 5 -12 -83 -7- the concern about timing, but added that he felt that many of the comments re- flected a desire simply not to have the facility in their neighborhood. Mr. Furman, another resident at 4408 -69th Avenue North, stated that the proposal has come on too fast. He stated that he has spent 10 years counseling people with mental health problems. He stated that he had worked for Neon and Summit House and added that he knew a great deal about the human services field. He pointed out that the property at 69th Avenue North has no sidewalk or curb and that clients will be walking a lot. He stated that the clients could walk to Willow Lane Park and that they have an impact on other people using the park and would create tension. He stated that this was not a safe location for the facility in light of the traffic. He also stated that the parking lot could not accommodate more than five vehicles. He pointed out that the high traffic volumes in the area caused a lot of carbon monoxide and this was not healthy for the residents either. He pointed out that the average stay in these facilities is five years rather than a year and a half to two years. He stated that he felt that the occupancy for this building was too high. He admitted that no one in the neighborhood particularly wanted the facility in their backyard and stated that this was a natural reaction. He also pointed out that there had recently been a problem with the boiler and that people could not sleep because of the noise. He complained of the poor soundproofing and stated that this would be quite a problem with 18 people in the building. Mrs. Marsha Lovejoy of 6331 Bryant Avenue North stated that she had been in a hospital for 10 years and that she had also lived in a home similar to the one proposed. She stated that it is like living in a big family. She stated that this kind of facility helped her more than staying in a facility. She pointed out that she now has a job as a means to support her family. She concluded by saying that this type of facility means a lot to her and that there are others in the community that have a need for a board and care facility. Commissioner Sandstrom asked about the history of the board and care home that Mrs. Lovejoy had lived in. Mrs. Lovejoy answered that she recalled a meeting with people in the neighborhood to go over problems caused by the facility. She stated that those who lived furthest away and did not even come to the meeting were those who complained most about the facility. She stated that some people thought that the facility was a "drug house." -She explained that the drugs that people take that live in these facilities are not the kind that make a person feel euphoric, but are needed to cope with day to day living. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons regarding the size of the rooms, Mrs. Lovejoy stated that the rooms in State institutions are even smaller. She pointed out that it is good t 0 o share a room since it keeps one from sinking too deeply into one's thoughts. g p g pY 9 Mr. Cliff Houde, of 4416 -69th Avenue North, pointed out that the traffic on 69th Avenue is getting worse all the time. He also stated that walking in the neigh- borhood is dangerous because there are no sidewalks. He stated he thought that money was the bottom line of the proposed use. Ms. Eileen Moran of the Northwest Human Services Council, stated that she wished to substantiate the need for the facility. She stated that it was a priority of Northwest Human Services Council to find a vendor to provide care for mentally ill adults in this area. She stated that there was need for at least 18 beds based on the population of the northwest area. She stated that there was a lack of organized advocacy within the northwest Hennepin area for mentally il'l adults. She also stated that many persons within the northwest area migrate to facilities' in other parts of the Metro area because there are no facilities available here. Miss Kathy Prieve, also of Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, stated that the.people presently go to Minneapolis or St. Paul for treatment because of .a lack of facilities in the northwest area. She acknowledged that many people fear the 5 -12 -83 -8- mentally ill. She stated that people often consider them crazy or violent; but, she pointed outs the arrest rate for mentally ill persons is 1/12 that of the general population Mr. George Olson of Brooklyn Center stated that he had a son who was mentally ill and who does take his own medications. He stated that he has lived in Brooklyn Center for 26 years and has had a need for this type of facility for a long time. He stated that he was not concerned regarding the small bedroom"in the facility, since most of the time the patients are not in their roams, but are involved in activities. An unidentified resident of 4408 -69th Avenue 'North, stated that she was concerned regarding the potential residents of the building. She stated that she lived with two small children. She noted that there is no place on the property for recreation and that she must go to the park with her children and that there are a number of other small children in the park down the street. She pointed out that the area is close to a busy intersection and stated that there are better locations in the City than this one that are less busy and have a larger plot of land. She suggested that the City and other concerned persons look for other places to locate this facility. Mr. Olson stated that one of the benefits of being close to a busy inter section is that it also allows residents the chance to use the bus. Mr. Furman pointed out, however, that bus service is unreliable in the winter time and that he has had to wait two to four hours for a bus at this location. Miss Dee Christine from "The House" stated that there would be a van available for the residents if bus service was not adequate. She also stated that they could be transported to an area where they could have recreational outlets. Another woman who lived in Brooklyn Park expressed support for the proposed facility. She stated that "The House" has changed her son greatly. Mr. Dave Kapert, a social worker for Hennepin County, explained that he works with the mentally ill and stated that there is a critical need for the proposed facility. He stated that it is important for each community to care for its own mentally ill persons and not to force them into a mental health ghetto. He stated that he knew the families within the area are crying out for this kind of facility. Mr. Don Lowry, 6914 Lve Avenue North, pointed out that the applicant had definitely brought her "ammunition" by bringing a number of people to speak on their behalf. He expressed concern that the Commission would .listen to these people and yet would not pay any attention to the petition that he had presented to the surrounding neighborhood. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not mean to imply that the petition was unimportant. Mrs. Kiersten Langsetmo, an architect in this field, stated that she had developed other group homes. She stated that the proposed location is fairly good, although not ideal. She stated that it was a positive factor that it was near a bus line -and that the location was easy to get to. She also stated that it was good that the area was close to a residential area and not completely surrounded by commercial - uses Ms. Jean Boutang, of 4408 -69th Avenue North, asked the Commission for more time to consider the proposed application. She urged them not to act quickly. fir. Traxel, also a resident at 4408 -69th Avenue North, stated that he also had a mentally handi- capped brother and did not mean to suggest that he was against t facility locating someplace in the community. He only felt that the proposed location was not a good one and would create hardships for himself. firs. Helen Lazinski stated that those` who support the facility had also found out about it only a couple days earlier. She stated that people who would benefit from the proposed facility just want to show that it is needed. 5 -12 -83 -9 Chairman Lucht observed that _the neighborhood obviously feels rushed by the pro - posed facility. He stated that he felt that the Planning Commission should table the application, leave the public hearing open and help to set up a meeting in the neighborhood. He stated that after this meeting the application could be brought back later. Mrs. Diane Wright asked whether she could have the meeting with the neighborhood between the Planning Commission and the City Council meeting. She explained that funding for the facility is only available if a contract is secured by June 1. She explained that she cannot get the contract unless she has purchased the property by June 1. She also noted that her purchase agreement to buy the property will expire June 1 and is contingent upon her obtaining the special use permit. Commissioner Simmons stated that if the application were acted on this evening, it would ensure the ill will of the neighborhood toward the facility. Com- missioner Sandstrom asked whether the applicant could not meet with the neighborhood between now and the City Council meeting. The Secretary stated that the applicant's purchase agreement is not a deciding factor for the Planning Commission. He stated that the Planning Commission must decide whether they are ready to make a recommendation at this evening's meeting based on the Standards for Special Use Permits. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt he was ready to decide on the application Commissioner Versteeg pointed out that this is a brand new venture in Brooklyn Center and should perhaps be pursued more slowly. He stated that if it is a good thing, it will no doubt be approved in time and there will be money available for it. Commissioner Simmons also stated that she supported the idea of the board and care facility, but felt that the appli- cation had come on too fast for'the neighborhood. Ms Marge Wherley, of Hennepin County, stated that she has sought special use permits in other communities and has attended numerous meeings with other neigh- borhood groups. She stated that until the facility is in operation, people generally will not change their minds. Commissioner Simmons complained that the applicant was putting the Commission on the spot by asking for a recommendation at the first meeting. Ms. Wherley stated that she had no advance notice of the narrow window of availability of the funding and that if more time had been available to work the problem out, she was certain that they would have met with the neighborhood previously. There followed - a brief discussion regarding the timing of the application and whether it should be acted on at this evening's meeting. Mrs. Bornholdt, of 6939 Lee Avenue North, asked whether 69th Avenue North was going to be widened. The Assistant City Engineer stated that there was no likelihood that 69th Avenue North would be widened west of Brooklyn Boulevard in the relatively near future. He explained that the County still has jurisdiction over 69th Avenue North west of Brooklyn Boulevard, but that the City now controls 69th, east of Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that there are plans by the City to widen 69th, east of Brooklyn Boulevard some years from now. C LOSE PUBLIC HEARING Notion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the Planning Commission had received sub- stantial testimony and that it could make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Sandstrom also stated that he felt qualified to vote on the matter. He stated that the Planning Commission did not create the pressure to make a timely decision and should not be blamed for it. He stated that the Planning Commission - should respond to the applicant's request. Commissioner Malecki stated that the Planning Commission needs to decide whether the Standards for a Special Use Permit` are met. She stated that this was not a matter of personal opinion, but that the Planning Commission is - charged to make a determination as to-whether those standards are met. She stated that she favored the special use permit because she felt those 5 -12 -a3 -10- standards were met in this case. Commissioner Versteeg stated that he felt the applicant should have looked at a different location. Commissioner Simmons stated that she would favor the operation, but that the people planning this operation have been less than frank with the stated at she felt the applicant was creating ei hborh 00 d. She that 9 ill will with the n p 9 P neighborhood. She also stated that she did not believe that money would not be available after June 1. She stated that she would vote to table the application, e also stated that but not to approve it at tonight's meetin Commissioner Verste g b 9 Pp he would vote to table the application. Chairman Lucht stated that he agreed with Commissioner Malecki, that the question was whether the Standards for a Special Use Permit are met. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83021 (Diane Wright) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 83021, subject to the following conditions: 1.. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable state and local codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Existing tenants shall receive a minimum of 60 days notice prior to the date he are expected to vacate the e t p p Y remises. p 4. The permit authorizes the boarding of not more than 18 mentally ill adults with no past history of violence, toward themselves or others and /or chemical dependency. Any change to increase the clientele residing n the facility or to 9 Y include previously violent or chemically dependent individuals will require amendment of the special use permit by the City Council and the occupancy of the facility shall be governed by the standards set forth in the Housing Maintenance Ordinance. 5. Unless accompanying the entire clientele in an excursion off premises, there shall be at least one qualified mental health worker on the premises at all times. 6. A copy of the current State Board and Lodge License shall be kept on file with the City. 7. Any structural, plumbing or mechanical modifications to the existing building shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Official (and the City Sanitarian where appropriate with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed within one year from the date of Council approval to examine the history, if any, of complaints or police actions relating to the facility. 9. The applicant shall resurface the parking lot to meet the standards of the Housing Maintenance and the Zoning Ordinance prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 10. Parking for client vehicles shall be limited to two spaces on the premises. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Sandstrom. 5 -12 -83 -11- Voting against: Commissioners Simmons and Versteeg. The motion passed. Com- missioners Simmons and Versteeg explained that they would prefer to table the application. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 11:01 p.m. and resumed at 11:15 p.m. APPLICATION NOS. 83010 and 83017 (Rod Bernu) Commissioner Ainas excused himself from consideration of these applications because of a possible conflict of interest. The Secretary then introduced Application Nos. 83010 and 83017, site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for 21 addi- tional townhouse units at the Earle Brown Farm Townhouses at York Place and 69th Avenue North. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application No. 83010 and 83017 attached).- He also recommended that the Planning Commission consider some landscaping adjacent to some visitor parking stalls in order to prevent glare from the cars shining into the existing southerly units. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Rod Bernu stated that he agreed with the Secretary's recommendations regarding eliminating the tennis court and the additional landscaping. Commissioner Simmons recommended that Evergreens be used to shield the headlights of the guest parking stalls since they would do the best job in the winter time. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 830171 Carman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Mr. Al Seran, Attorney for the eight existing townhouse owners at the Earle Brown Farm Townhouses, stated that, since the last meeting, he has confirmed his theory regarding the disposition of replatting a plat of torrens property. He stated that he had checked this out with the Registrar of Titles at Hennepin County and that such a replat would have to be decided in District Court. Mr. Seran stated that the proposed layout is a rehash of earlier proposals and that the residents were still opposed. He noted that the units are not as large as those built in 1973. He also stated that there has been no showing by Mr. Sheehy that he could not build the original concept that was platted ten years ago. He asked who is the real property owner: Mr. Sheehy or Mr. Bernu. He stated that the existing owners wanted no more than 14 units to be built and that these units should be built along the lines of the original units. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission must look at the proposal based on City Ordinances and could not be concerned with the economic feasibility of one type of unit or another. Commissioner Simmons stated that the Planning Commission has done about as much as it can to reduce the number of units at the site. She stated that the plan has changed since the original proposal, putting fewer units into smaller blocks of units. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he sympathized with the existing homeowners as to their concern for quality. He concluded, however, that the Planning Commission A s not in a position to recommend denial of the appli- cation if it meets ordinance standards. Commissioner Malecki stated that it would be nice if the original plan was built, but the Planning Commission could not require this. Commissioner Simmons stated that she still thought the plans were boring. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83017 Rod Bernu MRion by Commissioner.Malecki seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of Application No. 83017, subject to the following conditions 5 -12 -83 -12- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83021 Applicant: Diane VIri ght Location: 4408 69th North Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a boarding care home for mentally ill adults in the four -plex located at 4408 69th Avenue North. The property is zoned R4 and is bounded by single - family homes on the west and north, by a Mobil Oil gas station on the east, and by 69th Avenue North on the south (the Post Office is across 69th from the four -plex) Boarding care homes are special uses in the R4 zoning district. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she explains that most mentally ill individuals in Hennepin County, that are unable to live independently or with family members, live in one of the 750 beds available in board and care of lodging facilities in Minneapolis. There is, she states, a lack of residential facilities in their own communities and the result has been a mental health ghetto which separates the mentally ill individual from family,friends, and community. Mrs. Wright includes with the letter a Program Summary Sheet, Target Population information and a description of Program Services (attached). She points out that the facility must meet regulations of a number of public agencies and that operation of the facility would involve Special Use Permit (City) Board and Lodge License (State) Food and Beverage License (City) DKI Rule 36, Category II (County) Vulnerable Adults Act (State) Compliance with State and Local Fire and Health Ordinances Purchase of Service Contract (Hennepin County) The facility would house eighteen residents (sleeping two to a bedroom). The build- ing presently has four two- bedroom units at 750 sq. ft. There will be two common living rooms, a recreational room and a single kitchen and dining area. The kitchens in the two upstairs units will be to offices for counseling, etc. She notes that most of the residents will not have automobiles and that parking Tot has ample space for Staff parking. She concludes her letter by stating that she has been administrating and implementing residential treatment programs for seven years She expresses a strong commitment to the development of services for and protecting the rights of mentally ill adults. She also seeks input from the com- munity and the neighborhood. In the Program Summary, Mrs Wright explains that the target population would consist of "chronically mentally ill adults over the age of 21 with severe or persistent mental or emotional disorders which severely limit their. functioning capabilities relative to primary aspects of daily living. Low functioning (IQ 70 or above) are accepted. Clients must be able to monitor and administer their own medications. A referred client with a history of aggression towards self or others, of suicidal attempts within the past six months, and /or chemical dependency will not be con - sidered for placement. The program attempts to provide a supportive environment to enable the clients to learn to set goals, to live independently, to develop personal, mental - and physical self - awareness, and self - esteem and motivation. Staff for the facility would be two and one -half staff to eighteen residents during weekdays. Nights and weekends, the ratio is one staff person to eighteen residents. The.key positions include: Adi,iinistrator /Program Director, A.C:S.W.,1 Health 5 -12 -83 -1- Application No. 83021 continued. Counselor, h1.S.W., Mental Health Workers, B.A. and.A.A with experience. All staff members meet or exceed qualifications as defined by Department of Public Welfare Rule 36. The facility would provide numerous services to the residents, including: case management, crisis services, independent living skills services, motivation and re Motivation, recreation and leisure,'socialization, support group, social services, vocational and other services. The Commission is referred to the applicant's submittal for a further clarification of these services. f City staff did not recognize that Y there is likely would be less than candid if we g to be some concern within the neighborhood over the proposed facility. The City presently has three or four facilities for either the .mentally retarded or troubled youth. None are located within the Northwest Neighborhood and none have generated complaints from the surrounding neighborhood once they are in operation. There are no facilities within Brooklyn Center that provide board and care for mentally ill adults. In light of the fact that most such facilities are concentrated in the poorer neighborhoods of Minneapolis, the Minneapolis City Council has recently adopted an ordinance limiting the population of board and care residential facilities to 1% of the neighborhood population in which the facility(ies) is(are) located. As a result, some residential care facilities are now moving out to suburban locations. Concerns have also been expressed by one of the existing tenants regarding the hard - ship of moving out. Such a concern is real, but does not seem related to the standards for a special use permit. We recommend that :a condition of approval require adequate time for existing tenants to move out. e ial use permits may be special Y - in Ordinance p in Section 35 220 -of the Zoning p Accord to 9 9 granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following standards are met: a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. b) The special "use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal rt f surrounding property o p e and improvement 9 p and orderly development for uses permitted in the district. d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. e) The special use shall, in all other respects; conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Staff's judgment is that the above standards do appear to be met in the present case. The proposed use enhances the general welfare by providing a necessary service to mentally ill adults, many of whom are from this area. We recognize that the propose' use may present some risk to public health, safety and comfort-(we don't see any risk to morals), but this risk does not seem unacceptable, particularly in light of the fact that persons with any history of violence toward themselves or others will not be admitted to the facility. 5 -12 -83 -2- Application No. 83021 continued The proposed use should not impair the normal use or enjoyment of surrounding property. It may be alleged by some that property values would decline, but our estimate is that any effect on property values would be imperceptible if the facility operates within the regulations established by the State and the conditions of the special use permit. As to impeding the normal and orderly development and improvement -of surrounding property, it should be noted that there is no vacant property in this immediate area. There is land zoned commercial (Cl) along Brooklyn Boulevard between 69th Avenue North and 70th Avenue North and this area could convert to a commercial use. Also, the Comprehensive Plan envisions the entire block of _land bounded by 69th on the , south, by Lee Avenue North on the west and Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, as an area to accommodate possible retail development in the future. Such redevelopment does `not seem at all imminent and the proposed special use would not create any greater impediment to such a conversion than a regular four -plex or the single - family homes which are also located on the block. Finally, the proposed use seems to present no. traffic problems. The applicant actually intends to make use of the existing parking lot more for a recreation area than for parking We have a site plan which shows the present parking lot has only 6 stalls, rather than the 8 that are normally required fora four -plex. There may be room to' add -two more additional stalls in front of the four -plex. Mrs. Wright does not anticipate more than one visitor at a time. The Planning Commission may wish to explore with the applicant whether these two additional stalls should be put in. In conclusion, staff feelthat the proposed use is a use which is comprehended in the Zoning Ordinance for the R4 zoning district. As such, we feel the City should accommodate the proposed residential care facility somewhere within the City with appropriate conditions. The proposed location is as good as any we are aware of. We, therefore, recommend approval of the special use permit subject to at least the following conditions 1 The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable state and local codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Existing tenants shall receive a minimum of 60 days notice prior to the date they are expected to vacate the premises. 4. The permit authorizes the boarding of not more than 18 mentally ill adults with no past history of violence, toward themselves or others and /or chemical dependency. Any change to increase the clientele residing in the facility or to include previously violent or chemically dependent individuals will require amendment of the special use permit by the City Council. 5. Unless accompanying the entire clientele in an excursion off r re rises, Htere shall be at least one qualified mental health ore on tie premises at all times. 5 -12 -83 Application No..83021 continued 6. A cop y of the current State Board and Lodge License shall be kept on file with the City. - 7. Any structural plumbing or mechanical modifications to the existing building shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Official (and the City Sanitarian where appropriate) with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed within one year from the date of Council approval to examine the history,, if any, of complaints or police actions relating to the facility. 5 -12 -83 -4- PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 83021 SUBMITTED BY DIANE WRIGHT FOR A SPECIAL R-PII AT We - 69TH A " The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 3 through 11 of the May 12, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 83021. He proceeded to review the location of the subject parcel for Council members and also noted that the zoning of the parcel was R4• He explained that board and care facilities are special uses in R4 zones. The Planning Director reviewed the applicant's letter requesting the special use permit and pointed out that the proposal comprehends 18 residents in the facility. He then reviewed the proposed remodeling plan for the four -plex. The Director of Planning& Inspection reviewed the target population of the facility as described by the applicant and also the screening process used for the residents. He then reported that the applicant had listed the qualifications of various staff members, and that they all meet or exceed the requirements set forth by the Department of Public Welfare. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that a lengthy public hearing was held at the May 12, 1983 Planning Commission meeting and that numerous people spoke both for and against the application. He added that the City has three other similar facilities and that none have received complaints once they had been in operation. He pointed out, however, that none of the existirig facilities in the City are for mentally ill patients as proposed in this application. In review of the public hearing held at the Planning Commission meeting, he noted that comments were received from the existing tenants in the building. The Planning Director reviewed the ordinance criteria for the issuance of special use permits and noted that the Planning Commission had found that the applicant had met the criteria for a special use permit. He also reviewed the lot size of the subject parcel and explained that it is a small lot, approximately the size of a single family lot. - He noted that the Planning Commission discussed a possible lack of parking space and subsequently recommended that, if the application were approved, parking for client vehicles should be limited to two spaces on the premises. He added that the staff reviewed the modifications to the site proposed by the applicant, and as a result, estimated that these modifications may limit the number of residents to 16 or 17. Again, he pointed out, that at the public hearing held at the Planning Commission meeting several people spoke against and in favor of the application, and that a petition was submitted to the Planning Commission opposing the special use permit. He noted that one of the residents at 4408 69th Avenue North cautioned the Planning Commission to go slow in its consideration of the application. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that the Planning Commission at its May 12, 1 983 meeting recommended approval of Application No. 83021 subject to ten conditions which he reviewed for Council members. The Director of Planning , also pointed out that the vote of the Planning Commission was four to two in favor of the application. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that a public hearing had been scheduled for the application this evening, and that the proper notices had been sent. 5 -23 -83 -7- Mayor PIyquist commented that he was in favor of the concept of the facility but expressed a concern that the application had come up rather rapidly and had not had appropriate time to be considered b the neighborhood. He also expressed a concern y xP that there is an existing state statute which might limit the number of residents in a group home of this type. In response to Ti:ayor Eyquist's concern, the City Attorney commented that, with regard to the use of single family homes for group homes, the number of residents would be limited to 6. He also commented that if homes for handicapped individuals are not addressed in local ordinances the state statute says that a group home is a permitted use in the zone, although, the Council can place conditions on the use. Discussion continued regarding the state statute limiting the number of mentally handicapped individuals in a group setting to 16. Discussion also ensued regarding the statutes reference to mentally retarded individuals and the City Attorney requested the applicant to comment on the difference between mentally retarded individuals and persons with mental illness. In response to the City Attorney's question Mrs. Wright stated that persons are considered retarded if their I.Q.'s are 70 or less but that the problems of persons who are mentally ill are with regard to their thinking processes and not with their mental capacities. The City Attorney then asked I rs. Wright whether she considers the two types of disabilities the same for purposes of the state statute. Mrs. Wright replied that she does not consider them the same for the purposes of the statute. The City Attorney then asked Mrs. Wright what the factors were which led" her to a number of 18 residents. Mrs. Wright explained that one of the considerations was budgetary and noted that the cost of care increases if there are less than 18 and that another consideration was that a square foot analysis of the site did meet the criteria for 18 residents. The City Attorney commented that the Brooklyn Center ordinance, with regard to a board and care facility, does not deal with a definition of mental retardation or physical handicap but that the state statute seems to limit the number of individuals in a facility to 16. Tirs. Wright stated that if the number of residents in the facility were reduced to 16 she would have to go back to the county to renegotiate her contract which may mean a reduction in staff. The City Attorney inquired of the Planning Director what the definition of a family was under the City ordinance. The Director of Planning Pr Inspection explained that five unrelated persons in each unit would be permitted under the ordinance. In' light of the Planning Director's comments, the City Attorney stated that this could mean that 20 individuals could be permitted in a four -plex or the site could be looked at as similar to a home for mentally retarded persons and limited to 16. He stated that his view favored a more conservative approach which would be to limit the number of individuals in the facility, as per the state statute, which would mean 16 residents allowed in the facility. Councilmember Theis then commented that the state statute appears to address mentally handicapped individuals, and inquired what the difference between mentally retarded and mentally ill individuals would mean. The City Attorney stated that it would be very difficult to give it a definitive answer to this question. He pointed out that mentally retarded persons, according to the applicant, require more care than mentally ill persons, and therefore, it would seem that mentally ill persons would require less services from the community. He pointed out that a strict reading of -the statute, according to the applicant, would not address the mentally ill individual. 5 -23 -83 -8- Mayor Yyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83021. Mayor Nyquist requested that, since the Planning Commission public hearing resulted in a very lengthy detail of public comment he requested persons speaking at the public hearing to.limit their remarks to items that were not already contained in the Planning Commission minutes since the City Council has already reviewed those comments. Mayor ltyquist recognized Mr. Don Lowry, 6914 Lee Avenue North. Mr. Lowry stated that he preferred to address the Council after Mr. Grosshans spoke. Mayor Nyquist recognized 11r. Grosshans who read a letter submitted to the City Council regarding the concerns of the adjoining neighborhood over the proposed special use. Mr. Grosshans proceeded to read the letter and expressed the sentiment that the residents are opposed to the facility, and that he believed the applicant does not meet the standards for a special use under the ordinance. He added that he believes the risk to the public health, safety, and comfort of the neighborhood from the proposed application is real and genuine. He added that he believes the use of the property as proposed by the application would reduce the property value in the area. He explained that he also had questions of the Council, including, who will own the facility, how it will be taxed, and how it would affect tax revenues. In summary, Mr. Grosshans contended that the site is not desirable for the proposed use, and that Council should be aware that the residents are considering legal action if the Council approves the application, but added that the Council should not view this as any type of threat. Mr. Grosshans then submitted his letter to the Clerk to be included with the official meeting record. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether any information was available with regard to the effects of similar facilities on adjoining neighborhoods. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Marge Wherley from the Hennepin County Human Services Division. She explained that the Planning Commission in Minneapolis did a comprehensive survey on such facilities, and found that people who lived next to such licensed facilities viewed the facilities as good neighbors. She added that the Minneapolis Planning Commission did a national literature search on the subject, and that no evidence was found to show any decrease in property values in adjoining neighborhoods unless there were five such facilities per block. Ms. Wherley added that, often, fears expressed at hearings of this type are those that many people have about mental illness, but she added that at the point of a one year review of such facilities she has not seen any complaints expressed by residents with regard to the facilities. Councilmember Hawes reviewed a history of the assessed value and sales of homes located next to similar facilities in Brooklyn Center for mentally retarded persons, and noted that no reduction in property values had been shown. Mayor Nyquist commented that, in response to a previous question posed by Mr. Grosshans, the owner of the facility would be Mrs. Diane Wright. The City Manager responded to the second and third parts of Mr. Grosshans question noting that the facility would be taxed as a multi- residential property, and that he did not think ` the tax revenue for the City would increase or decrease if the facility were established. The City Manager commented that the Residential Alternatives facility existing in Brooklyn Center was approved in 1978 and occupied in 1979. He proceeded to review the sales of homes adjoining the Residential Alternatives facility. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr . Clifford Houde, 4416 69th Avenue North, who stated that 5 -23 -83 -9- he has lived at his present address for 30 years, and expressed fear over the establishment of the proposed facility. The next speaker at the public hearing was Mr. Don Lowry, 6914 Lee Avenue North. Mr. Lowry recounted past zoning proposals for the site and explained that the original rezoning proposal was for a commercial use which was later changed to the current four -plex usage. He painted out that he brought in a petition of 23 people opposed to the facility and presented it at the Planning Commission meeting. He also stated that the people speaking in favor of the facility are not local residents. Mayor Nyquist recognized Dr. Duane Orn, who stated he was a family doctor at the Northport Medical Center. Dr. Orn stated that he was in favor of the issue and reviewed the history of how mentally ill people have been treated in the past. He explained that society did not take very good care of mentally ill people and centuries ago they were-beaten and killed. He pointed out that because of this treatment mentally ill persons were sequestered in institutions. He further explained that mental health care outside an institution is the highest quality care that can be given, and that his opinion is that the proposed facility provides a good alternative for the care of mentally ill persons. Dr. Orn concluded his comments by stating that he would recommend that the Council consider the application favorably. Mayor Nyquist recognized the next speaker at the public hearing, Mrs. Martha - Lovejoy, 6331 Bryant Avenue North, who stated that she was the Director of Project Overcome, a project designated to fight off people! s fears of the mentally ill. She explained that she has been mentally ill for many years and that the most help she got was in a half- -way house located in St. Paul. Mrs . Lovejoy spoke favorably for the application. Mayor I%Tyquist stated that he had received a telephone call from Mr. George Olson, who expressed support for the application, but could not be here this evening to personally address the issue. The next speaker at the public hearing was Mr. Vernel Rystad, -of Brooklyn Center, who discussed his son, Bruce, who became mentally ill in 1978, and committed himself to the Anoka State Hospital. He explained a social worker recommended a half -way house for his son's treatment. He stated that Mr. Wright's program is what the community needs and it would allow people released from institutions to recover and find employment. He reiterated his statement regarding the need for residential treatment for mentally ill persons in the northwest area, and added that he could sympathize with the residents in the area but wondered how the request could be denied considering how many people will be helped by the program. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Eileen loran, Executive Director of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, who explained that she submitted testimony at the last Planning Commission meeting concerning the need for support services for mentally ill in Hennepin County. She explained she has worked with service providers in the area for the last four years and also with the family and friends of mentally ill persons.- She observed that communities have been slow to assist mentally ill people, and that this has been an added burden for the individuals and their families to experience the fear and anger of the residents regarding programs such as Mrs. Wrights. She noted that there are approximately 350 persons in Brooklyn Center who are or have been mentally ill and that only a small number are getting appropriate care. Mayor Nyquist inquired of Ms. Moran how the figure of 350 5 -23 -83 -10- persons was obtained. Ms. Moran responded by explaining that the number `350 was arrived at by taking a percentage of the City's population which could be expected to be suffering from mental illness, according to Hennepin County's information. The next speaker at the public hearing, Mr. Todd Humphrey, 4408.69th Avenue North, Apt. 2, who questioned what would happen one year from now if the facility does not work out. He added that he does not think it is an appropriate place for the proposed facility. Mayor Nyquist again recognized Mr. Don Lowry, 6914 Lee Avenue North, who stated that he does not think a facility of this type should be put in an area where a special use permit is required. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant, Mrs. Diane Wright, who informed the Council that she was the Director of the group facility called Park Manor Residence in Minneapolis, and that the facility she is proposing in the application would be a continuation of that program. She pointed out the owners of the building in Minneapolis cancelled the contract and that in order to retain the Rule 36 money allocated to Hennepin County for the program, she must find a new facility for the program by June 1. Mayor 11yqu:ist next recognized a representative* from Y.E.S. and N.E.O.N., who submitted a letter for the Council record, and explained that the purpose of the letter is to clarify Y.E.S.' and N.E.O.N.Is position on the proposed facility in light of comments made by certain staff members of Y.E.S. andN.E.O.N. at the last Planning Commission meeting. She added she would like to apologize for the views expressed by their staff members at the Planning Commission meeting and expressed support for the application. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one else appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83021. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS e Br ooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:14 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. CONTINUA OF PLANNING C011' "ISSION NO. 83021 Mayor or Nyquist expressed a concern with the application regarding the limits on the number of residents as set by statute. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of the City Attorney whether the statute addressed the number of staff required on the premises in such a facility. The City Attorney stated that the statute is silent on the issue of the number of staff but that the statute provides for 16 residents. Tars. Wright explained that the staff make up will include 2 112 program staff, along with one part -time cook and one part. -time secretary. She explained, the cook would arrive at work when the secretary is leaving work. She noted the secretary's hours, would be from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and the cook's hours would be from 3:00 p.m. to 6 :00 p.m. Councilmember Theis inquired whether the van for the residents would be at the residence at all times. Mrs. Wright responded in the affirmative to Councilmember 5 -23 -83 -11- Theis' question. Councilmember Theis stated it appears that 8 parking stalls would be needed for all the vehicles and expressed a concern that this may be a problem. The Director of Planning & Inspection reminded Council members of the minimum requirement for a 15 ' greenstrip in front of the building and noted that there may be room for one parking stall in the front. Councilmember Theis then inquired whether any type of condition could be placed on the approval of the permit, whereby, if a resident committed a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, the permit would be revoked. The City Attorney commented that he could not think of what statute or ordinance might address this situation, and that generally, this type of approach does not sound applicable to the facility being proposed, He further stated that, if the Council is trying to regulate the conduct of the residents, the City Council could set 'up rules as long as they are related to the safety of residents in the area. He added that the regulations should be based on a course of conduct rather than focusing on a single incident. He explained that it would be difficult to condition a permit on a single act of violence and that this approach would not seem to be related to.the people in the facility anymore than any other resident in a similar setting, such as a townhouse or apartment. The City Manager noted that once a permit is granted it becomes quite difficult to revoke because the burden of proof is then placed on the City, with regard to the revocation, rather than the issuance of a permit, where the burden is on the - applicant . Councilmember Scott inquired whether Mrs. Wright was counting herself as a member of the staff in her previous comments. Mrs. Wright explained that she would be in addition to the `staff referred to earlier. Councilmember Scott then inquired whether any medication monitoring would be undertaken at the facility. Mrs. Wright explained that a physician must sign a statement that a person can self medicate and that the staff would assist the patient in refilling prescriptions and monitoring their use. Councilmember Scott inquired how, with only 21/2 staff persons, could adequate counseling be provided. Mrs. Wright stated that the people in the facility are not considered in treatment 24 hours per day, and noted that the night staff does not provide counseling but would be available to talk if a client needs it. Councilmember Scott then addressed the issue of the eligibility of clients for the facility with regard to any history of violence within the past six months. Mrs. Wright explained that in order to qualify for the facility there would have to be no past history of violence in the client's background. She added that the six month time limit referred to only suicidal incidents on the part of the client. Councilmember Scott inquired of Mrs. Wright what would happen to the program if Hennepin County's funding were cut. Mrs. Wright explained that the program would be discontinued and the building would be converted back to an apartment building. Councilmember Scott concluded her comments by expressing a concern that a request for additional patients might be made in the future. Mrs. Wright stated that the building would not support more than 18 persons and that this number was the maximum according to state licensure. Councilmember'Ihotka inquired if the patients were reduced to 16 would the staff be reduced accordingly. -Firs. Writ explained that the day staff would probably be cut by one but this would have to be negotiated with Hennepin County. Councilmember Theis asked if the funding from Hennepin County were cut could the facility be supported by private means or insurance. T'irs. Wright explained that 75% of the funding for the facility comes from the state and that the facility would receive no medicaid or medicare. Councilmember Theis then asked whether, Mrs. 5 -23 -83 -12- Wright could envision any situation where an application for admission into the facility could be submitted to staff for review to see if the-individual met the conditions. Mrs. Wright explained that she believes this procedure would violate the Data Privacy Act. She added that to disclose a client's record would be a violation and that any history of violence would be indicated in the client's history. Mayor Nyquist inquired how the City could be assured that the client's record is accurate. Trs. Wright replied that the only means 'would be through her evaluation and the client's record. The City Attorney commented that the submission of a statement by a psychiatrist, regarding the particular clients history, and a statement that the person has not committed any violent acts would probably have to be relied on. He added that the City would have to rely on a statement or affidavit submitted by an appropriate authority. Councilmember Theis commented on the physical layout of the neighborhood and expressed a concern that no sidewalk access is provided on 69th leading to Brooklyn Boulevard. Councilmember Hawes suggested that the issue could be submitted to mediation and that the applicant, and the neighborhood could mediate out a solution which may result in an acceptable answer for both parties. Councilmember I,hotka stated that he would favor the mediation concept but expressed a concern over the short notice of the application as a result of the funding deadlines. Councilmember Theis stated that the timing on the application has been short and the neighborhood has not had sufficient time to understand the proposal completely. Mrs. Wright commented that, the problem is, that if the Council is not affirmative with regard to the project, there would be no time to relocate. She added that she had also met for three hours with the members of the neighborhood on Thursday night and explained that her evaluation is that the neighborhood is not accepting of the proposal. Mr. Grosshans added that he does not think that submitting the issue to mediation would resolve anything. Councilmember Hawes stated that he believes mediation would be worth a try and that there would be nothing to lose considering there is a win no -win situation at this point. Mrs. Wright stated that the deadline the state has given her for the facility is June 1, and that if she does not have a special use permit by May 31 she would lose the building as per the purchase agreement. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes to table consideration of the application and submit the application to mediation if both parties would submit to mediation within a reasonable, time prior to June 1, 1983. Councilmember I,hotka seconded Councilmember Hawes' motion for the purpose of discussion. He added that he understands the residents concern, particularly with regard to the short notice given on the application, but he also expressed disappointment that the residents did not take advantage of mediation. Mayor Nyquist commented that one of the things that could possibly come out of a mediation could be a Neighborhood Advisory Board. Mrs. Wright explained that DPW Rule 36 requires a Neighborhood Advisory Poard for the facility. 5 -23 -83 -13- Councilmember ihotka requested a show of hands from the neighborhood residents present who would accept mediation. Two persons in the audience raised their hands concerning Councilmember Ihotka's request. Councilmember Lhotka then expressed disappointment in the neighborhood for not taking advantage, of ,a mediation situation. Upon a vote being taken on the motion on the table the following voted in favor: Councilmember Hawes. Voting against: P'.ayor Nyquist, Councilmembers I,hotka, Scott, and Theis. The motion failed. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis to authorize the staff to prepare a resolution for denial of Planning Commission Application 11o. 83021 due to the short notice given to neighborhood residents with regard to the proposed application, and also because of the various site and physical plant problems with the application, including the parking problems presented by the number of staff vehicles, the difficulty in enforcing condition No. 4 of the recommended Planning Commission conditions with regard to requirements of the past history of residents in the facility, and also with regard to the number of individuals proposed for the facility in light of the state statute concerning the limitation on residents in such a facility. Upon a vote being taken on the motion, the following voted in favor: Mayor N uist C .ay yq , ouncilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: aga none. The motion assed unanimously. 1,Y- PLANNING COPhtISSION APPLICATION NOS. 83010 AND 83017 SMUTTED BY ROD BERT" U FOR SITE = - ATID PRELTM N �,PM= TO COITST 21 ATI I UTAL T VNMU�`FZ , T = T 1 v i U M 69TH AP-] -N TH-fidD y7f7= The Director of Manning &- Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 12 and 13 of the Pray 12, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for the applications. He reviewed the applicant's request and the location of the subject parcel. He then discussed Application No. 83017, the preliminary plat request, and pointed out that the request is for a resubdivision-of the original plat to create 21 lots. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out another issue related to the project, that being, discussions of the proposed realignment of Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th held with Sheehy Properties, the owner of the property. He continued to review the proposed replatting and the size of the lots which would be created. He noted that discussions have arisen with regard to whom the City should be negotiating with for the acquisition of right -of -way for the proposed roadway project. He explained that the City Attorney had submitted a letter stating that, according to the existing association documents, the eight existing members of the association should be included in discussions for the right -of -way acquisition. Regarding the preliminary plat, he explained the staff has discussed the question over the City's right to approve a replat of the Earle Brown Farm Townhouses briefly with the City Attorney, and that he has assured the staff that the City may approve a replat of the common area and two existing vacant lots, and he also acknowledges that a privately pursued lawsuit by the eight existing townhouse owners may prevent the filing of such a plat, however, he advised the staff that the Planning Commission and City Council should not intervene in this civil dispute but should process the replat as though there were no dispute based solely on the requirements of City ordinances. The Planning Director continued to discuss the application and reviewed the 5 -23 -83 -14- Mrs Jensen explained that 26 persons volunteered for the project and 24 have undergone extensive training in mediation. She added that the training was a significant commitment on the part of the volunteers with regard to time, energy, and service to the community. She added that she hoped that the mediation project will be used as an alternative to solve disputes and problems in the City of Brooklyn Center. RESOLUTIOT? NO. 83-88 M ember G He introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE VOLUNTEER MEDIATORS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER MEDIATION PROJECT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was d seconded b member P g � �-Y Y Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean 11yquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none. The motion passed. Councilmember Hawes abstained from the vote. DISCUSSION ITEMS CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY' COMMITTEE RECO11M LADING TM ACCEPTAFI'C =TI T= T Fi miTM=OFT.H. 100 55 R AVENUE NORM I mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Phil Cohen, Chairman of the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. He referred Council members to a resolution from the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, and also a newspaper article in the Brooklyn Center Post regarding the Committee's discussion and recommendations for 50th Avenue at T.H. 100. He explained that, at the May 5, 1983 Traffic Safety Advisory Committee meeting, a petition was presented to the Committee opposing the staff proposal to close the entrance to T.H. 100 at 50th Avenue North. He explained that the resolution passed by the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, and before the Council this evening, recommends leaving the access at 50th Avenue North and 'T.H. 100 as is. There was a motion by Council-member Hawes and seconded by Counc lmember Lhotka to accept and concur with the resolution from the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee accepting staff recommendations on traffic matters in the area of T.H. 100 at 50th Avenue North. Voting in favor: Tlayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, � Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Panager introduced a Resolution Regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 83021, a request for a special use permit for aboard and care facility at 4408 69th Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist noted he had previously received two Open Forum requests to address this resolution. He explained the requests were from Mr. Tom Wilson, 3948 West 49 1/2 Street in Edina and Ms. Susan Lentz, Minnepolis. Mayor Nyquist recognized 11r Tom Wilson who stated that he was an' attorney representing Mrs. Diane Wright. He stated that the resolution before the Council this evening contains errors and does not contain in and of itself grounds for denial of the permit. He added that he would recommend the City Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendations regarding the application. He added that there is a 6 -I3 -83 -7- major problem in the northwest area and that the need for facilities of this type is evident in the community. He stated that nothing in the resolution addresses the qualifications for a special use permit, and that parking on the site could be expanded to accommodate eight cars, which would be in compliance with the City's , zoning ordinance. Mayor Nyquist inquired of Mr. Wilson what facts in the resolution were erroneous. Mr. Wilson stated that the reference to the proximity of the nearest park in the resolution is irrelevant, and that the building meets all the local requirements for R2 zoning and required space for residents. He stated that nothing in the resolution addresses issues relevant to the denial of the special use permit. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Susan Lentz who stated that she was appearing this evening as an Attorney on behalf of the Mental Health Association of Minnesota. She added that she had written a letter to Mayor Nyquist regarding the Planning Commission Application and added that the Association is concerned with the availability of community based mental health facilities. She urged the Council to reconsider and approve the Planning Commission Application. Mayor Nyquist inquired of Ms. Lentz whether she was aware of any additional facts regarding the application which the Council should consider. Ms. Lentz replied that, to her knowledge, no facts exist for the denial of the permit and that she believed the parking and other requirements are amply met by the application. RESOLUTION NO. 83-89 embeer�Nene —iot a introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING C0114ISSION APPLICATION NO. 83021, A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A BOARD AND CARE FACILITY AT 4408 69TH AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE ADU21DING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW MANUFACTURED BUSING IN THE R1 AT R2 Z 1%T TT9 DINTR= �— The Dirrector of 17anning �i`on explained that the statute regarding manufactured housing is offered in response to a 1982 state law amending Minnesota Statutes 462 Subdivision 1, which provides that the no regulations can be enacted prohibiting manufactured homes built in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 327.31 through 327.35. He referred Council members to a memorandum from himself to the City P-Ianager, dated June 10, 1983, regarding the zoning ordinance amendment on manufactured housing. Councilmember Lhotka inquired why 320 sq. ft was specified in the ordinance. The Planning Director stated that the definition of a manufactured home is a minimum of 320 sq. ft. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he was concerned with such a small minimum sq. footage. 6 -13 -83 -8- timber Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RFsowrION N0. 83 -89 WMLUTIO14 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING 00118 LSSIOIJ APPLICATION I40. 83021, A I'tEQLIEST FOR A SPECIAL USE . PERMIT - FOR A BOARD AND CARE FACILITY A T 4408 69TH AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, the applicant, Diane Wright has requested, under Planning Commission Application No. 83021, a special use permit to operate a board and ui ld' located at v adults in a four unit a building care home for nentall ill a apartment b 4408 69th Avenue Ilorth within the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, extensive public hearings were held on this application before the Planning fore the Cit Council; i. Conmiss rnand before y =I, U1EREFORE, based upon the information gathered at these meetings, and upon written documents received from the applicant, from the City staff, and other interested persons, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The property in question is a lot which is substandard in size, consisting of approximately 9,400 square feet and containing an apartment building with four two bedroom units, parking for six automobiles, and approximately 2,600 square feet of recreation area in the front yard. 2. The applicant's plan is to house 18 to 20 mentally ill persons in the apartment building and to assign two patients to each bedroom, to provide for a central kitchen and dining area, and to convert the rena.ining rooms to offices, a recreation room and two livingrooms. 3. The property fronts on 69th Avenue North which is a two -lane heavily traveled county road carrying approximately 8,300 vehicles per day: the property is not served by sidewalks and although it is served by a bus line on Brooklyn Boulevard, the bus trips per day are infrequent on 69th Avenue North. 4 The residents of the facility will require between two and four staff members together with a cook /clerical person during the day and one staff mmber at night, resulting. in two to four staff vehicles on the site together with a van for resident transport- ation on the site during the daytime hours 5. The applicant states that the target population would consist of chronically mentally ill adults over the age of 21 years with severe or persistent or emotional disorders which severely limit ' their functioning capabilities. The proposed residents would come from board and care facilities in the City of Iinneapolis, from the Veteran's Administration Hospital at Fort Snelling and from the State Hospital for Mentally Ill persons in Anoka. The objective of the board and care facility would be to assess a patient's problems and needs, to establish goals, to provide counseling and group therapy with the eventual goal of moving the patient to a facility in which they could operate more independently. The patients would be supervised while at the home, but would be unsupervised off site. IMSOLUTION NO. 83-89 Typical off site activities would be going to vocational training outlets, working in volunteer activities and in sheltered workshops and for those who are employed, going to work. One of the goals of the program is to place these patients in the ccrmunity where they have better access to normally functioning lifestyles and can be closer to their families from whom they can receive visitation, social support and with whom they can occasionally visit for over nights. Their transportation would be provided by bus service, by the van, and to some extent by automobiles owned by the residents themselves, together with transportation provided by their families. 6. The Council finds that the proposal provides just enough parking for staff needs and the van, and that no parking would be available for the residents' automobiles, for visitors' automobiles, or for service and delivery vehicles. 7. The Council finds that outdoor recreation facilities at the site are almost nonexistent due to lack of space and that pedestrian travel to the nearest park would require the use of 69th Avenue since no sidewalks exist and that such pedestrian traffic coupled with high traffic volume on 69th Avenue and lack of parking at the site would result in unsafe conditions for the residents, for people in the neighborhood, and for the traffic users of 69th Avenue. 8. The Council finds that the plan to convert the building to board and care for 18 to 20 adults would result in crowding and would not provide a healthy and comfortable environment for the residents of the board and care facility. 9. The Council finds that the applicant has not had adequate opportunity to review with residents of the neighborhood the problems that may arise due to congestion, parking, noise,pedestrian and vehicular traffic and that neighborhood meetings were proposed by the City Council and were rejected by both the applicant and the spokesman for people in the neighborhood. 10 The Council finds that the proposed residents of the building do not fall within the definition of "mentally retarded or physically handi- capped persons contemplated by Minnesota Statute 462.357 sub - division 8. 11 The Council finds that the proposal for 18 to 20 residents exceeds the maximum number for occupancy established by Minnesota Statute 462.357 subdivision 8. 12. The Council finds that the activity and congestion resulting "frcra the proposed use will diminish the use and enjoyment of the owners Of adjacent property in the immediate vicinity. 13. The Council finds that the proposed site is a nonconforming use in that there is inadequate parking available on the site and the lot is substandard in size, and the proposed use would be an increase in intensity and an expansion of such a nonconforming use. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -89 Based on the foregoing findings, the minutes of the Planning Comdssion, the written materials submitted, and the comments of all interested citizens; NOW, TSEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the special use permit for a board and care facility for mentally ill persons at 4408 69th Avenue North, comprehended by Planning Commission Application Pb. 83021, is hereby, denied. BENT F[JIrTlIER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City of Brooklyn Center officially recognizes the need for the type of facility proposed and hereby makes it the policy of the City to encourage such facilities under conditions and at locations compatible with surrounding neighbor- hoods and which provide the maxim m in healthy environment for the residents of the facility. June 13, 1983 Date yor ATTEST: The notion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis;- and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i EXCERPT - 1 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE.COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION AUGUST 4, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER helanning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7 :32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki,Lowell Ainas, Mary Simmons, and Nancy Manson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commmissioner Versteeg had called to say he would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 14, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to, approve the minutes of the July 14, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, and Manson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. 8 -4 -83 -1- APPLICATION NO. 83041 (Zanti 9 o Mexican Restauran i Chairman t then nformedt e Planning ommis in that Application No. 8304 1 was being withdrawn. The Secretary recommended that the Planning Commission n take a formal action acknowledging the withdrawal of the application. ACTION ACKNOWLEDGING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83041 (Zanti o Mexican Restaurants) otion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Simmons to acknowledge with drawal of Application No. 83041, a request for a variance from Section 34 -140, Sub - section 3.A(3) of the Sign Ordinance, in light of revised plans by the applicant. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO.83039 ( Zantigo Mexican Restaurants) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to use the property at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard for a convenience food restaurant and to install a drive -up window. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83039 attached). The Secretary stated that he was not sure if the site presently had underground irrigation. He stated that if the site did not have underground irrigation, an additional condition should be added. Chairman Lucht stated that he had seen the irrigation working at the property on the day of the meeting Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to.speak. Mr. K. C. George, representing Zantigo Mexican Restaurants, stated that he had nothing further to add to the staff report. Chairman Lucht asked whether he had a problem with extending the median. Mr. George answered that he had no problem with extending the median. He explained that the opening in the median was designed to allow cars that would have a break- down to be pushed out of the line in order to keep traffic moving. PUBLIC H EARIN G (Application No. 83039) airman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING` otion by ommissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Lucht then 'asked the Planning Commission whether they had any comments on the application. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the residents across Brooklyn Boulevard had been notified of this application. Chairman Lucht checked the list of addresses receiving notices and confirmed that they did receive notices. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83039 ( Zantigo Mexican Restaurants) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 83039, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to.review and approval by the Building" Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of • permits. 8 -4 -83 -2- 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be dertermined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. _ 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and utter shall be provided around all parking nd 9 P P 9 driving areas. 7. The plan shall be modified to indicate a closed drive -up Lane bounded by a 3' side median and curb and gutter on the south and east prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson and A.inas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83040 (Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, an appeal from Section 35 -322, Subsection 3 (d),of the Zoning Ordinance reqeuesting that an athletic club be allowed adjacent to R2 zoned 'property at the southeast corner of Lakebreeze Avenue and Azelia Avenue. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No.83040 attached). The Secretary explained that the staff did recommend denial of the appeal, but noted that the appeal application is a vehicle by which the Planning Commission can undertake a review of its ordinance relating to athletic clubs. i Commissioner Simmons was curious as to why a racquet club is lumped with a bowling alley in the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that a racquet club certainly seems more in park-like.. The Secretary explained that the ordinance uses the term "athletic club" which may comprehend more than racquet and swim clubs. He noted that the proposed use is more similar to a park. He noted that there are outdoor tennis courts adjacent to a residential property at Grandview Park and at other parks around the City. He suggested that the ordinance provision was a throwback to an era when gymnasiums had a bad connotation where bookies hung out along with other unsavory characters. The Secretary pointed out that a food'store would probably have a much greater impact on the adjacent residential property than the proposed racquet and swim club.- Commissioner Simmons clarified that that impact would be negative. The Secretary agreed, noting that the property could be developed for a shopping center use as a permitted use in the zoning district. In response to another question from Commissioner Simmons, the Secretary stated that not a lot of communities have the kind of abutment restrictions that the City's Zoning Ordinance contains regarding certain uses. The Secretary added that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits saunas, massage parlours, school bus garages from abutting any residential property. Commissioner Malecki noted that a club can be a more restricted use and would likely have less impact on abutting property. The Secretary answered that it was difficult to distinguish in the ordinance between a use that is open to the public and one that is limited to a membership. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission should look at the use generally rather than considering only the type of establishment proposed in this case. 8-4 =83 -3 L t Commissioner Ainas asked whether there was any ordinance requirement relating to temporary inflatable structures. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of any, but stated that such a structure would be subject to Building Code require- ments and normal setback requirements. The Secretary then pointed out to the Planning Commission that a small portion of the seven acre site actually lay within the R2 zoning district and would have to be rezoned for the site plan to be effect- uated. He also stated that there would be a concern regarding a connection between Lakeside Ave and Lakebreeze'.Aver i.f the club were built as proposed. He explained that Grimes Avenue would have to be vacated and that traffic from the Beach Apart- ments might.be forced up to Lakebreeze Avenue if the Indiana Avenue access onto Highway 100 were closed. He also noted that Azelia Avenue would perhaps have to have a cul -de -sac or turnaround dedicated at the southern end,or that it might extend through to Lakeside Avenue. He suggested, however, that the Planning Commission not labor over the specifics of this particular site plan, but concen- trate on the general planning question as to how the Zoning Ordinance should treat athletic clubs. The Planning Assistant then reviewed a brief survey of ten municipalities that he had contacted on the day of the meeting. He explained that most of the communities allow athletic clubs as a special use or a permitted use in a retail /commerce zoning district. He noted that a few communities allow athletic clubs in more limited commercial zones, similar to the City's Cl zoning district. Finally, he noted that in one or two cases such athletic clubs are allowed in residential zoning districts by a conditional use permit. He stated that none of the com- munities surveyed have a restriction on whether athletic clubs can abut residential uses. He noted, however, that a number of communities do impose an extraordinary setback when such uses abut residential property. The Planning Assistant then briefly reviewed data received from Short-Elliott-Henderson, a traffic consultant often used by the City. He explained that racquet and swim clubs might generate around twelve trips per thousand square feet of building area, whereas a retail center, which would be a permitted use in the C2 zoning district, could generate as much as 80 trips per thousand square feet of net leaseable area. Commissioner Simmons asked what might be meant.by "athletic club" in the ordinances in other communities. The Planning Assistant answered that, during his survey of other cities, he specifically told other planning personnel that he was referring to a racquet and swim club type use. Commissioner Simmons asked what type of uses should be grouped together with athletic clubs if the ordinance were to be changed to do away with the abutment restrictions. The Planning Assistant stated that would be up to the Planning Commission, but noted that within the group of uses with which athletic clubs are associated, there are two categories which break down to those involving more or less active exercise and those involving more passive recreation or entertainment. He stated that those involving active exercise might be allowed next to residential, while keeping the other establishments separate. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that if the abutment restriction were removed, the special use standards would still apply and could be used to prevent certain uses from abutting residential property on a case -by -case basis. The Secretary agreed, recommending that the Planning Commission still keep such uses as special uses within the C2 zoning district in order to have greater control over their location. He pointed out that presently the ordinance assumes that a use such as an athletic club which abuts Rl, R2 or R3 property will have -a detrimental effect on the sur- rounding property. He explained that the ordinance, therefore, assumes that the Standards for a Special Use Permit cannot be met by such uses when abutting resi- dential property. 8 -4 -83 -4- Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt there were other uses, which under the - Zoning Ordinance can abut residential property, which have a greater impact on surrounding property than an athletic club. The SecreLary agreed and pointed tQ auto dealerships as an example. Chairman Lucht stated that the Commission should probably deny the appeal, but look at a change in the Zoning Ordinance. There a discussion regarding various options open to the Planning Commission for classifying the proposed use. The Secretary pointed out that the Planning Commission could consider the use similar in nature to other permitted uses and bypass the entire special use permit process. He also noted that the Commission could deny the appeal and change the ordinance to do away with the abutment restriction altogether. He added that the Commission could split off some of the uses which are presently prohibited from abutting R1, R2, and R3 property and allow those uses, including athletic clubs, to abut resi- dential property. Commissioner Simmons expressed some concern about the potential activity in the parking lots of athletic clubs. She stated that alot would depend on the clientele as to whether problems arose. Chairman Lucht asked what controls could be used if the parking for the use was not adequate. The Secretary answered that he was not sure what formula in the Zoning Ordinance would be applied to the proposed use. He stated that it might fall under the category of: spaces as required by the City Council for the particular use Chairman Lucht noted that parting could still be controlled under special use permit review. The Secretary stated that the first question the Commission should address is whether the abutment restrictions should continue. Commissioner Ainas stated that he had no objection to such a use abutting residential property. He stated that the Planning Commission should look at such uses on a case -by -case basis and that the ordinance should be left as is without the abutment restriction. The Secretary pointed out in response that eliminating the abutment restriction from all the uses would shift the burden to the City to show that there is an adverse impact on- residential property presented by certain uses. Chairman Lucht asked whether it was necessary to list athletic clubs at all or whether they could just be considered similar in nature. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance is an ex- clusive ordinance and that, unless a specific use is listed, it is prohibited. Commissioner Simmons asked what a "gymnasium" would include. The Secretary pointed to the special use permit granted to Viking Gym in the Industrial Park as an example of what is meant in the ordinance by gymnasium. He.also stated that many of the activities in the Community Center might be part of an athletic club use. Chairman Lucht suggested the possibility of having a separate category for racquet and swim clubs. The Secretary stated that that was an option for the Commisqion. or'that the Commission could group such uses with athletic clubs, gymnasiums. health spas, etc. Chairman Lucht asked what is meant in the ordinance by a "recreation center." The Secretary pointed to the Community Center as perhaps the best example of a recreation center. Commissioner Simmons asked whether that included establish- ments with electronic games. The Secretary explained the ordinance has.a separate . classification for "amusement centers" which are not permitted to abut any residential property. Chaairman Lucht suggested that the ordinance eliminate the term "recrea- tion center" because it is too vague. The Secretary noted that the applicant was present. Chairman Lucht called on the applicant and asked whether he had anything to add. Mr. Alan Kimpell, of H. W; Fridlund, Architects, showed the Planning Commission an aerial photograph of the . racquet and swim club at 98th Street in Bloomington. He noted that the use is bounded by single - family residences on two sides and noted the dense landscape screening. Chairman Lucht asked what activities were- carridd on within the athletic club. Mr. Kimpell answered that there were tennis and racquet ball courts, swimming 8 -4 -83 -5- n pool, a running track, sauna and steam rooms, a pro shop, and a vending and snack area. He also noted that there is a party room which can be reserved. He noted` that the club was for private members and was not open to the public generally. In answer to Commissioner Simmons, Mr. Kimpell explained that there was no liquor available on the premises and that any member of the public could join the club. Chairman Lucht asked what would be done to control the parking problem. Mr. Kimpell' noted that people who belong to the club pay membership fees and.rent out certain courts at specific times. He stated that there was more control in this type of use than in an athletic club or gymnasium that is open to the public. He explained the experience that Normandale Tennis Clubs has had in other communities and stated that their operations have no parking problems. He also noted that the establishments are family - oriented. Commissioner Simmons asked what was meant by family - oriented. Mr. Marvin Wolfenson of Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. explained to the Planning Com- mission that there are 18,000 memberships in the nine clubs in the Metro area. He explained that 10,000 of these memberships are family memberships. He stated that the racquet and swim club would be a positive asset to the community and noted that it would cost between six and seven million dollars. Chairman Lucht then polled the Planning Commission as to how they felt regarding the application. Commission Ainas stated that he preferred to allow athletic clubs to abut R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. Commissioner Manson agreed as did Commissioner Simmons. Commissioner Malecki stated that she would do away with the abutment re- striction for this particular use, but not for bowling alleys and other similar uses. She noted that a private club allows for more control. Commissioner Manson dis- tinguished the proposed use from a public rink which would be open certain hours with large numbers of people going and coming at certain times. She stated that the proposed use would have a few people coming and going all the time. Chairman Lucht asked whether would be a problem with dropping the term re- creation center from the list of uses in Subsection 3(d) of Section 35 -322 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary stated that he would have no problem with such a change. He suggested that the Planning Commission might want to change the ordi- nance by taking the uses listed after "skating rinks and put them in a separate categroy which would be allowed to abut R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. He recom- mended that the Commission keep such uses as special uses in the Zoning Ordinance. recommend to the City Council denial of e u ested that the Planning Commission He s gg 9 resi- `n i n the Zoning he appeal, but a cha e 9 Ordinance to allow such uses to abut t 9 pR dential property. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83040 (Normandale Tennis'Clubs,Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ma ecki seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend denial of Application No. 83040. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Commission then discussed how it would recommend a change in the Zoning Ordi- nance to the City Council. Commissioner Malecki stated that she had a problem with allowing gymnasiums to abut residential property. The Secretary stated that a gym- nasium could include a boxing club, racquet ball courts, etc. Mr. Allen Kimpell asked the Planning Commission to consider setting up racquet and swim clubs as a specific use by themselves. He stated that he did not want to be denied the possibility of a special use permit because the use they proposed was not adequately defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Manson stated that she would not want an athletic club with a liquor license next to Rl, R2 or R3 zoned property. Chairman Lucht stated that he thought liquor establishments.. could not Rl R2 or R3 property anyway. The Secretary clarified that such establishments may abut Rl,. R2 and R3 zoned property . Chairman Lucht concluded by saying , that the Planning Commission would need a little more time to develop better language to recommend to the City Council. 8 -4 -83 -6- ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE CHANGE Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend that the City Council direct staff to develop ordinance language listing tennis and swim clubs as a permitted special use in the C2 zoning district without an abutment restriction and also to look at other uses listed in Subsection 3(d) of Section 35 -322 for possible change of status. Voting in favor:. Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson n s so and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. e ADJOU While the Secretary briefly reviewed upcoming business items for the August 11 Planning 'Commission meeting, there was a motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:16 p.m. Chairman 84 - 83 7 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83041 Applicant: Zantigo Mexican Restaurants Location: 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 34 -140, Subsection 3.A.(3) to allow for a roof sign in addition to a freestanding identification sign at the proposed Zantigo Restaurant (presently Happy Dragon) at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is zoned C2 and is bounded by the Green Mill restaurant on the north, by a private service road on the east, by Farrell's on the south, and by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west. The Sign Ordinance states that "each establishment or enter - prise eligible for a freestanding sign may instead elect to have a roof sign for identification (in lieu of a freestanding identification sign), provided that the sign does not extend more than six (6) feet above the roof line or more than the respective height as prescribed in Table 34A, whichever is lesser, and further provided that the sign -does not exceed the respective area as prescribed in Table 34 A." The proposed sign does not extend more than 6 feet above the roof line nor is it too large in area, but it is not in lieu of a freestanding sign. It is in addition to a freestanding sign. Therefore, a variance is being sought essentially to allow in extra sign, although the same sign would be permitted if it were located below the roof line. The applicant has submitted a letter (copy attached) in which he addresses the Standards for a Sign Variance (also attached). The applicant explains that the chimney wall sign (which lies above the roof line - see elevation attached) and the building design are standard features of Zantigo restaurants. He states that eliminating this sign would create a particular hardship to their building design. The applicant also argues that the location of the standard Zantigo chimney wall sign is unique to the Zantigo building. He points out that other restaurants in the area do not achieve a similar image or design and, therefore, do -not need a sign located above the roof line. Finally, the applicant states there will be no detrimental effect resulting from the sign. ' Staff are opposed to the granting of the requested variance because allowing both a freestanding and a roof sign for the same property would seriously undermine the Sign Ordinance. Regarding hardship, it appears to us that a smaller chimney sign could be placed below the roof line or that the chimney could be moved somewhat westward to allow the same sign below the roof line. The building is not really unique, nor is the parcel of land on which it is located. Many buildings have distinctive treatments along the roof line which, by themselves, attract attention to the building. Such treatments do not justify extra signery above the roof line. Finally, we would argue that it is detrimental to allow both a freestanding sign and a roof sign to a single, small establishment (establishments with 400' of frontage on two major thoroughfares are entitled to an extra freestanding or roof sign). Such a variance would open a floodgate of demands for additional signery not now permitted under the Sign Ordinance. Action on this application should serve as a signal to other potential applicants that additional.,signs beyyond what is com- prehended by the ordinance, will not be permitted. Denial is, therefore, recommended. 8 -4 -83 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83039 Applicant: Zantigo Restaurants Location: 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan, Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel the existing Happy Dragon restaurant at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard to a Zantigo restaurant (classified as a convenience food restaurant) with a drive -up window. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by the Green Mill restaurant, on the east by the private access road serving establishments between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by Farrell's and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Convenience food restaurants are special uses in the C2 zoning district which cannot abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property at either a property line or a.street line. The land across Brooklyn Boulevard is zoned R1. However, abutment across a major thoroughfare with a right -of -way as extensive as in this case (e.g. over 100') and a frontage road has not been deemed to constitute abutment for the purposes of this section of the ordinance. Also, the land west of the frontage road is proposed for C1 uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Seating for the restaurant is to remain at 62 seats. There will be six (6) employees on the maximum shift. Thus, the parking requirement is 34 stalls. This amount has been provided, including two handicapped stalls.. Access to the site is via two openings off the private access road. Although none of the stalls are angle stalls, an entrance sign at the north access and an exit -only sign at the south access create a counter- clockwise, one -way traffic flow. Two of the stalls have limited accessi- bility because of the movements of cars leaving the drive -up window. These should be designated for employee parking. The proposed drive -up window to be located on the east side of the restaurant.- A 10' wide driving lane is provided along the south and east sides of the building. There is stacking space for about five cars. A 3' wide concrete island is proposed south of the drive -up lane with an opening to allow cars to get out of the line and exit, if desired. Staff recommend that the proposed opening be closed and the 3' wide median be carried continuously around the driving lane. It should also be surrounded with B612 curb and gutter in accordance with .Section 35 -710 of the Zoning Ordinance. m The landscape plan calls for a number of new plantings around the building and in three landscaped islands on the east side of the site. Thirty -three (33) Goldfinger Potentilla are indicated along the west and south sides of the building. Along the east side of the building, 15 Broadmoor Junipers, 5 Goldfinger Potentillas and 10 Columnar Buckthorn are shown. Plantings in the landscaped islands include: Broad moor Junipers, Purple Leaf Plums, Varigated Dogwoods, Japanese Redleaf Barberry and Proebeli Spirea. .No real changes are proposed in the drainage or utility plans. Curb delineation will be changed somewhat at the southwest and southeast corners of the site to better shape the new parking layout which includes four parallel stalls along the south side of the site. Zantigo does plan to change the exterior of the building from brick and exposed aggregate to stucco. The shingled mansard roof will be changed to a mansard with clay tile. Decorative wood posts will be placed on the east and west walls to add to the Mexican style being sought. The existing floor plan will not change drastically. All access to the building will be from the west side, while the existing east entrance will be converted to the drive -up window. The restrooms will be and a counter area roughly in the center of the building will be installed. Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject 8 -4 -83 -1- Application No. 83039 continued to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior' to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. The plan shall be modified to indicate a-closed drive -up lane bounded by a 3' wide median and curb and gutter on the south and east prior to the issuance of permits. 8 -4 -83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83040 Applicant: Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. Location: Southeast corner of Lakebreeze and Azelia Avenues Request: Appeal This application is an appeal from the restrictions of Section 35 -322 Subsection 3(d) which lists athletic clubs as a special use in the C2 zoning district, but which prohibits such uses from abutting an R1, R2, or R3 zoning district, including abutment at a street line. The appellant wishes to establish a racquet and swim club on three - parcels of land located immediately west and south of the Denny's restaurant at Highway 100 and France Avenue North. The three parcels are bounded by Denny's on the east, by Highway 100 right -of -way on the south, by a single- family home and Azelia Avenue on the west, and by Lakebreeze Avenue on the north. Single - family homes(zoned R2)are located on the west side of Azelia Avenue so that the site in question does abut R2 zoned land both at a property line and at a street line. The appellant has submitted two letters, one from Alan Kimpell of H. W. Fridlund Architects- Planners and one from Arlyn Grussing, Director of Planning for the City of Bloomington. Mr. Kimpell's letter states a` number ,of arguments as to why an athletic club should be allowed to abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property. The letter from Mr. Grussing describes a similar use in Bloomington, which does abut single- family uses, and it also gives information about the City's action regarding the facility. This report primarily reviews the letter from Mr. Kimpell. In his letter Mr. Kimpell acknowledges the conflict which the proposed use has with the Zoning Ordinance and makes the following arguments as to why an athletic' club should be allowed in the proposed location: 1. The principal building is set back 372' from the residential district. The land coverage of the building is less than 12% of the 7+ acre site. 2. The land between the building and the residences will be used for tennis courts and parking. The tennis courts will not be illuminated during the summer. During the winter, two air structures will enclose the tennis courts. 3. Unlike many permitted uses, there are no peak periods of traffic for this type of use. 4. Truck traffic for the athletic club would be less than for a restaurant or supermarket which are permitted. 5 There is little noise generated by this use other than an occasional human voice or starting of a car - better than a service station (staff note: a service station would not be permitted to abut Rl R2 or R3 zoned land either) 6. Athletic clubs do not produce release offensive odors into the air nor do they harbor or contribute to the rodent population as other permitted uses (restaurants, food stores) often do. 8 -4 -83 -1- Application No. 83040 continued 7. The large amount of open area on the proposed plan (attached) will be heavily landscaped giving a park -like appearance, unlike that of a construction contractor's office and storage yard (staff note: outside storage in the C2 zone must be screened from residential property). Mr. Kimpell concludes his letter by saying that the Racquet and Swim Club on 98th Street in Bloomington relates closely to the proposed club in Brooklyn Center. He notes that meetings with the City and the neighborhood developed a site and landscaping plan agreeable to all. It should be clearly understood that this is not an application for site and building plan approval or a special use permit. Staff did not accept such an application because of the conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. Granting a special use permit for an athletic club at the location in question would constitute a zoning violation. Moreover, any variance to.allow the abutment with R1, R2, or R3 zoned property would constitute a use variance which is expressly prohibited by the Zoninq Ordinance and also by State law. The only real solution to the appel- lant's dilemma is a change in the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance to take athletic clubs out of the category of C2 special uses which cannot abut R1, R2, or R3 zoned property and put that use into a category of uses which may so abut. The purpose of Mr. Kimpell's letter is really to argue the merits of this particular case for such an ordina -nce change. The Planning Commission, however, should consider any change to the Zoning Ordinance not merely on the basis of a particular site plan, but on the basis of whether athletic clubs generally are a type of use which may abut R1, R2, or R3 zoned property without violating the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (See Section 35 -100 attached): The ose ur of the Zoning Ordinance may be summarized.as seeking to provide for an P P 9 efficient pattern of land use while at the same time protecting property values. Abutment restrictions between various uses are primarily intended to protect property values by keeping certain uses separated. Zoning is also aided by a Com- prehensive Plan and Zoning Map which arrange zoning districts so that low intensity uses are buffered from high intensity uses by uses of intermediate intensity.. Regarding the intensity of the athletic club use, we would agree with the appel- lant's assertions that an athletic club would tend to have less impact on R1, R2, or R3 zoned property than some uses which, under the ordinance, are allowed to abut. For instance: the sale of'moter vehicles at retail (a special use), educa- tional uses, hospitals, eating establishments, and the retail sale of food (all are permitted C2 uses). On the other hand, gymnasiums and athletic clubs are grouped with a number of other reasonably similar uses, such as health spas, recreation centers, skating rinks, bowling alleys and sports arenas (all listed in Section 35 -32 3(d)). If athletic clubs are allowed to abut R1, R2 and R3 zoned property, it would seem to follow that these other uses should also be allowed to abut. (We would note, however, thatthe City of Bloomington does distinguish between racquet clubs and "commercial recreation." The applicant has argued to staff that the tennis courts adjacent to Azelia Avenue are no different than a public park. That is true. However, we do not.believe that the Zoning Ordinance can make distinctions between accessory or partial uses and the whole use regarding abutment restrictions (though certainly the site and special use review process may examine the best arrangement of a use on a site. The Planning Commission must make a judgment that athletic s clubs per se (and other similar uses) may abut Rl, R2, or R3 property without diminishing property values, or whether they may not. Staff will attempt to have a additional information regarding traffic generation and regulations of other communities at Thursday night's meeting. 8 -4 -83 -2- r ZELLER INSTITUTE FOR LIVING, P.A. 12421 POINT DOUGLAS DRIVE HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 PHONE: 437 -6569 PSYCHIATRIST: HECTOR C. ZELLER, M.D. HILDEGARD K. GRABER, M.D. PSYCHIATRIC COUNSELOR: MICHAEL R. KRANZ, M.S.E. August 8, 1983 James J. Thomson, Attorney at Law Lerevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, M. 55402 RE: Proposed Group Home in the City of Brooklyn Center for Mentally Ill Adults Dear Mr. Thomson, Persuant to your request, I have reviewed the material that you sent regarding the above matter which consists of the documents requested by respondent to be included in the record, findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for judgment, and respondents trial memorandum of law. In addition, I went to see the facility. I was allowed to visit one of the apartments. In that particular apartment, there was a young couple with two young children, and the apartment appeared to be very small and crowded. In the smallest room there were two very small, crib size mattresses, a chest of drawers, and a few toys, and the room looked very cluttered and there was very little space left between the beds. The larger room which we could call the master bedroom, had a 3/4 size bed, chest of drawers, and it also appeared to be very crowded. The kitchen was very small and could not hold more than two people at any given time without being overcrowded. The living- dining room also very small. While I was there there were five adults and two `small child- ren, and it was hardly room for everybody to stand. In reading the description of the clients that they expect to house in this unit, it seems to be that they are referring to the very regressed individual who, most likely, has had problems of adaptation for many, many years. They refer to them as having severe, persistent mental or emotional disorders which severely limit their functioning capacities relative to primary aspects of daily living. This describes the patient that is found in state hospitals who, time and again, are readmitted because of their misperceptions of reality and inability to cope with .their environment who need constant support and supervision. In the thirteen years that I was associated with a state hospital, particularly Hastings State Hospital as staff psychiatrist and medical director of the hospital, this type of patient was the one that needed the most care and supervision. At the time of my arrival at Hastings State Hospital, there were over 2000 patients,' (1960). By 1967, we had reduced the population to 200. As you can see, we had James J. Thomson page 2 placement the hospital, but the t outside and O a very intense program to treatment P of the hospital. ne main reason was that of over- population and over - crowding of the detriments of mental health has been demonstrated to be over-population and over - crowding. o that the present location would not be conducive to good mental opinion It is my p adults in very small spaces health on the basis that we are placing far to many which allows no privacy and where residents will be in constant contact y regressed each other which would be a strnsstothers when spaceaanddwhere they have no space i who would be invading each to call their own. T do feel that allowing a facility to run a program under these circumstances would be less than desirable. The program itself. reads very well, and it seems find to address itself to the needs of the resident. I do think that if they need for th ample facilities, they could provide the esi with the room successful. ambulation, recreation, and socialization, to compromise with a less suitable facility would not only jeopardize However, their goals, but certainly will compromise the welfare of the residents. In talking to the tenants, I learned that, 'at the present time, there are eight adults and three children living in the fourplex, and they do feel very The facility does have a laundry room which is big enough for two peop le, but most likely they would interfere with each other. than what it is from the The building from the exterior actually looks bigger inside. The parking lot in the rear and the front lawn are to small and in adequate to provide outside activities. We should remember that the needs of the chronically mentally ill and regressed It individual are resocialization, recreational activities, and rehabilitation in basic skills and work. roue activities on the premises, nor I can not see how they could conduct any g do they have any space available where residents could spend reventec street. The t walking into a busy lients from outdoors. There is no fence around the premises th around 11:00 a.m. on a time Y 0 a. day, Saturday, and the traffic was quite heavy for that particular time ere are no sidewalks on Y ' n ' meaning that there were continuous cars.goi g b Y- There that side of the street, and I would be concerned tha merit ne This t clients in itself could might wander into the streets and not use good j g be a hazard In order that the clients would have some recreational activities, they would need to walk about two or three blocks from the premises to a nearby park. and they have to cross to the other side of the street or take their chances on the side where there are no sidewalks. As to the number of residents in their target population, I feel it is far to man for this facility. If this .facility should receive a permit, I see no more Y page 3 James J. Thomson than three residents per unit. There is no way that you could have eighteen people, plus staff, at any given time in any given room without stepping on each.others toes. The fact that they are going to convert one area as a dining - living room space would definitely be very crowded. I can see three residents in each unit as adequate, but not optimal. Historically, the mentally ill patient, and the chronically mentally ill, have been relegated to a second class citizen.. Often they are forgotten in the state hospitals, and I feel if we are to increase their dignity, integrity, and selfesteem, and rehabilitate them to become sociable and productive indivi- duals, they definitely need to be treated as such by giving them better facili- ties than they have had in the past. Mainly, they need a bedroom of their own where they can have items that are important to them. I could not see a client bringing a favorite chair or chest of drawers into this facility without creating overcrowding. (imagine 18 people bringing one item to their room.) In my opinion, the issues that the council has addressed such as inadequate recreational facilities and inadequate parking are very well taken, and I feel that their concern is not only genuine, but necessary. I would like to emphasize that I am very critical of the facility, but not necessarily of the program that has been outlined. I do feel that the program in itself has many merits that could be very beneficial to individuals who have had problems in adjusting to the every day life in the community. In my twenty -eight years of experience with the mentally ill, one of the major stress factors that have existed in hospitals has been that of over- population and over- crowding. The stress is so great that it imposes tremendous strain on residents, and it provokes reactions that are not regular behavior. As an example, we can use the family who has three or four children and who need to share rooms because of inability to provide separate rooms for each member of the family. It should be noted that the family could be considered normal; they love each other, understand each other; and they are able to compromise. They come under stress when the children grow to that age where it is necessary for them to have privacy and a place for their own things. It is then that the family must provide necessary place for them so they can develope into well adjusted individuals. This example is only a dream, because, in reality, it does not often happen. The reality is that well adjusted, healthy people tend to flare up into aggressive behavior when there is not enough space for each member of the family. Therefore, there is no guarantee that residents would not fight with each other, even though they don't have any history of aggressive behavior. Furthermore, you have to remember that when you deal with 'a family who agrees in social responses, differences will still occur. Then put five different J � page 4 James J. Thomson people with five different personalities and five different problems, and five different levels of functioning and needs together, and you have a very special problem. My recommendation to the court would be to support the Council's decision. I hope this report will be satisfactory to your request. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, t 'Hector C. Zeller, M.D. Z:B RESUME Name: Hector C. Zeller, M. D. Occupation: Psychiatrist Birthdate: June 21, 1928 Social Security No.: 032 -28 -7858 Birthplace: Mexico City, Mexico Marital Status: Married Citizenship: United States Children: Four children B. S. - 1946 Colegio Franco Espanol M. D. - 1953 National University of Mexico Internship - 1951 - 1952 Juarez Hospital, Mexico City, Mexico Rotating INternship - 1954 -1955 Newton- Wellesley Hospital, Newton, Massachusetts Psychiatric Resident - 1955 -1957 Medfield State Hospital, Harding,Massachusetts Third Year Residency - 1957 - New Hampshire State Hospital Senior Psychiatrist, Director of Gerentology - 1957 -1960 New Hampshire State Hospital Clinical Research in Gerentology - 1957 - 1960 New Hampshire State Hospital Member of the White House Conference of Senior Citizens 1958 - 1960 Postgraduate Education: Administrative Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin, 1964 Staff Psychiatrist, Medical Director - 1960 - 1967 Hastings State Hospital, Hastings MN. Private Practice - 1967 - Present Hastings, MN. Licensed to Practice in Minnesota and Wisconsin Chairman of: The First Conference of Suicide Prevention in the State of Minnesota Affiliations to: American Psychiatric Association International Association for Suicide Prevention Minnesota Society of Neurological Sciences Minnesota State Medical Association Minnesota Psychiatric Association Wakota County Medical Society Delegate to: Minnesota State Medical Association Consultant to: Dakota County Mental Health Center, So. St. Paul, MN. Faribault State Hospital, Faribault, MN. Five County Mental Health Center, Braham, MN. Mineral Springs Chemical Dependency Center, Cannon Falls, MN. The Probate Court of Hennepin and Ramsey Counties The Red Wing Training School, Red Wing, MN. Fergus Falls State Hospital, Fergus Falls, MN. Owatonna State School, Owatonna, MN. Interstate Medical Center, Red Wing, MN. Special Review Board of the Mentally Ill and Dangerous Govenor's Committee for Suicide Prevention Past President of the Washington County Medical Society Twice Past President of the Wakota County Medical Society Staff Physician: Memorial Hospital, Hastings, MN. St. Croixd ale Hospital, Prescott, p , e cott, WI. United Hospital, St. Paul, MN. St. John's Hospital, Red Wing, MN. Chief of Staff: St. Croixdale Hospital, Prescott, WI. .Z �2iember. Gene Lhotka introduced the follov�ing resolution and moved its- adoption: RE,SOLUI'IO14 NO. ' 83 -89 A%. RESOLUTION REGARDING WE DISPOSITION OF PLANidING Cu /nISSIOIJ APPLICATI014 NO. 83021, A REQUEST FOR n SPECIAL USE PERILIT FOR A BOARD AND CARE FACILITY AT 4408 69111 AVENUE NORT ti%IEREAS, the applicant, Diane Wright has reg under Planning Gormission Application Nb. 83021, a special use permit to operate a board and carp !:me for mentally ill adults in a four unit apartment building located at 44)< tAth Avenue Iiorth within the City Of Brooklyn Center; and NIF'REAS, extensive public hearings were held on this application before t _t a.anning ConuEssirnand before the City Council; NOW, 'RIEREFORE, based upon the information gathered at these meetings, a :_ )on written documents received from the applicant, from the City staff, and 0 : :.; interested persons, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The property in question is a lot which is substandard in size, consisting of approximately 9,400*square feet and containing an apartment building with four two bedroom units, parking for six automobiles, and approximately 2,600 square feet of recreation area in the front yard. 2. The applicant's plan is to house 18 •20 entally ill persons in the apartment building and to assign patients to each bedroom, to provide for a central kitchen and dining area, and to convert the reimini.ng rooms to offices, a recreation room and two livingrooms. 3. The property fronts on Avenue North which is a tun -lane heavily traveled county road carrying approximately 8,300 vehicles' E per day; the property is not served by sidwalks and although it is served by a bus line on Brooklyn Boulevard, the bus trips per day are infrequent on 69th Avenue idorth. 4. Iihe residents of the facility will require between two and four staff iTer.bers together with a cook /clerical person during the day i and one staff rxmber at night, resulting in two to four staff ' vehicles on the site together with a van for resident transport- ation on the site during the daytime hours. •5. The applicant states that the target population would consist of chronically nentally ill adults over the age of 21 with severe or persistent or emotional disorders which severely limit their functioning capabilities. The proposed residents would cane from board and care facilities in the;City'of ninneapolis, from the Veteran's A&unistration Iospital at Fort Snelling and fresn the State Hospital for nentally Ill persons in Anoka. The objective of the board and care facility would be to assess a patient's problems and needs, to establish goals, to provide counseling and group therapy with the eventual goal of moving the patient to a facility in which they could operate more ind6pendently. The patients would be supervised while at the honer, but 'uxDuld be unsupervised off site. I4?SOLUrJ0 No. 63 - a9 Typical off site activities would be going to vocational training outlets, working in volunteer. activities and in sheltered ,,orkshops and for those who are employed, going to work. One of the goals ' of the program is to place these patients in the cormunity where they have better access to normally functioning lifestyles and can ' be closer to their families from whom they can receive visitation, social support and with whom they can occasionally visit for over nights. Their transportation would be provided by bus service, by the van, and to some extent automobiles owned by the residents themselves, together with transportation provided by their families. 6. The Council finds that the proposal provides just enough parking for staff needs and the van, and that no parking would be available for the residents" automobiles, for visitors' automobiles, or for service and delivery vehicles. 7. The Council finds that outdoor recreation facilities at the site are almost nonexistent due to lack of space and that pedestrian travel to the nearest park would require the use of 69th Avenue since no sidewalks exist and that such pedestrian traffic coupled with high traffic volume on 69th Avenue and lack of parking at the site would result in unsafe conditions for the for people in the neighborhood, and for the traffic users of 69th Avenue. 8. The Council finds that the plan to convert the building to board and care for 18 to 20 adults would result in crowding and would not provide a healthy and comfortable environment for the residents of - % the board and care facility. 9. The Council finds that the applicant has not had adequate opportunity to review with residents of the neighborhood the problems that mm�ay arise due to congestion, parking, noise pedestrian and vehicular traffic and that neighborhood meetings were proposed by the City Council and were rejected by both the applicant and the spokesman for people in the neighborhood. 10. The Council finds that the proposed residents of the building do not fall within the definition of "mentally retarded or physically handi- capped persons" contemplated by 14innesota Statute 462.357 sub division 8. 11. The Council finds that the proposal for 18 to 20 residents_ exceeds the maxim= nubber for occupancy established by rtinnesota Statute 462.357 subdivision 8. 12. The Council finds that the activity and congestion resulting frcri the proposed use will diminish the use and enjoyment of the owners of adjacent property in the immmmediate vicinity. t - 11 f 13. The Council finds that -the proposed site is a nonconforming use i that there is inadequate parking available on the site and the lot E' is substandard in size, and the proposed use would be an increase `t - in intensity and an expansion of such a nonconfoizni.ng use. k • 10ESCLUi'.T.01 NO. 83-89 Based on the foregoing findings, the minutes of the Planning Commission, he written materials submitted, and the comments of all interested citizens; NOt9, TITEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the special use permit for a board and care facility for mntally ill persons at 4408 69th Avenue North, comprehended by Planning Carcnisson- Application No. 83021, is hereby denied. BE IT FURHMR RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City of Brooklyn Center officidlly reoognizes the need for the type of facility proposed and hereby makes it the policy of the City try encourage such facilities under conditions and at locations compatible with surrounding neighbor - hoods and which provide the maximum in healthy environment for the residents of the facility. June 13, 1983 Date j Mayor ATrFST: er The notion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted' in faVor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against. the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. U/t Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: . RESOLUTION N0. I RESOLUT ON CERTIFYING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the Tree Inspector of the City of Brooklyn Center has caused the removal of diseased shade trees on certain property within the City during 1982 under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.023 and by written agreement with the owners of such property; and WHEREAS, two assessment rolls, a copy of each of which is attached hereto and made part hereof by reference, have been prepared by the City Clerk, one tabulating those properties where diseased shade tree removal costs are less than or equal to $300.00 and one tabulating those properties where diseased shade tree removal costs are greater than $300.00 together with the amounts proposed to be assessed to each property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assess- ment for Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Said assessment rolls of diseased shade tree removal costs are hereby adopted and certified as the following levies: 1982 tree removal costs less than or equal to $300.00 as Levy No. 8878 1982 tree removal costs greater than $300.00 as Levy No 8879 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of years as listed below. The first of the installments shall be payable on or before the first Monday in- January, 1984, and shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from September 1, 1983, until the amounts have been paid in full. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment for sixteen months from September 1, 1983, until December 31, 1984. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. a. Assessments less than or equal to $300.00 are payable in three annual installments. b. Assessments greater than $300.00 are payable in five annual installments. RESOLUTION NO. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued''to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Date Mayor I � ' -- ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member I , 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. r.� s o CIT OF BR CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PAGE I OF • PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No. Levy No. 8878 Fund /Code No. Description: Cost of diseased shade tree removal to those tracts Levy Description:. TREE REMOVAL 83 -3 or parcels where trees were removed during a• portion of .1982, by written agreement with the property owner Levy runs three years (from 1984 to 1986 ) or by order of the City Tree Inspector, at a cost less.than or equal.to $300.00. with interest at the rate of twelve Location: First payment, with property taxes payable in 1984 shall include sixteen whole months interest. Improvement date Date of Assessment Hearing August 8, 1983 Improvement ordered on Adopted on by Resolution No. by Resolution No. . Assessment District (from Notice of Hearing): Corrections, Deletions or Deferments: Method of Apportionment: • Cost Summary (from Resolution No. ) Total Improvement Cost Less Direct City Share (Fund ) Less Other Payments Total Assessed to Property $1,330.33 Assessed to City Owned Property NONE Assessed to Other Public Property NONE Assessed to Private Property $1,330.33 f -- CITY.OF BROOKLYN CENTER -- PAC, _l_ OF... � MUNIC CODE NO. 22 SPEPIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROILS v tW PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER , LEVY NO. PROJ. NO. AODN. NO. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME IDENTIFICATION NO. PRINCIPAL AD DITION/ LEGAL L DESCRIP TION MAILING ADDRESS 0 - 8 -21 -34 -0119 $ 145.59 Thomas C R Vary Jo Lockett 5431 Camden Avenue North 5431 Camden Avenue North Brooklyn Center, 1'N 55430 8878 03- 118- 21 -24- 0028 89665 177.41 16 1 PEARSON'S NORTHPORT YST ; Joseph A. & Sandra L. Drozdik 3907 - 58th Avenue North 3907 - 58th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, r'N ' 55429 10- 118 -21 -14 -0032 89275 205.98 4 2 BROOKLYN MANOR Dale A. Novak 4929 Zenith Avenue North 4929 Zenith Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 03- 118 -21 -12 -0027 89667 68.03 EARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD Bernice Pendy 5916 Ewing Avenue North 5916 Avenue North Brooklyn Center, t14 55429 10- 118 -21 -21 -0043 90080 119.73 8 4 TWIN LAKE WOODS Robert P. R: Catherine A. torvick 5205 East Twin Lake Boulevard 5205 Twin Lake Boulevard East Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 27-119-21-43-0012 89662 161.10 20 1 PALMER LAKE TERRACE Sandra Rae Swanson 3612 Urban Avenue North 3612 Urban Avenue Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 34 119 - 21 - 31 - 0068 89635 227.27 5 9 NORTHGATE Christopher C. & Pamela J. Carlson 6437 Marlin Drive 6437 Marlin Drive' Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 8878 01- 118 -21 -23 -0084 89679 81.90 1 PEPRON ADDITION Anne C. Washington 5738 Humboldt Avenue North 5738 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 8878 34- 119 -21 -32 -0098 89600 143.32 7 1 MILLERS NORTHVIFW HEIGHTS Rudy A. Ogle 6407 June Avenue North 6407 June Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 COUNCIL ACTION NOTES i PAGE 1 01" CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No. Levy No. 88 Fund /Code No. t . Description: Cost of diseased shade tree removal to those tracts Levy Description: TREE REMOVAL 83 -5 or P arcels where trees were removed during 1982 , by written agreement with the property owner or by order Levy runs five years (from 1984 to 1988 ) of the.City Tree Inspector, at a cost greater than $300.00. with interest at the rate of twelve ( 12 x), Location: - First payment, with property taxes payable in 1984 shall include sixteen whole months interest. Improvement hearing date Date of Assessment Hearing August 8, 1983 Improvement ordered on Adopted on ' b by Resolution No. y Resolution No. i Assessment District (from Notice of Hearing) Corrections, Deletions or Deferments: Method of Apportionment: r k Cost Summary (from Resolution No. Total Improvement Cost Less Direct City Share (Fund ) k' Less Other Payments Total Assessed to Property $621.44 Assessed to City Owned Property NONE Assessed to Other Public Property NONE Assessed to Private Property $621.44 4 --. CITY of BROOKLYN CE14TER -- PAGE 1 of 1 MUNIC CODE NO. 22 SPEgIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY NO. PROJ. NO: ADDN. N0. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME IDENTIFICATION NO. PRINCIPAL ADDITION/ GAL DESCRIPTION MAILING DQRESS 8879 01- 118 -21 -42 -0032 89385 305.46 37 That part of Lot 37 lying North Jann M. Gormley of the South 200' thereof except 5614.Camden Avenue North highway & street Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 GARCELON'S 5614.Camden Avenue North 8879 28- 119 -21 -44 -0021 89605 $ 315.98 7 1 MILLER'S WILLOW LANE 1ST Michael C. Rolek• 7019 Perry Avenue North 7019 Perry Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 i COUNCIL ACTION NOTES gab Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. E � RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY HOOKUPS WHEREAS, certain properties which were not previously assessed a full share of the cost of the municipal water supply system or sanitary sewer, system have been permitted to connect to such systems; and WHEREAS, the owner of each such property has executed an agreement to be assessed a water and /or sanitary sewer hookup charge purusant to City Ordinance Section 4 -201 and Section 4 -302; and WHEREAS, three assessment rolls, a copy of each of which is attached- hereto and made part hereof by reference, have been prepared by the City Clerk tabulating those properties to be assessed for water over a ten year period and a twenty year per and for sanitary sewer over a twenty year period, respectively, together with the amount to be assessed to each property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all lbjections to such proposed assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Said assessment rolls of water hookup charges and sanitary sewer hookup charges are hereby adopted and certified as the following levies: WATER HOOKUPS 83 -10 LEVY NO. 8880 WATER HOOKUPS 83 -20 LEVY NO. 8881 SEWER HOOKUPS 83 -20 LEVY NO. 8882 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments over a period of ten years, twenty years, and twenty years, respectively, as indicated on each assessment roll. The first of the installments_ shall be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1984, and shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from September 1, 1983, until the amounts have been paid in full. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment for sixteen months from September 1, 1983, until December . 31, 1984. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no 'interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the.entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO tT . } 4. The City Clerk shall forhtwoth transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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:, a whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. r t i 4 PAGE i OF CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION 4 Improvement Project No. Levy No. 8880 _ Fund /Code No. Description: Water hookup charges to residential property assessed Levy Description: WATER HOOKUPS 83 -10 . in accordance with Subdivision Agreement between City and'the Developer'or by written agreement pursuant to Levy runs ten years (from 1984 to 1993 ) City Ordinances, Section 4 -201, with interest at the rate of twelve (_ Location: First payment, with property taxes payable in 1984 shall include sixteen whole months interest. Improvement hearing date Date of Assessment Hearing August 8, 1983 Improvement ordered on Adopted on by Resolution No. by Resolution No. Assessment District (from Notice of Hearing): Corrections, Deletions or Deferments: Method of Apportionment: { i Cost Summary (from Resolution No. ) r ' Total improvement Cost Less Direct City Share (Fund. ) Less Other Payments Total Assessed to Property $8,151.20 Assessed to City Owned Property 0.00 Assessed to Other Public Property 0.00 i Assessed to•Private Property $8,151.20 , —CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PAGE OF MUNIC CODE NO. 22 SP&CIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY-ASSESSED OWNER LEVY NO. PROJ. NO. ADON. N0. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME IDENTIFICATION N0. PRINCIPAL ADD ITION /LEGAL DESC RIPTION MAILING ADDRESS 35- 119 -21 -22 -0041 01727 $ 264.40 1 1 EARLE BROWN FARt' ESTATES 3RD Bruce A. & Judith M. Lietzke 2900 67th Lane North 2900 - 67th Lane North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 8880 35- 119 -21 -22 -0042 01727 264.40 2 1 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD DeVries Builders Inc. 2904 - 67th Lane North 7564 Mariner Drive Maple Grove, MN 55369 NOTICE ALSO SENT TO: Brooklyn Development Company 3250 - 66th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 8880 35- 119 -21 -22 -0043 01727 264:40 3 1 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD DeVries Builders Inc. 2908 67th Lane North and Brooklyn Development Company 8880 35- 119 -21 -22 -0045 01727 264.40 5 1 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD Daniel J. & Gayle M. Martin 2916 - 67th Lane North 2916 - 67th Lane North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 8880 35- 119 -21 -22 -0046 01727 264.40 6 1 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD DeVries Builders Inc. 2920 67th Lane North and Brooklyn Development Company 8880 35- 119 -21 -22 -0048 01727 264.40 2 2 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD Terry P. Artmann 2928 - 67th Lane North Elizabeth Hampton- Artmann 2928 - 67th Lane North 8880 35- 119 -21 -22 -0050 01727 264.40 4 2 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD DeVries Builders Inca 2936 - 67th Lane North and Brooklyn Development Company 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0037 01727 264.40 1 3 EARLE BROWN FARO ". ESTATES- 3RD Same Above 2915 67th Lane North 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0038 01727 264.40 2 3 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD Same As Above 2919 - 67th Lane North COUNCIL. ACTION NOTES CITY OF 3r•tc OKLYN CENTER — PAGE O r MUNIC CODE NO. 22 SPEPIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER , LEVY NO. PROJ. NO. ADON. NO. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME - IDENTIFICATION NO. PRINCIPAL ADDITION /LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAILING ADDRESS 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0039 01727 $ 264,40 3 3 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD DeVries Builders Inc. 2923 - 67th'Lane North and Brooklyn Development Company 8880 3 - 9- -23 -00 01727 264.40 4 3 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD Same As Above 2927 - 67th Lane North 8880 35_I19_Z1_2J-UU41_ EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD Daniel J. & Debora L. Korpi 2931 - 67th Lane North 2931 - 67th Lane North. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0042 01727 264.40 6 3 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 3RD DeVries Builders Inc. 29.35 - 67th Lane North and Brooklyn Development Company 8880 35-119-21-23-0044 01906 64.00 1 EARLE BROWN FARM, ESTATES 4TH Same As Above 6610 Xerxes Place North 8880 35-119-21-23-0045 01906 264.00 2 1 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same - As Above 6666. Xerxes Place North 8880 01906 264.00 3 1 EARLE BROWN FARM STATES 4TH Same As Above 6662 Xerxes Place North 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0047 01906 264.00. 4' 1 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same -As Above 6658 Xerxes Place North 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0048 01906 264.00 5 i EARLE BROWN FARM. ESTATES 4TH Same As Above ` 6654 Xerxes Place North 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0049 01906 264.00 6 1 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same As Above 6650 Xerxes Place North COUNCIL ACTION NOTES —CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER -- PAGE of MUNIC CODE NO 22 SF�CIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS �. PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY,ASSESSED OWNER LEVY N0. PROJ. NO. ADON. NO. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME IDENTIFICATION NO. PRINCIPAL . AD DITION /LPL ESC IP ION MAILING ADDRESS 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0050 01906 $ 264.00 1 2 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH DeVries Builders Inc. 6685 Xerxes Place North and Brooklyn Development Company 8880. 35- 119 -21 -23 -0051 01906 264.00 2 2 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same As Above 6681 Xerxes Place North 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0052 01906 264.00 3 2 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH : Same As Above 6677 Xerxes Place North 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0053 01906 264.00 4 2 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same As Above 6673 Xerxes Place North 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0054 01906 264.00 5 2 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same As Above 6669 Xerxes Place North 8880 35- 118 -21 -23 -0055 01906 264.00 6 2 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same As Above 6665 Xerxes Place North 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 -0056 01906 264.00 1 3 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same As Above 6661 Xerxes Place North 8880 35- 119 -21 -23 =0057 01906 264.00 2 3 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same As Above 6657 Xerxes Place North. 888 0, 35- 119 -21 -23 -0058 01906 264.00 3 3 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same As Above 6653 Xerxes Place North 8 35- 119 -21 -23 -0059 01906 264.00 4 3 EARLE BROWN FARM ESTATES 4TH Same As Above 6649 Xerxes Place North COUNCIL ACTION NOTES 77 --. CiTY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PAVE MUNIC CODE No. 22 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS �r PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY NO. PROJ. NO. ADDN. NO. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME IDENTIFICATION NO. PRINCIPAL ADDITION/LEGAL DESCRIPT O MAILING ADDRESS 8880 03- 118 -21 -43 -0065 89200 $ 490.00 21 6 BALFANY'S NORTHPORT 1ST R.A. Tombers 5310 France Avenue North 5310 France Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 i COUNCIL ACTION NOTES PAGE I OF _ CITY 'OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ' ROLL PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No. Levy No. 8881 Fund /Code No. Description: Water hookup charges to residential property allowed Levy Description: WATER HOOKUPS 83 -20 to connect to municipal water system by written , agreement pursuant to City Ordinances, Section 4 -201 Levy runs twenty . years (from 1984 to 2003 J with interest at the rate of twelve ( 12 x) Location: First payment, with property taxes payable in 1984 shall include sixteen whole months interest. Improvement hearing date Date of Assessment Hearing_ August 8, 1983 Improvement ordered on Adopted on by Resolution No. by Resolution No. Assessment District (from Notice of Hearing): Corrections, Deletions or Deferments: Method of Apportionment: Cost Summary (from Resolution No. ) Total Improvement Cost Less Direct City Share (Fund ) • Less Other Payments Total Assessed to Property $3,450.00 + Assessed to City Owned Property. 0.00 Assessed to Other Public Property 0.00 Assessed to Private Property $3,450.00 —CITY OF BROOKLYN 'CENTER -- PAGE OF MUAIC CODE N0, x2 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS ; PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER ° LEVY N0. PROJ. NO. AOON. NO. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS - NAME IDENTIFICATION N0. PRINCIPAL DDITION /LEGA D SCRIPTION MAILING DORESS as 8881 03- 118 -21 -34 -0013 89565 $ 490.00 4 Malcolm's Lakeview Addition Richard W. & Dawn M. Schulz 5337 France Avenue North 5337,France Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 8881 34- 119 -21 -31 -0107 01791 $2,960.00 1 1 Hamms Addition Joe Hamm 4010 - 65th Avenue North 6301 Zane Avenue North Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55429 COUNCII. ACTION NOTES v oK PAGE 1 OF_,,... CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No. Levy No. 8882 Fund /Code No. Description: Sanitary sewer hookup charges to single family Levy Description: SEWER HOOKUP 83 -20 resi.dential property allowed to connect„to municipal , sewer system by written agreement pursuant to City Levy runs twenty years (from. 1984 to 2003 ) Ordinances, SectjQn 4 -302 with interest at the rate of twelve ( 12 X), Location: First payment, with property taxes payable in 1984 shall include sixteen whole months interest. Date of Assessment Hearin August 8, 1983 Improvement hearing date 9 . Improvement ordered on Adopted on by Resolution No. by Resolution-No. Assessment District (from Notice of Hearing): Corrections, Deletions or Deferments: Method of Apportionment: Cost Summary (from Resolution No. ) Total Improvement Cost Less Direct City Share (Fund ) Less Other Payments Total Assessed to Property $2,360,00 Assessed to City Owned Property NONE Assessed to Other Public Property NONE Assessed to Private Property $2,360.00 P CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PAGE OF_� MU141C CODE NO. 22 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY NO PRCJ. N0. ADON. NO. LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME IDENTIFICATION NO. PRINCIPAL I I AD /LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAILING AOqRESS 8882 34- 119 -21 -31 -0107 01791 $ 2,360.00 1 1 HAMMS ADDITION Joe Hamm 4010 - 65th Avenue North 6301 Zane Avenue North Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55429 COUNCIL ACTION NOTES Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 1 � . t RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE COST OF HAZARD ABATEMENT TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council has caused the abatement of certain unsanitary, unsafe and hazardous conditions on the property located at 5006 France Avenue North, legally described as: the East 133.03 feet of the West 163.03 feet of the North 150 feet of the South 333 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 10, Township 118 North, Range 21 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (Property Identification No. 10- 118 -21 -13- 0005); and WHEREAS, Sections 463.21 and 463.22, Minnesota Statutes and Section 12 -1206, Brooklyn Center City Ordinances authorize certification of the cost of such hazard abatement -to the County tax rolls for collection; and WHEREAS, the cost of all required work contracted by the City has been tabulated by the Director of Planning and Inspection, in the total amount of $5,008.11; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk tabulating the property where the cost of hazard abatement is to be assessed with the cost to be assessed, to wit: $5,008.11; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to such proposed assessment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT•RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Said hazard abatement assessment roll is hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 8883. 2. The assessment as adopted and certified shall be placed upon the 1983 payable 1984 tax.rolls by the Director. of Finance of Hennepin County to be paid in one annual installment with interest thereon at twelve percent per annum, for a period of fifteen months from October 1, 1983, through December 31, 1984. 3. The owner of the property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through-December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO. { 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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. i P PAGE I OF�,�„ CITY OF B ROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORM_ ATION Improvement Project No. N/A Levy No. 8883 Fund /Code No. ~ Description: Expenses incurred in abating unsanitary, unsafe and Levy Description: HAZARD ABATEMENT 83 hazardous conditions on certain property pursuant to.Section 12 -1206 of the City Ordinances and Minnesota Levy runs one years (from. 19 to - ) Statutes, Chapter 463. with interest at the rate of _t welve ( 12 X). Location: First payment, with property taxes payable in 1984 shall include fifteen whole months interest. Improvement hearing date Date of Assessment Hearing August 8, 19P3 Improvement ordered on Adopted on ' by Resolution No. by Resolution-No. Assessment District (from Notice of Hearing): Corrections, Deletions or Deferments: Method of Apportionment: Cost Summary (from Resolution No. ) Total Improvement Cost Less Direct City Share (Fund ) ,•. Less Other Payments Total Assessed to Property $5,008.11 Assessed to City Owned Property, NONE Assessed to Other Public Property NOME Assessed to-Private Property $5,008.11 -- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PAGE OF MUNIC CODE NO. 22 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS ` PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY.ASSESSED OWNER LEVY NO. PROJ. NO. IDENTIFICATION N0. ADON. NO. PRINCIPAL LOT BLOCK UNITS ADDRESS NAME ADDITION /LEGAL DgSCHIPTION MAILING ADDRESS 8883 10- 118 -21 =13 -0005 89010 $5,008.11 5006 France Avenue North Marvin M. Norling the East 133.03 feet of the West 5006 France Avenue North 163.03 feet of the North 150 feet. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 of the South 333 feet of the N of the SW ; of the NE ';.of Section 10, Township 118 North,' Range 21 West NOTICE ALSO SENT TO: Knutson Mortgage Company P.O. Box 205 Minneapoli COUNCIL ACTION NOTES Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 8, 1983 •1UmIg NNT DEVICE - OPERATOR eacon bowl — 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Green Mill Inn. 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. K41art 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Pontillo's 5937 Summit Dr. Snyder Brothers Drug Brookdale Center T Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. United Artists Theater 5810 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. of Police AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR arG ousel International Corp. P.O. Box 307. Ch e of Police GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE & H UanitaLTion, Inc. 12448 Pennsylvania Ave. _ Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Jaycees 2106 55th Ave. Sanitarian SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Lawrence TEggn o� mpany 945 Pierce Butler Rte. Buildi& Official O MPORARY BEER LICENSE Brooklyn Center Jaycees 2106 55th Ave. N. City Clerk IMP GENERAL APPROVAL: li , City Cle i i f t i i a