Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 11-20 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Brooklyn Center November 20, 1978 7 :00 p.m. 1. Gall -to Order 2. Roll Call 3 . Invocation 4• Approval of Minutes - October 30, 1978, November 7, 1978, November 13,{ 1978 5. Open Forum 6. Bond Reduction; a. H i awatha Rubber Company - 1700 - 67 Avenue North 7. Appointments: a. To the Citizens Participation Committee for Community Development- Block Grants -As per the memorandums and discussion at the October 30, 1973 City Council meeting, representatives - to -the Citizens Participation Committee `" `' "�rFill be• °apps�inted > .. .... . -, ;. , :. - 8. Planning Commission Items (8 :00 p.m.): °+ a. Application No. 78066 submitted b Cynthia Pierce for an amendirrent •to a special use permit for a home occupation kbeauty shop) at 3313 Lawrence Road. The application_ was considered at the NIovember 2, 1978 Planning Commission meeting but was - tabled pending a request for information from the City Attorney. The application will agaill be considered at t1 he November 16, 1978 Planning Commission matting. 9. Resolutions; a. Accepting Quotations for - the Printing of a Newsletter and Park and Recreation Winter Programs Bulletin -Cost of printing newsletter is over $1,000. b. Amending the 1978 Budget - to Provide Funds for Additional Assessing Depart- ment Part -time Labor -Person needed to convert the PINS numbering system .cquired within, Hennepin County. c. Amending - the 1979 Budget to Extend C�:TA Employees 'to Decemr, 31 2978 - Information has been received from CETA sar iiees which extenr s •the CE A contract fct a reduced number of CETA employees •to December 31, 1978. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2 November 20, 1978 d. Amending -the 1979- Budget - to Provide Police Salary Increases Under the Union Contract e Pertaining to - the Great River Road Bicycle Trail -On November 13, 1978 the Brooklyn Center City Council made a motion supporting - the 69th Avenue North and Lyndale- Mississippi River Corridor as - the desired location for the Great River Road Bicycle Trail currently being planned by' Minnesota Department of Transportation. A draft resolution has been prepared for formally requesting that - the Minnesota Department of Transportation approve - the above location for the Great River Road Trail through Brooklyn Center. f. Requesting `the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners - to Revise - the County's Five Year Highway Construction Program 'to Accelerate 'the Improvement of C . S .A . H . No. 130 in - the City of Brooklyn Center. -At the November 13, 1978 meeting the Brooklyn Center City Council requested - the above resolution be prepared for - their adoption at - the November 20 Council meeting. g. Establishing Street Construction Improvement Project No. 1978 -44 and Ordering< Preparaaion of. Plans_..and :Specifications -At the November 13, 1978 Council meeting the City Council authorized the execution of an agreement with - the City of Minneapolis for Penn Avenue North from 53rd Avenue southerly to the Shingle Creek bridge by. 52nd Avenue North. The above resolution formally establishes - the Minneapolis Penn Avenue project for accounting purposes. h. Accepting Work for Sidewalk Improvement Con'trac't 1978 -B for Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1977 -12 for Work Satisfactorily Constructed,. by Concrete Curb, Inc. -The above project is located along County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway for -the purpose of installing pedestrian ramps at the various intersections. i. Accepting Work for Sidewalk Improvement Contract 1978 -B for Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1978 -15 for Work Satisfactorily Constructed by Concrete Curb, Inc. -The above project is located on the north side of 57th Avenue North between Logan and vacated Morgan Avenue North. J. Accepting Work for Sidewalk Improvement Contract 1978 -B for Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1978 -16 for Work Satisfactorily Constructed by Concrete Curb, Inc. -The above project is located along Emerson Lane and 70th Avenue North from Dupont to Humboldt Avenue North. A CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- November 20, 1978 k. Authorizing an Amendment to the Agreement with Egil Wefald & Associates, Inc., for Preparing Plans and Specifications for Bridge Improvement Project No. 1977 -10 -On July 11, 1977 - the Brooklyn Center. City Council authorized - the Mayor and the City Manager to execute an agreement with Egil Wefald & Associates, Inc. , for preparing plans and specifications for Bridge Project No. 1977 -10. This project consists of the pedestrian/bikeway bridge crossing T.H. 100 from Summit Avenue North to 59th Avenue North. The agreement provides for the Engineer to perform the preliminary engineering and final design and F drafting for the bridge for an amount not to exceed $20,000 without - the owner's approval. Due - to a chancre in scope of the project, - the Engineer has requested the not to exceed amount , to , be increased $3,500 to $23,500. The change in scope consists of developing an imaginative nonstandard bridge design which is estimated to save approximately $40,000 in con- struction costs, preparation of a landscaping plan, and a delay of approximately one year in approvals by - the various governmental agencies. - 10. Ordinances -a. Prohibiting the Impersonation of a Police Officer or.a Public Official - Ordinance is a first reading. - b. Regulating the Operation and Maintenance of Rap Parlors, Conversation Parlors, Adult Encounter Groups, Adult; Sensitivity Groups, Escort Services, Model Services, Dancing Services or Hostess Services; Requiring a License - to Operate Such Businesses and Establishing Standards for -the Construction, Operation and Maintenance of These Facilities - Ordinance is a first reading. -11. Discussion Items: a. Explanation of Park and Recreation Development Plan -Final Park Development Plan will be presented by - the Park and Recreation Commission for review by - the Council. b. Community Center Rate Structure -Rate increases comprehended in - the 1979 Park and Recreation Budget.. c. Approval of Contract with Moen and Penttila "to provide for - the 1978 Audit -It is recommended 'that - the Council pass a motion approving 'the contract with Moen and Penttila - to provide for the 1978 audit. d. Issuance of an On -Sale Nonirtoxica•ting Liquor License for the Pizza Factory located at 6816 Humboldt Avenue North i CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- November 20, 1978 e. Review of Brooklyn Center's Transportation Plan -The Director of Public Works will he prepared to review with the City Council the Brooklyn Center Transportation Plan relative to the currently designated classification of various streets. The discussion. is recommended for the purpose of providing the City Council with background relative to - the rationale for street classifications for providing a safe movement of - traffic within and - throughout - the City of Brooklyn Center. - f. Report on Stop Sign Request at County Road No. 130 and Perry Avenue North -The Director of Public Works will be prepared - to discuss - the response from Hennepin County relative - to - the request for studying the intersection of County Road 130 and Perry Avenue North for - the need of a four way stop in. response. - to a request from neighboring property owners. The Hennepin County report indicates -there is no justification for the installation of a four way stop at that location. 12. Temporary Renewal and /or Nonrenewal of Specified Rental Licenses, a. Chippewa Park Apartments at 6507 Camden Avenue North - Temporary rental license renewal will be considered b. Properties of Mr . _ R Bobletter - Recommend - temporary renewal of a rental license for a 4 -plex located at 5328• - 4th Street North belonging - to Mr. R. Bobletter due to code related violations (no safety related violations). Owner states the 4 -plex will be taken by April, 1979 as part of the freeway land acquisition. - Recommends nonrenewal of rental license for a single family home located at 5324 - 4th Street also belonging to Mr. R. Bobletter. House is presently vacant and will be - taken as part of freeway land acquisition. 13. Licenses 14. Adjournment L 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 OCTOBER 30, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO O RDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7 :05 p.m, ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist,_ Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also ,present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Inspector Andy Alberti, and Administrative Assistants Mary Harty and Brad Hoffman. INVOCATIO The invocation was offered by Pastor Lindquist of Brookdale Covenant Church. Following the invocation, Mayor Nyquist thanked Pastor Lindquist for his service to the City as Pastor of Brookdale Covenant Church and offered Pastor Lindquist the best wishes of the City in his move to another church. APPROVAL OF MI NUTES - i _O CTOBER 16, 1978 Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the minutes of the City Council .meeting of October 16, 1978 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. OPEN FO RUM Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purposes of the Open Forum explaining i no one had requested to appear at the Open Forum prior to the Council meeting,. The Mayor recognized Mr. Lee Sna.pko of 6931 West Palmer Lake Drive who wished to present a petition to the Council from the residents of West_ Palmer Lake Drive from 69th to Violet Avenue. The petitioners requested that a stop sign be installed at the corner of West Palmer Lake Drive and Urban Avenue. Mr, Snapko stated the residents wished a stop sign installed for the following reasons: a stop sign would significantly reduce the occurrence of vehicle speeding in the area; additionally, a step sign would significantly reduce the occurrence of vehicles missing the curve at Urban Avenue anu West Palmer lake and destroying yards, trees and fire hydrants The petitioners requested the stop sign because of the following characteristics of the area (according to the petitioners): the residents have noticed an increased_ amount of excessive speeding in the past few years; .West Palmer Lake Drive is a major walkway for students at Palmer Lake Elementary School; the corner of West Palmer Lake Drive and Urban is a loading /unloading stop for school bussing to 10 -30 -78 -1- , secondary and high school in Brooklyn Park; increased use of West Palmer Lake Park for sport programs (baseball, soccer, tennis); increase in the number of small children in the area during the last six to ten years, Mr. Snapko explained - the City Engineer had conducted a traffic study in the area but the residents disagreed with the results of the study. In response to a 'question from Mayor Nyquist, Mr. Snapko stated the study had been conducted in late August and early September when many of the park programs were finished and, therefore, the traffic study did not present an accurate pictured The Director of Public Works explained six traffic counts had been conducted in a time span from 3 :30 p.m. to 8 :00 p.m. on various days. The speeding survey` shows approximately 95% of the traffic traveling in the area are traveling at 35 - miles per hour or less. Traffic enforcement experts feel this is a good enforce- ment level. The Director of Public Works noted speeding does seem to occur two blocks north of Urban Avenue and a stop sign on Urban would not alleviate this problem. He further noted there were very few reported accidents in the area although it appears there are more accidents which are unreported. The Director of Public Works stated it was his recommendation to install advisory curve signs with a 25 mile per hour speed recommendation. He further indicated - the amount of traffic, according to the traffic count, is not excessive. Placing stop suns at West Palmer Lake and Urban Avenue would create a stop and start Councilmember Lhotka referred to earlier comments made by the City Manager that there seems to be a disregard for stop signs in the City. The City Manager briefly explained earlier comments about a seeming disregard for stop signs in the City,- noting many people roll through stop signs or don't stop at all. He explained there is a danger in putting up too many stop signs in a residential area because people, especially children, begin to count on the stop sign. The 5% of people exceeding the speed limit and particularly those drivers under the influence of alcohol are likely to continue speeding 'through the area and, furthermore, may not obey the stop sign. Stop signs are not necessarily a good speed control mechanism, Councilmember Fignar asked whether the presence of a school and park_at the end of the street lends credence to the request for a stop sign in the area. Councilmember Kuefler questioned the use of speed advisory signs. The Director of Public Works stated there were speed advisory signs in the area of France Place which seem to be effective The Director of Public Works explained his concern over stop signs was due to in part to the phenomenon of "moving the problem elsewhere" If stop signs are installed on West Palmer Lake Drive and Urban Avenue, the traffic generally moves and different sorts of problems are created elsewhere. The Director of Public Works suggested additional traffic studies could be conducted in the area in order to. evaluate the need for a stop sign. Mr. Snapko questioned the Council as to what farther action aright be taken if 10 -30 -78 -2- the Council decides not to install stop signs in the area. The Mayor noted there was no other action to be taken. The City Manager stated additional traffic and pedestrian counts would be taken in the area and staff would - report the results to the Council in approximately three weeks. The City Manager indicated Mr. Snapko would be contacted. concerning a, date for future consideration of this issue. Councilmember Lhotka presented a petition for Mr. Rich Armstrong because Mr. Armstrong was not able to attend the Council meeting. The petition stated the residents and property owners in the City of Brooklyn Center, for the safety and welfare of children and ourselves request the following: stop signs installed on Logan Avenue in a north and south direction at these locations: intersection of 56th and Logan, and intersection of 55th and Logan because of excessive speed on Logan Avenue, There were 20 signers of the petition. Councilmember Lhotka presented the petition to the Council for Council consideration. Mayor Nyquist closed the Open Forum for the October 30, 1978 meeting, APPROVAL OF ELECTIONL1 FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION A list of election judges has been compiled by the City Clerk which includes replacements and additional judges added to those judges already- approved for -the rimar election C p echo a There way a motion b Y y Councilmember Lhotka and seconded b Councilmember a y e er Scott to approve the election judges for the general election. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS The Cite Manager recommended the resolution - authorizing the purchase of 744 linear feet of 14" window stool.. It is recommended the quotation of Peabody Enterprises in the amount of $2,976 be accepted. The material will be used to replace cement cap blocks on the window ledges. RESOLUTION NO, 78 -241 Member kill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 744 LINEAR FEET OF 14" WINDOW STOOL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill'Figrar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, The City Manager recommended a resolution to transfer funds from the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Budget to the General Fund. It is recommended the amount of $70,779.34 be transferred from the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Budget to the General Fund. These appropriations were previously approved by the City Council. 10 -30 -78 -3- r � . ,R E rOT UTION NO. 78 -242 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott, and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager recommended a resolution authorizing the issuance of temporary improvement notes in the amount of $35,000 RESOLUTION NO. 78 -243 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT NOTES' The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager recommended a resolution accepting bids and approving contract form for Utility Contract No. 1978 -S. Bids were scheduled, to be opened at 11 :00 a.m. on Monday, October 30, 1978. The contract contains Water Main Improvement Projects No. 1978 -31 and 1978 -40A, and the Storm Sewer Improvement. Projects No. 1978 -32 and 1978-35. Project 1978 -40A is for lowering the water main. for the Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 - 40, while the remaining utility projects are in Unity Avenue North for "The Ponds" development. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -244 Member Gene Lhotka introduced- the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING, BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FORM (UTILITY CONTRACT '1978 -S) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager recommended a resolution authorizing the purchase of 16" ductile iron pipe for Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -40A. He explained it is recommended the quotation of Griffin Pipe Products be. accepted for the 16" ductile iron pipe necessary for lowering the water main for Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40. 10 -30 -78 -4- The Director of Public Works explained the price received from Griffin is more than the price received from Davies but Davies pipes are not available for four to six weeks The four to six week delay would cause problems for the City, thus it is recommended, the quotation of Griffin Pipe Products be accepted. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -245 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 60' OF 16" DUCTILE IRON PIPE FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 --40A The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted - against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager recommended a resolution authorizing the purchase of fittings for Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -40A. It is recommended the quotation of Davies Water Equipment Company be accepted for the cast iron fittings necessary for lowering of the water main for the Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40. The Director of Public Works again noted the price quoted by Davies is slightly higher than the price quoted by another company but the pipes are immediately available from Davies and this immediate availability will facilitate the initiation of the project. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -246 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE - PURCHASE OF 1.6" CAST IRON WATER MAIN FITTINGS FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -40A The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager recommended a resolution accepti:ng.work for Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -2. He noted Halvorson Construction Company - has satisfactorily completed the work under Contract 1978 -M for the above project located along 70th Avenue North b- etween T.H. 152 and Kyle Avenue North. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -247 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -M (CONTRACT 1"D BY CITY) 10 -30 -78 -5- 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared, duly passed and adopted. • The City Manager recommended a resolution accepting work for Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -28. He noted Halvorson Construction Company, had satisfactorily completed the work under Contract 1978. -N for the above project located on James Circle from Freeway Boulevard to the south. RESOLUTION NO , 78 -248 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -N (CONTRACTED BY CITY) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Genie Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the. same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager recommended a resolution authorizing the purchase of aerial survey work for the 53rd Avenue street upgrading and Improvement Projects 1978 -38 and 1978 -39. Quotations have been solicited for aerial survey work for 53rd Avenue North between 4th Street and Penn Avenue North. The work will consist of aerial photography and supplying reproducible plan and profile sheets with the topography shown on the plans in the form of aerial photos The format is expected to save a considerable amount of field survey and drafting work. In a response to questions from Councilmember Kuefler, the Director of Public Works explained the cost of the aerial survey work will be split between the City of Minneapolis and the City of Brooklyn Center but the cost is not reimburs able from the State Highway Department for freeway construction. The cost of $1,680 will be split between Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center. In a response to a question from Councilmember Lhotka, the Director of Public Works explained the contractor will take aerial photos and reproduce those photos on clear trans- parencies eliminating much of the field survey and drafting work. The savings for the elimination of the survey and drafting work will offset the cost of the aerial photos RESOLUTION NO. 78 -249 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF AERIAL SURVEY MAPPING SERVICES FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1978 -38 AND 1978 -39 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and, Celia 10 -30 -78 -6- Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution .Was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager recommended a resolution amending the 1978 General Fund Budget to provide funds for the acquisition of a lifeguard platform. He explained g p q the City had received a request from the Osseo School District to provide $450 or 1/2 of the cost of a lifeguard platform for Northview School. There is a Minnesota State Board of Health regulation (MHD 115) which requires pools of a certain size to be equipped with a lifeguard platform. The pool at Northview School is required to have a lifeguard platform. Presently, the City of Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Department has the complete use of the Northview pool after 5:00 p.m every day and all v,Feekend, at no cost to the City. For this reason, it is recom- mended the City provide $450, 1./2 of the cost of a_ lifeguard platform to Northview School, The City Attorney suggested a change in the wording of the resolution, to avoid problems with a question of ownership of the platform. It was the consensus of the Council that they supported providing the $450 for the platform and requested the City Attorney to make changes in the resolution It was decided the resolution would be considered later in the Council meeting, after the City Attorney had made changes in the resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 78060 submitted by Brookdale Ford for site and building plan approval for an office addition, service garage addition, and body shop at Brookdale Ford, 2500 County Road 10 The application was recommended for approval at the October 5, 1978 Planning Com- mission meeting. The application was deferred at the City. Council of October 16, 1978 until staff could review the status of site improvements. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed Application No. 78060 stating there was a misunderstanding between Brookdale Ford and Benson -Orth regarding the preparation of the required plans as indicated by a September 14, -1977 letter to Mr. Blair Tremere' from Mr. David Davenport representing Brookdale Ford. A registered civil engineer was retained to prepare the required drainage plan for the site. It was also indicated in the letter that Brookdale Ford hoped to resolve the purchase of the NSP property to the north and requested that the project be postponed until the spring of 1978. The Director of Planning and - Inspection explained Brookdale Ford then acquired the property in question and met with Mr. Tremere in late May, 1978 regarding commencing with the site improvements. The Director of Planning and Inspection called the Council's attention to a copy of a June 1, 1978 letter to Mr. Glen Lieder of Brookdale Ford explaining the matters that must be addressed prior to the commencement of the work. The Director of Planning and Inspection added Brookdale Ford submitted the required revised master plan and detailed landscape plan and it was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on July 13, 1978. Brookdale Ford began the parking lot and the landscaping improvements within the past two weeks. Summarizing, the Director of Planning and Inspection notcd delay in site improvements had been caused by not acquiring the NSP 10 -30 -78 -7- easement and confusion between the applicant and the company doing the land - scaping." He further noted that the -landscaping along County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway was currently underway, "There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78060 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. 2. The buildings are to be equipped with automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet MFPA'Standard No. 13. 3. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. The property shall be replatted in accordance with Section 35 -540 of the City Ordinances. 5. The conceptual master plan shall be subject to further review with future development. 6. The applicant 'shall enter into an inspection and maintenance agreement with the City. 7. The exterior of the addition shall match the existing_ exterior and the r "pier" effect shown on the plans shall be uniformaily applied to the building, and so indicated on the plans 8. The applicant shall submit written acknowledgement that the performance bond shall be retained until the property is replatted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed .unanimously. D ISCUSSION ITEMS The first discussion item is a renewal of the rental dwelling license for Mr. Bennie Rozman for Brookdale Ten apartment complex. The City Manager explained the license was temporarily extended through August, 1978. Renewal of the license was discussed at the City Council meeting of September 25,_ 1978. At the request of the Council, Mr. Rozman had been invited to attend the City Council meeting and explain his priorities in fixing up the property and a schedule and timetable of repairs. The City Manager noted Mr. Rozman and Mr. Healy were in attendance. Councilmember Kuefler explained to Mr. Rozman and Mr. Healy that in earlier discussions it was the consensus of the Council, that rather than the Council mandating priorities and a timetable it might be more appropriate to ask Mr. Rozman to prioritize the repairs and establish a timetable. Councilmember Kuefler noted the end objective of both Mr. Rozman and the Council was -to - get the property in order and rather than working in opposition to one another, it would be more helpful to work together. 10 -30 -78 -8- Mr. Rozman explained he had taken over the complex in May, 1976. He explained a considerable amount of money has been spent to date upgrading the property. He explained his priorities thus far has been to fix the internal part of the complex, that being the actual apartments He explained he felt it was necessary to upgrade the tenants and in order to upgrade the tenants he had to first upgrade the apartments. He noted if the tenants were not upgraded, the repairs would be useless, because the tenants would continue to damage the property. He-explained the apartments are almost completed. The next major thrust will be the common areas and the exterior which both still need work. He explained Mr. Healy was prepared to lay out a schedule for the Council. Councilmember Scott complimented Mr. Rozman on reducing the - number of- priority number 1 infractions. She further stated she was most concerned about repairs in the areas of safety and welfare and stated she felt those kinds of repairs should stay as top priority. Mr. Rozman responded he was in agreement with Councilmember Scotto He further noted the present tenants of the Brookdale Ten apartments were on a par with the residents of other apartments in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Kuefler asked whether the number of police calls for Brookdale Ten had been decreased. The City Manager explained specific statistics were not available but according to shift supervisors, the calls are down. The number of calls appears presently to be similar to the number of calls for an area of approximately 300 homes. There are approximately 310 apartments in Brookdale • Ten so it appears the number of calls is fairly consistent with the rest of the City. The City Manager further noted there appeared to be fewer disturbance type calls. More of the calls were calls similar to the kinds of calls received in other apart- '' ment complexes such as burglary from cars. In response to questions from the Council, Mr. Rozman explained his residents were on a month to month oral lease and this type of arrangement seemed to work well. Mr. Rozman further invited all of the Council members to tour the building. Mr. Rozman explained he would be happy to take the Council as a whole or individual Council members through the complex if they so desired. Councilmember Fignar suggested the Council as a whole might wish to take a walk through the complex on an organized basis. Councilmember Fignar expressed appreciation to Mr. Rozman for the. invitation Councilmember Scott noted she had walked through the building several months ago and had also walked through the building in the last two weeks. She noted she had spoken with several tenants and the tenants commented things had changed for the better and were continuing to improve. Councilmember Scott noted she too saw an improvement from six months ago. Councilmember Lhotka stated he was pleased to see the list of needed priority • repairs was getting smaller. He also concurred with Councilmember Kuefler's earlier comments that the Council and Mr. Rozman must work together to solve this problem and the end objective of each party was to get the property straightened around. 10 -30 -78 -9- Councilmember Kuefler questioned the license renewal action necessary, Mr. Healy summarized a schedule of repairs which extended through next summer. The repairs were primarily in the common areas and the exterior areas of the building because most of the apartments had been repaired up to this point. A list of those repairs is attached as part of the official_ record of this meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to extend the rental dwelling license for Mr. Bennie Rozman for the Brookdale Ten_ apartment complex through the end of August, 1979 and look at the issue again at that time comparing the accomplishment of repairs with the list of repairs provided to the Council on October 30, 1978. In discussion of the motion a citizen in the audience asked whether the crime rate in the area surrounding Brookdale Ten had decreased. The City Manager noted the police department's records were not sophisticated enough to be able to pinpoint that data. Mr. Rozman again extended the invitation to Council members to tour the complex. Councilmember Kuefler noted he felt Mr. Rozman was acting in good faith in attempting to fix up the property. Following the discussion of the motion, the following voted in favor: Mayor - Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced the next item, a= discussion -on the proposed Charter Commission amendments. The City Attorney explained to the Council he had att -empted to prepare a memorandum concerning Minnesota Statute 410.10 concerning Charter Amendment Procedures. The Statute is confusing and a memo- randum on the meaning of the Statute would not clarify the Statute. The City Attorney explained he had prepared a flow chart which showed Charter amendment procedures as detailed in Minnesota Statute 410.10. The City Attorney further explained he had spoken with Chairman Kanatz concerning Charter amendment procedures. Chairman Kanatz indicated it was the Charter Commission's wish to handle the amendments by ordinance, Chairman Kanatz indicated to the City Attorney she would attend the Council meeting to discuss the Charter amendments with the Council. The City Manager explained he wished to clarify an issue of confusion concerning Section 6.05 Purchase and Contracts and Section 6.06 Contracts: How Let in the Charter. He explained the purchasing policy could be established by ordinance or resolution rather than by Charter. Establishing the purchasing policy by ordi- nance or resolution would provide direction on a continuing basis with regards to dollar amounts, without the need to change the Charter. Mayor Nyquist questioned whether those amendments not accepted by the Council would be referred back to the Charter Commission. The City Attorney replied a public hearing was required on the proposed Charter amendments. He indicated 10 -30 -78 -10— it would be helpful to discuss the proposed Charter amendment9cition the Charter Commission at the Council meeting. i Mayor Nyquist indicated he felt there were three possibilities on the proposed Charter amendments. First, to accept an amendment -as is; second, to totally reject an amendment or third, to refer an amendment back to the _Charter Commission for redrafting. In response to questions from the Council the City Attorney clarified terminology used by the City for first ordinance reading and second ordinance reading. He again stated the need fora public hearing on the proposed Charter amendments. The City Attorney explained the ordinance passage procedure as'established comprehends a first reading of the ordinance, publication of the ordinance, and a second reading of the ordinance. The procedure expedites the time within which an ordinance takes effect. Mayor Nyquist suggested the Council should consider each amendment as presented and decide whether that amendment should be accepted, rejected, or referred back to the Charter Commission. After a first review of the amendments, the Council could return to those amendments which they wished to defer back to the Charter Commission and indicate to the Charter Commission the area of disagree- ment. The Council expressed objection over amendment 2. The Council expressed objections over amendment - 3o Councilmember Kuefler noted his objection was with the language not with the intent of the amendment. The Council expressed objection over amendment 4. The, Council expressed objection over amendment 5 and indicated a wording change was needed. The Council expresser) objection over amendment 6 noting the word "may" should be left in and the word "shall" should be crossed out. The Council accepted amendment 7 as proposed by the Charter Commission.- There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to set a date for the public hearing on amendment. 7. In discussion of the motion, the City Manager suggested it might be appropriate to review all of the Charter amendments before setting a date for the public hearing. Councilmember Kuefler withdrew the motion and the .seconder withdrew the second of the motion. i Amendment 8 was accepted as proposed by the Charter Commission. I The Council expressed objection over amendment 9 stating the amendment needed language clarification. 10 -30 -78 There was a mot o by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to refer am n'ment 9 back to tie Charter Commission. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, uncilmembers Kueler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Amendment 10 was accepted as proposed by the Charter. Commission, The Council expressed an objection to amendment 11 Amendment 12 was accepted as proposed by the Charter Commission. The Council expressed objection over amendment 13 both as to intent and wording. .The Council expressed objection over amendment 15. Amendment 16 was accepted as proposed by the Charter Commission. The Council expressed objection over amendment 17. The City Attorney stated it might be advantageous in this amendment to remove the bulk of the subdivision, stating the methods for amending the Charter are provided by State Statute. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to reject amendment 17 noting the City Attorney's comments as the reason. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against :. none. The motion passed unanimously. At this time, Chairman Kanatz asked if she could make a suggestion to the Council . Chairman Kanatz suggested the Council might wish to make more specific comments regarding their disagreement with particular Charter amend- ments so that the Charter Commission could consider these comments. The Mayor noted the Council would do this. The Council expressed an objection over amendment 18. The Council expressed objection over amendment 19 indicating the Charter could specify the Statute which limits dollar amounts in purchasing. Actual setting of the dollar amounts could be done by ordinance or resolution. In this way, the ordi- nance or resolution would not be in conflict with the Charter but would provide continuing direction based on changes in the economy. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to reject amendment 19 based on the reasons as listed above. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Council expressed objection over amendment 20 for the same reasons as listed for amendment 19. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to reject amendment 20 for the reasons as listed in amendment 19 consideration. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against:. none. The motion passed 10 -30 -78 -12- unanimously. The Council expressed objection over amendment 21 Amendment 22 is not applicable. Amendment 23 was accepted as proposed by the Charter Commission Amendment 24 was accepted as. proposed by the Charter Commission. Mayor Nyquist suggested the Council would again review tine amendments suggesting areas of disagreement and proposing possible changes for consideration by th- Charter Commission. Concerning amendment 2, Councilmember Kuef.ler stated the issue of terms for the Council should be a matter left in the voters' hands Councilmember Kuofler stated he disr3greed with the philosophy of this proposed Charter amendment. He asked Chairman Kanatz to comment on the legislative intent of this proposed amendment. Chairman Kanatz noted it was the intent of the Charter Commission to limit the terrns in order to insure. that opportunities for see "ing on the Council remain open. Charger Commission member Vince Tubman si:ete'd six years was a considerable amcount of time for a Councilmember to ser-,re on the Council. He explained it was the Clmarter Commission's intent to =rovi:de ti-,.e opportunity for a Council to change often enough to achieve a new look and be infu-sed with new blood. The Charter Commission felt this ch, was desirable. The City Attornev referred the Council to an earlier m n o from the City At lorney stating there was the issue of constituti.oiiaMty. He noted no other city has a similar ruling limiting the terms of Council members Councilmember Scour indicated she objected to the amendment in light of the issue raised by the City attorney concerning the constitutionality of restricting the terms of Council members. C.uncilmernber Lhotka noted he was unsure of the Charter Commission's rationale for proposing this amendment The Mayor noted. the objection to amendment 2 was substantive not a question of draftsmanship. The Council did not wish to accept {n nlendmerlt 2 nor dice. the C:'ourmcil wish to refer amenti.ment, 2 back to the Charter Commission for rewording . because the disagreement was substantive-. It was the consensus of the Council to reject amendment 2. In discussion of amendment 3, it was the Consensus of the Council the disagree -• inept vqith amendment 3 was not substantive but a question of draftsma riship The Council suggested adding the sentence "until one year after the expiration of his Lerra" in such a plane within amendment 3 that it would apply to the entire section. The Council noted the placement within the section Mad to confusion. There was a motion by Cou.ncilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to refer amendment 3 back to the C- barter Commission for language clarification. 10- 30-70 -13 Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In discussion of amendment 4 Mayor Nyquist stated he did not feel there had been a quorum problem with the Council. He asked whether this amendment was tied - to amendment 1 which had been defeated by the Charter Commission. Chairman Kanatz replied although amendment 1 had been voted down, the Charter Commission wished to tighten the quorum requirements. She noted the Charter Commission itself had worked through the proposed Charter amendments using the spirit of the intent of this proposed amendment by requiring a quorum of a full Commission for a decision on the proposed Charter amendments, Councilmember Kuefler stated he did not feel there was a specific problem with the number for a quorum as presently established in the Charter. He noted he objected to the proposed amendment. Charter Commission member Vince Tubman noted if the quorum remained at three, two would be a majority. Councilmember Lhotka asked whether certain controversial issues could require a full Council and leave the number required for a quorum at three Councilmember Kuefler noted the Council has internally policed that potential problem by delaying action on controversial issues until a full Council is present. - Councilmember Kuefler again noted he did not feel there was a problem with this. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka to suggest that the Charter Com- mission consider requiring a quorum of four only on controversial issues. There was no seconder to the motion. The City Attorney asked for a clarification of the wording in the proposed amend- ment which suggested appointing additional members. Chairman Kanatz explained additional members could be appointed only if elected members of the Council resigned or for some reason were removed permanently from the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to refer amendment. 4 back to the Charter Commission for further considera- tion. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott, Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In discussion of amendment 5, the City Attorney again suggested the use of the terminology Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Councilmember Kuefler asked if this amendment would impede City business in any way. The City Manager indicated he did not feel it would impede City business. In a question raised by the Director of Finance concerning a possible problem with budget deliberations, the City Attorney responded budget delibera- tions which lasted beyond midnight Could be recessed and reconvened the following day and, therefore, the 24 hours notice to each member of the Council would not be a problem for budget deliberations 10 -30 -78 -14- There was a motion by Council rriember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to refer amendment 5 back to the Charter Commission with a suggestion to change the wording to Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In response to questions from the Council concerning amendment 6 Chairman Kanatz explained that the proposed amendment was not addressed to a specific problem but was a general philosophical issue. Councilmember Scott indicated she felt the proposed amendment compels attendance under all circumstances and would be impossible to implement. Councilmember Kuefler suggested leaving the first "shall" in the proposed amendment and changing the second "shall" to "may There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to refer amendment 6 back to the Charter Commission for reconsideration. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In discussion of amendment 11. Council members stated there was not a need to increase the number from two to three nominees to be selected for each elective office. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka to refer amendment 11 back to the Charter Commission for informational purposes. There was no second to the motion. The Mayor noted there was substantive disagreement with amendment 11 , not a disagreement over wording. It was the consensus 'of' the Council to reject amendment 11. In discussion of amendment 13, Councilmember Kuefler stated he felt the Charter should read neutrally. He questioned how it could be determined if the people were on one side of an issue or the other. Chairman Kanatz noted the amendment was proposed because in the past both the Charter Commission and the Council could be seen as impediments to people attempting to change the Charter. It was the wish of the Charter Com- mission to make the powers of initiative and referendum more powerful of - ter - historically severely limiting those powers. Chairman Kanatz further noted the language was analgous to that language - as listed in Section 1 .02 which says. "this section should be construed liberally, in favor of the City ". Mayor Nyquist commented Section 1.02 deals with the question of constitutionality and therefore, is not analgous to Section 5.01. The City Attorney noted, as a point of clarification, the statement "to be construed liberally in favor of the people" applies to the whole .of Chapter 5 not just Section 5. al . Chairman Kanatz agreed with the City Attorney's interpretation. In light of that clarification, the City Attorney suggested the Charter Commission might wish to change the word "people" to "petitioners". 10-30 -78 -15- The City Attorney Roted, if this wording "construed liberally in favor of the people was included in the Charter, the City Council could still ask for a declaratory judgment if the Council judged a change suggested by petitioners to be unconstitu- tional. The City Attorney further noted interpreting those words "construed liberally in favor of the people" is a difficult interpretation. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember - Fignar to refer amendment 13 back to the Charter Commission for language clarification. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, > Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In discussion of amendment 15, Councilmember Scott noted the intent of the Charter Commission may be different than what appears by the wording as presented in this amendment but the present wording impedes any action on the part of the City in even providing information concerning an issue. Chairman Kanatz explained the amendment was proposed to prohibit the City from encouraging or opposing an issue presented by petitioners in regards to Charter amendments Chairman Kanatz noted the proposed amendment does not preclude the City's providing information. The proposed amendment does preclude the City from lobbying for or against a petition. Councilmember Kuefler suggested adding wording which would make it possible to provide information, thereby making information dissemination neutral, The City Manager noted the amendment as proposed by the Charter Commission would impede any action on his part. Under the proposed amendment, the City Manager would not be able to -make any recommendations concerning an issue at question. The Director of Finance further explained, as _a signer of checks, almost anything he would do as Finance Director could be construed as being in favor of or against a proposed petition. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to refer amendment 15 back to the Charter Commission for language clarification, ;Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In discussion of amendment 18 Councilmember Kuefler suggested referring the amendment back to the Charter Commission as per the recommendation of the City Attorney. Chairman Kanatz explained she had misspoken concerning the legislative intent of amendment 18 at the October 16 1978 meeting. Chairman Kanatz clarified the legislative intent noting the Charter Commission felt the language in Section 6.04 was redundant and had already been incorporated in Section _3.02. Councilmember Kuefler noted the language in Section 3.02 is specific to Council proceedings 10 -30 -78 -16- There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to refer amendment 18 back to the Charter Commission-for language clarification, Voting in favor Mayor Nyquist, Councilm embers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In discussion of amendment 21, Councilmember Kuefler noted if Section 7.16 as presently included in the Charter was left, that language attracts attention to the fact that there is a State Statute regarding this matter. Councilmember Kuefler felt the Section should be left in. Mayor Nyquist noted there was substantive disagreement with amendment 21. It was the consensus of the Council to reject amendment 21. Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had earlier accepted amendment 23 and 24. There was a brief discussion concerning the vacancy on the Charter Commission due to the resignation of Commissioner Higgins. Councilmember Kuefler asked when Commissioner Higgins had resigned. He asked when it became the responsi- bility of the Council to appoint a member to the Charter Commission. He questioned whether the responsibility took effect 30 days after the resignation or 30 days after the Judge had been notified of the resignation The City Attorney noted the Statute was not clear on the issue. ` T •' Councilmember Lhotca left the table at 10.32 p.m. Chairman Kanatz noted she had been informed of the resignation earlier this fall. Councilmember Lhotka returned at 10:34 p o mp Councilmember Kuefler indicated he felt the resignation had been received in July. Chairman Kanatz noted she had been informed verbally in July but the formal written resignation had not been received until after that time. She noted an informal process had been established whereby the Charter Commission recom- mends interested members to the Chief Judge for the judge's consideration. The Chief Judge is not bound by the recommendation of the Commission but generally takes those recommendations into account. Councilmember Kuefler noted he was concerned with the length of time the opening had existed. He was concerned with the need for a full complement on the Charter Commission especially at this time when Charter amendments were being considered. Councilmember Kuefler asked the Chairman of the Charter Commission to provide for the Council information as to the specific date of the receipt of the written resignation and a specific date of the communication to the Judge that a vacancy existed. Chairman Kanatz indicated she would provide this information to the Council. 1.0 -30 -78 -17- Councilmember Lhotka questioned Councilmember Kuefler what the purpose of the request was. Mayo replied a full complement was important especially when the Charter Commission was involved in proposing Charter amendments. Additionally, Councilmember Kuefler noted it is the Council's responsibility, by Statute, to appoint a member to the Charter Commission if the appointment is not made within a certain specified time by the Chief Judge. Councilmember Kuefler explained he had been informed by certain Charter Com- mission members that they were concerned with the amount of time it was taking the Council to deal with the proposed amendments. The City Manager explained there was no specific step by step process established to consider the Charter amendments. The procedures were being established at this time Councilmember Kuefler noted the Council had received copies of the June 12, 1978 Charter Commission meeting which include the proposed Charter Commission amendments. Councilmember Kuefler asked whether those minutes were to be considered as the initiator of action by the Council. Chairman Kanatz replied the minutes are informational and not meant to be the sole initiatbr of action by the Council concerning the proposed amendments. Chairman Kanatz further noted R it was the understanding of certain Commission members that the amendments would proceed to acceptance or to the ballot in November not supposing the type of discussion that was occurring at the Council meeting concerning the Charter amendments The City Manager` briefly outlined the process as it has occurred thus far noting the minutes had been received from the Charter Commission including the proposed Charter amendments after the June 12, 1978 Charter Commission meeting. In late July, the City Attorney had contacted Chairman Kanatz by letter asking . her what the wish of the Charter Commission was concerning the proposed amendments,. On August 7, a meeting was held with the Charter Commission Chairperson and the Charter changes were reviewed. On September 15, 1978 the City Attorney sent a memo to the Chairman of the Charter Commission concerning the amendments. On September 25, 1978 the City Manager sent a letter to Chairman Kanatz con - cerning the Charter Commission amendments Chairman Kanatz was invited to present the proposed amendments to the Council on October 16, 1978 which she did. The amendments are again being considered at the October 30, 1978 meeting. The City Manager noted the official minutes of the October 30, 1978 City Council meeting would be prepared and sent to the Charter Commission for their review of the suggestions made by the City Council concerning the Charter amendments. COMMUNITY DEVELO BLOCK GRANT CITIZENS PARTICIPATION PLAN The City Manager noted the Citizens Participation Plan is presented to the Council and recommended for their approval. The City Manager briefly reviewed the Citizen Participation Plan noting as a requirement of the Community Development Block Grant Program, applicants for funding must provide citizens with an adequate opportunity to participate in an advisory role in the planning, imple- menting, and assessing of the Community Development Program. Administrative P 10 -30 -78 18 l -Assistant Brad Hoffman explained on October 11 1978, an administrative public hearing was held to receive public comment relative to the deve,1 of a Citizen Participation Plan. It was the consensus of the citizens who attended that meeting, that a Citizens Advisory Committee should be formed. The consensus of the citizens attending the meeting was that representatives should be chosen which would assure the representation of each of the neighborhoods in Brooklyn Center. There was also agreement that each of the existing citizens advisory commissions should be represented on the committee. It was the consensus of the group at the public hearing that each of the existing commissions should submit the names of individuals interested in serving on the committee for the Council's consideration. Administrative Assistant Hoffman noted the Council had been presented with a list of individuals from the existing com- missions interested in serving on the Citizens Participation Committee.' Admtni strative Assistant Brad Hoffman further noted he had originally suggested 12 people to serve on the committee but was presently recommending g .people because 9 people would provide for representation from the Citizen's Advisory Commissions and for representation from the neighborhoods in Brooklyn Center. He further noted the people appointed from the existing citizens advisory com- missions would be able to provide expertise in the area in which they serve on the advisory commission although they would not represent that particular advisory commission as a whole. There was questions from the Council concerning who would do the interviewing of interested citizens. The City Manager suggested a Council subcommittee could interview the interested citizens. Councilmember Lhotka and Councilmember Scott volunteered to - serve as the interviewing subcommittee. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to create an interviewing subcommittee comprised of Councilmember Lhotka and Councilmember Scott to interview interested citizens for the Citizens Advisory_ Committee for Community Development Block Grant Citizens Participation Plan. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, arid. Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. REVI OF STATUS OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City Manager explained the Director of Planning and Inspection was prepared to review the progress of the Comprehensive Plan and the process for citizen input in the Comprehensive Plano The Director of Planning and Inspection noted a break- down listing the various major sections of the plans (inventory, policy plan, physical plan and implementation) and their major components was included in the Council's agenda packet. The consultant, Bather, Ring, Wolsfeld, Jarvis and Gardner, Inc. has presented the basic rudiments, that being the inventory and analysis of the existing conditions in Brooklyn Center for both the Comprehensive j Plan and the Critical Areas Plasm Certain revisions and additions to these sections have been requested and are forthcoming. A flow chart showing the process and appropriate dates for presenting the major sections was also included for the Council's review. The Director of Planning and Inspection further explained it is the City's intention to solicit and encourage as much input and feedback as possible from advisory groups and interested citizens, keeping in mind the I0 -30 -'8 -19- imposed time restrictions. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted it had been suggested that the various City advisory commissions review and comment on the various components and elements dealing with their area of expertise. For example, the Conservation Commission and the Park and Recreation Com- mission will be asked to comment on the Critical Areas Plan. Information and documentation concerning certain parts of the Comprehensive Plan and the Critical Areas Plan will be forwarded to the appropriate groups -via their Commission secretary. The Director of Planning and Inspection also suggested that the neighborhood advisory groups should review their particular neighborhood and develop a list of concerns or problem areas they feel should be reviewed and addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained to the Council all City advisory commissions and neighborhood advisory commissions had been invited to the Planning Commission meeting concerning the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Area Plan review and public input process. At the meeting of October 1`9, 1978 the Director of Planning and Inspection explained a public hearing on the Critical Areas inventory and policies would be held at the November 16, 1978 Planning, Commission meeting. At the December 14, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, it is anticipated that a public hearing will be held regarding the Critical Areas - Physical Plan and Implementation Plan. At the October 19, 1978 meeting, the . Director of Planning and Inspection invited all interested City advisory_com- mission members and neighborhood advisory group members and any other_ interested citizens to comment at the public hearing. Additionally, at the - October 19, 1978 Planning Commission meeting suggestions were made to hold meetings in a public place for the various neighborhood advisory groups to give them a chance to discuss recommendations for input to the Comprehensive- Plan, ` The City Manager explained -a notebook of documents concerning the Comprehensive Plan and the Critical Areas Plan was being prepared for each Council member, The notebook will be loose leaf notebook which will enable updating. The .Council indicated it was their wish that the City compile those notebooks and keep them for the Council members until such time when they will be needed. _ HENNEPIN COUNTY DELEGATION M EETIN G FOR MUNICIPALITIES The City Manager noted the Hennepin County Delegation meeting for municipalities is scheduled for November 13, 1978 which is the same night as the City Council meeting. He asked the Council who they would like _to have represent them. Councilmember Kuefler volunteered to attend the Hennepin County Delegation meeting for municipalities. Councilmember Kuefler noted he felt it was important to present the concerns of the Brooklyn Center City Council to the Hennepin County Delegation. The other Council members indicated they would like Councilmember Kuefler to attend the Hennepin County Delegation meeting for municipalities. It was the consensus of the Council there was particular interest in the following issues: HRA, binding arbitration, sewer rates and self - insurance. 10 -30 -78 -20- Councilmember Fignar left the table at 11:12 p.m. and returned at 11:15 porn, STATUS OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TR?�NSPORTATION NOISE VARIANCE REQUE FOR THE MINNESOTA P CONT AGENUZ _ The Director of Public Works explained recent information received from MN /DOT indicates that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Depart- ment of Transportation are currently working together on the noise variance request concerning the construction of the freeway. It appears the raising of the noise laws may not be necessary for meeting the MPCA noise standards REVIEW OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PLA The City Manager noted during the past year the Minnesota Department of Trans- portation has been preparing a MN /DOT plan regarding a comprehensive transporta- tion plan for the State of Minnesota. The Director of Public Works explained the- MN/DOT plan will become the transportation development guide for MN /DOT and the State of Minnesota following any revisions necessitated by the public hearings being held throughout the State in October and November of 1 978. The MN /DOT plans satisfied the requirement of the 1975 enabling legislation which created the Department of Transportation and required the preparation of -a state transportation plan by July 1, 1978. The MN /DOT provides the framework for making transportation decisions in Minnesota, insures that the transportation systems and facilities in- Minnesota provide for the well being of citizens and their activities, and provides a means for addressing present as well as future transportation needs in an efficient and effective manner. The Director of Public Works explained there has been considerable public partici- pation in MN /DOT plan development effort. Input has been received through the regular development committees, group meetings and the Metropolitan Council. - The Director of Public Works showed a transparency of work to be accomplished in Brooklyn Center according to the plan. He noted the cost of highway related work in Brooklyn Center would be approximately $15,162,000. That work includes the interchanges on 53rd and 57th Avenue, the Shingle Creek Parkway grading and bridge, the noise abatement walls on the south side of the freeway from Noble Avenue to 'T . H . 152, traffic signal revision on Highway 100 and France Avenue, the freeway completion from 152 to 169, completion of the interchange at Shingle Creek Parkway, and the upgrading of 169 from 66th Avenue to 72nd Avenue. The plan also includes a study program for the "north corridor" by the consulting firm BRW. By 1980, the location studies for the "north corridor" should he completed. There is a possibility construction could begin in 1980. The Director of Public Works explained Mr. Bill Crawford., the district engineer, wishzs to hear favorable as well as negative comments concerning the MN/DOT . plan. The Director of Public Works noted the opportunity for public comment would occur at the public hearings. ISSUANC OF A 3.2 ON -SALE L LICENS The City Manager recommended the .issuance of a 3.2 on -sale liquor license for the Chuck Wagon restaurant, at 5720 Morgan Avenue North due to a change of ownership. The City Manager noted the Council had received a report concerning 10- -30 -78 -21- the issuance of this license. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and - seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the issuance of a 3.2 on -sale liquor license for the Chuck Wagon restaurant, at.5720 Morgan Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES "There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the following list of licenses: ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Jaycee Women 5816 Dupont Ave. No. (Bazaar) MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Equipment Supply Co. , Inc. 593 N. Fairview St. OFF -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Leonard E. Bruns 6806 Orchard Ave. No. (Chuck Wagon Inn) ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE - Leonard E. Bruns 6806 Orchard Ave. No. (Chuck Wagon Inn) RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Ralph & Jean Hitchens 4708,12 Twin Lake Ave. Renewal: Fred M. Seed Twin Lake North Apts. Isolda Gilles 4715 France Ave. No, Donald Ogilvie 6742,44 France Ave. No. Delbert Bruce 4741 Twin Lake Ave. Irwin Ketroser 6525, 27, 29 Willow Lane; Transfer: Tom Castle 5256 E. Twin Lake Blvd. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ON THE LIFEGUARD PLATFORM The City Manager noted the City Attorney had prepared different language on a proposed resolution for providing money for the lifeguard platform at Northview School. RE SOLUTION NO. 78-250 _ Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 10 -30 -78 -22- RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1978 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A LIFEGUARD PLATFORM 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,_Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:47 p.m. Clerk Mayor 10 -30 -78 -23- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Lip? J HE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION NOVEMBER 7, 197$ CITY HALL C ALL TO ORDER The City Council met in special session as an election canvass board and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 9:00 p.m. R OLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, City Clerk Al Lindman, City Assessor Peter Koole, and. Administrative Assistants Mary Harty and Brad Hoffman. CANVASS O CITY ELECTION RETURNS The City Council proceeded to canvass the City election returns at the various City precincts, reporting ballots cast in the City of Brooklyn Center contests as follows: Office of City Councilmember Ballot Count Bill Fignar 6,594 • write -ins: - _ Maurice Britts 21 Richard Dalton 1 Steve Kennedy I Office of City Councilmember Ballot Court Tony Kuefle.r 6,266 write -ins Kurt Schiebel 4 Vince Tuaman 1 Bill Benson 1 Tim Engstrom 1 Maurice Britts 10 Bill Har:nav 1 David Scott 1 RESO LUTIOIN NO 7 8 -256 Upon completing the election canvass member Gene Lrlot a introduced - the following resolution and moved its adop }i:on, RESOLUTION REGARDING C:fAPJV4" SS OF NOVE1\ 7, 1978 CITY ELECTION Il --7 -78 -1- 4 * 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to adjourn the meeting Voting in favor; Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council meeting as a canvass board adjourned at 11 :58 p.m. Clerk Mayor 11 -7 -78 -2- Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION NO. 78 -256 RESOLUTION REGARDING CANVASS OF NOVEMBER 7, 1978 CITY ELECTION BE IT RESOLVED that it is hereby determined upon official canvass that Bill Figryar and Tony Kuefler are declared to be the successful candidates for the two positions of office of City Councilmember of the City of Brooklyn Center. November 7, 1978 Date Mayor ATTEST: �- Clerk 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly - passed and adopted. I 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 NOVEMBER 13, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7 :05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Director of Parks and Recreation Gene Hagel, Building Official Will Dahn, and Administrative Assistant Mary Harty. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Kuefler. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Mayor noted the minutes of the October 30, 1978 City Council meeting had not • been submitted for Council approval, The minutes of the October 30, 1978 City Council meeting will be submitted for Council approval on November 20, 1978. OPEN FORUM The Mayor noted he had received no requests to speak at the Open Forum. He asked whether anyone in the audience wished to speak at the Open Forum, there being none, the Open Forum was closed. BOND REDUC AND RE LEASES The City Manager recommenddbond reductions for the following: a bond reduction to $5,000 for Toy City located at 6000 Earle Brown Drive, .submitted by Wettrau Builders, St. Louis, Missouri; a reduction of the cash escrow to $1,500 for Michlitsch Apartments located at 6637 Humboldt Avenue North, submitted by Marvin Michlitsch; a reduction to $1,000 of the bond for Harstad -Todd Center located at 47.3 66th Avenue North, submitted by Keith Harstad, owner. The City Manager recommended the release of performance bonds for the following: total release of the bond for the Beach Apartments located at 4201 Lakeside Avenue North, submitted by Viewcon, Inca (Darrel Farr Development); a total release of the performance bond for Brook Park Dental Clinic formerly Murn and Swenson .Dental Clinic located.. at 6437 Brooklyn Boulevard, submitted by Greg Swanson, owner. In response to questions from the Council, the Director of Planning and Inspection explained occasionally a business will substitute a different type of tree than had been originally specified on the site plans. Generally, limited substitutions which follow the basic intent of the original site plan are accepted. If major revisions are comprehended, the site plan with revisions may again be submitted to the 11 -13 -78 -1- Planning Commission and to the City Council, Minor revisions are generally handled by , the staffs There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott i to approve the bond reductions and /or releases as recommended by the City Manager. ill Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers. Kuefler, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting I against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Fignar arrived at 7 :10 p.m. APPOINTMENTS The City Manager recommended an appointment be made' to the advisory commission to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. He noted the appointment of Dr. Duane Orr expires on December 31 1 1978. He stated Commissioners are eligible for reappointment and upon expiration of a member's term of office, the The C' is a oirited. T e Lt until his/her successor Commissioner continues to serve Ll /h pp y Manager further noted Dr. Duane Orn had been an active member of the advisory commission. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to reapYoint Dr. Duane Orn to the advisory commission of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion f passed unanimously. The Mayor explained he would like to consider the appointment of two Planning - Commissioners, although their appointment was not scheduled for this agenda.. The Mayor explained Commissioner Book had resigned as a representative of the northeast neighborhood to the Planning Commission. The Mayor recommended the appointment of Nancy Manson, of 7100 Dupont Avenue North to replace Commissioner Book. Councilmember Kuefler stated Ms. Manson had shown a great deal of interest and involvement in the community in the past. He noted she was an active member of the Brooklyn Center community and would well represent the various interests of the community. Councilmember Kuefler highly recommended the appointment of Nancy Manson to the Planning Commission. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the appointment of Nancy, Manson to the Planning Commission to replace Commissioner Book when his resignation becomes effective. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Mayor also explained the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Gil Engdahl had served for seven years on the Planning Commission and also wished to resign.. The Mayor recommended the appointment of Mr. George "Lucht of - 5105 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Mayor noted. Mr. Lucht had also been active in the community and was a Brooklyn Center business person who actually lived within the community. 11-13-78 -2- Councilmember Fignar endorsed the appointment of Mr. Lucht noting he had known him through their association in the Rotary Club. Councilmember Fignar also stated he felt Mr. Lucht's business background would serve the Planning Commission well. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to appoint Mr, George Lucht to the Planning Commission to replace Mr. Gil Engdahl effective upon Mr. Engdahl's resignation. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council- members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: I none. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Scott suggested both new Commissioners might wish to sit in ors the Planning Commission meetings between now and when they actually take office as Planning Commissioners. She explained this orientation would be valuable to them in their work. RESOLUTIONS The City Manager introduced a resolution establishing a LAWCON fund, He explained the fund would be set up to account for funds received from federal and state sources - expended on LAWCON projects. He further explained the City of Brooklyn Center had received a notification that they have been ranked number 1; in a priority ranking within the State for the second phase of the trail grant and had been ranked number 2 in the priority ranking within the State for continued development of Central Park. With this priority ranking, Brooklyn Center has been invited to submit a more detailed proposal. It is anticipated with this high ranking, the City of Brooklyn Center will be funded for the second phase of the trail grant and for the continued development of Central Park, The City Manager noted these second grants would r "piggy back" on the original grants. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -251 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A LAWCON FUND 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia "Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a resolution establishing a Community Development Block Grant Fund. The City Manager explained the fund will be set up to account for funds received from the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the manner setforth in the Community Development Block Grant guidelines. RESOLUTION NO 78 -252 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION- ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUND 11 -13 -78 -3- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, The City Manager introduced a resolution supporting the repeal of a portion of a Social Security Law which decreases the social security benefits available to -the spouse of a government worker. He explained the U. S. Congress recently enacted a law taking away at least a portion of the social security benefits from spouses of social security beneficiaries, if the spouse had a government pension, effective December, 1982. In response to questions from the Council, the Director of Finance- explained'this item had been brought to the attention of the City by an organization called the Municipals. He estimated the dollar amount involved would be approximately $200 to $300 per month and would affect both the state and the municipal employees. Councilmember Kuefler suggested he would like to know the rationale behind the passage of this particular section which decreases the social security benefits available to the spouse of a government worker before the Council acted on this resolution, The City Manager noted staff would research this question, as raised by Councilmember Kuefler and report back to the Council. The resolution was tabled. The City Manager introduced a resolution accepting bids and approving contract form for - Street Paving and Curb & Gutter Contract No. 1978 -P. He explained the above contract is for street construction along Unity Avenue North far - "The Ponds" development project consisting of Street Surfacing Projects No. 1978 -33 and 1978 -36, and Curb & Gutter Improvement Projects No. 1978 -34 and 1978 -37, The Director of Public Works explained bids had been opened on October 16, but the contract had just been awarded due to the fact that the developers did not have the performance bond available until now. The Director of Public Works explained the City did have 30 days in which to award the contract. He noted the gravel base work for this project may begin in the fall. RESOLUTION NO 78 -253 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FORM (STREET SURFACING AND CURB &GUTTER CONTRACT 1978 -P) - The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and.upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted 11-13-78 -4- The City Manager explained a resolution accepting bids and approving contract form for Salt Storage Building Contract No. 1978 -R was being replaced with a resolution rejecting construction contract bids for the Salt Storage Building Contract No, 1978 -R because all the bids submitted exceeded the engineer's estimate for the work. The Director of Public Works explained the salt storage building was a prefabricated building and was to be erected by the Prefab Company, The contractor, in this job, has very little actual work to do as 85°% of the work is done by the Prefab Company. The Director of Public Works suggested it would be in the best interest of the City to act as a general contractor on this project and to reopen the bids. The Director of Public Works further noted bids received had included a 15% to 20% override. In response to questions from the Council, the Director of Public Works noted the City will pay less than a 5% cost to do the general contracting. - RESOLUTION NO. 78 -254 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REJECTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BIDS (SALT STORAGE BUILDING CONTRACT 1978 -R The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. As the Open Forum is generally scheduled from 7 :05 until 7:30- p.m., the Mayor inquired whether anyone had come to the Council meeting for the purposes of speaking at the Open Forum. There was no one to speak at the Open Forum at the 7 :30 closing time. The Mayor resumed the rest of the meeting. The City Manager introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the. City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 of the agreement between Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center for financing the cost of preliminary engineering work along 53rd Avenue North. He explained on September 11, 1978 the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted a resolution pertaining to an agreement with the City of Minneapolis regarding the preliminary engineering for the reconstruction of 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street North to Perin Avenue North. The City of Minneapolis has requested the City' of Brooklyn Center to do additional engineering work along Penn Avenue North from 53rd Avenue North to the bridge near 52nd Avenue North under the same agreement. The amendment provides for the City of Brooklyn Center to be reimbursed by the City of Minneapolis for the actual cost of the preliminary engineering work performed by Brooklyn Center. The estimated cost for such preliminary engineering work is $3,500. It is proposed that this segment of street construction in Minneapolis be incorporated in the construction project of 53rd Avenue North. The Director of Public Works explained the City of Minneapolis had requested that the City of Brooklyn Center undertake the preliminary engineering work because the City of Minneapolis would have to send people up to this small section in north. Minneapolis to coordinate a very small project. 11 -13 -78 -5- In response to questions from the Council, the Director of Public Works explained 53rd Avenue will be widened to 44 feet. Additionally, curb and gutter will be provided. There will be two drive lanes and parking on each side of 53rd Avenue. Currently, a problem exists with people parking on the boulevards and the widening will alleviate this problem. There.will be some increase of traffic on Logan and Humboldt due to the widening of 53rd Avenue but the State has predicted only a slight 'rise in traffic. Most of the traffic will continue around and exit on Highway 100 There will be no exit at 57th Avenue, all entrance and exit will be on- 53rd Avenue. T.H. 169 will be turned back to the City. As a point of clarification, the Director of Public Works explained Dupont and Logan are State Aid streets and Humboldt is a County road. RESOLUTION NO'. 78 -255 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO _AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS REGARDING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR RECONSTRUCTION. OF 53RD AVENUE NORTH 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia . Scott; and the following against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ORDI NANCES The City Manager introduced an ordinance authorizing the operation of bingo by licensed organizations. He noted the ordinance is presented for a first reading. He explained the ordinance was adopting by reference the regulatory provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 349.11 to and including Section 349.23 which regulates and strictly licenses the operation of bingo games by certain .licensed organizations., He explained the wording of the Statute was being incorporated into a City Ordinance in order that people might obtain copies of the ordinance and understand the licensing. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmerinber Scott to offer for first reading an ordinance authorizing the operation of bingo -by a licensed organization. Voting in favor:` Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and - Scott. Voting against: none The motion passed_ unanimously. The City Manager introduced an ordinance authorizing the operation of certain gambling devices by licensed organizations. He noted the ordinance is presented for a first reading. He explained, as with the bingo ordinance just presented, the - gambling ordinance _ was adopting by..reference the regulatory provisions of .Minnesota Statute Section 325.53 through and including Minnesota Statute Section 325.62, Minnesota 11- 13' -78 -6- Statute Section 340.14, Minnesota Statute Section 349.26., Minnesota Statute . Section 609.75, - and Minnesota Statute Section 609.761 all of which as amended by Laws 1978, Chapter 507. The ordinance regulates and licenses the operation of certain devices by licensed organizations. Again, he noted the wording of the was being incorporated into an ordinance so that people, could acquire a copy of the ordinance and understand the licensing. The City Attorney stated Mr. Bill Clelland of the City Attorney's office and Chief` Jim Lindsay had done the work on these ordinances. Mr, Schieffer suggested he would invite Mr. Clelland to appear before the Council at the time of .the second reading of these ordinances in order to answer any questions the Council might have. He explained impetus for regulating bingo and gambling by Statute was in response to concerns that more than benevolent organizations were benefiting from gambling and bingo, In response to questions from the Mayor, the City Attorney explained the State Constitution deals only with lotteries There was a motion by Councilmember- Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember. Scott to offer for a first reading an ordinance authorizing the operation of certain gambling devices by licensed organizations. Voting in favor: 'Mayor Nyquist Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against:" none. The i motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced an ordinance amending Chapters 15 and 35 of the City Ordinances relative to outlots He explained the ordinance is a second reading and is recommended for the purpose of clarifying a previous interpretation of the ordinance. He-noted the ordinance was presented stemming from concerns raised in a previous- lawsuit against the City. The City Attorney further explained the ordinance was recommended for clarification purposes. ORDINANCE NO. 78-12 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 15 AND 35 - OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO OUTLOTS f The motion fox the adoption of the foregoing ordinance duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon -vote being taken thereon,- the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka; and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said - ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced an ordinance vacating turn - around easements on Lot 2 and 3 of Block 1, and on Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, Gregor`s Addition. He explained in 1962 when Gregor`s Addition was platted, turn - around easements were indicated on the plat on the above described lots because 69 -1/2 Avenue was a dead end westerly of Logan Avenue North. Now that - 69 -1/2 Avenue North (currently named Irving Lane) has been extended to Irving Avenue North, the turn -- around easements are no longer needed, -One of the property owners has requested the easement be removed from their deed.. This can only be accomplished by an ordinance vacation action for the above referred easements. 11 -13 -78 -7- The ordinance is presented for a second reading. ORDINANCE NO. "78 -13 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: i AN ORDINANCE VACATING TURN- AROUND EASEMENTS EXISTING ON LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, AND LOTS 1 AND 2 BLOCK 2 GREGOR'S ADDITION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly - seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in - favor thereof: -Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar; Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance.was declared duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced a discussion on' the = status of upgrading of County Road 13,0 (or 69th Avenue) and the proposed pedestrian bikeways along County Road 130. He stated the Director of Public Works. was prepared to discuss the status of the upgrading of County Road 130 relative `to Hennepin County's recently adopted 1979 Budget and five year Capital Improvements Program as well as interim improvements being looked at to provide pedestrian bicycle safety along County Road 130, The Director of Public Works explained the ;construction for the upgrading of County Road 130 was anticipated to begin in 1984 construction cost, at today's cost, would be $3,860,000. The cost in 1984 is predicted to be approxi- • mately $6,000,000 for; the portion of the Brooklyn Center upgrading only. Brooklyn Center's share in the upgrading in.1978 figures would be approximately $670,000. In 1984 figures, the cast is anticipated to be almost'$1000,000. This upgrading would include sidewalk, drainage, curb and gutter and street construction. The Director of Public Works explained the acceleration of projects may be helped by a resolution to the Hennepin County Board encouraging acceleration. The Director of Public Works noted the immediate concern in the area was with pedestrian safety. He noted both bituminous and concrete sidewalks have been installed along County Road 130. Further construction has been stopped pending finalization of plans for the Great River Road trail which may parallel County Road 130. There is a problem with children crossing County: Road 130 to Evergreen School. In hopes of alleviating this problem, the `school patrol has added crossings at Colfax and Bryant in addition to Dupont. He further explained the acquisition of the right -of -way for upgrading of County Road 130 would probably be accomplished in 1983. The Mayor questioned whether the acquisition of the right -of -way would necessitate taking homes. The Director of Public Works explained the upgrading would follow the existing right -of -way except in a small area along-West Palmer Lake. It is anticipated no homes _ would have to be removed 11-13-78 -8- The Mayor also questioned what hazards existed along County Road 130. The Director of Public Works explained in the area between Dupont and Bryant there was a severe dip in the road shoulder which was hazardous to children going to Evergreen School. Additionally, there was the hazard of crossing County Road 130. The Director of Public Works further amplified on the status of the Great River Road trail systems. He explained on Tuesday, November 14, 1978 at 7 :30 p.m. a public meeting is scheduled at the Minneapolis City Hall Council Chambers, Room 317, relative to the Great River Road route and trail system, The Director of Public Works explained three alternatives. have been suggested for the Great River Road trail system. , The three alternatives are: first, a trail which would proceed north along Palmer Lake to Shingle Creek through to Minneapolis and to Camden; second, a route which would cross the Mississippi River at 95th and come down on the east side of the Mississippi to Minneapolis; third,_ a route which would use the 69th Avenue area with a bikeway on the south side of 69th to River Ridge Park along Lyndale Avenue to Minneapolis. The Brooklyn Center staff has encouraged the 69th Avenue route for two reasons: first, the 69th Avenue route would not add additional traffic to the Central Park area. Too_ much traffic in the Central Park area may be detrimental to the Central Park activities area; second, currently funding is being received for the Shingle Creek park area but no funding has been received for the 69th Avenue area, • Additionally, a connecting link across the east side of the river when the freeway bridge over the Mississippi is upgraded would be advantageous. As a point of clarification, the Director of Public Works noted the bicycle pedestrian" way would be located on the south side of 69th Avenue and the pedestrian way would be on the north side of 69th Avenue. Councilmember Kuefler expressed concern with the lighting along 69th Avenue. The Director of Public Works stated the street light situation along 69th Avenue could be reviewed and possibly street lights provided in void areas within the framework of the regular street light program. The Director of Public Works further explained that street light- placement every 6-60 feet -.has been the distance used for placing street lights. If a street is longer than _660 feet, more than one street light is placed on a street. The Director of Public Works stated he would review the street lighting situation on 69th Avenue. Councilmember Kuefler also questioned whether the widening of 69th - Avenue would be similar to the widening of 53rd Avenue. The Director of Public Works responded the widening would be similar to that on County Road 10 with a 52 foot roadway. County Road 10 has only a 66 foot right -of -way so the sidewalk is close to the curb line. On 69th Avenue there would be an 80 foot right -.of -way so the sidewalk-would be moved back from the curb line for safety purposes. - P The Director of Public Works noted some people have expressed disagreement with the upgrading of 69th Avenue. 11-13-78 -9- Councilmember Fignar questioned what kind of assessments would be made for .,the upgrading f 69th Avenue. g The Director of P _ Public Works explained the assess- ssess , ments would depend on the particular improvement, Curb and gutter assessments would be made to the abutting properties whereas the storm sewer assessments would be made on an area wide basis o the benefitin 9 g properties. Councilmember Fignar questioned whether the citizens in the area understand the cost situation for the assessments, The Director of Public Works responded that feelings of the public concerning the upgrading could be better ascertained at a public hearing. The Mayor recognized Mr. Ted Willard of 6825 Drew Avenue North who wished to speak on the upgrading of 69th Avenue. Mr. Willard .suggested he wished to make three points regarding the possible upgrading of County Road "130 and its ramifica- tions. He stated the, upgrading of roadways almost always affects the neighbor- hoods and many times affects the neighborhoods adversely. Further, he stated - policy questions concerning certain actions such as the upgrading of a road are often times not considered. Traffic engineers are primarily interested in moving' traffic and their decisions and suggestions are based on technical data not on policy considerations. Mr. Willard offered as an example the issue of construction on certain parts of the Interstate_ and the construction of airports. He suggested the community should consider policy questions as to how certain improvements in a roadway would affect the neighborhood and decide if this in fact is what the' community wishes. Finally, he suggested the upgrading of roadways attracts more traffic rather than accommodating the natural flow of traffic- in an area as has happened on 63rd Avenue. Upgrading County Road 130 will change the character of the neighborhoods north of 69th Avenue, The Director of - Public Works noted in addition to concerns presented by Mr. Willard, there was a concern with storm sewer in the area of 69th Avenue precipitated by many complaints about ponding in the area. The 'Director of"Public'Works "explained the City faced a dilemma in making a decision as to whether money should be spend now on the storm sewer or spent at a later time if. and when the street is upgraded o Councilmember. Kuefler questioned "whether or not 69th Avenue would be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and whether it would be addressed by the Traffic Safety Committee. The City Manager replied 69th Avenue would be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan but the scope of the Traffic Safety Committee was some- what narrower and would probably not consider -a basic policy question concerning the upgrading of 69th Avenue. The City Manager suggested it was a possibility the Safety Committee might wish to address the legislature concerning the reduction of speed limits so that _speed is actually reduced to 30 miles per hour within residential areas. The Mayor recognized Mr. foe Roche of 816 69th Avenue North. Mr. Roche noted he concurred with comments made by Mr. Willard. Additionally, he explained . there was an immediate problem with the safety of the children on 69th Avenue. He explained one child had been hit in the last week and the safety issue had to be dealt_ with immediately. 11 -13 -78 _10 .Mr. Ted Willard stated the planners working to put _together the Comprehensive Plan might also accept as a given premise that County Road 130 should be upgraded regardless of policy considerations. He requested that the Council, as the policy making body of the City, consider whether or not this was the wish of the community. The Director of Public Works asked Mr. Willard whether he felt that 69th Avenue needed upgrading. Mr. Willard explained it was his personal feeling that the present roadway should be upgraded but not enlarged to handle additional traffic but that he felt this issue should be debated by the public. Councilmember Kuefler noted, based on information and discussion on County Road 130, he did not wish to urge Hennepin County to accelerate the upgrading program. He again suggested he would like information on the lighting situation on County Road 130. The City Manager explained the neighborhood advisory groups have been invited to present comments and input in formulating the Comprehensive Plan and the neighborhood advisory groups could address the basic premise of whether or not County Road 130 should indeed be upgraded. Councilmember Lhotka suggested whether the process was accelerated or not -the City would have - to..go through the same process .of deciding whether or not they wished the upgrading of County Road 130. Councilmember Kuefler clarified his earlier comments stating, before the Council urges the County to accelerate the upgrading of County Road, 1 the community should resolve whether or not they wish County Road 130 to be upgraded. Councilmember Fignar expressed appreciation to Mr. Willard for presenting that particular avenue of opinion. He noted the alternative of upgrading to a; lesser degree than originally intended might be appropriate. Councilmember Scott suggested the Council might wish to encourage the County to move ahead on the upgrading because the process for moving the projects along in the County was slow. In the - meantime, the Council could study the degree to which County Road 130 should actually be upgraded. In further discussion of the issue, the Council reached a consensus that they wished the County to accelerate_ their plans-for the upgrading of County ,.Road 130 but that the Council would study the degree to which the community` wished County Road 130 to be upgraded. Acceleration of the upgrading does not necessarily mean that County Road 130 should be upgraded to a four lane roadway. The City Council directed the City Manager to prepare a resolution for review by the Council which encourages the acceleration of the upgrading of County Road 130 by Hennepin County but which does not specify the degree to which the Council wishes the upgrading to occur, leaving that question for further study by the Council. A c After further discussion on the status of the Great River Road, there was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to ,encourage the Minnesota Department of Transportation to consider the 69th 11- 13 -78 -11- Avenue route for the Great River Road trail system. In discussion of the motiori, the Director of Public Works noted he and the Director of Parks and Recreation would be attending the public hearing on the Great River Road system which is to be held November 14, 1978 at 7 :30 p.m. in the Minneapolis City Hall Council Chambers, Room 317.. In response to questions from the Council, the Director of .Public Works noted support by the Brooklyn Center City Council via their attendance at the public hearing would be helpful: Following discussion of the motion, the following voted in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Further discussion ensued concerning the authorization to hire a consultant for survey work for Street Improvement Project No. 1978 -38. The City Manager _ recommended that a motion be made by the City Council authorizing the City Manager to retain Egil Wefald and Associates for an amount not to exceed $2,500 to do survey work along 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street to Penn Avenue North in conjunction with Street Improvement Project No. 1978 -38. The Director of Public Works explained currently the engineering department survey crew_ is involved with survey work along .Shingle Creek and in "The Ponds " area and needs some assistance in survey work along 53rd Avenue. He noted the cost of the survey work would be shared with Minneapolis and reimbursed by the State. There was a motion by_Council.member Fignar and seconded by- Councilmember Kuefler to authorize the City Manager to hire a consultant for survey work for Street Improvement Project No. 1978 -38; Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist; Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka,_and Scotto Voting against: none, - The motion passed unanimously. Referring to a letter which the City Manager had provided for the Council, the City Manager noted the agenda' item considering a variance request for Mr. Gene Hamilton was being deferred until the December 4, 1978 City Council meeting at the wish of the Council, due to the fact that Mr. Hamilton was not able to attend the Council meetin g of November 13 1978 due to previous professional commitments, I 'I The City Attorney explained the City Manager had asked him to research the - question raised at the October 30, 1978 Council meeting as to when it became the Council's responsibility to appoint a-member to the Charter °Commission. The City Attorney explained the Statute was not clear on the question, The Statute states a new Commissioner should be appointed within 30 days by the Judge. The City Attorney noted in his research, he found no case law on the question and no Attorney General's opinion on the question. The City Attorney explained h ion I lained he had spoken with the City Attorney of Minneapolis the quest p p Y Y s o p It was the City Attorney's opinion after this research that the judge should have 30 days after notification of the vacancy to fill the position because the - public official would have no way of knowing of the vacancy unless notified. 11 -13 -78 -12- In response to questions from Councilmember Kuefler, the City Attorney explained the Statute does not place the responsibility, for notification on the Judge on any specific party stating" the notification could be made by the Charter Commission, the. City Council, or petitioners. Councilmember Fignar asked whether the Judge had been notified of the vacancy oh the Charter Commission, The Mayor explained Chairman Kanatz had indicated at the October 30, 1978 meeting that she had notified the Judge of the vacancy. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka- to approve the following list of licenses GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE Tarco of Minnesota, Inc. (MCS) 10041 Polk Street N.E. (fourth truck) SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Signcrafter's Outdoor Display, Inc. - 7775 Main St. N.E. Voting i "'favor;" Mayor `Nygizif Councilmembers Kuefler," Fignar, Lhotka and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. " ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler,, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9: p.m: Clerk Mayor 1I -13 -78 13 MEMORANDUM �Z- TO: Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Will Dahn, Building Official SUBJECT: Performance Bond Recommended for Release DATE: November 16, 1978 The following performance guarantee is recommended for release: 1. Hiawatha Rubber Company (Mr. Art Popehn) 1700 —67th Avenue North Planning Commission File No. 75027 Amount of Guarantee - $5,000.00 (Cash Escrow) All site improvements have been completed in accordance with the approved site plan, including the installation of permanent concrete curb and gutters along north parking lot line where temporary asphalt type was permitted for a period of 2 years. Approved Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STUDY MEETING November 16, 1978 1. Call to Order: 8:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: November 2, 1978 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. 5. Public Hearing on Inventory and Policy Portions of the Critical Area Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION 6. Cynthia Pierce 78066 Amendment to Special Use Permit for home occupation (beauty at 3313 Lawrence Road. Tabled at the November 2, 1978 meeting. 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment f a AGENDA COMMENTS Item No. 5 Public Hearing on Inventory and ,Policy Portions of the Critical Area Plan, A public hearing has been scheduled to solicit feedback_ and input regarding the Inventory and Analysis of Existing Conditions and the Goal and Policy Guidelines of the Critical Area Plan'. At the Commission's study meeting on October 19, copies of these portions of the Plan were distributed to the Park and Recreation Commission, the Conservation Commission, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group - and -the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. We anticipate having recommendations regarding the physical plan and implement- ation plan shortly, and will be forwarding them to these same groups and any other interested groups or individuals for hearing on December 14, 1978. Hopefully, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City.Council re- garding the Critical Area Plan will be made at that time so that the Plan can be. forwarded to the Metro Council by the January 1979 deadline. I 11- ,1-4'78 Planning Commission Information Sheet t Application No. 78066' Applicant: Cynthia Pierce Location: 3313 Lawrence Road Request: Amendment to Special Use Permit (Nome Occupation) The applicant is seeking an amendment to a special use permit granted under Appli- cation No. 75019 for a home occupation to operate a beauty shop at 3313 Lawrence Road. Approval of Application No. 75019 comprehended a one chair single operation in her home and the applicant is requesting permission to allow one additional nonresident operator on the premises. This application was tabled by the Com- mission at the November 2, 1978 meeting and a clarification from the City Attorney was requested regarding the definition for home occupation, special contained in the Zoning Ordinance and whether the occupant of a dwelling.for which a special use permit is issued has to be on the premises at all times when a permitted employee is working. Your attention is directed to the November 2, 1978 Planning Commission agenda information sheet regarding this application, as well as the, minutes of the November 2 meeting for more background information. The City Attorney has been contacted regarding this application and has indicated that he will have a response prior to the Commission meeting. Attached is a copy of the definition for Special Home Occupations from Section 35 -900 anithe Standards for Special Use Permit found in Section 35 -220. A key consideration in any special home occupation is a determination that the proposed use is clearly secondary and incidental to the primary use which is residential. Should the Commission decide to recommend approval of this application, the following conditions would be recommended: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the proposed use and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The permit acknowledges the employment on the premises, at any one given time, of not more than one person who is a nonresident •of the premises, and violation of this condition shat be grounds for revocation. 4. The current copy of the applicant's State Operator's License as well as a current copy of any employee's State Operator's License, shall be kept on file with the City. 5. All parking related to the special use shall be off- -street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. 6. The hours of operation shall be: Tuesday, Thursday, Friday - 9:00'a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday - 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and `°. Saturday 8 :00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 1.1 -14 -78 f Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78066 Applicant: Cynthia Pierce • Location: 3313 Lawrence Road Request: Amendment to Special Use Permit (Home Occupation) The applicant is seeking an amendment to a special use permit granted under Application No. 75019 for home Occupation to operate a beauty shop at 3313 Lawrence Road. Approval of Application No. 75019 comprehended a one chair single operation in the basement of her home. The hours of operation are currently Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The appl has submitted a letter (attached) requesting permission to allow one additional nonresident- operator on the premises.- She is requesting no additional amendments to her current special use permit. The ordinance allows, as.part of.a special home occupation, "the employment on the premises, at any one given time, of not more than one person who is a non- resident of the premises. The applicant proposes to retain.two persons to work in the shop on a part -time basis, but is aware that the two nonresident operators would not be permitted to work during the same time. Also attached is a copy of the definition for special home occupations from Section 35 -900 and the standards for special use permits found in Section 35 220 for the Commission's review. A- public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. I have received one call, as a result of the notice, from Marsha Janasz, 3312 Lawrence Road, who indicated she would be unable to attend the public hearing, but wished to convey that she had no objections to the special use provided the operation does not cause additional parking and traffic related problems. She also commented that the applicant's home occupation has not been a problem to her as a neighbor. The Building Inspector has inspected the premises on two occasions, within the past two months (9 -8 -78 and 10- 26 -78) and reports that, with respect to code related concerns, there is no problem with this application. He indicated that during his inspection on 9 -8 -78 there were two chairs in use and three cars parked in the driveway as well'as'three cars parked on the street. His 10 -26 -78 inspection indicates only one chair in use. Our major concern is with parking and traffic generation in this RI area. It is recommended that a condition of approval for this application include that -all parking related to the special use be off - street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. It is felt that the applicant's_ driveway can accommodate parking for 4 automobiles in addition to a double garage for the applicant's use. Such a condition would make it necessary for the applicant to schedule appointments strictly and /or encourage clients to carpool 1T -2 -78 r Application No. 78066 �. Page ,2 The key consideration in any special home occupation is a determination that the proposed use is clearly secondary and incidental to the primary use, which is residential The following conditions of approval are recommended: 1. The permit is' issued 'to the applicant as operator of the proposed use and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is s ubject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The ,permit acknowledges the employment on the premises, at any one given time, of not more than one person who is a non - resident of the premises and violation of this condition shall be grounds for revocation. 4. A current copy of - the applicant's -State Operator's License as well as a current copy of any State Operator License shall be kept on file with the City. 5. All parking related to the special use shall be off- street parking on appropriate space provided .by the applicant. 6. The hours of operation shall be: Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday - 2 :00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and Saturday - 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 11 -2 -78 - _ '��� --�-C c.- C -�-•¢. -ice' y � �G✓ _ � o � - •_-- '�- !"�°`� ` `--� _.-. -l��� !! l�liJ -��� � /�_ -�-' �cC�,� L,iG�t. -�.� c� = a'�- G^°-r• - �,. -��tf. -- - -^ -- G "- F��'�•lI..G CLs %��- C+G' .o'er- Pi".!�.,i °..- 't..- �.�c_.r_�•�!� - � V� �' G.x. -tom! fit..- e- -�-x:� ...ems:.✓ ; _ _,_. ' � �� �L � �.�'` --E� _ �- _ �"•. --� �--�1 t�..�- c.c::.•/ `sue. �.,� -�- �Z ��� __ . _ . _ � e / , � L 3 _ Gt- �.�,,!/7� :_ .C� t��-r^ _� ✓ _ .G�.J- ?!.../Q�_s�' -C-. , J _. _ _ C -1` t�" _ _ ✓G�' �-,,,� - _ �r ____ a November 6, 1978 Mr. Richard Schieffer, City Attorney 610 Brookdal e_Towers Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Planning Commission Application No. 78066 Dear Dick: On Thursday, November 2 1978, the Planning Commission tabled Planning Commission Application No. 78056 and requested a clarification from the City Attorney re- garding the definition for home occupation, special contained in Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances. The applicant, Cynthia Pierce, has a special use permit, granted under Application No. 75019, for a home occupation to operate a one - chair single operator beauty shop in her home at 3313 Lawrence Road. She is seeking to amend the special use permit to allow, per the Ordinance, the employment on the premises, at any one time, of not more than one person who is a nonresident of the premises. She has, based on her doctor's advice, decided to cut back on the amount of time she spends as an operator and has also taken up selling real estate-part -time. She wishes to continue her beauty shop business in her home by.having some part -time licensed operators help her take care of customers she has accumulated over the years. She admits that she will not be on the premises at all times when a nonresident employee is there. The Commission would like your opinion on the following: Does the above situation qualify as meeting that part of the definition for home occupation, special which states in part "Any gainful occupation or profession...engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling" and - Does the occupant of a j dwelling for which a special use permit is issued have to be on the premises at all times when a permitted employee is working? The Planning Commission has tabled this matter to its November 16, 1978 meeting and would appreciate a response to.their inquiry by that time. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me, Sincerely, Ronald. A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW: ml g 41 . cc: File No. 78066` R _. 4ection 35 -°OO (continued) Floor /area ratio - The numerical value obtained through dividing the gross floor area of a building or buildings by the total area of the lot or parcel of land on which su ^h building is located. Garage, private - An accessory building or an accessory portion of the dwelling building intended for or used to store private passenger vehicles of the families resident upon the premises and in which no business, service or industry connected directly or indirectly with automotive vehicles may be carried on. Green Strip - An area containing only v- getation such as grass, trees, flowers, hedges, and other related landscaping :materials, and maintained expressly for such purpose. Home Oc Any gainful occupation or profession, engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, provided, such activity does not pro- duce light glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; does not involve the use of accessory structures; and, further provided that said activity does not involve any of the following: repair, service or manufacturing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in a home; over -the- counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises; or the employment of persons on the premises, other than those customarily residing on the premises. Examples include: dressmaking; secretarial services; professional. offices; answering service, individual music or art instruction; individual hobby craft; child day care (defined as the care of not more than five (5) nonresident children and provided the facility and operation are properly licensed by the County, and provided a, record of said license is on file with the City); and the like. Home Occupati Specia - Any gainful occupation or profession, approved by special use permission, engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling or involving not more than one accessory use permitted by Section 35 -310 or Section 35 -311, and which involves any of the following: stock -in -trade incidental to the performance of the service; repair, service or manufacturing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in a home; the employment on the premises, at any one time, of not more than one person who is a nonresident of the premises; the teaching of more than one (1) but not more than four (4) nonresident students any given time; or the need for not .more tha a two (2) parking spaces in addition to spaces required for the persons residing on the premises; and provided the activity: is clearly incidental and secondary to the residental use of the premises, including the dwelling, and permitted accessory buildings or installations thereon; does not produce light glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the bound- arms of the premises; does not consist of over- the - counter sales of merchandise pro- duced off the premises. Examples include: barber and beauty services, shoe repair, photography studio, group lesgons, saw sharpening, motor - driven appliance and small engine repair, and the like Hote - A building which provides a common entrance, lobby, and stairways, and in which lodging is commonly offered with or without meals for periods of less than a week. l • i1F.`k�blGliU:� I f}: i >[ i.).`y� ° ; , ';i - ti.i A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration -,by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) Th e establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use yr ill promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be cletri�nenial 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. di minis h and impair property values within the neighborhood. - - (c} The establishment of the special use will riot mpede_ihe normal ar_d orderly development and improvement .of surrounding property for uses permitted in the. district,_._ _ (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.. (e) T11c special use shall, in all other respects conform to the appli cable regulations; of the district in which it -is located. 3. C onditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission - g- ay. recommend and the City Council may impose . such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction;' maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the pro- tection of the public interest and to secure compliance with reauirements specified in this ordinance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted._, the City Council may require. such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connection therewith. 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted fora period of twelve (12) months from the date of . the final, determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forh in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to yair. the consent of th.e City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and E: tension of S erial I Use Permifis . When a special :use permii: has. been issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work u pon the su.);ect property wit one year cf the date the special use permit is-grartE:t, or unless bellore' the expiration of the one ; °ear po-riol the applicon 'shoal'. anrly for an exte nsion thereof by filling out t'22It1 Si1bTtritlTrg t0 tliceCr'tiY Of ltlf? l�1 :�1?niilg CGITrIT?lSS7GI1 a "Special U se Permit" a pplication requestirg St Oxtension and pa an additional fee of 65 T H wmm A M E mar New �l. 6 BROOKL.ANE TO PARKS GARDEN CITY SCHOOL PARK ' 1 AYE � 3 WD ASV FIRE p STA. ' App e t;-r, ON No. 79 066 ?AD u 62ND AyE J f ( a IA � {• ANGSTAD BROOKLYlt LA PARK x cl C2 - x bo Y. AV Id 4 CL ! c 59TH AVE W: k < NORTHWAY DR. AIR � c ave. H. CZ= a I4EMO TO: RONALD A. WARREN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND INSPECTION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FROM: R.J. SCHIEFFER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER RE HOME OCCUPATIONS The facts presented to me are that under application number 75019, the applicant has requested an amendment of an existing special use permit which would allow the employment of two non- resident employees in a beauty shop. Further, the issue has arisen; whether or not the occupant of a dwelling, who is also the applicant, must be on the premises when an employee is working. Further information was received from the applicant's attorney, Nalini Frush, Esq., who states that the applicant's real estate business will not be practiced at the location of the special use permit except for,incidental telephone calls :which she may receive.' For example, 3313 Lawrence Road, the location of the special use, will not be listed in the yellow pages as a real estate office. It is my further understanding from Ms. Frush that the applicant will continue to be actively engaged in the '`operation of the beauty shop. One of the purposes in limiting the number of outside employees is, of course, to reduce the number of customers at any one time and thereby reduce traffic volume, parking problems, commercial -type activity, and other non- residential movement in the vicinity of the special use. Since the ordinance limits the non - resident employee with language which contains the phrase "at any one time" it is my opinion that the language as it presently stands would permit more than one part -time employee, as ,long as no more than one employee was on the premises at any one time. If the City would wish to limit the home occupation to a single employee, regardless'of'the number of hours worked, and to prohibit two or more part -time employees, the language of the ordinance should be changed to reflect that pro- hibition. with respect to the second question,-there is no language` in the home occupation definition which would indicate that the occupant must remain on the premises in order to supervise the employee. The definition says "any gainful occupation or .... engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling... ". Giving the phrase "engaged in" its ordinarily accepted meaning, it could mean to 'operate the profession or occupation without being on the premises at all times. To be engaged in an occupation could require or permit the occupant to carry on certain activities pertaining to the occupa- tion at points distant from the home. Also, the occupant need not be "engaged in" the occupation at all times and may give attention to recreation activities, normal household chores, or another occupation and still be considered to be "engaged in" the home occupation in question. In this opinion we'do not address the question of whether more than one home occupation may be carried on in a dwelling unit at any given time, e.g., whether or not a beauty shop and a real - estate business can be operated from a dwelling under; the present ordinance. R.J.S. DATED: NOVEMBER 16, 1978 tjh MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 2, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert "Engdahl. ROL CALL Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, Pierce, Hawes and Theis Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald, A. Warren, and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson APPROVE MINUTES a October 19, 1978 and September 2 8,, 197 Approval of the minutes was delayed until in the meeting. APPLICA NO. 780666 (Cyn Pierce) Following the Chairman's explanation the first item of consideration was Application No. 78066 submLted by Cynthia Pierce. The Secretary stated the applicant sought an amendment to her special use permit for a beauty shop in -- her home, which would recognize one nonresident employee in relation to the special home occupation. Commissioner Pierce stated that he would abstain from consideration of the appli- cation in view of his relationship to the applicant. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and noted the location of the applicant's property. He stated - that the original special use permit vas granted under Application No. 75019 for a horse occupation consisting of a beauty shop and comprehended a one chair single operator business in the basement of the applicant's home. He continued that the hours of operation are currently Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 9:00 am. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday 2 :00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and Saturday, 8 :00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. He stated the applicant had submitted a i -etter re- questing permission to add one nonresident operator on the The.Secretar explained that the ordinance - allows as a part of the special home occupation "thy: employment on the premises at any one given time of not more than one person who is a nonresident of the premises." He stated that the applicant proposed to employ two persons to work in the shop on a part time basis, and is. aware that the two . nonresident operators would not be permitted to work daring the same time. The Secretary reviewed the definition of a special home occupation contained in Section 35 -900 and the Standards for Special_Use Permits contained :in Section 35 -220. The Secretary continued tx a.t a public hearing had been scheduled and notices had been sent to neighboring property owners. He stated that four notified property owners had called -and indicated they would -be unable to attend the public hearing, but wished to go on record. Marsha Janasz, 3312 Lawrence Road, stated she had no objections to the special use provided the operation does not cause additional- parking and traffic - related problems._ She also.corrniented that the applicant's home occupation had not been a problem to her as a neighbor. Catherine Munson, 3318 Lawrence Road wished -to go on record as having no objection to the amendment to the special use permit. Mary Becker, 3301 Lawrence Road, also wished to go on .,record as having no oppfosiLion to the proposed amendment. 11 -2.78 -l- Jackie Alexander, 3311 Lawrence Road, stated she had no complaints about the parking related to the special _use permit and had no objection to the proposed amendment comprehending an additional operator,'but commented that since Mrs. Pierce was establishing herself in a real estate business, perhaps the home occupation had nerved its purpose and that perhaps the time has come for her-to seek a_ commercial building for her beauty shop operation`. The Secretary stated that the Building Inspector had inspected the applicant's premises on two occasions and- has reported that with respect to code related concerns, there is no problem with the application. He indicated- that during his inspection on September 8, 1978, there were two chairs in use and three cars parked in the driveway as well as three cars parked on the street. His September 26, 1978 in- spection noted -only one chair in use. The Secretary continued that the major concern was with parking and ,traffic generation in this R1 (Single Family Resi- dental) area. He stated it was recommended that a condition of ,approval for the application be that all parking related to the special use be off- street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. He added that it was felt that the applicant's driveway could accommodate parking for four automobiles in addition to the double garage for the applicant's use. He commented that such a condition would make it necessary for the applicant to schedule appointments strictly and /or - encourage clients to carpool. The Secretary concluded by stating that the key consideration in any special home occupation is the determination that the proposed use is clearly secondary and incidental to the primary use, which is residential. He reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. A discussion ensued relative to the application. Commissioner Theis asked the Secretary to indicate on the-transparency the properties of the neighbors who did not object to the special use amendment The Secretary indicated those properties. Commissioner Hawes noted that the applicant requested two additional operators and inquired whether this could be permitted under the ordinance. The Secretary ex- plained that only one nonresident operator would be permitted on the premises at one time. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, Mrs. Cynthia Pierce. She stated that she understood she would be required to provide off - street parking for her customers and her customers had been made aware of this requirement. She acknowledged that she was aware that only one nonresident employee would be permitted at any one given time.. She pointed out that she is a resident of Lawrence Road, and that it might be possible that a visiting friend would park on the street. She inquired whether there would be any problem if a complaint arose from this situation. Chair- `man Engdahl responded that only the parking related to the special use was required to be located off the street. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl announced a public "hearing had been scheduled and recognized Mr. and Mrs. Reetz of 3309 Lawrence Road. Mr. Reetz commented that he had heard that the applicant would going into the real estate business and that whe might not be on the premises when the nonresident employee is working -in the shop. He stated that he felt that no hired help should be allowed on the premises unless the owner is- present. Mrs. Reetz added that she was opposed to having a beauty shop -on a residential _street. She stated that while she couldn't see the parking related to the use from her house, there was generally a traffic problem in the area and she was opposed to any type of use which would increase traffic -on the residential° street: The Secretary explained - that a special home occupation is -a permitted use in the R1 (Single Family Residental) district and is subject to certain conditions of approval. He stated that in this case, the conditions of approval wouldl'essen the impact of the traffic on the.residential area. '11 -2 =78 -2- g COMMISSIONER BOOK ARRIVES Commissioner ones Boo arr vet at 8 :20 p.m. Mr. Reetz stated that there were too many cars in the neighborhood already and that even though there were rules the applicant would have zo follow with the granting of a variance, especially in regard to parking, he was concerned with who would be responsible for monitoring the parking situation. The Secretary responded that the applicant sought a special use permit rather than a variance and reitereated that a special use such as a home occupation is a permitted use in the zoning district subject to certain special requirements. He continued that in this case one of the requirements would be that all parking related to the use must be off- street on space provided by the applicant. He explained it was the applicant's responsibility to provide the parking space, and the City's duty to enforce the off - street parking requirement. He noted "that in the past, there had been no formal complaint to the City regarding the applicant's beauty shop. He further explained that if there were any problems related to the parking which the applicant did not rectify, the special use permit could be revoked. Mrs. Reetz explained that there had been a problem with parking related to the beauty shop in the past and that several of the neighbors had discussed this problem with her. She described a past experience which she had had where there was a traffic problem relating to parked cars along that section of Lawrence Road. The applicant responded that no neighbor had complained to her regarding the parking. She - also commented that the particular problem to which Mrs. Reetz referred was not necessarily related to her special use. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Sledz, of 6137 Beard Avenue North. Mr. Siedz stated that he had heard that the owner of the clinic located across the street on Beard Avenue North had offered to let the beauty shop customers park in the clinic parking lot. The Secretary explained that a formal joint parking. arrangement between the applicant and the owner of the clinic would not be possible because such an agree- ment is only permitted by the Zoning Ordinance where the two uses sharing th-e - .parking are zoned accordingly. He pointed out that the clinic was zoned Cl (Service/ 0ffice Commercial) and the applicant's property was zoned Rl (Single Family Residental). ..Mr. Reetz commented that while all of the Lawrence Road residents did occasionally have friends parking in the street, the applicant had intensified the parking problem because of the beauty shop. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether the Reetz' were opposed to the application because of the parking problem and traffic gener ,a tion. Mr. Reetz responded that they were opposed to. the application because they were against permitting nonresident employees in a residential area. Chairman Engdahl explained that the ordinance did permit one nonresident employee in relation - to a permitted special home occupation. Mr. Reetz inquired whether the nonresident employee could be permitted while the owner was not on the.premises. Chairman Engdahl responded that that was a different matter which would have to be resolved. before the application could be approved. Commissioner Theis commented that with a two chair operation each operator could handle two clients at one time, which mean a total of four customers cars, and one employee car, he didn't see how the applicant could accommodate the parking unless the driveway were widened at some point to provide for three abreast parking,_ ..or the clients carpool. • Commissioner Book pointed out that such an argument assumed that the business would operate at a full rate. He noted that the ordinance parking formulas for other zoning districts did not assume a maximum rate.of business. For example, the ordinance parking formula for restaurants is one space for every two seats. He continued that he felt as long as the operation did not constitute a nuisance, and he did not feel that it did, the amendment to the special use permit should be. approved. 1 - - -3- ;he.appl.icant explained that since she was going into the real estate business, her beauty operation business would be less intense than it had been because the employees would not handle as many customers as she had when she was working alone., She stated that she :could.not guarantee that she would be on the premises when the employees were present, but that generally there should be an improvement in the parking situation. Commissioner Malecki commented hat she did not feel there was a problem with -the application as long as the applicant understood that only one nonresident employee was permitted on the premises at any one ti -me. Chairman Engdahl recognized Building Official Will Dahn who commented that the Commission should look at the intent of the ordinance regarding the nonresident employee and whether, or not, the employee could be present on the premises without the presence of the owner. He referred to a former barber shop which had begun as a home occupation at 57th and Logan Avenues North and had expanded to the point that when a rezoning application for commercial use arose, the courts -ruled that a com- mercial character had been established for the area and ordered that the rezoning be approved. Commissioner Theis inquired of -the applicant why she was requesting permission for an additional operator if the business had been decreasing. The applicant responded that because of.health reasons, she needed to have help with the business and since the business was still viable she couldn't see closing it down. She also pointed out that she had spoken with other Brooklyn Center beauty shop operators who have special use permits. She stated that the other operators had indicated that they understood that one nonresident employee, is permitted whether or not it was specific ally included in the special use permit application. Chairman. Engdahl stated that he- saw two problems with the application: one, can the definition of a home occupation be interpreted to include a nonresident • employee without the presence of the owner on the premises; and two, whether the applicant can provide adequate off- street parking. He stated that he felt -the parking problem could be taken care of and that if there were any neighborhood complaints, the City should be notified. He added that he had no problem with permitting the additional operator, but that he was concerned wi:th..whether_.-or, not, a resident employee could be permitted when the owner was not present. -Mr. Reetz stated that his concern was with establishing a precedent for a commercial use in the neighborhood. He explained that there had been a problem in the past with a neighbor doing automobile repairs on his property without a permit which >.had existed for five years before being stopped by the City. He added that he was therefore suspicious of people operating , commercial uses in their homes and inquired how long it would take to put a stop to the operation if there was a problem relating to it. The Secretary commented that in varying degrees, there are two different philosophies _regarding home occupations in a single family residential zone. He stated that some people feel that they - should be allowed to do anything they wished on their own property, and other people felt that a single family residential should be preserved only as a residential area. He explained that in order to ease the _tension between these two philosophies the ordinance establishes what types of home occupations are permitted and clearly defines those occupations. He also stated that while he couldn't comment on the particular incident to which Mr. Reetz_re ferred.in the case of a special use permit, it.is the applicant's responsibility to meet the conditions of approval and to resolve any difficulties. He reiterated that it was the City's responsibility to enforce the required conditions of approval and other relevant City requirements. 11 -2 -78 -4- CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. TABLE APPLICATION NO. 78066 (Cynthia Pierce) . following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Theis to table Application No. 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce until the definition of a home occupation had been clarified by the City Attorney as to whether or not a nonresident-employee can be permitted on the premises when the owner is not present. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners!Malecki, Jacobson, Book, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce. The motion carried. APPLICATION NO. 78064 (Gene Hamilton) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78064 submitted by Gene Hamilton. The 'Secretary stated that the applicant sought a variance from Section 35 -400 of the City Ordinances to allow the carport accessory structure which had been erected without building permit, to encroach approximately 20 ft. into the 35.ft. front setback at 6230 Lee Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and pointed out the location of the applicant's property. He explained that the applicant's carport had been the subject of Application No. 77064, an appeal from an administrative ruling that the structure encroached 20 ft. into the front setback and could not be allowed. He stated that the Council had ultimately denied the appeal and the present appli- cation was a request for a variance to permit the structure to encroach into the front yard. He stated that the applicant had submitted a written statement explaining his p request and outlining his justification for the variance, in which he claims the placement of the house on the lot, the number and placement of existing trees and the lack of an alley make it; virtually impossible to construct a detached garage, in the rear. yard and have access to it. The applicant also contends the carport provides a margin of safety on many days when an unprotected car would be subjected I to sleet and snow and fogged windows. He notes that the location of the carport on his property is unique in that the grade of the driveway and existing trees, E and shrubbery make it appear to blend into the surroundings._ The applicant also claims that the winter weather conditions and the location of the one car garage create a hardship and points out that 14 neighbors, signed a petition supporting his variance request. The Secretary reviewed the Standards for Variances -in Section 35 -240 (2) of the City Ordinances, which allow for variances -from the literal provisions of the - ordinance and instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hard - shi -p because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration after demonstration that all four of the qualifications are s met. The Secretary continued that it was not felt that this variance request met the qualifications of a hardship contained in the ordinance as opposed to a mere in- convenience, nor that the conditions of the variance were necessarily unique to the parcel. He pointed out that single family homes with tuckunder single car garages similar to that of the applicant are relatively common Brooklyn Center. He _added that consideration should also be given to the precedent that would be set if this variance were granted and what, if any, distinctions could be made with respect to this application and a similar request from another individual requesting the same type of encroachment into the front yard setback. P r j 11 -2 -78 -5- x. Commissioner Malecki stated that the ordinance required that an undue hardship exist in order.for a variance to be granted. She pointed out that scraping a ca°r windshield did not constitute an undue hardship, but rather an inconvenience, and she felt that, not having met that standard, consideration ' of -the application did not have to go any further. Commissioner Jacobson stated that the possibility of rantin a variance had been 9 9 discussed during the appeal process and that it had been determined that the situation did not meet the standards for a variance`. She stated the`applieation still did not meet standards for a variance ,and she was opposed to the granting of such a variance. Commissioner - Pierce stated he was still undecided on the issue of whether a carport should be allowed to encroach into the front setback. He stated that he still, felt felt other alternatives should be researched by the Commission and explained that, while the 5 f e t. setback.. _ requirement may have been viable when it was-originally established, there may be need to revise that standard at present: He stated that the applicant's situation was not unique and that if the variance were granted, the Commission would have to grant anyone else permission to erect structures in their front yards: In response to a question from Commissioner Book, the Secretary explained that Mr. Hamilton's original Application (No. 77064) had been an appear from an ad ministrative ruling by the Building Official that a carport was an accessory structure that-could not encroach into front yard setback, and that the Council had upheld the administrative .ruling. Commissioner Book stated that ordinance standards can be subject to change and that the Commission has a sensitivity towards granting variances. He continued that in situations such 'as - the applicant's ` it is preferable to change the ordinance standards rather than grant a variance. He explained that although the applicant pointed out the structure was 30 feet from the street, -it was only 15 ft. from the street right -of -way line. He stated that he felt that in the event that the street be widened or a sidewalk be'in stalled, that a 15 ft. setback was not sufficient, and that there could be some safety problem. Commissioner Theis stated that the situation was riot unique to the property and constituted an inconvenience rather than a hardship. He pointed out that th structure was not detrimental to the neighborhood and that although he didn't feel the variance.couid be approved, he did feel that the ordinance should be _amended to permit such a structure in the front setback. He stated that there were apparently legal problems with establishing aesthetic review criteria for a carport in the front yard as he had suggested when the was reviewed under the appeal application. Chairman Engdahl stated that: he felt that denial of the application was in order because it does not meet the standards for a variance. He pointed out that having to scrape the windows of the car is not at all a unique situation.in Minnesota, and that anyone who parks their car in a parking lot during the day E, also has to scrape windows in the evening. RECOMMEND DENIAL OF `NO..78064 (Gene Hamil r Motion y Commissioner a ec i secon e y ommiss�oner awes to recommend denial of Application No. 78064 submitted by Gene Hamilton because the appl ication does not meet the 'standards for a variance with respect to uniqueness and hardship. 11 -2 -78 -fi �. t The Secretary stated it was also felt that the alleged hardship claimed by the applicant was not necessarily related to the requirements of the ordinance. He explained that setback standards are minimum standards, and the ordinance does not mandate that houses be built at the 35 ft, setback, only that they do not encroach on this mimimum setback. He also. explained that the ordinance does not require garages or any other type of protection for cars, and also does not _specify the placement and number of trees and shrubbery on single family residential property. He pointed out that these are decisions made by builders, developers and property owners all persons having an interest in the parcel of land. Point c in the Standards for Variances requires that the alleged hardship must be related to the-requirements of this ordinance and not have been created-by any persons' presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. E The Secretary concluded that it was felt that the variance request did.not clearly meet the Standards for Variances, particularly in terms of uniqueness and hardship, and recommended denial of the application. PUBLIC HEARING - f Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing had been scheduled and inquired whether anyone in the audience wished to be heard. No one spoke relating to the application. He recognized the applicant, Mr. Gene Hamilton. P The applicant stated that he had received a number of telephone calls and visits from his neighbors who had been notified of the public hearing and asked him whether he.would like them to be present at the hearing. He stated that he had informed his neighbors that he felt that the petition which they signed in support of his structure in the fall of 1977 was sufficient evidence of their support, and he noted that none of his neighbors was present at the public hearing. The applicant stated that the Commission had reviewed the situation under his previous appeal application and was familiar witi the circumstances. He stated that he had problems dealing with the fact that a piece of metal covering a car which would be parked in the driveway anyway can be so important that.it can't be allowed. He explained that after having used the carport over last winter, he was convinced it was effective in protecting the car from sleet and snow that there had been no problem with visibility, and that there had been no necessity for scraping the windows, which was an improvement -in safety. He explained that he was requesting a variance which would only be granted to himself, and that anyone else requesting a similar variance would have to prove that they have the same conditions as his. He stated that the Commission could approve the application on the merits of the individual case, and no precedent would be set. He concluded by stating that he could not understand why a neat and useful structure such as the one he had erected could not be approved in the City of Brooklyn Center. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING It was noted that no one else spoke relating to the application. Motion by Comis- sioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Engdahl polled the Commissioners. Commissioner Hawes stated that while he could "understand the applicant's point of view, it was the purpose of the ordi- nance to draw a firm line regarding the location of structures on a property. He stated that the applicant's structure was located strictly against the ordinance standards and that the applicant did not meet the standards for variance. He concluded -that hie was opposed to granting the variance. 11 -2 -78 -7- Commissioner Book pointed out that the situation could be detrimental to the public welfare with respect to the precedent it could set for all-owing structures to be within 15 ft. of the street right -of -way. In further discussion it was the con- sensus of the Commission that.the structure was not detrimental to the public welfare and Commissioner_Book__withdrew the point. Commissioner Hawes asked for clarification of the motion as it stood. The motion was to recommend denial of the application on the basis that it does not meet the standards for variances with respect to uniqueness and hardship. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki and Hawes. Voting against: Com- missioner Pierce and Theis. Not voting: Commissioner Book. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant who inquired whether all members of the Commission had received a copy of his formal request for variance. Chairman Engdahl responded that a copy of the request had been -included with the agenda materials which had been received by each Commissioner. OTHER BUShNESS: City Salt Storage Building The next item of consideration was an informational item regarding the construction of a salt storage building on the municipal garage property at 2501 69th Avenue North. The City Engineer explained that with City's 1979 budget comprehended approval for construction of a salt storage building to be located on the municipal garage property. He explained that currently salt was stored in the building on the City property located at Dupont and 69th Avenues North, and that there was evidence the salt was leaching into the ground at that.location. He explained that the current regulations °regarding salt storage were more stringent than those in effect at the time the present building had, been constructed. He ,reviewed a transparency of the site showing the existing boil -ding, the proposed salt storage` building, and a master plan for outside storage bins to be contained:on the property. He noted that t proposed building was 34 ft. by 112 ft. in area. The City Engineer continued that the master plan provided for all outside storage to be located on this property, and that the materials would be stored in bins. He explained that proposed building would be used as screening of the outside storage from the west side and that a berm and "6 ft. high fence would screen the storage from Shingle Creek Parkway, and that towards the east property line along Shingle Creek Parkway only a berm would be provided. He continued that the ex- terior of the building.would be a compatible material to that of the existing building and would consist of a break -off concrete block. He stated that bids were now being taken on the building. A discussion ensued relative to the plans. Chairman Engdahl inquired as to the Screening on the east side of the property. The City Engineer responded that there is a large green strip presently existing between the City property and the adjacent Graco property. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the City- Engineer stated.that the entrance to the building would be from 69th Avenue North and that when Shingle Creek Parkway was in place, there would be an additional entrance from Shingle Creek Parkway. He pointed out that only the building would be constructed this year, and that the rest of the storage would probably be con - structed in the next year. In response to ' a question from Commissioner Book, he stated that the salt mixing area be located inside the building in the beginning and that when the building was full, mixing would take place outside. He stated that all mixed materials would be stored inside the building .Also, in response to a question from Commissioner Book, the City Engineer stated that the building would have a bituminous floor which was an acceptable type of flooring. 11 -2 -78 -8- Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the height of the building. The City Engineer responded that the building would be 20 ft. high. He explained that raw salt .would be stored in one portion of the building and mixed salt -in another. In re- sponse to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the City Engineer stated that the type of salt which would be stored would be calcium chloride. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether the storage bins would be locked. The City Engineer explained that a security fence would be installed around the entire storage area. He stated that the State _Highway Department had constructed a similar building last year. 4 s Following further discussion Chairman Engdahl thanked the City Engineer for his presentation of the informational item. WESTBROOK MALL The next item of consideration was a proposed revision of the Westbrook Mall site plan. The Secretary explained that as a result of notification of the developer of outstandi -ng site improvements noted during an inspection for performance bond release, the developer had submitted a revised landscape plan. He briefly re- viewed the plan and noted it was color -coded to show that some of the required items were proposed to be omitted, some of the required items would be planted this fall, and also showed some plantings which were already in place that had not been required on the original site plan. He pointed out that.there, was a concern with the large island which contained two flag poles and for which no landscaping other than six sand cherries was proposed .while the original plan comprehended trees and other shrubs. The Commission_ discussed the revised landsape plan. Commissioner Theis inquired whether there was an underground irrigiation system in place in the flag pole island. The City Engineer responded that there was. Commissioner Theis suggested that if the developer was concerned that the pedestrian „traffic across the flag pole island would be-detri to the planting, a sidewalk could be installed on the island. Following further discussion of the revised landscaping plan, it was the consensus of the Commission that plantings should be provided for the flag pole area as approved by the City staff and that there should be 10 red.leaf barberry installed by the south entrance rather than the rive proposed by the developer. It was the consensus of the Commission that with the recommended changes, the revised landscape plan was in order. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CRITICAL AREA PLAN REVIEW` The Secretary explained that at the ast study meeting on October 19, 1978, the Neighborhood: Groups had been requested to meet and, - with input - from their neighborhood, compile a list of neighborhood concerns. He stated that the Southwest Neighbor- hood Group had set a meeting date, asked the Commissioners to work, with the other Neighborhood Groups in order to get the meeting date established. Chairman Engdahl commented that the Commissioners should prod the chairmen of the groups to which they were the liaisons in order to set the meeting date. APPROVE MINUTES October 19, 1978 and September 28, 1978 Motion by - Commissioner T eis secon ed y C airman EngTafi to approve the minutes of the October 19, 1978 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl', Commissioners Theis, Jacobson, Book and Hawes. Voting against: none. Not - voting: Commissioner Pierce and Commissioner Malecki, who stated they were not present at that meeting. The motion carried. 11 -2 -78 -9- f Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the September ?_8, 1978 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chair- man Engdahl, Commissioners Pierce, Malecki, Theis, Hawes and Book. Voting against none. Not voting: Commissioner Jacobson who stated she was not present at that meeting. The motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at a 10:80 p.m. Chairman C i s i i E E i 1 i 11 -2 -78 -10- a EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 16, 1978 .CITY HALL APPLICATION NO. 78066 (Cynthia Pierce) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce. The Secretary stated the applicant sought an amendment to a special use permit for a home occupation, a beauty shop, at 3313 Lawrence Road. Commissioner Pierce stated that in view of his relationship to the applicant, he would abstain from consideration of the application. The Secretary explained that the amendment to the special use permit originally granted under Application No. 75019 would recognize one nonresident employee in relation to the home occupation. He stated that the application had been con -sidered by the Commission at its November 2, 1978 meeting and was tabled pending a clarification from the City Attorney regarding the definition for home occup- ation, special contained in the Zoning Ordinance, and whether the applicant of a dwelling for which a special use permit is issued is required to be on the premises at all times when a permitted employe6 is working. He stated a response had been received from the City Attorney. The Secretary read a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding special home occupations in which two opinions were given: one, since the ordinance limits the nonresident employee with language which contains the phrase " at any one time" the language as it presently stands would permit more than one part -time employee, ° as long as no more than one employee was on the premises at any one time; two, there is no language in the home occupation definition which would indicate that the occupant must remain on the premises in order to supervise the employee. The memo indicated that the definition says "any gainful occupation or profession, ... engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling ..." Giving the phrase "engaged in" in its ordinarily accepted meaning, it could mean to operate the profession or occupation without being on the premises at all times. The Secretary stated that neighboring property owners had been sent an informational notice regarding the Commission's consideration of the item. He stated that he had received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Howard J. Atkins, 3213 Lawrence Road, who stated they objected to the use of the property as a beauty parlor operated by a person other than the homeowner. They also stated that they believe the proposed amendment would threaten to change the neighborhood from its residential character to a commercial character and felt that the increased traffic around the corner lot would be a safety hazard to the children on the block. The Secretary stated he had also received a telephone call from Jackie Alexander, 3311 Lawrence Road, who reiterated her opinion that since the applicant was establishing herself in a real estate business, perhaps the home occupation had served its purpose and the time had come to seek a commercial building for her operation. The Secretary briefly reviewed the definition for special home occup- ation, the Standards for Special Use Permit, and the recommended conditions of approval. He stated that the key consideration of any home occupation is a deter- mination that the proposed use is clearly secondary and incidental to the primary use, which is residential. 11 -16 -78 e Chairman Engdahl asked for comments from the Commissioners which had not been heard at the previous meeting. Commissioner Theis pointed out that the definition. for special home occupation contained in Section 35 -900 specifically states that the occupation may involve "the need for not more than two parking spaces in addition to spaces required for the persons residing on the premises. He ex- plained that if the operation were expanded to a two chair operation, and con- sidering the need for a vehicle for the nonresident employee as well as those of potentially two customers, there could be a need for three parking spaces which is outside of the limits set by the ordinance. Commissioner Theis inquired whether the applicant was aware that this provision would mean that if the nonresident employee drove to work, there could only be one customer car parked on the premises at any time. The applicant responded there shouldn't be any trouble with the parking for a variety of reasons. She stated that she would not be working when the nonresident operator was working, and that there would not be two chairs operating at one time. She also commented that many of her customers were neighbors who walked to the shop. Commissioner Book commented that following the line of reasoning, introduced by 'Commissioner Theis, anyone who had been ermitted a two chair operation 'in the P past would be in violation of the ordinance. The Secretary commented that an application for a special home occupation for the instruction of porcelain painting had been approved this fall. He stated that approval had been granted to comprehend four students at any one time. He also pointed out that the parking formulas in the ordinance relating to other uses generally require one space for every two employees or one space for every two seats in a restaurant use. He continued that it was important that the - applicant work out through scheduling any conflict there may be with the parking. Commissioner Theis pointed out that the estimate of three cars was a low estimate since a two chair operation with a nonresident operator could comprehend as many as five cars if each operator were handling two customers" at one time. Commissioner Book pointed out that the parking formulas established in the ordinance for other types of uses are not based upon the maximum use possible. He also used the example cited by the Secretary. The applicant stated that without being familiar with the operation and her method of scheduling customers, the Commission was assuming,that there would -be a need for three parking spaces, and that there would be parking problems. She stated that because of strict scheduling there would not be a problem with the parking. Commissioner Theis responded that at the public hearing, there had been complaints about the parking in the neighborhood. He said that whether or not that parking problem is related to the special use, the problem exists. He stated that the ordinance requires that in a special home occupation there be a need for no more than two parking spaces in addition to those required by the residents. The applicant' pointed out that since she would not'be working when the nonresident operator was working, and because there was less business now than there had been previously, the need for parking spaces would be less. Chairmen Engdahl explained that if the nonresident operator drove to the house, and if two customers were handled at any one time, there would still be a possible need for three parking spaces. Commissioner Theis commented that he saw the major problem with the application to be that of the parking. 11 -16 -78 -2 T , fhe Secretary painted out that the ordinance did not specify that the two parking spaces be off - street spaces. He commented that he felt the intent of the ordinance was to limit on- street, parking spaces to two, and that thisconcern was addressed by the condition of approval which would require that adequate off - street parking be prov.ided by the applicant: V Commissioner Malecki stated she was confused regarding the definition. She stated that if the definition were strictly adhered to, the applicant would not be able to have a nonresident employee, even though the ordinance acknowledges one Pon- resident employee. Commissioner Book stated he had two questions. He asked whether the City Council had approved any two chair beauty shops in the past. The Secretary responded that he did not know for certain whether any two chair beauty shops had been specific- ' . ally permuted, although .here may be some in operation. He explained that while the ordinance sets the maximum uses permitted, the special use permit is issued based upon the applicant's specific request for a home occupation. He continued that in this case, the applicant had originally requested only a single person operation, and that an amendment was required in order to permit the employment of a nonresident operator. Commissioner Book also commented that special use permits were subject to revocation and inquired as to what channels a neighbor could pursue if they objected to the special use and wanted the permit revoked. The Secretary explained that the neighbor would complain to the City, staff would review the situation to determine whether the applicant was abiding by the requirements of approval, and if the occupation were determined to be.a bona fide nuisance, the matter would come before the Planning Commission which could recommend revocation of the permit. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mrs. Reetz, 3309 Lawrence Road, who commented that there was a two chair beauty shop operation located on 63rd Avenue North, adjacent to the fire station. She stated that this was a different matter from that proposed by the applicant because the nature of that area was commercial, while Lawrence Road is a residential area. She also pointed out that in the applicant's case, it would be possible for a customer to arrive ahead of her appointment time, and that this could cause more parki.ng problems. Chairman Engdahl explained that whether the area was commercial or residential in nature was not important to the consideration of the application. He stated that special uses are permitted uses within a Toning district and that the determination which must be made was whether or not the applicant's proposal was permitted under the ordinance. The applicant commented that it was her understanding that under special use permit review, each case is considered individually. She explained that in her individual case, because she was going into the real estate business, her beauty shop business would be much less intense, and that she was taking on no new customers. She also pointed out that she understood from the City Attorney's memorandum, that there was no ordinance problem with having a nonresident employee working on the premises when she was not present. y In further discussion Commissioner Hawes stated that heJelt the problem with the application was that there would be a need for more than two parking spaces. In response to Chairman Engdahl''s point that the recommended condition of approval requiring cuff- street parking space be provided by the applicant would cover that concern. Commissioner Hawes stated that if the ordinance were interpreted literally, then that provision does not satisfy the definition. 11 -16 -76 -3- The applicant stated that she didn't see where there was a problem since she coul y provide four off - street parking spaces in her driveway. Chairman Engdahl explained that the ordinance requires that the occupation does not involve a need for more than two parking spaces in addition to those spaces required by the residents of the premises., Commissioner Theis explained that he felt the. two car limitation probably spoke to the desirable intensity of a home occupation. He continued that he felt that the intent of the ordinance was that if more than two parking spaces` were required, then the proposed use was not a suitable home occupation Commissioner Book stated that in discussing this limitation the Commission was not: dealing with the precedent which had already been set regarding home occupations. He stated he did not feel the application could be rejected at this point _unless the Commission went back and disapproved any other special home occupations which involve the need for more than-two parking spaces. Commissioner _Jacobson also pointed out that the Commission had recently approved a special home occupation for art instruction comprehending four students with - po reference to the number of parking spaces needed by the use. Chairman Engdahl stated that he felt the definition was ambiguous, and that he was comfortable with the interpretation that the provision was intended in order to prevent more than two on- street parking spaces, and that if the applicant were required to provide adequate off- street parking, he felt the concern would be addressed. Commissioner Theis disagreed and stated he felt the definition was clear and unambiguous, and that he could not recommend approval of the appli- cation if there were a need for more than two parking spaces. He again inquired of the applicant as to the need for a two chair operation if the business were de- clining. The applicant responded that the amendment was to allow a nonresident employee who would work on the premises when she was not there. Commissioner Theis pointed out that such an operation would essentially be a one person operation, and that if the applicant agreed to limit the use to a one chair operation, 'he -would have no objection to recommending approval of the application. The applicant agreed and stated that she understood that only one chair could be in operation at any one time. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78066 (Cynthia Pierce Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to recommend approval of Application No. 78066 subject to the - following conditions. 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the proposed use and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The permit acknowledges the employment on the premises, at any one given time, of not more than one person who is a nonresident of the premises, and violation of this condition shall be grounds for revocation. 4. The current copy of the applicant's State Operator's License as well as a current copy of any employee's State Operator's License shalt be kept on file with the City. 5. All parking; related to the special use shall be off- street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. 11 -16 -78 -4- � r 6. The hours of operation shali'be: Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m,; and Saturday 8 :00 a.m. to 3 :00 p.m. There shall be only'one chair physically in the building. 8. The special use permit is subject to annual.rev ew. jThe applicant objected to the seventh condition of approval and stated there has ;been a second chair in the building ever since she started working which is used for a customer to wait in between stages of her treatment. Commissioner Malecki clarified that the point was made in order to provide that my one operator be working at any one time. In further discussion, Commissioner heis agreed to change the motion so that the seventh condition of approval would read that` only one chair shall be in operation when the operator—u a nonresident e The sec on concurred 'wit the amen meat. Ong in favor: airman £ngdahl, Commissioners Malecki, Jacobson, Book and Thei Voting against Com- missioner Hawes. Not voting:_ Commissioner Pierce. The motion passed 11 -16 -78 -5- Member introduced the following resolution and rved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION UT N AMENDING THE 1978 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL PART -TIME LABOR IN THE ASSESSING DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center provides for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an additional erne -half time Assessing clerical position in the 1979 Budget to commence on January 1, 1979; and WHEREAS, the recent conversion by Hennepin County to a. new Parcel I.nfor- mati,on,Numbering System (PINS) has created a heavy work load upon the Assessing Department; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to provide additional part -time labor to the Department for the balance of the calendar year 1978 to enable the Department to meet certain deadlines required by law: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1978 General Fund Budget to transfer $540 from the Contingency Appro- priation (Account No. 01- 4995 - 000 -82) to the Assessing Department's Salaries, Temporary Employees Appropriation (Account No. 01- 4130 - 000 --15). Da to 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 sarr,e: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Paul W. Holmlund, Director of Finance DATE: November 7, 1978 SUBJECT: Request for Additional Part -time Labor, Assessor's Office I have attached a copy of a memorandum which I received from City Assessor" Pete Koole. He has requested an additional part -time employee to work forty hours per week for the balance of 1978. The recent conversion to the PINS Numbering System by Hennepin County has placed a heavy work load upon the Assessing Department and Mr. Koole is concerned that the Department will be unable to meet its deadline for the mailing of homestead cards unless additional help is authorized The Department has been authorized an additional one -half time position in the 1979 Budget to commence on January 1, 1979. I do see a potential problem if we hire someone now to work forty hours I per week until December 31 and then cut his or her hours back to twenty on January 1," It would be my recommendation that you ask the City Council to amend the Assessor's 1978 Budget to provide funds to hire a part -time employee to work a maximum of thirty hours per week for the balance of 1978. Of course, the person hired must be made aware of the fact that the hours will be cut back on January 1. If you approve the .additional funding, I will prepare the necessary resolution amending the budget. MEMORANDUM Dates October 30, 1978 To: Paul Holmlund From: Peter Koole Y -, Subject: PINS Numbering System Conversion As you know, Hennepin County plans to implement their new parcel numbering system January 1, 1979, which severely impacts our work for the 1979 assessment. Hennepin County plans to provide us with cross reference labels and cross reference books about November 6, 1978, which gives us our PINS numbers for the first time. As you can see by the attached schedule, the'County was to provide this data by August 1, 1978 originally and their delay has caused severe consequences on local assessor's offices. I wihl review what I envision as our procedure for the PINS conversion in the Assessor's Office The first task will be to put the PINS number label on our address file. To accomplish this, an individual will have to refer to the cross reference book that is in address order and then search through the labels and place the appropriate label on that file card. This procedure will be repeated for all of the approximately 8000 address cards. At the same time, errors in the address cross reference run will have to be noted and a list or corrections sent back to the county at the end of our audit procedures. The county has informed us that final audit responsibility for the PINS numbers to old parcel numbers lies with the City. I would estimate this address file work to take one person three weeks. 'The second task is to get the PINS number on our field cards. Approximately half of the 9000 field cards are the old style cards upon which we can attach a cross reference label, the other half are the new style cards which is a dual card system where the PINS number will have to be hand written. This means 4500 labels have to be placed on cards, and the PINS numbers must be hand written on 9000 cards using much the same procedure as the address file, but using the Plat /Parcel to I.D. cross reference book. Again any errors must be caught and corrections sent back to the county. I estimate this to take two people two to three weeks. PINS Numbering System Conversion Page 2 After all the records have been updated with the new PINS numbers, we must physically take all the records out of the file and re- shuffle them into PINS order. All of this work must be completed so we can audit the Homestead cards which must be sent out the last week in December. The normal time for preparing the homestead cards is from about December 11 to December 24. With the addition of another clerical person immediately, I feel we can complete the above tasks in a timely manner. 'Of course, work must continue on our assessment and I predict at least a one month delay in the completion of the 79 assessment even with the additional person. I am proposing that we hire the individual, that was budgeted for 1979 under part -time clerical, immediately and go to the City Council for a reappropriation to the 1978 budget to fund 40 hours per week for the rest of this year. I feel it would be unwise to get temporary help in here for the balance of the year and then re -hire an individual in January because of the amount of training clerks require in the Assessor's office. As you can see, I feel we are in an emergency situation, and I would appreciate your response to this request at your earliest convenience. DATE: April 11, "1978 i TO: Municipality Assessors { I FROM: Stan Erickson HeNNePIN coui__Y St Assessor Print Schedule _llJ J s AUGU 1, 1978 Print labels with plat and parcel to new Property I.D. �'Y'5j Lrl Print cross - reference book, plat and parcels to I.D. Mso I.D. to plat and parcel (duplicate). [ D. J. OCTOBER 1 1978 Convert 1978, payable 1979 values to the PINS "format. NOVEMBER 1, 1978 Print final dual 1978 as sessments with plat and parcel and I.D. number. Print 1978 market assessment values to be used for 1979 v k assessment. V 1� JANUARY 1, 1979 Print property address list for those municipalities we have updated. 1( FEBRUARY 1 1979 Print new spread _sheets for special with new I.D. numbers. FEBRUARY 15, 1979 Start processing 1979 divisions. % mss ._ Member introduced the following resolution and C � moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1978 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR CETA EMPLOYEES EXTENSION WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for the increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts exceed the estimates; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) does provide federal financing to create temporary public service jobs to the unemployed; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 1977 (Resolution No 77235), the City Council authorized certain CETA positions in the 1978 Budget and amended the 1978 Budget to appropriate funds to fund those positions through September 30, 1978; and " WHEREAS, the Detached Worker Program in Brooklyn Center is provided through contract with the YMCA and is jointly funded by the City of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Center business firms, and various agencies; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 1977 (Resolution No. 77 -260), the City Council authorized the funding of two YMCA Detached Worker positions through the Federal CETA Program in the 1978 General Fund Budget through September 30, 1978; and WHEREAS, at the time of the budget amendments, the Federal CETA Program r was scheduled to end on September 30, 1978; and WHEREAS, the City has since been notified that the Federal CETA funding has been extended through December 31, 1978 but reduced to fund one -half of the existing City CETA positions: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to extend the following authorized CETA positions through December 31, 1978: POSITION NUMBER AUTHORIZED DEPARTMENT Accounting Assistant 1 Finance Landscape Technician ' 1 Recreation & Parks and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend the 1978 General Fund Budget to increase the departmental budget appropriations to fund. those positions through December 31, 1978 as follows: RESOLUTION NO. SALARIES HOSPITALIZATION LIFE REGULAR EMPLOYEES INSURANCE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT (OBJECT # 4100) OBJECT # 4151) (OBJECT #4152) i Finance $2,499 $180 $8 Recreation & Parks Supv. $2,499 $180 $8 and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend the 1978 General Fund Budget to increase the Professional Services appropriation, Detached Worker Program, in the amount of $3,999 to fund two one -half time Detached Worker positions through December 31, 1978; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the source of funding for the additional appropriation j in the amount of $9,373 shall be the Federal CETA grants. 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. CETA SERVICES IN First Level South, Government Center 4* E s° HENNEPIN 300 South Sixth Street LFU Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 October 27, 1978 City of Brooklyn Center Dear on October 15, 1978, the U. S. Congress passed the CETA appropriations bill. This bill reduces substantially the cronies available to Hennepin County fcr Public Service Employment. The allocation to Hennepin County will be based on unem�ploy ment The present rate in Hennepin County is approximately 2.9 percent. This extremely low unemployment rate insures a correspondingly small allocation for Public Service Employment. To bring the present program to a size that can be funded by the new allocation, it is necessary to cut the enrollment level across the County. As the Title II program has already been suspended, and all participants laid off since October 11, 1978, we must turn to Title VI for further reductions. Hennepin County government has taken the lead by prioritizing the PSE positions within its departments and reducing its enrollment level by 56 percent. It is necessary for all Title VI subgrantees to make a reduction in present enrollment levels. All subgrantees with two (2) or more Public Ser<,rice Employees are to make a 50 percent reduction in that level by November 17, 1978. Any subgrantee employing an odd number of CETA employees are to reduce staff by 50 percent plus the one odd employee, effectively reducing enrollment by more than 50 percent. Subgrantees are to establish their own priorities and follow established procedures within their individual agencies. All subgrantees with one Public Service Employee shall lay that employee off Novem�.r 17, 1978. It is possible that a further cut in enrollment will be necessary. Present information is not sufficient to determine how great a cut may be necessary or when it might occur. You will be informed should the necessity to furt :ner reduce enrollments arise. Please be informed that the freeze on re- filling empty positions imposed August 10, 1978, will continue until such time that enrollment levels are sufficiently reduced to make funding available. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer October 27, 1978 Page 2 This action does not effect Title vI special projects. Projects shall be terminated according to the end dates specified in the respective contracts. Sincerely, William G. Brumfield Director of CETA Services r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1978 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR POLICE OFFICER SALARY ADJUSTMENTS WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of - the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide that the City Council may, by majority vote of its members, transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one office, department or agency to another within the same fund; and WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of 'the City Charter of - the City of Brooklyn Center provides for a contingency appropriation as a part of - the General Fund Budget, and further provides 'that -the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by - the City Council; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 1977 - the City Council of - the City of Brooklyn Center adopted a budget -for the calendar Y ear 1978; and WHEREAS, when said budget was adopted 1978 salaries and wages for most City employees - had not been set; and • WHEREAS, the City Council did appropriate funds for departmental labor in the amount of $115,000 - to Unallocated Departmental Labor - to provide funds for final 1978 salary and wage settlements; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 1977 - the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 77 -235 which amended - the 1978 General Fund Budget - to - transfer $16,052 to Unallocated Departmental Labor from various departmental labor appropriations for positions to be funded from Federal CETA Funds; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 1977 - the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 77 -243 which set salaries and wages for - the year 1978 for all unorganized City employees; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 1978 - the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 78 -36 which amended the 1978 General Fund Budget to - transfer $80,158 from Unallocated Departmental Labor for said wage and salary adjustments; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 1978 `the City Council did authorize 'the. Mayor and City Manager'to sign a memorandum of understanding between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local #49 and the City of Brooklyn Center regarding an increase in wages for 1978, and did also authorize - the City Manager to increase the salaries of the City's nonorganized, permanent employees by an additional .8% • effective April 2, 1978; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, on June 5, 1978 - the City Council did adopt Resolution No. 78 -107 which amended - the 1978 General Fund Budget to transfer $11,966 from Unallocated Departmental Labor for said wage and salary adjustments; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 1978 - the City Council did by motion approve the master labor agreement between - the City of Brooklyn Center and the - Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Union, Local #320 which -set police officers' 1978 wages and benefits as established by arbitration award; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of - the City of Brooklyn Center to increase - the following Police Department (Dept. #31) appropria- tions - to provide for said wage and benefit adjustments: Salaries, Regular (Account No. 4100) $40,000 Salaries, Overtime (Account No. 4112) 1,500 PERA - Police (Account No. 4143) 4,800 Hospitalization Insurance Account No. 4151) 31000 $49,300 and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 'that 'the increased appropriation shall be funded by - transferring $38,928 from the Unallocated Labor Appropriation (Account • No. 01- 4100 - 000 -81) and $10,372 from the Council's Contingency Appropriation (Account No.. 01- 4995 - 000 -82), 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 of same: and - the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE GREAT RIVER ROAD BICYCLE TRAIL WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) is currently holding public meetings relative to the Great River Road project through the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, Mn /DOT is currently reviewing various alternate routes for the Great River Road Bicycle Trail in the area of Brooklyn Center; and - WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed said alternatives with the Brooklyn Center City Council; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council deems the route along the west side of Palmer Lake Park, along County Road No. 130 from Palmer Lake Park to T.H. 169 and southerly along the corridor -T.H. 169 and the west bank of the Mississippi River to the south corporate limits of .the City of Brooklyn Center to be -the best route for said Great River Road Bicycle Trail through the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation designate the Great River Road Bicycle Trail through the City of Brooklyn Center to follow the following route: Along the west side of Palmer Lake Park.from north corporate limits to County Road No. 130; thence easterly along County Road No. 130 to T.H. 169; thence southerly along the corridor of T.H. 169 and the west bank of the Mississippi River to the south corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center. 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: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO REVISE THE COUNTY'S HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM TO ACCELERATE THE IMPROVEMENT OF C.S.A.H. 130 IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS,_ C.S.A.H. 130 is a major east -west thoroughfare in the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the present roadway is considered hazardous for the safety and general welfare of vehicular- and.pedestrian traffic; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park located on the south side of C.S.A.H. 130 between Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue North is developing rapidly, along with the remainder of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the recently approved Hennepin County 5 -Year Highway Construction Program includes the acquisition of right -of -way for. C.SA.H` l30 within the City of Brooklyn Center in 1983. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Council hereby requests the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to revise the County's 5- Year Highway Construction Program to accelerate the improvement of C.S.A.H. 130 within the City of Brooklyn Center. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center desires further input in said improvement relative to -the degree of upgrading. 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: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STREET CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -44 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, the of Minneapolis has requested the City of Brooklyn Center to prepare plans and specifications for Street Construction Improvement Project No..1978 -44; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 1978, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted Resolution No. 78 -255 amending the agreement with the City of Minneapolis for preparation of plans and specifications .for 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street North to Penn Avenue North, to include Penn Avenue North from 53.rd Avenue North southerly to the bridge near 52nd Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to initiate the above mentioned improvement project; NOW_, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to direct the , City Engineer to prepare plans' and specifications for said improvement project,, described as follows: 1978 -44 - Street Construction Perin Avenue North from 53rd Avenue North southerly to the bridge near 52nd Avenue North Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution wa.s 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: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK (CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Concrete Curb Company, has satisfactorily completed the following.improvement in accordance with Contract 1978 -B; Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1977 -12 At street intersections along County Road 10 from T.H. 152 to T.H. 100; County Road 57 from T.H. 100 to Logan Ave. No.; Shingle Creek Parkway from County Road 10 to Summit Drive North; and Freeway Boulevard from James Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The work completed under said contract hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed was less than the original contract amount by $768.46 because of the following: _ a. Underestimation of plan quantities for replacement of 4" sidewalk, B618 curb and gutter, and 8924 curb and gutter increased the contract amount by $1,405.74. b. Overestimation of plan quantities for 2" bituminous driveway repair and replacement of 60 sidewalk, B624 curb and gutter, and sod decreased the contract ,amount by $2,174.20. 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 contract for said improvement project shall be $15,872.04. Date Mayor ATTEST- Clerk Resolution No. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Concrete Curb Company has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with Contract 1978 -B: Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1978 -15 Along the north side of 57th Avenue North from 134 feet west of Logan to 270 feet west of Logan Avenue North. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1.- The work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2' "The value - bf work-performed was less than the original contract amount by $452.40 because of an overestimation of plan quantities for sidewalk and sodding. 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 contract for said improvement project shall be $1,299.60 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: RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK (CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Concrete Curb Company. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with Contract 1978 -B: Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1978 -16 Along the north side of Emerson Lane from Dupont Avenue North to Emerson Avenue North, west side of Emerson Avenue North from Emerson Lane to 70th Avenue North, and the south side of 70th Avenue North from Emerson Avenue to Humboldt Avenue, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center l._ The work completed under said,,c-ontract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract amount by $1,513.54 because of the following:- a. Change Order No. 1 comprehending the furnishing and installation of 2" bituminous driveway repair at sidewalk crossings increased the contract amount by $498.00. b. An overestimation in the plan quantities for sidewalk and sodding reduced the contract amount by $2,011.54. 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 contract for said improvement project shall be $11,322.46; Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Resolution No. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor- thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH EGI L WEFALD & ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR PREPARING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0_. 1977 -10 WHEREAS, on July 11, 1977, the Brooklyn Center City Council authorized the Mayor and City Manager to execute an agreement with Egil. Wefald & Associates, Inc., for preparing plans and specifications for Bridge Improvement Project No. 1977 -10; and WHEREAS, the said agreement provides for the said engineering firm.to perform the preliminary engineering and final design and drafting for the bridge improvement for an amount not.to exceed _'$20,000 without the Owner's approval; and WHEREAS, due to a change in scope of the project, the said engineering firm has requested the not to exceed amount to be increased to $23,500; and WHEREAS, the change.in scope of work consists of developing an imaginative non - standard bridge design which is estimated to save approximately $40,000 in construction costs, ° of a landscape • plan, and a delay of approximately one year in approval by the various governmental agencies NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the agreement with Egil Wefald & Associates, Inc..,, for preparing plans and specifications for Bridge Improvement Project No. 1977 -10 be amended to provide for the not to exceed amount of the contract to be increased to $23,500. 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. r CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER , ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE IMPERSONATION OF POLICE OFFICERS OR PUBLIC OFFICIALS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS Section 1 Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances of - the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Section 19 -1900. Impersonation of a Police Officer or Public - Official. I't is unlawful for any person to falsely impersonate or, in any manner, falsely repre sent himself as a law enforcement officer, police officer, sheriff deputy, state highway patrol officer or FBI agent or falsely impersonate or in any manner falsely represent himself as a public official or public employee of - the United States Government, State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof. Section 19 -1901. Unlawful Possession or Use of Police Uniforms, Badges or _Equipment. It is unlawful for any person, unless expressly to do so,: to wear, use, employ, keep or possess, in any manner whatsoever, any of the followi 2�. Any uniform of a law enforcement officer, police officer, sheriff deputy or state patrol trooper or any clothing closely resembling or imitative of such uniforms. 2. Any badge, emblem, shield, insignia or design using -the word or words "police" "sheriff" "deputy", "state " , p ty patrol FBI or law enforcement" or any badge, emblem, shield, insignia or design which imitates or closely resembles - those badges, emblems and the like actually used by law enforcement agencies. 3 Any motor vehicle or motorcycle equipped with red lights, other _ - than red - tail lights or siren or which, by combination of color, design, equipment or all of - them, imitates or closely . resembles a squad car or other traffic law enforcement vehicle. This subdivision does not apply -to vehicles - to - the extent - they are expressly permitted - to possess or use red lights by the Commissioner of Public Safety pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 169.64. Section 29 -1902. Separability. Every section, provision or part of -this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part to 'the extent that if any section, provision or part of - the ordinance shall be held invalid, such holding shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part thereof. ORDINANCE NO. , Section 19-1903.' Penal-ties. Whoever does any'acts forbidden by this ordinance or omits or fails - to do any act required by this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof by lawful authority, be punished by a fine not to exceed $500 and by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days or both. Section 19 -1904. Liability for the Crimes of Another. Every person who commits or attempts to commit, conspires to commit or aids and abets in the commission of any act, constituting a violation of - this ordinance, or any act, which constitutes an omission and, - therefore, a violation of 'this ordinance; whether individually or in combination with one or more persons or as a principal, agent or accessory, shall be guilty of such offense and every person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly or willfully induces, causes, coerces, requires, permits or directs another -to violate any of the provisions of - this chapter is likewise uc� ilty of such offense. Section 2. Chapter 23 is amended by - the repeal of - the following: - [ Section 23 -701 APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL POLICE OFFICERS. Whenever in the judgment of the Village Council of - the Village of Brooklyn Center it shall be necessary or desirable - to increase the police force of - the village - temporarily, - the Village Council is empowered - to appoint "Special Police Officers". The appoint- ment shall designate the - time for which - the services are to be rendered and 'the place. The person appointed shall accept such. appointment in writing and shall take an oath of office to be filed with the clerk. Any such appointment may be revoked with or without cause and without notice by the Village Council at any time.) (Section 23-702. AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL POLICE OFFICERS. Persons appointed special police officers have authority to serve, process and make arrests and do all acts authorized by law - to preserve - the public peace and order that other policemen in the village have and their duties and obligations in that regard shall be - the same. It shall be unlawful for any such person - to wear at any public gathering, or upon any public street or highway, or in any public place - whether on or off duty a uniform or cap of - the same color or appearance as 'that used by - the regular police officers of the Village of Brooklyn Center.) rSection 23 -7 03. SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BADGE AND GUN. A special police officer appointed pursuant to - this ordinance may wear a special police officer badge or emblem during the time and in the areas for which - the appointment is made, said -badge to be furnished by the Village of Brooklyn Center upon payment of the sum of $10, $5 of which shall be returned to the person upon the 'termination of such appointment. No special police officer shall wear a gun or be otherwise armed unless such authority is included in - the appointment, and such gun may be worn only during - the time and in - the areas for which - the appointment is made It shall be unlawful for any special police officer - to wear or exhibit his badge or -to wear a gun except as provided herein.) ORDINANCE NO. [Section 23- 704. AUTHORITY RESTRICTION Tt shall be unlawful for any person commissioned as a special police officer - to exercise any police authority or act as a policeman except in the place or places designated in his appointment and for such period as his appointment shall be in force.] [Section 23 -705. BOND REQUIRED. Every person appointed as a special police officer shall file with the village clerk a corporate surety bond in - the amount- of $1,000 upon a form prescribed by - the village at - the time of filing his oath of office and written, acceptance of his appointment: Such bond shall be conditioned upon - the faithful discharge of - the duties of the office of special police officer and upon compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances.] [Section 23 -706. REQUIREMENTS OF IDENTIFICATION. All applicants for appointment as special police officers shall submit to all reasonable regulations and requirements of - the Village of Brooklyn Center Police Department as - the same shall relate to identification, photographing and fingerprinting.] [Section 23 -707. TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT. Whenever the purpose for the appointment as a special police officer ceases - to exist, 'the holder of such appointment shall within ten (10) days surrender his badge to - the Police Department of the City.] [ Section 23 -708. INSURANCE. Whenever a special police officer is appointed at the request of another •to assist in patrolling or enforcing - the law on the premises of the.other's place of business, `the person requesting that such appointtment be made shall file an appropriate letter with the City agreeing to save the City harmless from any and all liability which may accrue to it by reason of any acts or omissions of the person appointed, and -the City may require evidence of insurance or in lieu thereof evidence of financial ability - to adequately protect , the City. This section shall not be construed to impose any liability upon the- City arising out of 'the appointment of any special police officer.] [ Section 23-7Q9. PENALTY. Any person convicted for -the violation of any of - the provisions of Sections 23 -701 through 23- 708 - may be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) and by imprisonment not-'to exceed ninety (90) days.] Section 3 -. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication Adopted - this day of 1978. Mayor ATTEST; Clerk Date of Publication Effective date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF RAP PARLORS, CONVERSATION PARLORS, ADULT ENCOUNTER GROUPS, ADULT SENSITIVITY GROUPS, ESCORT SERVICES, MODEL SERVICES, DANCING SERVICES OR HOSTESS SERVICES, REQUIRING A LICENSE TO OPERATE SUCH BUSINESSES AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THESE FACILITIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES. ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 23 of - the City Ordinances of 'the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by - the addition of the following: Secrti.on 23- 1800. Statement of Policy. The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center deems it necessary to provide for -the special and express regula tion of businesses or commercial enterprises which operate as rap parlors, con - versation parlors -adult sensitivity groups, adult encounter groups, escort services, model services, dancing services or hostess services in order- to protect the public health;- safety and welfare and •to guard against the inception and trans- mission of disease. The City Council further finds - that commercial enterprises as 'the type described above are susceptible of operation in a manner contravening subverting or endangering - the morals of - the community - thus requiring close inspection licensing and regulation. The City Council also finds - that control and regulation of commercial establishments of these types, in view of - the abuses often perpitrated, require °s intensive efforts by the police department, public health sanitarian and other departments of 'the City and, as a consequence, - the concentrated use of city, services in such control detracts from and reduces the level of services available to the rest of the community and - thereby diminishes the ability of the City to promote - the general health, welfare, morals .and safety of the community. In consideration for the necessity on the part of the City to provide numerous services to all segments of •the- community, without a concentration of public services in one area to work to - the detriment of members of - the general public, it is hereby decided that the number of licenses issued pursuant to - this ordinance or the number of licenses issued either pursuant to Chapter 23 -1600 or 23 -1700 which may be in force at any one time, either licensing sauna parlors, massage parlors or 'the commercial establishments described in this ordinance, 23 -1800, or any combi- nation thereof , shall be no more than a total of three such licenses. - ORDINANCE NO. Section 23 -1801. Definitions "Rap Parlor" or "Conversation Parlor" or "Adult Encounter Group" or "Adult Sensitivity Group" means any person, establishment or business advertising, offering, selling, trading or bartering - the services of itself, its employees or agents as nonprofessional counselors, teachers or therapists who may talk 'to, listen - to, discuss or have conversation with patrons or who deal in any way with patron's physical senses whether or not other goods or services are simultaneously advertised, offered, sold, traded or bartered and regardless of whether said goods or services are also required to be licensed. "Escort Service or "Model Service" or "Dancing Services" or "Hostess Service" means anxperson, establishment or business advertising, offering, selling, ;trading or bartering - the services of itself, its employees or agents as hostesses, models, dancers escorts, dates or companions whether or not goods or services are simultaneously advertised, offered . sold, traded or bartered and regardless of whether said goods or services are also required - to be licensed. Section 23 -1802. Licensed Required. No person shall engage in the business of operating a rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, . adult sensitivity group or model, escort, dancing or hostess service either exclusively or in connection with any other business enterprise or hold himself or herself out as being engaged in or offering his or her services as a.model, hostess, dancer, escort or counselor in a =rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult sensitivity group or_g6Qult encounter group without being first duly licensed as provided herein. Section 23 -1803. Contents of Application for License. Application_ for a license shall be made only on the forms -provided by the City Manager. Four complete copies of the application must be submitted to the City Manager's office containing - the address and legal description of the property to be used, the name, address and telephone number of - the owner, lessee if any, and - the operator or manager, the name, address and telephone number of two persons, who 'shall be residents of Hennepin County who may be called upon - to attest , to the ap 1p icanes, manager's, or operator's character; whether - the applicant, manager or operator has ever been convicted of a crime or offense other - than a -traffic, offense and, if so, complete and accurate information as - to the time _place and nature of such crime or offense including the disposition - thereof; - the names and addresses of all creditors of the applicant, owner, lessee, or manager insofar as and regarding credit which has been extended for the purposes of constructing, equipping maintaining, operating or furnishing or. acquiring - the premises, personal effects, equipment or anything Incident to -the establishment, maintenance and operation of a rap parlor, conversa- t.-on parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group; escort service, model • service, dancing service or hostess service. If the application is made on behal ORDINANCE NO. of a corpora•tion joint business venture, p artnership or any legally'cons•ti'tuted -: business association, i•t s s along with its appiica•tion, accurate a nd complete business records showing - the names and addresses of all individuals having an interest in 'the business, includingcredi•tors furnishing credit for the establishment, acquisition, maintenance and furnishing of said business and, in - the case of a corporation, - the names and addresses of all officers, genera mana gers, members of - the Board of Directors as well as any creditors who have extended credit for - the acquisition, maintenance, operation, or furnishing of - the establishment including - the purchase or acquisition of any items of persona property for use in said operation. All applicants shall furnish 'to - the City, along with - their applications, complete and accurate documentation establishing the interest of - the applicant and any other person having an interest in the premises upon which the building is proposed to be located or in - the furnishings 'thereof, personal property - thereof; or , the operation or maintenance - thereof. Documentation shall be in - the form of a lease, deed -, con for deed, mortgage deed, mortgage, credit arrangement, loan agreements, security agreements and any other documents establishing , the interest of -the applicant or any other person in 'the operation, acquisition or maintenance of - the enterprise offering services as a rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group, escort service , model service, dancing service or hostess service. The application shall also - contain -blue prints, diag p lans, la outs and - the like showi - p gr , � d v g the __conatruction, revision, remodeling, alteration or additions of or to the premises and specifically showing -the layout, design and arrangement of the bathing and restroom facilities and -the size and type of equipment and facilities to be used. Section 23- 1804. License Fee, License nvestiga•tion and License Year. The annual license fee is $1,500 and the annual fee for the investigation for 'the purposes of issuing a license is $1,500. The license fee and fee for the investiga tion of - the license shall be paid when 'the application is filed. In 'the event that the application is denied or in - the event that •the license once issued is revoked canceled or surrendered, no part of - the annual license fee or fee for the investiga- Lion for - the issuance of a license shall be returned to the applicant unless by express action of - the City Council. A separate license shall be obtained eac Year for each place of business. The licensee shall display - the license on a - prominent place in the licensed premises at all times . A license, unless revoked, is for - the calendar year or a part thereof for which it has been issued. The fee for the investigation for issuance of a license must -be 'tendered with each new application for a license and must also be paid at any time when there is a propose change of ownership or reapplication for a license wherein additional or different parties other than the original licensee and parties are proposing - to be licensed All licenses granted herein are nontransferable ORDINANCE NO. Section 23 -1805. Granting or Denial of Licenses. License_ applications shall be reviewed by - the Police Department, Planning and Inspection Department, Health Department and such other departments as the City Manager shall deem necessary. The review shall include an inspection of the premises covered by the application - to determine whether the premises conforms - to all applicable code requirements. Thereafter licenses shall be recommended for approval or denial by - the City Manager - to the City Council subject - to - the provisions of this section. Any appeals shall be before the City Council. A license permitting the conduct of an establishment offering services as a rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group escort service, model service, dancing service or hostess service are nonrenewable and application must be made each year for a license, permi•tting and allowing -the conduct of r such business for -the succeeding year. Licenses for the establishment or conduct of a rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group escort service, model service, dancing service or hostess service are non ferable.. Section 23 -1806° Conditions Governing Issuance. 1. No. icens.e. shall be issued if -the applicant or any of its owners, managers, employees, agents or interested parties are persons of bad repute 2. Licenses shall be issued only if - the applicant and all of its owners managers, employees, agents or interested parties are free of convictions for offenses which involve moral 'turpitude or which relate directly to such person's ability, capacity or fitness 'to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of the license a ctivi.ty . 3. Licenses shall be issued only -to applicants who have not, within one year prior - to - the day of application, have been denied licensure, have had ,a license revoked or suspended in or by any community or political subdivision or - the State of Minnesota and whose owners, managers or any interested parties have no•t been similarly denied, revoked or suspended. 4. Licenses shall be issued only •to applicants who have answered fully and - tru - thfully all of - the information requested in - the application, who have paid 'the full license fee and fee for investigation and have cooperated fully and - truthfully with - the City in the review of the application . 5 - . If the applicant is a natural person, a license shall be granted only if such person is 18 years of age or older. ORDINANCE NO. licenses may be granted only in complete conformity with - th e zoning ordinances of the City of 'Brooklyn Center. 7. Licenses shall be granted only to establishments which can meet the safety, sanitary and building -code requirements of the City. 8. A license shall not be granted if granting the license (a) would be ' inconsistent with - the comprehensive development plans of 'the _Cj tr, , or (b) would otherwise have a detrimental effect upon other property or properties in the vicinity. Section 23- 1807_ Restrictions and Regulations. 1. The licensee and • the persons in its employ, agency or persons with an interest in such business shall comply with all applicable ordinances, regulations and laws of the City of Brooklyn Center and •the State of Minnesota, and'the United States Government. 2. If the licensee is a partnership or a corporation, the applicant shal designate a person 'to be manager and in responsible charge of the business. Such person shall remain responsible for - the conduct of the business until another suitable person has been designated in writing by the licensee. The licensee shall promptly notify the Police Department in writing of any such change indicating-the name and address of the new manager and - the effective date of such change. 3. The licensee shall furnish the Police Department with a list of current employees indicating their names and addresses and designating 'the duties of - the employees within the rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group, escort service, model service, dancing service or hostess service. The licensee shall promptly notify the Police Department of any additions or deletions in the list of employees or changes in their job descriptions or duties. 4. The licensed premises shall not be open for business nor shall patron be permitted on the premises between - the hours of 11 :00 p.m. and 8 :00 a.m. on - the succeeding day. 5. The licensee shall permit and allow the inspection of - the premises during business hours by all appropriate City employees. 6. Upon demand by any police officer any person employed in any licensed premises shall identify himself by giving his - true legal name and his correct address. ORDINANCE NO. 7. No person under 18 years of age shall be employed in an establish- ment requiring a license under - the provisions of 'this ordinance. 88. All equipment or personal property used in or for a rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group, escort service, model service, dancing service or hostess service shall be of a safe and sanitary design as approved by - the City Sanitarian and - the entire premises wherein 'the services of a ra parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity a ' c d croup, escort service, model serve. e, dancing service or hostess service are provided, administered or allowed and all personal property, clothing, towels and the like used therein shall be sanitary which is defined as a complete absence of the vegetative cells of pathogenic microorganisms. 9. The licensee and all persons in its employ or connected - therewith shall maintain an occupancy or guest register by which each patron of - the rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group, escort servicq model service, dancing service or hostess service must register with his correct name, address and phone number and each licensee, or person in its employ shall require each patron - to furnish identification describing and identifying his ® correct name, address and phone number and shall further require each patron to correctly and tru furnish his name, address and telephone number - to said guest register before the administration of anv services. Said occupancy register or guest register must be maintained on file for inspection by officers, employees or agents of the City of Brooklyn Center or and other agency of any political subdivision, the State of Minnesota or agency of the United States Government for a period of not less than •two years. Section 23 -1808. Employee Regulations. At all times during the operation of any rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group, or model service, escort service, dancing service, or hostess service, male employees and a•ttendan•ts shall attend to,assis•t or otherwise serve only male patrons and female employees shall attend to, assist or otherwise serve only female patrons and a•t all times, both employees and customers must be and remain fully clothed Section 23 -1809. Construction and Maintenance Requirements. 1. Each establishment shall have a separate restroom and separate locker room facilities for each sex. ORDINANCE NO. 2 All locker rooms, restrooms and bathrooms used on 'the premises shall be constructed of materials which are impervious - to moisture, bacteria, mold or fungus and must be kept in a sanitary condition which is defined as free from the vegetative cells of pathogenic microorganisms. The floor -to -wall and wall joints shall be constructed - to provide a sanitary cove with a minimum radius o ; one inch. 3 All restrooms shall be provided with mechanical ventilation with 2 cfm per square foot of floor area, a hand washing sink equipped with hot and cold running water under pressure, sanitary 'towels and a soap dispenser. 4. All rooms in the licensed premises including but not limited to rap rooms conversation rooms, modeling rooms, dancing rooms, restrooms, bathrooms, janitor's closet, hallways, and reception area shall be illuminated with not less than 30 foot candles of illumination. - S. Each establishment shall have a janitor's closet which shall provide for the storage of cleahing supplies. Such closet shall have mechanical ventilation with 2 cfm per square foot of floor area. Such closet shall include a mop sink. 6 6 .. Floors, walls and equipment in rap rooms, conversation rooms, modeling rooms, dancing rooms and in restrooms and in bathrooms used in connection therewith must be kept in a state of good repair and clean at all times . Linens and other materials shall . be stored at least 12 inches off the floor. Clean towels and wash cloths must be made available for each customer. 7. Individual lockers shall be made available for use by patrons. Such lockers shall have separate keys for locking. 8. Such establishments shall provide adequate refuse receptacles which shall be emptied as required. 9. The doors to the individual rap rooms, conversation rooms, modeling rooms or dancing rooms shall not be equipped with any locking device and shall not be blocked or obstructed from either side of the door. ORDINANCE NO. Section 23-1810. Health and Disease Control. No person while afflicted with any disease in a communicable form, or while a carrier of such disease or while afflicted with boils, infected wounds, sores, or an acute respiratory infection, shall work in or use the services of any public rap parlor, conversation_ parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group, escort service, model service, dancing service or hostess service in any capacity in which there is a_ likelihood of such person contaminating surfaces with pathogenic organisms, or transmitting disease - to other individuals; and no person known or suspected of being afflicted with any such disease or condition shall be employed or permitted in such an are or capacity. Section 23- 181.1 Revocation and Suspension of License. The license may be revoked, suspended or not renewed by - the City Council upon recommendation_ of the City Manager by showing that the licensee, its owners, managers, employees agents or any of its interested parties have engaged in any of the following conduct; 1. Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with 'the securing of the license.. 2 Habitual drunkenness or intemperance in the use of drugs including but not limited to the use of drugs defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 618.01, barbituates , hallucinogenic drugs, amphetamines , benzedrine , dexedrine or other sedatives, depressants, stimulants or - tranquilizers. 3. Conduct inimical - to •the interests of the public health, safety,_ welfare of morals. 4. Engaging in any conduct involving moral turpitude or permitting or allowing others 'to so engage in such conduct or failing - to prevent such conduct. 5. Failure - to fully comply with any requirements of this ordinance or failure 'to comply with any requirements of the ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center relating to public health and sanitary conditions , building and construction codes, zoning codes and requirements of any ordinance, the violation of which involves moral turpitude. 6. Conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude by any court of competent jurisdiction. 7. Engaging in any conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal to issue a license under Section 23 -1806 of - this ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. T his licensee may appeal such suspension, revocation or nonrenewal to t he City Council. The Council shall consider the appeal at 'the next regularly s cheduled Council meeting on or after 10 days from service of the notice of a ppeal to - the City Manager. At the conclusion of - the hearing - the Council may o rder: 1. T he revocation, suspension or nonrenewal of - the license 2. T hat the revocation, suspension or nonrenewal be lifted a nd that - the certificate be returned to 'the certificate holder. 3. The City Council may base either suspension or issuance of the certificate upon anv additional terms, conditions and stipulations which 'they may in their sole discretion impose S ection 23- 1812. Exceptions. This ordinance does not apply to nor include bona fide legal, medical, psychiatric, psychological. family or marriage counseling services by a person, persons or businesses appropriately licensed by the State of Minnesota by local units of government or any other appropriate licensing authority; nor does this ordinance apps - to bona fide financial counseling services or bona _fide educational institutions completely complying with state and local regulations or the regulations of any licensing authorities nor does it apply to bona fide churches, synagogues, or institutions or organized religions or - to seminars, panel discussions or group classes sponsored by bona fide religious institutions or educational ins•ti- tutions . S ection 23-1813. Every section provision or part of this o rdinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part to the extent -that if anv section, provision or a part of the ordinance shall be held invalid, such holdings shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part thereof. Section 23 -1814. Penalties. Whoever does and act forbidden by this ordinance or omits or fails to do any act required by this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof by lawful authority, be punished by a fine not •to exceed $500, and by imprisonment not -to exceed 90 days or both. Each day that a violation exists constitutes a separate and distinct offense. Section 23 -1815. Liability for the Crimes of Another. Every person who commits or attempts 'to commit, conspires - to commit or aids and abets in 'the commission of any act constituting a violation of 'this ordinance or any act, which constitutes an omission ands - therefore, a violation of this ordinance, whether individually or in connection with one or more persons or as principal, agent or accessory, shall be cLuilty_ of such offense and every _person who falsely, fraudu- lently, forcibly or willfully, induces, causes, coerces, requires, permits or directs another to violate any of the provisions of - this chapter is likewise guilty of such offense-, ORDINANCE NO. Section 3. . This--ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty `(30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1978. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter.) 1 1 6L I MEMO T0: G. G. Splint , ty Manager ,1 FROM Gene Hage ector of Parks and Recreation DATE November 14, 1978 SUBJECT: Park Development Plan Attached is the Park Development Plan including improvements, priorities, and cost estimates as approved by the Park and Recreation Commission at a special meeting of the Commission i on November 8, 1978® The Commission took formal action to recommend acceptance of the Plan by the City Council. It is the Commissions intent to present the Plan to the City Council at the meeting of the council on November 20, 1978. ,f A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PARKS AND RECREATION Recommended by the PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER S. 1975 Presented to the BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL November 13, 1978 o k f i DEVELOPMENT PLAN. for PARKS and RECREATION CONTENTS Improvement Priorities (Neighborhood Parks) Page 1 Cost Summary by Improvement (Neighborhood Parks) Page 2 Priorities for Development by Park Classification Page 3 Cost Estimates by Park, by Classification and Totals Page 4 -5 Projected Maintenance Costs Page 6 Individual Parks - Improvement and Cost Page 7 -35 IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES Neighborhood Parks 1. Parking lots 2. Playground apparatus & Surfac)*.ng 3. Walks 4. - Benches, litter receptacles, drinking fountains, bike racks 5. Lighting - entrance and parking 6. Plant materials - landscaping . 7. Aesthetics - dumpster huts, entrance, signs S. Basketball, volleyball, horseshoes 9. Ballwall 10. Restrooms 11. Shelter Building 12. Picnic Shelter (Northport) 13. Lighting - walks & apparatus 14 Lighting - tennis 15. Wading Foal remodeling 16. Hockey & Broomball rink tl) COST SUMMARY BY IMPROVEMENT (Neighborhood Parks) * 1. Parking dots $201,600. 2. Playground apparatus and surfacing $136,000. .3. Walks 97,000. (Total -Top three priorities:)` $434,600. 4. Benches, litter receptacles, drinking fountains, bike racks 41,500. 5. Lighting - entrance and parking 47,400. 6. Plant materials - landscaping 9,600. 7. Aesthetics - dumpster huts, entrance planter,signs - 24,000. 8. Basketball, volleyball, horseshoes 31,000. 9. Ballwall 2_,700. 10. Restrooms 25,000. 11. Shelter buildings 75,000. 12. Picnic Shelter (Northport) 16,000. 13 Lighting walks and apparatus 68,500. 14. Lighting - tennis 39,000. 15. Wading Pool remodeling 12 1 000. 16. Hockey - Broomball rink 12,000. 17. Other'Playlcts 15,000. TOTAL :: '$853,300. f *This figure would be reduced by 40% to 50% if done by City Crews. (2) 1 PRIORI'T'IES FOR DEVELOPMENT By PARK CLASSIFICATION (All Parks) 1. Neighborhood Parks 2. Community Parks 3. Linear Parks 4 Nature Interpretive Parks 5. Special Use Parks • (3) COST ESTIMATES November 1978 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Playlots Wangstad $ 7000 Marlin 4000 Lakeside 4000 TOTAL PLAYLOTS $15,000 Playgrounds Bellvue 33,200 Lions 39,100 Riverdale 50,200 Firehouse 35,000 East Palmer 38,100 Freeway 57,300 Orchard Lane 34,200 Brooklane 48-,500 Happy Hollow 34,200. Twin Beach 34,400 • TOTAL PLAYGROUNDS $404,200 Playfields Grandview 67,700 Evergreen 70,900 - West Palmer 67,700 Willow Lane 45,900 Kylawn 50,500 Garden City 34,000 Northport 97,000 TOTAL PLAYFIELDS $434,100 Total Neighborhood Parks $853,300 (4 ) COST ESTIMATES (continued) COMMUNITY PARKS Central 1,092,443 Less Federal, State Grants 332,50$ Balance 759,935 Total Community Parks 759,935 LINEAR PARKS Shingle Creek Trailway 373,800 Less Federal, State "Grants 304,020 Balance 69,780 Total Linear Parks 69,780 NATURE INTERPRETIVE PARKS • Palmer Lake Basin - 240,000 Twin Lake Peninsula 53,000 Twin Lake Island 2,500 Twin Lake North 39,600 River Ridge 7,800 Total Nature Interpretive Parks 342,900 SPECIAL USE PARKS Arboretum 150,800 Total Special Use Parks 150,800 GRAND TOTAL - ALL PARKS 2,176,715 (5) MAINTENANCE /DEVELOPMENT COSTS Projected maintenance costs associated with the anticipated park improvement schedule are shown below. It can be expected that City labor will be involved in the development aspect to at least a limited extent. Demands of other construction /maintenance projects within the City could increase or decrease this involvement. The costs shown relate only to improvements within the neighborhood parks, Central Park, and Shingle Creek Trail.way, and do not take into account improvements in any other parks or park classification. YEAR AFTER BOND ISSUE PERSONNEL EQUIPMENT TOTALS year) i ONE 2 full time $36,000 1 pack up $7,000 2 seasonal 5, 1 mower $12 TOTAL YEAR ONE $41,200 9,000 $60,200 TWO /THREE 1 full time $19,200 1 truckster 7,000 2 seasonal 5,600 TOTAL YEAR TWO /THREE $24,800 7,000 $31,800 FOUR 1 full time $20,500 1 truckster 7,000 1 seasonal. 3,200 TOTAL YEAR FOUR ' 23,700 $7,000 $30,700 TOTAL PERSONNEL Costs (Annual)89,700 TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST $33,000 ; 't M (6) y • i :PARK Grandview Priority Improvement Cost CD Non CD 1 Parking lots , 27, -700 2 Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 3 Walks 8200 4.- Benches, litter receptacles drinking fountains, bike racks 2500 5 Lighting - & parking 6600 6 Plant materials, landscaping 600 ?. Aesthetics - dumpster huts entrance planter, signs 1500 8 Volleyball 800 9 Lighting walks & apparatus 5300 30 :;::. .. hightzrig :. enrizs .. - 6 67,700 (7) PARK Bellvue Priority Improv Cost CD NonCD 1 Parking lots 9000 ` 2 Playground apparatus & 8000 3 Walks 4800 4 Benches, litter receptacles drinking fountains, bike racks 2500 5 Lighting - entrance & parking 2200 6 Plant materials, landscaping 600 7 Aesthetics - dumpster but entrance planter, signs 1500 8 Volleyball 800 9 Ballwall 300 10 Lighting -- walks & apparatus 3500 33;200 (8) PARK Lions Priority improvement Cost CD NonCD I Parking lots 9900 2 Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 3 Walks 8200 4 Benches, litter receptacles drinking fountains, bike racks 2000 5 Lighting - entrance & parking 2 6, Plant materials, landscaping 600 7 Aesthetics - dumpster but entrance planting, sign 1500 8 Volleyball, horseshoes 1100 9 Ballwall 300` 10 Lighting walks & apparatus 5300 - 39,100 " PARK Evergreen Priority improvement Cost CD NonCD 1 Parking lots 30,906 2 Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 3 Walks 8200 4 Benches, litter receptacle drinking fountains, bike racks' 3000 5 Lighting - entrance & parking 4400 6 Plant materials, landscaping 604 ? Aesthetics - dumpster hut, entrance planter, signs 1500 8 Basketball, volleyball, horseshoes 2500 9 Lighting walks & apparatus 5300 10 Lighting tennis 6500 (10 PARK RIVERDALE Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD 1. Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 2. Walks 4600 3. Benches, litter receptacles drinking fountains, bike racks 2500 4. Lighting - etnrance 2000 5. Plant materials, landscaping 600 -6 Aesthetics - dumpster hut, signs, entrance 1500 7. Volleyball, basketball, horseshoes 2500 S. Shelter Building w /restrooms 25,000 Lighting' walks & apparatus 3500 �• . TOTAL 50,200 (11) PARK FIREHOUSE Priority Improvement .... Cost CD NonCD to Parking Lots 9300 2. Playground apparatus & surfacing 8.000 3. Walks 4800 - 4. Benches, litter receptacles, drinking fountains, bike racks 2500 5. Lighting entrance & parking 2000 5. P:3 ant , materials,, landscaping -600 7. Aesthetics- dumpster but entrance, signs 1500 8. Basketball, volleyball, horseshoes 2500 9. Ballwall 300 lb. Lighting walks & apparatus 3'5'00 TOTAL 35,000 C12) PARK EAST PALMER Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD 1. Parking Lot 10 _2. Playground apparatus &`surfacing 8000 3. Walks 4800 4. Benches, litter receptacles, drinking fountains, bike racks - 2500 5. Lighting entrance & parking 2200 b. Plant materials - landscaping 500 7. Aesthetics - dumpster hut, entrance, signs 1500 8. Basketball, volleyball, horseshoes 2500 g. Ballwall .300 10. Lighting - walks & apparatus .5200 _ TOTAL 38,100 • (13) PARK WEST PALMER Priority Improvement ........ : Cost: CD NonCD 1. Parking lots 1:5 2. Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 3. Walks 8200 4. Benches,litter receptacle, drinking fountains, bike racks 3000 5. Lighting - entrance & parking 4400 6. Plant materials landscaping 600 7. Aesthetics- dumpster hut, entrance, signs 1500 8. Basketball, volleyball, horseshoes 2500 9. Lighting -walks & apparatus 5300 10-. Lighting- tennis 6500 11. Hockey & Broomball rink 12,000 TOTAL 67,700 (14) PARK WILLOW LANE Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD- 1. Parking lot 12,000 2. Playground apparatus & surfacing .8000 3. Walks 4800 4. Benches, litter receptacle, drinking fountains, bike racks 2500 5. Lighting- entrance & parking 2200 6. Plant materials, landscaping 600 -:. Aesthetics .-.dumpster hut,.. entrance, signs 1500 8. Basketball, volleyball, horseshoes 2500 9. Lighting -walks & apparatus 5300 10. Lighting- tennis 6500' TOTAL $45,900 (15) PARK FREEWAY Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD 1. Parking lot 6600 2. Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 3. Walks 4800 4. Benches, litter receptacles, drinking fountains, bike racks 2500 5. Lighting- entrance & parking 2000 6. Plant materials - landscaping 600 7. Aesthetics dumpster hut, entrance, signs 1500 8. Basketball, volleyball, horseshoes 2500 r g. Ballwall 300 10. Shelter building w /restrooms 25,Q.00 11. Lighting -walks & apparatus 3500 TOTAL $57,300 1 (16) -- PARK KYLAWN Priority improvement Cost CD NonCD 1. Parking lot 14,500 2. Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 3. Walks 8200 4. Benches, litter receptacles, drinking fountains, bike racks 2500 5. Lighting- entrance & parking 4400 6. Plant materials, landscaping 600 7. Aesthetics- dumpster but, entrance, signs 1500 8. Volleyball d 800 9. Lighting- walks & apparatus 3500 10. Lighting- tennis 6500 TOTAL 50,500 (17) PARK ORCHARD LANE Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD 1• Parking lot 8500 2• Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 3. Walks 4800 4• Benches, litter receptacles, drinking fountains, bike racks 2500 5• Lighting- ent -rance & parking .2000 6• Plant materials- landscaping 600 ?• Aesthetics-dumpster hut, entrance, signs 1500 8• Basketball, volleyball, horseshoe 2500: 9. Ballwall 300 10. Lighting- walk & apparatus 3500 TOTAL 34,200 (18? PARK BROOKLANE Priority Improvement Cost CD' NonCD 1. Playground apparatus $000 2. Walks 4800 3. Benches- litter receptacles, drinking fountains, bike rack 2500 4. Lighting - entrance 2000 5. Plant materials- landscaping 600 6. Aesthetics- dumpster hut, entrance, signs 1500 7._. Horseshoes 300 8. Ballwall 300 9. Shelter Building 25,000 10. Lighting - walks.& apparatus 3500 TOZAL 48,500 (19) PARK GARDEN CITY Priority Improvement Cost CD NbnCD 1. Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 2. Restrooms 20,000 . 3. Wading pool remodeling 6000 TOTAL 34,000 i (20) PARK WANGSTAD Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD 1. Playground apparatus, benches, walks, misc. 7000 (21) PARK MARLIN Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD le Wood sculpture, benches, misc. 4000, (22) PARK NORTHPORT M Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD 1. Parking lot 33,000 2. Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 3. Walks 8200 4. Benches, litter receptacles, drinking fountain, bike racks 3500 5. Lighting- etrance & parking 6600 6. Plant materials - landscaping 600 7, Aesthetics- dumpster hut, entrance, signs 1500 8. Basketball, volleyball 2200 9. Picnic shelter 16,000 10. Lighting- walks & apparatus 5300 11. Lighting- tennis 6500 12. Wading pool remodeling 6000 TOTAL 97,400 f (23) PARK HAPPY HOLLOW Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD 1. Parking lot 5500 2. Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 3. Walks 4800 4. Benches, litter receptacles, drinking fountain, bike rack 2500 S. Plant materials, landscaping 600 6. Aesthetics- dumpster hut, entrance, signs 1500 7. Basketball, volleyball, horseshoe 2500 8. Ballwall 300 9. Restrooms 5000 10. Lighting -walks & apparatus 3500 TOTAL 34,200 (24) s -PARK TWIN BEACH ' Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD 1. Parking lot 8500 2. Playground apparatus & surfacing 8000 3. Walks 4800 4. Benches, litter receptacles, ..:dri king,.:fountai n ..bike rack :._ 2500 5. Lighting- entrance & parking 2200 6.- Plant materials- landscaping 600 7. Aesthetics- dumpster hut, entrance, signs 1500 8. Basketball,,volleyball, horseshoes 2500 9. Ballwall 300 10. Lighting -walks & apparatus 3500 i 34, 401) I I I (24 PARK LAKESIDE Priority Improvement Cost CD NonCD 1. Wood Sculpture, benches, misc. 400'0 PARK Central IMPROVEMENT COST Building: Main 90,000 Baseball 5,000 k Baseball diamond Backstop *2,000 Fencing *12,500 Dugouts *3,000 Irrigation *6,000 Lighting *44,595 Scoreboard 2,000 Bleachers 10,400 TOTAL BASEBALL 81,095 Softball Diamonds (2 ) Backstop • *4,000 Fencing *19,800 Benches *800 Irrigation 11,000 Lighting *57,548 Scoreboard 4,000 •.. Bleachers 20,800 TOTAL SOFTBALL 119,948 Football Goals (4) *2,000 Soccer Goals (1) *500 Football- Soccer Field Bleachers 10,400 Scoreboard 2,000 Irrigation 6,600 Building 5,000 Lighting 25,000 TOTAL FOOTBALL - SOCCER 49,000 Tennis Courts (8) 48,000 Lighting - Tennis 18,000 Lighting - Entrance & Parking 10,500 Lighting - Walks & Apparatus 55,900 Play structures and surfacing *14,000 Surfacing: Parking lot expansion *32,800 Parking lot (playground and archery) 12,000 Walks 45,000 • Landscaping & Plant matls. 55,000 Benches 10,500 Trash receptacles 5,000 Bike racks 2,000 Drinking fountains 2,500 (25) • Picnic Area: Shelter *32,200 Tables 5,000 Grills 2,000 Fire Ring 1,000 Amphitheater 10,000 TOTAL PICNIC AREA 50,200 Signs 3,000 Jogging Trail 10,000 Grading, site improvement *135,000 Seeding *10,000 Sodding *27,000 Mulch *1,500 Sand -Creek Bottom *20,000 Island improvement Plant materials, Misc. 1,000 Plaza: .Fountains.,:... Shelters 8 @ 1,200 9 1 600 Amphitheater with shelter 15,000 • Planter - sculpture 7 Shuffleboard (2) 2,200 Horseshoes (2) 2,200 Wood Panel Screening 1,500 Lighting 15,000 Surfacing 55,000 Plant materials 5,000 Benches Furniture 10,000 TOTAL PLAZA 178,000 Total Central Park 1,092,443 *Less Federal and State Grants 332,508 Balance - Central Park 759,935 (26) f PARK Shingle Creek Trailway IMPROVEMENT COST Grading, sitework *20,000 Trails: Bicycle *134,400 Pedestrian *43,900 Bridges *120,700 Trail separation_ timbers *8,300 Observation- lookouts (2) *4,000 Plant materials, seed *5,000 Signs *1,500 Lighting 31,000 Benches 3,000 Trash receptacles 2,000 TOTAL SHINGLE CREEK TRAILWAY 373,800 Total Shingle Creek Trailway 373,800 • *Less Federal and State Grants 304,020 Balance Shingle Creek Trailway. 69,780 • i (27) PARK rvgin Lake Peninsula IMPROVEMENT COST Grading 9,000 Parking 5,500 Trails 600 Wood Timbers 1,200 Shelter & Restrooms 15,500 Theme Development 12,000 Lighting 5 Dock -1,200 Tables 600 Benches 1,200 Signs 1,200 TOTAL WIN LAKE PENINSULA 53,000 (2a) PARK Twin Lake North IMPROVEMENT COST Parking 3,600 Dock 1,200 Shelter 12,500 Lighting 5,000 Bridges (1) 10,000 Tables 600 Benches 600 Landscaping 5,500 Signs 500 TOTAL TWIN LAKE NORTH 39,600 I (2 9) ' PARK Twin Lake Island IMPROVEMENT COST Plant Materials, Trash receptacles, Signs 2,500 I . f (30) i PARK Raver Ridge IMPROVEMENT COST Ramp improvement 3,000 Tables (10) 2 Benches (10) 2,000 Trash receptacles 1,000 Fireplaces 800 Signs 1,000 TOTAL RIVER RIDGE 7,$00 I l i (31) PARK Arboretum IMPROVEMENT COST Parking 8,000 Restroom 5 Lighting 6,500 Benches 2,000 Trash receptacles 2,000 _ Fencing 16 1 500 Walks 5,500 Service Road 7,100 Bridge 5,000 Grading, topsoiling 65,000 Water 13,200 Plant Materials 12,0 00 Signs, identification. 2,500 TOTAL ARBORETUM 150,800 I (32) PARK Palmer Lak Nature Center IMPROVEMENT COST Grading & Earthwork 27,500 Utilities 12,000 Walks and paths 50,000 Parking, Driveways 25,000 Building 80,000 Plant Materials 10,Q00 Seed and Sod 5,500 Lighting 10,000 Benches, Tables _5,000 Blinds, observation decks 10,000 Signs, identification 5 1 000" TOTAL PALMER LAKE NATURE CENTER 240,000 (33) MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Paul W. Holmlund, Director of Finance DATE: November 17, 1978 SUBJECT: Recommended Increases for Community Center Memberships and Admissions During - the 1979 Budget discussion - the City Council agreed upon a general increase in Community Center rates for 1979. Mr. Hagel has, since 'those discussions, ;made specific recommendations for rate increases. His recommendations are - the same as those he made - to us at budget time and are the increases which we based our revenue projections. You and I reviewed - those recommendations with Mr. Hagel and Mr. Mavis and agreed upon recommendations to be submitted to the City Council. Would you please ask - the Council to approve - the rate increases at - the newt Council meeting? The recommended rate increases are attached. Mr. Hagel estimates *that - the proposed rates will generate an approximate $9,000 increase in annual revenue. cc: Gene Hagel, Director of Parks and Recreation Arnie Mavis, Superintendent of Recreation BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY CENTER MEMBERSHIPS AND GENERAL ADMISSION INCREASES EFFECTIVE TANUARY 1, 1979 From To ME MBERSHIPS Family, 3 months $18.00 $21.00 Family, 6 months 33.00 39.00 Family, 1 year 60.00 66.00 Individual, 3 months 10.00 12.00 Individual, 6 months 17.00 20.00 Individual, l year 28.00 33.00 GENERAL ADMISSION Adults, Age 18 and Over $ 1.25 $ 1.25 NBC Youth, Age 15 `through 17 .75 .75 N/C Children, Age 5 'through 14 .60 .60 N/C Group Rates 12.00 15.00 ' Group Rates 25.00 28.00 Note Memberships and admissions entitle - the adult holder to - the use of the swimming pool, exercise room and sauna during recreational or 'open" periods. The use of the sauna is limited to ages 18 years and over. The use of the exercise room is limited - to ages 15 and over. MEMO TO: G. G. Splint , C ty Manager FROM Gene Hage ctor'of Parks and Recreation Department DATE November 14, 1978 SUBJECT: Community Center Pool Membership Rate Increase The 1979 Parks and Recreation budget comprehends a membership rate increase as shown below. It is expected that this would increase revenues $9,240 over the 1978 revenue. 1978 1979 FAMILY 3 months $18 to. $21 �f 6 33 It 3 1 year 60 66 INDIVIDUAL 3 months 10 to 12 if 6 of 17 " 20 �P 1 year 28 33 MEMO 44 1411 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, i Manager d . G G P City g FROM: Paul W. Holmlund, Director of Finance DATE: November 16, 197$ SUBJECT: 1978 Audit Agreement I have attached the agreement for the independent audit of all City funds for the calendar year 1978 as submitted by our auditors, Moen and Pent - tila , Certified Public Accountants If it meets your approval, would you please request authorization to enter into the agreement from - the City Council at their November 20 meeting. The hourly rates "proposed reflect an increase over 1977 rates. The comparative hourly .rates, are 1978 Audit 1977 Audit % Increase 1976 Audit 1975 Audit Principal $19.50 _$16.20 20.4% $16.20 $15.50 Senior 17.50 15.80 10.8% 15.60 15.20 junior 15.50 13.50 14.8% 12.10 11.25 Clerical 5.25 4.90 7.1% 4.75 4.50 The 1977 total audit cost was $17,279.00, of which $13,134.00 was allocated to the General Fund. Although it does appear - that - the principal's rate has increased significantly, I should point out that the principal's rate is only used by - the firm's partners and is limited - to approximately 'thirty hours, or less than three per cent of 'the 'total audit bill. r The following is a resume.concerning case number 78- 14477, by Inves- tigator Len HARRELL, transcribed and typewritten by Pat SWANSON, clerk typist for the Brooklyn Center Police Department. This resume is dictated on 11 -07 -78 at approximately 1900 hours. This resume is in reference to a Liquor License Investigation. The party attempting to secure the Liquor License is one, John Richard HOUSTON, of 1308 69th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, dobz 04- 07 -54. The Liquor License is for the business place known as the Pizza Factory, located at the Humboldt Square Shopping Center in Brooklyn Center. The application is for a non - intoxicating Liquor License. Investigator HARRELL was assigned by Chief Jim Lindsay to do a background investigation on John R. HOUSTON as - he was applying for a non - intoxicating Liquor License and was in the process or had recently purchased the Pizza Factory at 6816 Humboldt Avenue North. In doing a background investiga- tion, Investigator HARRELL found that John HOUSTON is married and has one stepchild living with him. Mr. HOUSTON's wife's name is 'Andrea and they both live- togetherr -at- =.1308 60th Avenue- North in Brooklyn Center, Minne- sota. Mr. HOUSTON has been previously married and does have three de- pendents from a previous marriage for which he pays $15.00 a week child support. John HOUSTON is known to this investigator on a professional basis as x Mr. HOUSTON has been Manager of the Mr. D's or Pizza Factory located in the Humboldt Square Shopping Center for a period of some 3 -1/2 years. In that time, this investigator has answered many calls at the request of Mr. HOUSTON in which he has asked for some assistance of some kind or another, and this officer has always found him to be very reasonable and, to the best of my knowledge, has always had a good working relation- ship with the Brooklyn Center Police Department. The background investigation of both Andrea Sue HOUSTON and John Richard HOUSTON shows that they both have valid driver's licenses and that they are also both clear of any criminal record. _ On November 1, 1978, Investigator HARRELL spoke with Mr. HOUSTON in my. office in regard to his purchase of the Pizza.Factory. In talking with Mr. HOUSTON, he explained that he bought the Pizza Factory located in the Humboldt Square Shopping Center for a total cost of $112,000. Mr. HOUSTON stated that within those costs were a food and beverage inventory of $3500, a franchise fee of $7500, and the equipment, fixtures, and booths totaling approximately $52,840. Mr. HOUSTON explained that the difference between the $112,000 figure and the $52,840 figure was the equity or goodwill of some $48,000 that was paid for the business. Mr. HOUSTON explained that the Pizza Factory is a franchise of Pizza Inter- national and that company is owned by Tom BLUTH and a Larry GENSMER. I Resume by Investigator Len: HARRELL Case #78 -14477 Page 2 Mr. HOUSTON explained that he pays the franchise 4% royalty for the use of the name and advertising of the Pizza Factory. Mr. HOUSTON also ex- plained that he pays approximately $770 per month for the space he is leasing and that is leased through Clarence LOWE, Humboldt Square Shopping Center, 7850 Metro Parkway, #102, Bloomington, Minnesota, 554206 ,Mr. HOUSTON stated that he purchased the Pizza Factory from a Bradford Thomas ROTHNEM, dob: 05- 12 -44, who is currently the. Liquor License holder. Mr. HOUSTON explained that he put earnest money of $500 down and then, at the time of closing, that being August 31, 1978, Mr. HOUSTON put another $1500 down, making a total down payment of $2000. Mr. HOUSTON explained that that additional $1500 was money owed him by Bradford ROTHNEM while HOUSTON 's investigator N as his employee. ee. Mr. HOUSTON then showed thi znve t at or the P Y g purchase agreement calling for the payment of $110,000 over ten years at an interest rate of 11 %. This amounts to $1500 per month paid in F two equal installments on the 10th and 25th of the month. The purchase agreement is a Contract for Deed, and if Mr. HOUSTON defaults, he would lose the business. In talking with Mr. HOUSTON, he stated that the only money he had into the business -was the $500 earnest money,=which he had borrowed from his - father, Fred HOUSTON. John HOUSTON stated that the other $1500 used as down payment was for earnings he had coming from Mr. ROTHNEM that were . turned around and just replaced into the building. In talking with MR. HOUSTON, he stated that he had three different bank accounts at the Summit State Bank of Brooklyn Center. Mr. HOUSTON stated that he had a corporate account, a personal savings, and a checking account; but stated that none of these accounts had a whole lot of capital in them, and Mr. HOUSTON stated that he had just opened them upon getting the business and stated that previous to that, he had no savings. When Mr. HOUSTON was asked about his personal debts, he stated that he had his child support of $15.00 a week and that he also had his wife's 1978 Ford Pinto on which he owes $4,076 in monthly in- stallments of approximately $110 to the National Bank of Minneapolis Mr. HOUSTON stated that he also owed $1500 to Mercy Hos- pital for hospital bills incurred. Mr. HOUSTON states that the corpora- tion debt also included a 1979 Ford Bronco, also financed through North - western National Bank of Minneapolis on which he owes $9215 for which he.pays-- monthly installments of $219 per month. Mr. HOUSTON stated that he also had a $450 personal loan through Associated Loan Company, located at 6800 Humboldt Avenue North in the Humboldt Square Complex. Investigator HARRELL also spoke with Bradford Thomas ROTHNEM who related the same facts to this investigator that had been gathered from Mr. HOUSTON. Mr. ROTHNEM stated that John HOUSTON had been the Manager for him for approximately 3 -1 /2 years and had done a fantastic job for him in setting up his business and making the Pizza Factory business a money- • maker. Mr. ROTHNEM stated that during the years of service, an agreement had been made between the two individuals, that if Mr. ROTHNEM ever Resume by Investigator Len HARRELL Case #78 -14477 Page 3 decided to sell the business, he would give Mr. HOUSTON first crack. Mr. ROTHNEM stated that he decided to sell the business, at-which time he spoke with John HOUSTON and made arrangements for John HOUSTON to purchase the Pizza Factory from Mr. ROTHNEM. Mr. ROTHNEM stated that the only capital output that John HOUSTON had was $500 and the $1500 owed him in back wages by Mr. ROTHNEM. Mr. ROTHNEM stated that the rest is on a Contract for Deed basis, and that payments will be made to him over the next ten years. MR. ROTHNEM spoke very highly of John HOUSTON and stated that the City should have no problems with John HOUSTON as he has had a free hand in running the operation over the last two years: and, as far as Mr. ROTHNEM knows,.the City has little or no complaints over that time. Investigator HARRELL can _find .no reasons why the Liquor License should not be granted to John HOUSTON for selling non - intoxicating liquor at the Pizza Factory at 6800 Humboldt Square. It appears that all moneys involved are those of John HOUSTON, who has managed the Pizza Factory for the last 3 -1 /2 years and that of the previous Pizza Factory ,owner, Bradford ROTHNEM, who was already investigated previous to getting the original Liquor License. Investigator- HARRELL will be contacting Mr. HOUSTON's banks tomorrow and I.am sure that everything will be found in order. M E M O linter, City Manager TO: Gerald G. Sp y g FROM: James R. Merila, Director of Public_ Works SUBJECT: 4 -WAY STOP SIGN REQUEST AT CO. RD. 130 & PERRY AVE. NO. DATE: November 16, 1978 Attached is a letter and study report received from Hennepin County relative to the traffic study requested at the intersection of County Road No 130 and Perry Avenue North The study indicates that a 4 -way stop sign is not warranted at the intersection, in accordance with the Uniform Manual on Traffic Controls. However, the study does show that approximately 95/ of the vehicles survey =ed were traveling in excess of the 30 MPH speed limit, while approximately 85/ were traveling at or less than 40 MPH. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Police Department do more extensive radar speed enforcement on this segment of County Road No. 130 in an effort to reduce the vehicular speed. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION z °` I U ? 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 HENNEPIN Lj7U 935 -3381 November 9, 1978 i Mr. James Merila,Director City of Brooklyn Center Department of Public Works 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Jim: Enclosed is our study report on County Road 130 at Perry Avenue North, as you requested. Included with -the report are copies of the traffic surveys and accident data obtained for this study. _As stated, .n. -the - report,_ we .recommend. no..add.i.tional ,traffic_ control at the intersection of County Road 130 at Perry Avenue North. The surveys indicate that this section of roadway is operating similar to other comparable county roadways and no apparent problems could be identified. If you have further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact r me at 935 - 3381. Sincerely, Dennis L. Hansen, P.E. County Traffic Engineer DLH /BJL:pj Encl. cc H. Klossner ° HENNEPIN COUNTY can equal opportunity employer STUDY REPORT CSAH 130 (69TH AVENUE) AT PERRY AVENUE NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER , On request from the City of Brooklyn Center, traffic surveys were performed. on CSAH 130 (69th Avenue) at Perry Avenue North. The purpose of the surveys was to determine 1) the speed of vehicles travelling on CSAH 130 in this area; and 2) whether multiway stop signs at Perry Avenue North were warranted. CSAH 130 from the west city limits of Brooklyn Center to Trunk Highway 152 is a two lane urban roadway with seven to eight foot paved shoulders. The speed limit is 30 MPH and the 1977 traffic volume was 6400 vehicles per day- (vpd). Land use is residential through this section. A school crossing crosswalk is provided on CSAH 130 at Perry Avenue North to serve the students attending Willow Lane School which is located north of CSAH 130. School safety patrols are provided at the crosswalk during student crossing periods. In addition, pedestrian crossing signs are placed at and in advance of the.crosswalk and SCHOOL XING pavement markings are painted on the roadway prior to the crosswalk. To determine vehicular speeds, a radar unit was set up n ear the intersection of CSAH 130 and Perry Avenue North. The speed of 150 vehicles was recorded for each` direction'on`CSAH`130. The*results'of the which are attached, show that 85 percent of the vehicles were travelling at or less than 40 MPH eastbound and 41 MPH westbound. The 10 MPH speed range in which the majority of vehicles were travelling was from 32 MPH to 41 MPH for both directions. The most significant finding is that only 5 percent of the total vehicles surveyed were travelling within the posted 30 MPH speed limit. A 16 hour vehicle movement study was taken at the Perry Avenue North intersection to ascertain whether multiway stop signs are warranted: The results of the study reveal that the traffic volumes at 'the intersection are considerably below the volumes required in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to justify the installation of multiway stop signs or traffic control signals. In conjunction with the 16 hour study, the number and length in time of gaps between vehicles.was recorded. The purpose of this survey was to determine whether there are sufficient number of adequate length gaps in traffic to allow students to safely cross CSAH 130 at this intersection. The study was taken during the student crossing periods before and after the school patrols were on duty. The findings show an acceptable number and length of gaps to allow the students to cross CSAH 130 safely and without considerable delay-in waiting to cross. An accident diagram showing accidents which occurred on CSAH 130 from east of .Zane Avenue to west of TH 152 during the period 1974 through 1976 was prepared and analyzed. No accident problem areas were identified in the analysis. - The three year accident rate of 3,69 Accidents per Million Vehicle Miles (ACC /MVM) is slightly higher than the County average accident rate of 3.04 ACC /MVM on urban two lane roadways. Of particular importance are these accident statistics: 1. One pedestrian was involved in an accident at Major Avenue as a result of a collision between two vehicles. Study Report Page two CSAH 130 (69th Ave) at Perry Ave. No. Brooklyn Center 2. There has been two bicyclist accidents reported during this time frame one at Lee Avenue and the other, which involved personal. injury,occurred west of Toledo Avenue. 3. Only two accidents were reported at the intersection of CSAH 130 and Perry Avenue. 4. No fatalities were recorded on this segment of roadway from 1974 through 1976. In review of the traffic surveys and accident data described within this report, the following items are noted. 1. The installation of multiway stop signs at the intersection of CSAH 130 and Perry Avenue North cannot be justified. 2. There are adequate gaps in traffic to allow students /pedestrians to safely cross the roadway. 3. The school crossing crosswalk is more than adequately signed and marked:` 4. The accident rate for this section of roadway is comparable to other two lane urban roads throughout Hennepin County and no accident problem areas were identified. 5. 95 percent of the vehicles surveyed were travelling in excess of the 30 MPH speed limit indicating that the speed limit is too low for the existing roadway conditions. BJL:pj 11/8/78 MEMORANDUM ' TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren,• Di rector of Planning and Inspection DATE: November 17, 1978 SUBJECT: Rental Dwelling Licenses It is recommended that the City Council give special consideration to three rental dwelling licenses that are scheduled for a two year renewal. 1. Chippewa Park Apartments While conducting the inspection for the renewal of this rental dwelling license, the Building Inspector noted a number of code - related violations and informed the resident agent of their nature. Many of the violations had to do with the outside appearance and the status of the common areas which lacked proper maintenance. In addition, the inspector noted a number of items requiring 1 repair or replacement such as torn screens, doors that did not function properly, inoperable lights and unposted rental dwelling licenses and missing building addresses. The resi- dent agent informed the Building Inspector that these items, with the exception of the grounds maintenance and other outside matters, could be addressed yet this fall. Upon reviewing this matter, it was determined that the .best way to proceed with the renewal of the rental dwelling - license-was to allow the resident agent time to address the problems that needed immediate attention and then.recomnend to the City Council that a temporary extension of the.license be granted through June, 1979 so that the outside maintenance items could be addressed. The Building Inspector, along with the Fire Inspector, con- ducted an inspection on November - 16, 1978 and expressed to me their concern that the complex seems to be deteriorating somewhat. The Building Inspector reported that there are still a number of unmet items that were to be addressed this fall, such as the broken screens, the posting of the license -` and missing building addresses. The Fire Inspector reported that there were a number of fire safety violations, such as missing fire extinguishers, broken or missing fire door closures and broken or inoperable exit lights. Upon reviewing these matters with the Building and Fire Inspector, we do not feel that it would be appropriate at this time to even recommend a temporary extension of the license through June. We feel that the fire- related items, in particular, should be addressed immediately, and that the other maintenance items, with the exception of the outside lawn maintenance, should also be addressed. Page 2 November 17, 1978 The Fire Inspector has written compliance orders-regarding the fire- related violations giving the complex 15 days to address these matters. It is recommended that the City Council hold off considering the temporary extension of the license until its meeting on December 4, 1978 in order to first verify whether these matters have been addressed. 2. Single Family Rental Property at 5324 - 4th Street North The City has been notified by the owner of the above property that it would no longer be used.:for rental dwelling purposes as of October 31, 1978. The structure is being taken by MN /DOT for the Freeway. An inspection indicates that the property is not being used for living purposes and has been posted with the proper tag indicating that it is not to be occupied. The owner of the property has agreed to board up the building for safety purposes and to prevent vandalism. It is recommended.that the City Council acknowledge that this property is no longer a rental dwelling and that no license will be granted for such purposes 3. Four Plex at 5328 4th Street North This property is owned by the same person owning the rental property at 5324 4th Street North, and is also subject to rental dwelling licensing renewal at this time. The Building Inspector, conducting the inspection for the license renewals reported a number of Housing Maintenance Code violations such as deterioration of the driveway, broken screens and storms, paint peeling from soffit and fascia boards, and improperly supported hot water heater flue, as well as a -lack of outside lawn maintenance. When reviewing thes.e.items with the owner, the owner also indicated that MN /DOT would be acquiring this property for Freeway purposes by April, 1979 and inquired if it would be possible to get a temporary rental license through that time without making all of the required maintenance improvements. We indicated that we would make such a recommendation to the City Council provided maintenance items related to occupancy through the winter months such as repair of storm windows, storm doors and the hot water heater were accomplished. It was felt that if MN /DOT ihad not acquired the property by August, 1979 and the owner wished to continue renting the four piex, all -other maintenance items would have to be addressed prior to recommending any extension of the license. The property was inspected on November 16, 1978, and none of these items have yet been taken care. We are not prepared to recommend even a temporary extension of the license until these winter - related maintenance items are completed. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on November 20, 1978 1- CIGARETTE LICENSE SuperAmerica p 6545 W. River. Road City Clerk: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Pizza Factor . y 6816 Humboldt Ave. No. T.� SuperAmerica 6545 W River Road Sanitarian NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE SuperAmerica 6545 W, River Road _T a Sanitarian OFF -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE SuperAmerica 6545 W. River Road City Clerk/ ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Pizza Factory 6816 Humboldt Ave. NO. , City Clerk RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial; George Lucht, Rich Wood, 0 Walter Clauson 5105 Brooklyn Boulevard Anne W. Erickson 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard Helen Ebhardt 5639 Girard Ave. No. Consolidated Financial Corp. 6215 Summit Dr,- No.' Renewal: Bernard J . Harrington Hi Crest Apts. (Humboldt) _ _ _ Kenneth Bergstrom e gstrom Hi Credt Apts. (67th Ave.) Gary Lyons Humboldt Court I 42 -David Jensen, Gordon Wellens 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard Michael K. Uzzeil 5235,37 Drew Ave. No. John Westlund 5137,39 France Ave. No. Loren Pfingsten 6706 Grimes Ave. No, t` �& , Peter & Joan Neururer 6737,43 Humboldt Ave, No r John Christofferson 4748,52 Twin Lake Ave. Director of Pla nning and Inspection