Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 12-18 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Brooklyn Center December 18, 1978 7:00 p.m. 1. Call 'to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Approval of Minutes - December 4, 1978 5. Ooen Forum 6. Final Plat Approvals a . I't is recommended the City Council approve - the final plat titled - "The Ponds - Plat 3" for 'the property on Unity Avenue North, north of 69th Avenue North. The preliminary -plat was approved by the City Council under Planning Commission Application No. 78049 - __. on August 28, 1978. b. It is recommended that the" City Council approve the final plat.titled " "The Ponds - Plat 4" for 'the property located easterl:y.of Unity Avenue North, northerly of 69th Avenue North. The preliminary plat was approved by 'the City Council on August 28, 1978 under Application No. 78050 sub- mitted by - the Meadow Corporation. 7. Planning Commission Items (8 :00 p. a . Application No. 78065 submitted by Mr. Aaron Roffman for site and building plan approval for an approximate 8,000 square foot - office building at 6417 Brooklyn Boulevard. -The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 78065 at its December 7 -, 1978 Planning Commission meeting.. b. Application No. 78067 submitted'by Dr. Gregory Swenson for a special- use permit for an--off-site accessory parking facility - to accommodate an expansion into - the lower level of - the Brook Park Dental Clinic. The . accessory parking is - to be located on 'the property at 6417 Brooklyn .Boulevard (this application should be considered. concurrently with Application No. 78065) . The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 78067 at its December 7, 1978 meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- December 18, 1978 c. Application No. 78058 submitted by Brooklyn Properties for rezoning, from R -1 (single family residential to C -1 (service /office), of - the old slaughter house property at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. This item was 'tabled by the Commission on October 5, 1978 and referred - to - the south- west neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. Application No. 78058 was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its December 7, 1978 meeting. d. Application No. 78061 submitted by Robert Fors /Andrew Gunn Development Company fora special use permit, site and building plan approval for a child care institution (Montessori School) on the R -5 zoned property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard. This item was - tabled by the Commission on October 5, 1978 - to allow the applicant time to prepare complete plans and to meet with the neighbors regarding neighborhood concerns. The " Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 78061 at its December 7, 1978 meeting. 8. Resolutions; a. Authorizing the Purchase of One 27,500 GV\NT Cab & Chassis (for dump - truck) -Part of Hennepin County bid. b. Amending the 1978 General Fund Budget - Certain budget items have been approved by the: Council throughout 'the year and must be reflected in a resolution. c. Establishing Salaries for 1979 (M & C No. 78 -32 enclosed.) d. Reducing Assessments for Diseased Shade Tree Removal - Recommended for the purpose of reducing diseased shade tree removal assessments for property owners participating in the shade - tree removal program. The State of Minnesota has reimbursed the City of Brooklyn Center 37 % of the removal costs for trees removed in 1977 and 28% of the removal costs for trees removed in 1978. This resolution will pass on - the reimbursement to the affected property owners e. Regarding Special Assessments for Lot 6, Block 1, and Lot 6, Block 2, the Ponds Addition -Due 'to an administrative error by the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County has applied an interest amount of approximately $92.58 for - the year of. 1979 to the special assessment for a parcel which - the owner has attempted 'to pay off in full in 1978 This resolution will allow - the City to accept full payment for the special assessments and - to waive the interest amount for the year 1979. No interest monies will be lost by the City or County since the interest is applied to - the unpaid balance as of January 1. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- December 18, 1978 f. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute an Agreement with - the City of Crystal Relative to Providing Utility Service 'to. Crystal Property Owners on the North Side of County Road 10 -The agreement provides for the condominium apartment complex currently under construction just west of 'the Twin Lake North Apartment complex to utilize - the City of Brooklyn Center utility system through - the privately owned utility lines in Twin Lake North Apartment complex. The utilities within - the Twin Lake North Apartment complex were designed for the future extension to - the Crystal condominium apartment complex. The agreement provides for the Crystal property owners to pay a connection charge on - the same basis of area rates paid by 'the Brooklyn Center property owners g. Approving Preliminary Plans Prepared by the Minnesota Department,of-Trans- portation for Traffic Signals and Roadway Revisions at the Intersection of Trunk Highway 100 and France Avenue North in Brooklyn Center h. Approving the Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program -To comply with municipal smote aid regulations, it is necessary for `the City of Brooklyn Center to adopt a five year capital improvement program for 'the expenditure of municipal state aid funds. The Director of Public Works will be prepared to. review the program with -the City Council. i. Accepting Work for Bituminous Paving Contract No. 1978 -L - United Asphalt Company has satisfactorily completed the bituminous paving for Street Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -27 located on James Circle j . Authorizing the Purchase of Pressurized Self Contained Air Breathing Apparatus -Fire Department equipment. k. Authorizing Payment of Certain Group I- 1calth Plan Costs -It is recommended the Group Health con'tribu'tion paid by -the City for full -time employees (and eligible dependents) . who are not members of recognized bargaining units be increased. 1. Accepting Quotation for Mechanical Invert Spraying Equipment - Equipment for weed spraying 9. Ordinances a. Prohibiting 'the Impersonation of a Police Officer or a Public Official - Ordinance is presented for a second reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- December 18, 1978 b. Regulating the Operation and Maintenance of Rap Parlors', Conversation Parlors, Adult Encounte. 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 resented for a second reading. g c. Authorizing - the Operation of Certain Gambling Devices by Licensed Organizations z- Ordinance is presented for a second reading._ d. Au•tho* izing 'the Operation of Bingo by Licensed Organizations Ordinance is presented for a second reading. e. Amending Chapter 35 of 'the City Ordinances Relative 'to Zoning -If the rezoning from R -1 'to C -1 of the old slaughterhouse property at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard, as comprehended in Application No. 78058, is approved by the Council, - the change should be reflected in an ordinance change. Ordinance is presented for a first reading. 10. Discussion Items; a R. L. Johnson Rezoning Request -The Planning Commission, at its December 7, 1978 Planning Commission • mee made a recommendation concerning spItt zoning of property in - the 7200 block (wes-t side) of Brooklyn uoulevard. b. Cable TV Joint Powers Agreement -M & C No. 78 -31 enclosed. c. Community Development Block Grants - Citizens Advisory Groups proposed projects. d. Annual lArater Assessment Rate Adjustment -The Director of Public Works will be prepared to inform - the Council of the extent of increase in annual water assessment rates. Pursuant - to Resolution No. 74 -45, - the City's standard water assessment policy comprehends an au•toma•tic annual adjustment by the change in 'the Twin City area Consumers Price Index from October , to October of the preceding year. The annual percentage increase from October 1977 to October 1978 amounts - to 10.3%, changing 'the {Toni footage rate from $14.47 - to $15.95 and - the area rate from $4.46 to $4.92 per 100 square feet, and , the single family rate from $1,418 to $1,455 per unit. I; CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -5- December 18, 1976 e. Revision of Municipal State Aid Street Construction Policy -The Director of Public Works will be prepared to review with the Council -the municipal state aid street: construction policy. It is recommended - the policy be amended to comprehend increasing - the maximum street assess- ment for residential proper)- from $4.80 to $7.60 per assessable foot and the curb and gutter assessment be increased from $6.00 'to $8.00 per assessable font. The assessment rate increases are based on an increased construction cost. - - f. Approval of Animal Control Contract _. -It is-recommended a motion by - the City Council be made approving a 1979 contract with Municipal and Private Services, Inc. (MAPSI) for i animal control.. g. Minnesota Department of Transportation Offer for Purchase of City Land for freeway - -We will be prepared - to discuss - the offer MN /DOT has made - to -the City' for - the purchase of approximately .89 acres of City property on 'the west side of Shingle Creek Parkway south of the freeway. 11. Temporary Renewal of Specified Rental Licenses a. Chippewa Park Apartments at 6507 Camden Avenue North -Owner indicates violations have been remedied. Inspections will be trade prior to Council meeting. i 12. Licenses i 13 Adj ournment ., Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR LOT 6, BLOCK 1,_THE PONDS AND LOT 6, BLOCK 2, THE PONDS WHEREAS, on October 27, 1978, the City of Brooklyn Center received a check in.the amount of $1,155.37 from Title Services, Inc., in payment of the special assessments for Lot 6, Block 1, The Ponds; and WHEREAS, the payment of $1,155.37 was erroneously credited to Lot 6, Block 2 The Ponds; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 1978, the City of Brooklyn Center received a check from North Star Abstract in the amount of $1,155.37 in payment of special assessments for said Lot 6, Block 2, The Ponds; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center returned said check to North Star Abstract stating that assessments for said Lot: 6, Block 2, The Ponds, had been previously paid in full; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 1978, Hennepin County applied one years principal totalling $71.26 and interest totalling approximately $92.58 for a total of $163.84 to the tax rolls due in 1979 for said Lot 6, Block 1, The Ponds; and WHEREAS, the Meadow Corporation has submitted a check in the amount of $1,155.37 in payment of the special assessments for Lot 6 Block 1, The Ponds; and WHEREAS, the said interest amount of approximately $92.58 constitutes the interest for the year 1979; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows.- 1) To accept the check in the amount of $1,155.37 from the Meadow Corporation for special assessments for Lot 6, Block 1, The Ponds; and 2) To direct the Finance Director of Hennepin County to waive the interest for the year 1979 and cancel all assessments for said Lot 6, Block 1, The Ponds. Date Mayor i, 'Resolution No. 4 ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by 'member , and upon vote being taken p g thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted'. ,t x MEMORANDUM 70: Planning Commission Members FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning Commission Secretary DATE: December 7, 1978 SUBJECT: Restaurant Use in Cl Zone - The City has received a recommendation from the Planning Consultant, BRW,regarding a matter that had been referred to the Planning Commission from the City Council involving the possibility of permitting a restaurant use on the property located in -the 7200 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is currently zoned R3 (Townhouse and Garden Apartments) and is bounded on the north by the Munici -pal Boundary; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the south by Shingle Creek-and Creek Villa Town- houses; and on the west by - "The Ponds" planned residential development,_ Mr. R. L. - Johnson had earlier this year submitted a rezoning request to zone the property C2 (Commerce) and had indicated a desire to develop an_ office building on the south portion The rezoning re- ion of the property and a restaurant on the north portion. t 9 P P Y_ quest,. following public hearings by. the Planning Commission, review and comment from the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, and review by the City Council was denied, The Planning Commission was requested by the City Council to review a proposed split zoning of the property (Cl to the south and C2 to the north) on the basis that a C1 use of the southerly portion would be compatible to existing ad- jacent zoning in Brooklyn Center while a C2 use on the northerly portion would be compatible to adjacent land uses in Brooklyn Park, and that the split zoning would commercial and the i a buffer between the R property in Brooklyn Center rov de e e 3 p P P Y .� _ properties in Brooklyn Park. It was also requested that the Commission look at r piece of property the feasibility of rezoning to Cl, C1 a potentially landlacke p p p y which is part of "The•Ponds" development, but lies east of Shingle Creek. SRW recommendedas a solution to this problem and as a means to permit the develop- meat of an office use and a restaurant use on the property, the rezoning of the parcel to C1, which would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and an amend - merit to the Zoning Ordinance to permit restaurants which seat -a minimum of 130 persons in the 'C1 zone. The recommendation went on to note that restaurants along Brooklyn Boulevard would not appreciably interfere with the roadway's ability to - handle traffic demands. They felt that with one properly designed curb cut to service the two uses P Y the impact on the traffic flow of Brook Boulevard would be no greater than an office development. They also recommended that there be no additional C2 zoning on a parcel by parcel basis on Brooklyn Boulevard. They indicated that generally a "130 seat restaurant seems to be a worthwhile number to distinguish between family restaurants and convenience food restaurants. At first glance this seemed like a feasible way to proceed to address the problem presented by the proposal. But, after much review involving the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Director of Public Works and myself regarding the con- sequences of such an amendment, it is not felt that this Hype :amendment . would be In the best interests of the City. First of all, there may well be a problem with using the number of seats as a qualifier for permitting a restaurant in a C1 zone. For instance, this might only encourage larger convenience food • restaurants. r. Another major concern would be with respect to other Cl zoned property along Brooklyn Boulevard. There are a number of Cl locations on Brooklyn Boulevard where a restaurant would not be compatible with surrounding uses. An example would be the Library property, currently zoned Cl. Also, there are a number of • other C1 zoned properties where it is felt that a restaurant would not be appro- priate; We feel that the City would be hardpressed to deny these restaurant uses if the Zoning Ordinance were amended in such a manner: It is felt that the original action to deny the C2 use of any portion of the property was the best overall decision and it would be our recommendation that this decision stand. If, on the other hand, the Commission feels it is in the best interests of the City to have a restaurant or another C2 use on a portion of the property in question, then we would recommend that a split zoning occur, noting that this property is unique because of the iccation of Shingle Creek and acknow- ledging a C2 zoning on the northerly portion of the property as being an extension of and compatible with the commercial zoning to the north in Brooklyn Park. We would also recommend that the Commission acknowledge that there is no rationale to rezone any other Brooklyn Boulevard property to C2; that this action is merely a minor extension of an already existing zoning in another community which will not cause a major traffic impact on Brooklyn Boulevard; and that the C2 use can be adequately buffered from the less dense uses to the south by a rezoning of the remainder of the property to Cl which is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan. If such a split zoning were undertaken, a determination would have to be made regarding the best location for drawing the zoning line and the applicant would be encouraged to contact "The Ponds" about the possibility of rezoning that land - locked property to Cl as well. NOTE TO COUNCIL: Please refer - to agenda packets of November 13 and November 20, 1978 respectively for docornex?tation of Planning Commission Applications submitted by Gene 1- Hamilton and Cynthia Pierce Letters have been sent'to Lee Snapko and Rich Armstrong respectively concerning consideration as a discussion item of 'traffic studies on West Palmer Lake and Logan. Resolution 9g has been added to - the packet although not listed on the agenda. Resolution Amending Resolution 1978 -188 Correcting Total Amount Paid for Project No. 1978 -26 (Storm Sewer Improvement) --Amended resolution rectifies an incorrect listing of unit price in original Resolution 1978 -188. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1978 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR THE PURCHASE OF VOTING MACHINES WHEREAS, Section 7.11 of the City Charter does provide the City Council with full authority to make permanent transfers between all funds which may be created, provided that such transfers are not inconsistent with the provisions of relevant covenants, the provisions of the City Charter, or State Statute; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND in the amount of at least $3`,500 to be transferred for GENERAL FUND use; and WHEREAS, the City' Council did, on May 8, 1978,' authorize the purchase of ten used voting machines from federal revenue sharing funds: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to amend the 1978 GENERAL FUND Budget by increasing the Elections and Voters Registration (Dept. #14) Capital Outlay Other Equipment Account ( #4552) appropriation -by $3,500 to provide for the purchase of the voting machines; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appropriation shall be financed: by federal revenue sharing funds and that funds in the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND shall be encumbered in the amount of $3,500; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the actual transfer of funds will be made from the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND to the GENERAL FUND on a reimbursement basis at such time, and by Council resolution when the GENERAL FUND has expended funds for the appropriation authorized. 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. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF TFTE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA . REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 4, 1978 CITY HALL C L L TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of -Public Works -James Merila, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn, Building Inspector Andy Alberti, and Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman and Mary Hart y o INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Lhotka, APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1978 There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the minutes of the November 20, 1978 City Council meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Fignar, Lhotka, and - Scott. - Voting - against: none, The motion passed unanimously. Of'EN 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 R EDUCTIONS AND RELEAS The City Manager recommended bond reductions for the following: a bond reduction to $1 , 000 for Boulevard Properties located at 5901 Brooklyn Boulevard, submitted by Dr. Check; a bond reduction to $1,500 for Brookdale Towers apartments located at 7015 Humboldt Avenue North, submitted by Miles Construction /Towers Manage- ment a The City Manager recommended the release of a performance bond for Riverbrook Townhouses (renamed Riverwood) located at 8700 Camden _Drive, submitted by IDS Mortgage Corporation, There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the bond reductions and releases as recommended by the City Manager. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 12 -4 -78 --1- The City Attorney arrived at 7:09 p.m. The City Attorney left the table at 7 :10 p.m. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL The City Manager recommended final plat approval for Eisenbrand Addition located at the southeast quadrant of 73rd Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on May 8, 1978 under Application No, 78022. The Director of Public Works briefly, reviewed the final plat. The City Attorney returned to the table at 7;15 p.m. Councilmember Kuefler arrived at 7:16 p.m. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar _ to approve the final plat for Eisenbrand Addition located at the southeast quadrant. of 73rd Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler -, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -268 Member' Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUR- CHASE Or NINE (9) TYPEWRITERS 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. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -269 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoptions RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF THREE (3). POLICE PATROL VEHICLES 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. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -270 - Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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 12 -4 -78_ -2- 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 RESOLUTION NO, 78 -271 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT N06 1978 -aD (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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. RESOLUTION NO. 7 8 -272 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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. RESO NO. 78 -273 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1998 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -274 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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. 12 -4 -78 -3- RESO NO. 78 -275 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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, RESOLUTION NO, 78 -276 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption`: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CI'TY) 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, RESO LUTION NO, 78 -277 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 19.78 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 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, RESOLUTION NO. 78 --278 Member ° Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -45 AND CURB & GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -46 AND ORDERING PREPARATIO -N OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 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. RESOLU NO. 78 -279 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its _adoption: 12 -4 -78 -4- RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SALT STORAGE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1978-43 DIRECTING ADVERT'ISEMEN'T ` FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1978 -T) - 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 sa -id resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -289 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR FRONT END LOADER AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 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 RESOLUTION NO. 78 -281 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR AERIAL Q UINT FIRE TRUCK 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. RESOLUTION NO, 78 -282 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TERMINATING PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION FOR THE SUBURBAN HEALTH NURSING SERVICE 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. In discussion of the resolution, the City Manager explained the Suburban Public Health Nursing Service will now be the- purveyor of nursing services in Hennepin County. The Director of Finance noted it is unlikely that cities will be assessed per capita dues for this service in 1979. This change in health purveyor will not 12 -4 -78 -S- curtail services only .eliminate middle management. In presenting the next resolution, the City Manager explained although the proposal received by the Associated General Agency and the Home Insurance Company, decreases in 1979, in 1978 there had been approximately a 200% increase. The Director of Finance replied in response to questions from the Council that the dram shop portion of the insurance cost approximately $10, 000 . The Director of Finance further noted there had been the greatest, increase in the general City liability. RESOLUTION NO, 78 -28 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION RENEWING INSURANCE CONTRACT 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 Cella Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was - declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -284 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78-188 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, DISCUSSION ITEMS The City Manager asked that one of -the discussion items, the approval of the animal control contract, be deferred -until the next meeting, The Council agreed to defer the approval of the contract until the next meeting; The next discussion item was a report on a stop sign request on Palmer Lake Drive and Urban Avenue North, The Director of Public Works explained the study been conducted in response to a previous request from Mr. Lee Snapko of 6931 West Palmer Lake Drive and other residents of the area between 69th Avenue and Violet Avenue. Mr, Snapko and other petitioners had requested the installation of a three -way stop sign at Urban Avenue and the installation of park and school warning signs along West Palmer Lake Drive. The traffic study conducted by the Public Works Department was conducted to determine past and present traffic volumes percentage of traffic generated by West Palmer Lake and the West Palmer Lake School, and the accident and speeding problems The study indicates that the average daily traffic volume has increased by approxi- mately 10% when a comparison of the April, 1970 traffic volumes is compared with the November, 1978 volumes. However, it appears that summer traffic has increased by approximately 72% when comparing the November nonschool traffic 12 -4 -78 -6 with the August traffic volumes. Reviewing the number of homes that are directly abutting West Palmer Lake Drive and the traffic volumes utilizing West Palmer Lake Drive, indicates that the roadway is functioning more as s collet - tor street rather than as a purely residential street, The City of Brooklyn Center traffic_ accident records for West Palmer Lake Drive over the past four years indicate no significant accident problem exists_. It does appear that the Police Department has not been contacted regarding some of the accidents that have occurred in this area. Concerning the question of speeding, the surveys show the majority of vehicles on West Palmer Lake Drive to be traveling at a reasonably safe speed The study shows the traffic to be traveling slightly faster in November than it was in August and September. In November, approximately 89 of the vehicles surveyed were traveling less than 35 miles per hour and 99% at less, than 40 mires per hour® The Chairman of the Hennepin County Municipal Prosecutors Association- indicated that good police administrators strive to achieve 90 % of the traffic flow to travel at a speed within 5 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. Therefore, with 96% in September and 89% in November, of traffic flow traveling at less than 35 miles per hour and the existing low rate of accidents, the vehicles on West Palmer Lake Drive appear to be traveling at a reasonably safe speed. Pedestrian counts were also made along West Palmer Lake Drive between 69th Avenue and 72nd Avenue North. Automobile traffic counts taken at the same periods of time indicate that in the morning, there is an average of 20 cars per hour while -in the afternoon period there is an average of 96 cars per , hour. The afternoon traffic volume provides for a time lapse of approximately 37 seconds between the passing of automobiles. In examining the traffic studies, the Director of Public Works noted that warrants are not met for the installation of a three -way stop sign in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. As indicated earlier, the accident records along West Palmer Lake- Drive did not indicate an accident problem at the intersection. The installation of a three -way stop sign at the above -location_ could actually aggravate the accident situation - since traffic on West Palmer Lake Drive would be taken unaware of the stop situ- ation, thereby creating rear end potentials, commented the Director of Public Works. He further - explained the use of stop signs is not considered by traffic engineers to be effective - for reducing vehicle speeds. The Director of Public Works quoted from an article in the Western Institute of Traffic Engineers Professional Journal "that three residential speed control measure studied by the City did not reduce vehicle speeds; in fact, vehicle speeds of the studied streets actually increase slightly." Based on the findings of the study, the Director of Public Works recommended the following: 1) Stop signs not be installed on West Palmer Lake Drive and Urban Avenue North. 2) Warning curve signs be installed at the north and south approaches to the curve between Urban and Violet Avenues North with 20 mile per hour advisory signs attached. 3) Continued speed 12 -4 -78 -7- surveillance by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. 4) Some control by the Park_ and Recreation Department with regard to teams using the park. Following the explanation by the Director of Public Works, Councilmember Lhotka asked what effect speed signs or arrows would have on the problem The Director of Public Works explained that stop signs do not appear to. control speed and the speed sign or arrow would only alert the driver of the curve. Councilmember Fignar indicated he favored placing a stop sign in the area and presented a motion for the Council's consideration. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar to install three -way stop signals somewhere between the school and 69th along West Palmer Lake Drive. He further added the existence of the school and park made the area more dangerous than a normal residential setting and it was the duty of the. City to find some way to slow traffic down in the area. He further noted a stop sign would have more of an effect in controlling traffic than a curve sign. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lhotka but Councilmember Lhotka also asked the motion be ; amended adding that in addition to the stop sign, curve and warning signs also be added, Councilmember Fignar agreed with the amendment. In discussion of the motion, Mayor Nyquist asked fora clarification of where the sidewalk was located. The Director of Public Works explained the sidewalk runs along the east side of West Palmer Lake Drive and, therefore, a- stop sign would not primarily be to aid children crossing the street because they cross all along West Palmer Lake Drive, Councilmember Kuefler asked whether stop signs south of 57th on France Avenue had helped the ,problem in that area, The Director of Public Works replied the City has received fewer complaints but at the -last neighborhood, meeting of the neighbors in that area there were still complaints of speeding in the area. Councilmember Scott noted she had received complaints from people in the area that since the stop signs had been installed many drivers were squealing from stop sign to stop sign. Councilmember Scott noted the complaints she had received would indicate that the stop signs had not solved the problem in fact, many people run the stop signs. Councilmember Kuefler suggested the City should first try out the staff recom- mendation and check the - problem at a later date, at which time, a stop sign could be installed if there was a need. Councilmember Lhotka suggested 'trying the opposite_ solution which would be placing the stop signs now and checking later to see whether they were working. Councilmember Kuefler voiced concern over the Council becoming involved in the traffic business. Councilmember Kuefler further noted he was concerned with reducing speed limits within. the City but he indicated that issue should be dealt with separately. The Mayor noted the studies indicate that using stop signs -as speed control is ineffective. 12 -4 -7$ -8- Councilmember Fignar explained he was aware that _installing a stop sign -there was the most extreme measure but given the situation and the location of the school and park, he felt a stop sign was needed. The Director of Public Works again explained relative to the installation of stop signs, the warrants in accordance with the Minnesota- Manual. on Uniform Traffic Control Devices had not been met. Putting a stop sign in at this location in opposition to the recommendation of the Director of Public Works and not in accordance with the warrants of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices could possibly jeopardize signing funds. Additionally, it is possible the City might be found liable if stop signs were installed and an accident occurred resulting from the installation of a stop sign. In clarification of this point the City Attorney noted if the issue went before a court, one side would argue the need of a - stop sign and the other side would argue a stop sign was. not needed and it would be up to the court to make the final decision. - It would be in the best interest of the City to be able to justify their action based on technical data. In clarification of the motion, the motioner and the seconder repeated. the motion- and the second. Councilmember Fignar moved the installation of a three -way stop signal somewhere between the school and 69th along West Palmer Lake Drive due to the existence of the school and the park in the area making the area more dangerous than a normal residential setting. He further explained he felt it was the duty of the City to attempt to slow traffic down in the area and a stop sign would have more effect than curve signs.. Additionally, he asked that arrows and curve warning signs be added. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lhotka. In vote on the motion the following voted in favor: Councilmembers Fignar and Lhotka, Voting against: Mayor. Nyquist, Council- members Kuefler and Scott The motion was denied . PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. -78064 sub- mitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton for a variance from Section 35 -400 to permit a - carport accessory structure to encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback at 6230 Lee Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance at its November 2, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. Consideration of Application No. 78064 was originally scheduled for the November 13, - 1978 City Council agenda. Mr. Hamilton requested a rescheduling of consideration of Application No. 78064 because he was not able to attend the November 13 1978 City Council meeting due to prior professional commitments. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the applicant sought a variance from Section 35 -400 of the City_ Ordinances to allow the carport accessory structure which had been erected without a building permit to encroach approximately 20 feet into the 35 foot f.' ont yard setback at 6230 Lee Avenue North. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed a transparency of the area and pointed out the location of the applicant's property. He explained the applicant's carport had been the subject of Application No. 77064, an appeal from an administrative ruling that the structure encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback and could 12 -4 -78 -9- not be allowed. He stated that the Council earlier had.denied the appeal and the present application was a - request for a variance to permit the structure to encroach into the front yard. He stated the applicant had submitted a written statement explaining his request and outlining his justification for the variance, in which he claims' the placement of the house on the lot, the number and place- ment 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 to sleet and snow and fogged windows. He noted that the location of the carport on his property is unique in that the grade of the driveway and the existing trees 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 Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the standards for a variance in Section 35 -200 (2) of the City Ordinances, which allow for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration after demonstration that all four of the qualifications have met The Director of Planning and Inspection continued that it was not felt that this variance request met the qualifications of a hardship contained in the ordinances opposed to a mere inconvenience, nor that the conditions of the variance were necessarily unique to the parcel. He pointed out that single family homes with tuck under single car garages similar to that of the applicant are relatively common in Brooklyn Center. He added that consideration should also be given to the prece- dent that would be set if this variance were granted and what, if any, distinctions would 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. The Director of Planning and Inspection 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 foot setback, only that they do not encroach on this minimum 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 a parcel of land. The standards for a variance require that the alleged, hardship 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. The Director of Planning and Inspection 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. Additionally, the Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the comments made' by the Planning Commissioners at the November 2, 1978 Planning Commission . meeting at which time the Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 78064. 12-4-78 -10- Councilmember Scott questioned why Commissioner Book from voting on Application No. 78064. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted Com- i3issioner Book had made comments against approving Application No. 78064 during the meeting but had abstained from voting. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated lie did not know why Commissioner Book had abstained from voting. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for purposes of a'public hearing. on_Application No. 78064; Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr, Gene Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton noted he had begun work on this particular issue as of July 31, 1977. He noted nothing in the City Ordinances speaks to a carport only to a. canopy He contended that while the issue was in the hands of the City, progress in reaching a resolution of the issue was very slow but Mr. Hamilton noted he had appeared only once before the Council after which he received a 30 day notice from the court to tear the structure down. He contended that as long as the issue was in the hands of the City, progress was slow and he questioned why he had r received the notice from the court after only appearing before the Council once and intending to appeal for a variance. He noted he had appeared last Friday in court and had asked that the case be continued until January because he was appearing before the Council to request a variance o Mr. Hamilton noted he had not appealed to friends and supporters on this issue to come before the City Council but he felt at this time it was necessary. Mr. Hamilton alleged that one Council member had told the residents that lie, the Council member, had to vote "no" on the application because he was instructed to vote "no" by the City Attorney. Mr, Hamilton also alleged that other of his friends had been told by a Council_ member that some petition signers had changed their mind and were no longer in favor of allowing Mr. Hamilton to keep the accessory structure. Mr. Hamilton noted that he felt he had been mistreated by the City. Mr. Hamilton explained that the request for the variance harms no one and that his neighbors accept the accessory structure and understand that in terms ` of safety it stands on its own merits. Mr. Hamilton noted that aesthetically the structure did not detract from the area.. Mr. Hamilton proceeded to show slides of other accessory type structures which were allowed in the City of Brooklyn Center. He noted several of these other accessory structures were visually far less appealing than his own structure. Mrs. Hamilton noted that,they did not contend that the hardship was in scraping their windows but contended that the hardship is that there is not room on the back or sides of the property to construct such a structure. A citizen residing at 58th and Admiral Lane indicated he was in favor of allowing Mr. Hamilton's accessory structure to remain, granting the variance. He indicated Mr. Hamilton's structure was a safe structure and many of the others shown in 12 -4 -78 -11- the slides Mr. Hamilton had shown were not safe accessory structures. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public hearing on Application No. 78064, Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, The City Manager commented that in initial discussions with Mr. Tremere the Director of Planning and Inspection at the time, Mr. Hamilton decided to take the route of the appeal of the administrative ruling. The legal appeal of the interpretation of the administrative ruling had been exhausted and, therefore, the City turned the case over to the court. The structure was originally constructed without a building permit in violation of City Ordinances, The City Manager explained it was, therefore, up to the courts to _decide whether or not the action taken by the City in deciding to deny Mr. Hamilton's appeal. of the administrative ruling was legal or not legal. In response to Mr. Hamilton's comments concerning the time line and its slow- ness when the issue was in the hands of the City, the City Manager commented that Mr. Hamilton had agreed to the slow time line so that the issue could be handled fairly. Additionally, the court date had been set before the variance had been applied for. Councilmember Lhotka asked the City Attorney to again comment on the legal ramifications of granting a variance. The City Attorney reiterated that it is clear that no variance applies to one individual only but precedents are set when a variance is granted, Every variance granted allows a particular' property to not meet the standards of the ordinance. Tf a property owner is not required to meet the specified standards - for a variance in order to have the variance approved, the City in granting the variance does not ,give citizens equal pro- tection and it becomes a constitutional issue. If a variance is granted without the particular property meeting the standards for a variance, all subsequent requests for a similar variance would also have to be granted making the ordinance unenforceable. Councilmember Kuefler stated he felt the accessory structure on Mr. Hamilton's property was aesthetically acceptable but the structure does not meet the hard- ship criteria required in the standards for a variance. Councilmember Kuefler further commented he did not s-ense the community wanted to change the setback standards and, therefore, Councilmember Kuefler did not feel the variance should bo granted. The Mayor concurred with Councilmember Kuefler's comments and stated although he was not concerned with the appearance of the structure on Mr. Hamilton's_ property, he was concerned about the precedent that would be set if the structure was allowed to stand. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to deny Planning Commission Application No. '78064 submitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton because the application does not meet the standards for a variance with respect to uniqueness and hardship. Voting in favor Mayor'Nyquist, Council- 12-4-78 -12- members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce for an amendment to the special use permit for a home occupation (beauty shop) at 3313.Lawrence Road, Application No. 78066 was tabled at the November 20, 1978 City Council meeting due to the fact that Councilmember Kuefler was not present to vote on the application and wished to vote on the application. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the application, as the Council was familiar with the application from their review of the application at the November 20, 1978 City Council meeting. Councilmember Kuefler stated his concern was over a question of whether or not the special use permit would be denied when the applicant was no longer the primary employeeo Mayor Nyquist stated two concerns: first, under the special use permit, could an employee become the primary or must the employee maintain a supporting role, second, Mayor Nyquist expressed concern that there was a C -1 district located across the street and would this type of use of Cynthia Pierces home lead to an eventual request for rezoning. - Councilmember Kuefler asked if it would be appropriate if Cynthia. Pierce was required to put in at least 51% of the working hours in the business. The City Manager clarified the issue stating the concern was a question of when a home occupation ceased to be a home occupation. If the person ,granted the special use permit no longer works in the home, then the business would cease to be a home occupation. Councilmember Scott noted the Planning Commission had placed restrictions on the permit that Cynthia Pierce could not work in the business when her other employees were working there, Councilmember Scott further noted the percentage suggestion could not be enforced by the City. Mayor Nyquist again stated that when the employees become the principals in the business, it is no longer a home occupation. Councilmember Fignar questioned whether the parking of four cars in the driveway would block the view within the neighborhood. Councilmember Kuefler questioned if a precedent would be set by allowing the home occupation use as suggested in Cynthia Pierce's application when the home owner might at some time not be actively involved in the home occupation. The City Attorney suggested a possible solution might be to grant the special use permit for a period of one year during which time th staff could research the legal question of home occupations and what the stipulations on them should be. , The staff, in their research, could attempt to determine whether an employee 12 -4 -78 -13- of a person granted a special use permit for a home occupation. was limited to a supporting role or could become the principal in the home occupation; Addi- tionally, during the one year period, the applicant would have more time to decide whether or not she wanted to remain in the beauty business or if her principal occupation was going to be real estate. The Director of Planning and Inspection added that special use permits were subject to staff review on an annual basis and if there were problems with parking or other problems, the issue could be brought before the Council again at the one year time period. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce subject to the conditions as set by the Planning Commission at its November 16, 1978 meeting. In discussion of the motion, the Mayor recognized Mr. and Mrs. Reetz of 3309 Lawrence Road who commented that parking was a problem and there were often times cars parked on both sides of the street as a result of customers to Mrs. Pierce's beauty shop. They also commented they did not want the City to put them in a position of having to police this situation in their neighborhood. Councilmember Fignar asked whether concerns from the neighborhood was criteria for denial of the special use permit. The City Attorney commented that point 5 in the Planning Commission's recom- mended conditions of approval deals with the parking situation stating that "all parking related to the special use shall be off- street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. " Councilmember Lhotka asked how the parking provision was enforced. The City Attorney responded that the situation was generally policed by the neighbors and if there were consistent violations, the problem was generally brought to the staff's attention. For purposes of clarification, the motion on the floor has repeated. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78066 submitted by Cynthia Pierce 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. 12 -4 -78 -14- 4. The current copy of the applicant's State operator's license as well as a current copy of any employee 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. 7. There shall be one operator working at any given time. 8. The special use permit is subject to annual review. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist asked that the records show that he voted affirmative on the motion because of the stipulation that there would be a review in one year's period. - ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced two ordinances concurrently. The first was an ordinance authorizing the operation of certain gambling devices by licensed organizations and was a second reading of the ordinance. The second ordinance was an ordinance authorizing the operation of bingo'by licensed organizations and was also a second reading of the ordinance. The City Manager noted Mr. Bill Clelland from the City Attorney's office was in attendance at the Council meeting and was prepared to answer any questions the Council might have on this ordinance. Mr. Clelland had done much of the work in drafting the ordinances Councilmember Lhotka asked Mr. Clelland to elaborate on the position that the present ordinances would put small organizations or organizations which only wanted to hold one event which included gambling or bingo. Mr. Clelland explained a Minnesota Statute had been passed. in April which makes all gambling illegal unless permitted and licensed by the municipality in which it is located and furthermore stipulates which organizations can be licensed. He further explained a municipality can make the licensing criteria more restrictive but cannot make the licensing criteria more expansive. If the City of Brooklyn Center does not pass an ordinance which sets up the mechanism for licensing organizations, there would be no gambling or bingo allowed in the City of Brooklyn Center. The City Manager explained the City of Brooklyn Center could have adopted the Minnesota State Statute by reference but the public would then be forced to read through the Statutes in order to ascertain what could and could not be done Councilmember Scott asked about organizations which have been in existence for three years or more but had changed their title, Mr. Clelland stated that if 12 -4 -78 -15- there was not a significant deviation in the purpose of the organization or the change in name was not a subterfuge and the original organization was eclipsed by the organization with the new title and was the legitimate successor to the original organization, he could see no problem and believed the organization with the new title would qualify. Councilmember Scott also asked whether it would actually take 180 days to approve the application as was stated in Section 23 -1903. Mr. Clelland replied that the 180 days stipulation was taken directly from the State Statutes. The City Manager explained that 180 days was the maximum time allowed and the Council would have to act within 180 days. The minimum time was 30 days, The City Manager indicated he felt most applications would not take the full 180 days and would more than likely be processed in the 30 day minimum time limit. Councilmember Scott also asked whose name would be put on the application as the name of the person to be investigated. Mr. Clelland explained each organiza- tion must designate a person to serve as the bingo or gambling manager and this person becomes responsible for the operation of the bingo or gambling. He further indicated that the designation of the gambling or bingo manager is part of the State Statute. Councilmember Kuefler asked about the four hour limitation on the bingo ordinance. Mr.- Clelland explained-the four hour limitation had been deleted. In - response to questions concerning the license fee and the investigation fee for the license, the City Manager explained those fees would be set by the Council. There was a brief discussion on the license fee and the investigation fee for licensing. Mr. Clelland explained that organizations could not be subdivided into their component parts and each of them apply for licenses. For example, the Men's Club within a' church could not apply for an individual license, rather the church as a whole would apply. In response to questions from the Council as to whether or not the fee could be waived, Mr. Clelland explained the fees charged must be fair and nondiscriminatory. The waiving of a fee must be done only on a rational nondiscriminatory basis The City Manager further .noted fees could be established by resolution separate from the ordinance, Councilmember Kuefler suggested the scope of the investiga- tion necessary for the gambling and bingo license should be determined and the fees should be set accordingly. Councilmember Kuefler suggested the license fees should be nominal relative to the number of games and the hours of operation. - .The City Manager explained that the rationale for fees in some. cases of licensing is the amount of dollar flow which may have a direct effect on the need for enforcement efforts. In response to questions from Council members Mr. Clelland explained the p q , p difference between the State' -law on gambling and the State law on bingo is that fewer organizations can be licensed for gambling. There is a wider 12-4-78 -16- eligibility for bingo as compared to gambling. A citizen concerned with the gambling and bingo licensing fees was recognized by the Mayor. The citizen commented that a $50 investigation fee may be prohibitive to small organizations, whereas, $50 to other organizations might be a very small amount, Mr. Ken Nelson, Pastor .of Berean Evangelican Church, stated the Council had a unique opportunity in setting the license fees. Mr. Nelson stated he was concerned with the gambling atmosphere particularly because of many studies that indicate gambling is definitely a problem in this country. Mr, Nelson suggested setting the license fee significantly high enough in order to discourage proliferation of gambling within the City of Brooklyn Center. _ There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to defer action on the bingo ordinance and the gambling ordinance until further information could be gathered concerning licensing fees and investigation fees which might be appropriate. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka and Scott. Voting against: none, The motion passed unanimously The City Manager noted he would be able to provide that information to the Council possibly - at the next Council meeting. In further discussion, the Mayor noted he did not feel the City should subsidize the cost of the investigation for the gambling license or the bingo license for organizations. Councilmember Lhotka also noted he had no trouble with the wording of the ordinance as written, but he too felt the City should not subsidize the cost of the investigation for the licenses He also suggested it would be helpful to have additional information on a fee structure. Councilmember Kuefler concurred in the position taken by Mayor Nyquist and Councilmember Lhotka. Councilmember Scott suggested a categorization of types and organizations by size, dollar volume, etc. might be helpful in setting a rate schedule of fees. Councilmember Kuefler agreed with Councilmember Scott's suggestion to attempt to put organizations into categories and, thus, set a rate schedule. RETURN TO DISCUSSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced the next discussion item, a report on a stop sign request at Logan Avenue North and 55th Avenue North. The Director of Public Works briefly reviewed the results of the traffic study on Logan Avenue North and 55th Avenue North. The Director of Public Works noted the results indicate the area is fairly close to meeting the warrants of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices although the accident rate does not meet the warrants. The volume of traffic in the area is close to meeting the warrants but again does not meet the warrants. Councilmember Lhotka indicated he felt although the site does not meet the warrants as set in the Manual, the warrants are somewhat arbitrary and it is 12 -4 -78 -17- his feeling a stop sign is needed in the area. Councilmember Kuefler explained he felt rather than placing stop signs all over in the City there should be an attempt made to change the speed limit in the area and in many other areas in the City. Councilmember Kuefler stated he felt speeding was a community wide problem and people within the community are looking towards the Council to do something about enforcement. Councilmember Scott suggested it was important to speak with elected officials and request that they speak to the State Highway Commissioner in order to change speed limits. She concurred with Councilmember Kuefler that cars speeding.,on residential streets were a definite problem. Councilmember Fignar questioned the Director of Public Works as to whether a 53rd Avenue corridor would have any 'effect on the traffic on Logan Avenue, increasing the traffic at that location. The Director of Public Works replied measures were being taken to prevent a large increase of traffic on Logan Avenue, There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to install stop signs at 55th and Logan Avenue North. In vote on the issue, the following voted in favor: Councilmembers Lhotka and Fignar. Voting against: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler and Scott. The motion was denied The City Manager introduced the next discussion item, a temporary extension of a joint parking agreement between Northwestern Bell and Brooklyn Center School District for property located in the area of 65th and Dupont He recom- mended a motion approving the joint parking agreement. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained he had received a letter from a representative of Northwestern Bell, The letter explained that Northwestern Bell's use of the remodeled area in the Northwestern Bell building at 1101 65th Avenue North continues to be used for office space. Northwestern Bell's plans are basically the same as in 1976 of vacating most of the people from this location, however, the date of this vacation has not been firmly seta The letter indicated that Northwestern Bell had negotiated a renewal of the lease for temporary parking space with the Brooklyn Center Independent School District #286. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the joint parking agreement was approved in 1975 and as a letter indicated, Northwestern Bell still has need for temporary parking. The Council's action, in actuality, acknowledges the joint parking agreement There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the temporary extension of a joint parking_ agreement between Northwestern Bell and Brooklyn Center School District for property located in the area of 65th and Dupont. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against none. The motion passed _ unanimously, 12 -4 -78 -18- The City Manager introduced the next discussion item, a discussion of the County Seat Instructional Program sponsored by the Department of Revenue, The City Manager indicated the City Assessor had received a letter inviting the presiding officer in each City or a representative appointed by the presiding officer and the City Assessor to attend the instructional program. - Mayor Nyquist stated he would. be able to attend the instructional program sponsored by the Department of Revenue, The Mayor questioned the Council as to whether it was their wish to appoint a member to the Charter Commission. The Council briefly reviewed earlier discussions on Charter Commission appointments. It was still unclear as to when the Judge had received official notice of Commissioner Higgins' resignation. It was known that the Judge had received notification in a letter from Chairman Kanatz on November 9 but it was unclear whether or not he had been notified prior to November 9 of Commissioner Higgins' resignation.. The Council agreed to wait until the next Council meeting andappeint a member to the Charter Commission at that time if the Judge had not made an appoint- ment before the next Council meeting, T RENEWAL OF SPECIFIE RENTAL LICENSES The City Manager indicated that inspections had been made on the Chippewa Park apartments at 6507 Camden Avenue North for the purposes of determining whether or not a temporary license renewal should be made The Director of Planning and Inspection explained he had spoken with the manage- ment of Chippewa Park apartments at an earlier inspection and suggested to them that he would recommend a temporary extension of the license if they took care of the fire related violations and many .of the housing; maintenance violations The Director of Planning and Inspection further explained that another inspection had been made on December 1 . The results of that inspection show that the fire related violations and the housing related violations had not been taken care of to date. In discussion of the issue, it was the consensus of the Council that the license - should not be renewed until the fire related violations and the housing maintenance violations were taken care of. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to revoke the license until the fire related violations and the housing maintenance violations were taken care of. Voting in favor:- 1\4ayor Nyquist, Counc lmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhot;:a, and Scott Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In further discussion, the Council noted the management of Chippewa Park apart- ments had been given a chance and yet they .had not complied. Councilmember Scott stated it was important to back up the inspectors so that the inspectors of the City would remain` effective. 12 -4 -78 -19- The Director of Planning and Inspection explained when a license is not renewed, vacant apartments are red tagged and the red tagged apartments cannot be rented. After inspections of Chippen Park apartments have been made which indicate that the fire related violations and the housing maintenance violations have been taken care of; the license will again be brought to the Council. If the management of Chippewa Park apartments rents apartments which have been red tagged, there is a penalty for each day an apartment is rented without a license and this includes each unit as a separate violation. The people living in the apartments now will not be evicted. The red tags affect only those apart- ments which are vacated. The Director of Planning and Inspection further indicated the management of Chippewa Park apartments had suggested that they hoped to be in compliance before the next Council meeting of December 18, 1978, LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: BOWLING ALLE LICENSE Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive CHRISTMAS TREE SALE LICENSE P.Q.T. Company 3119 Thurber Road (2 lots) 63rd & Brooklyn Blvd. & 5040 Brooklyn Blvd. CIGARETTE LICENSE Advance ®Carter. Company 850 Decatur Ave. No. Brooklyn Center Liquor More #1 6800 Humboldt Ave. No Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklvn Center Liquor Store #3 5711 Morgan Ave. No. Wookworth's Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Bonine Vending 125 Riversedge Way Brookdale Towers 2810 County Road 10 Brooklyn Center A & W 6837 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Country Boy 4401 69th Ave. No, Lynbrook Bowl - , Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive Northwest Microfilm 1600 67th Ave. No Theisen Vending, Inca 3804 Ncollet Ave. So. Ni.no's Steak Round -Up 6040 Earle Brown Dr. Olive's East Broo -Idale Shopping Ctr. Bill West 76 Station 2000 57th. Ave. No. Woodside Enterprises 2500 Nathan bane, 4209 Poppir, Fresh Pie Shop 5601 Xerxes Ave. No, Zayre Shopper's City 3600 63rd Ave. No. 12-4-78 -20- COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE Zayre Shopper's City 3600 63rd Ave. No. G ARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LIC ENSE ` Brooklyn Disposal 1014 Klondike Drive GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE Allied Black Top Company 3601 48th Ave. No. Brooklyn Center City Garage 2501 69th Ave. No. Metropolitan Transit Commission 6845 Shingle - Creek Pkwy. The Plum Company 6840 -20 Shingle Creek Pkwy . LODGING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Riverside Motel _5608 Lyndale Ave. No. MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LI Ryan Air Conditioning 9240 Grand Ave. So. NONPERISHABLE VENDIN MACHINE LICENSE Northwest Microfilm 1600 67th Ave. No OFF -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Brooklyn Center Country Boy 4401 69th Ave. No. Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. No. - - Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. No. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive Red Owl Stores, Inc 5425 Xerxes Ave. No. SuperAmerica 1901 57th Ave. No. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENS Northwest Microfilm 1600 67th Ave. No. POOL AND BILLIARD TABLE LICENSE Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE DeMars Signs 8340 East River Road Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 12 -4 -78 -21- f n ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar adjourn the City Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against; none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11 :27 p.m. Clerk Mayor 12-4-78 -22- PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING December 7, 1973 1. Call to Order:. 8:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: November 16, 1978 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Coy ai ss i on.'s functions is to hold public hearings. -In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the Ci,y Council. The Ci ty Council makes all final decisions on theso matters. 5. vt?,a Hoffman 78065 Site and Building Plan Approval for an approximate 8,000 sq. ft. office building at 6417 Brooklyn Boulevard. 6. �Dr. Gregory Swenson 78067 Special Use Permit for an off -site accessory parking facility to accommodate an expansion into the l ower level of the Brook ark Dental Clinic. The accessory parking is to be located on the property at 6417 Brooklyn Boulevard. (This application should be considered concurrently with Application No. 7 8055). 7. - Brooklyn Properties 78053 Rezoning, from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to C -1 (Service /Office), of the old slaughterhouse property at 5537 Brooklyn Boulevard. This item was tabled by the Commission on October 5, 1978 and referred to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. 8. Robert Fors /Andrew Gunn Development: Company 78061 Special Usc Permit, Site and Building Plan Approval for a child care institution (Montessori School) on the R5 zoned property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard. This item was tabled by the Commission on October 5, 1978 to allow the applicant time to prepare complete plans and to Free;, with the neighborhood regarding neighborhood concerns. n - Discussion It J a) R. L. Johnson Rezoning Request 10. Other Busi 11. Adjournment ,Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78065 Applicant: Aaron Hoffman Location: 6417 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Review The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval for an approximate 8,800 sq. ft. office building on the Cl zoned property at 6417 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is currently owned by the Brook Park Dental Clinic, 6437 Brooklyn Boulevard, and the applicant is in the process of purchasing the.property pro -vided a parking agreement can be worked out whereby a number of parking spaces can be provided for the dental clinic on this site. Application No. 78067 submitted by Dr. Gregory Swenson contemplates a special use permit for off - site " parking and should be-considered concurrently with this application. _ The site is a triangular shaped piece of property and can accommodate parking for 63 cars. Forty three spaces are required for the office building and 20 spaces are required for the accessory off -site parking proposed for the dental clinic. The property, at the south property line, abuts an R -1 (Single Family Residential) District, and the applicant proposes to plant a four foot high Nankin cherry hedge along the property line to provide the ordinance - required screening. The ordinance requires a four ft. high opaque fence or wall or City Council approved substitute where an R1 District abuts a Cl development. We will be prepared to review this application in more detail in conjunction with Application No. 78067. - Approval of the application should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits 3 A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The building shall be equipped with an automatic extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be connected to an approved central monitoring system in accordance with.Chapter,5 of the City Ordinances 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and /or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. All landscaped areas shall be equipped with an underground irrigation system as approved by the City Engineer. 7. Plan approval comprehends the planting of a four foot high Nankin cherry hedge as appropriate screening along the south property lire in lieu of a four ft. high opaque fence or wall. 12 -7 -7$ Application No. 78065 Wage 2 8. Consistent with the provisions of Section 35 -701, the property proposed for accessory off -site parking for the Brook Park dental clinic shall be legally encumbered for the sole purpose of providing parking for the dental clinic through a deed restriction approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 12 -7 -78 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78067 Applicant: Dr. Gregory. Swenson Location: 6437 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit for Off -Site Accessory Parking The applicant is seeking a special use permit to provide off -site accessory parking for the Brook Park Dental Clinic at 6437 Brooklyn Boulevard. He proposes to have the off -site parking on the Cl property located at 6417 Brooklyn Boulevard. A letter from the applicant's architect indicates the dental clinic desires to expand into the unused portions of the lower level of the clinic to provide a dental laboratory as well as administrative and office areas. The expansion requires a_ need for additional parking based on the ordinance parking formula. The dental clinic presently owns the property at 6417 Brooklyn Blvd. and proposes to sell it for the development of an office building provided an arrangement can be made for accessory parking to meet the needs of the dental clinic. The property at 6.417 Brooklyn Boulevard was the subject of a rezoning from R5 to Cl (Application No. 75044) which was approved by the City Council in March, 1976. A special use permit was also granted to the applicant in June, 1976 (Application No. 76018) for off -site accessory parking at 6417 Brooklyn Boulevard. The parking has not yet been provided and the expansion of the clinic has, therefore, not gone forth., . Our major concern with this application is to ensure that a proper agreement is reached which will provide enough parking for the dental clinic when its proposed internal alterations are complete. Section 35 -701 (3) of the City Ordinances addressess off =site accessory parking and contains the - following points: 3. Spaces accessory to uses located in a business or industrial district shall be on the same lot as the uses served unless a special use permit authorizes supplemental accessory off- site parking not located on the same property with the principal use. Special use permits authorizing such parking may be issued subject to the following conditions: (a) Special use permits may be issued only for business or industrial uses which have been continuously operational on a, specific site for at least two years. (b) Accessory off -site parking shall be permitted only on properties located in districts zoned commercially (Cl, ClA, C2) and industrial (I -1 I -2), and having the same or less restrictive zoning classification as the prinicpal use. (c) Accessory off -site parking shall be limited to-one site per each business or industrial use issued a special use permit. (d) The distance from the furthest point of the accessory off- site parking property to the site of the principal use shall not exceed 300 feet. 12 -7 -78 Application No. 78067 Page 2 (e) A minimum of 20 parking spaces must be provided on the off - site. parking property. (f) Accesso.ry off -site parking shall be located such that pedestrian traffic will not required to cross the following roadways to reach the principal use; (1) Major thoroughfares is defined in Section 35 -900; (2) 55th and 56th Avenues North between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard; (3) Summit Drive; (4) 66th Avenue North between Lyndale Avenue North and Camden Avenue North. (g) Accessory off -site parking spaces may be credited to the parking requirements of the principal use if the off -site parking property is legally encumbered to the sole purpose of providing parking accessory to the principal use, (h) Accessory off -site parking site improvements shall be provided -as required by the City Council. • We will be prepared to review floor plans indicating the planned expansion of the dental clinic and the interrelationship of this application with Application No. 78065. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Approval of the application should be subject to at least the following conditions; 1. The permit is issued to the applicant and is nontransferable. 2. Final plans for remodeling the lower level of the dental clinic are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submi -tted to assure the completion of sidewalk and other outside improvements. 4._ Consistent with provisions of Section 35- 701,.the parking property at 6417 Brooklyn Boulevard proposed for accessory off -site parking for the Brook Park Dental Clinic shall be legally encumbered for the sole purpose of providing parking for the dental clinic through a deed restriction approved by the City Attorney. 5. Adequate parking for use by the clinic, as determined by the Building Official, shall be provided at 6417 Brooklyn Boulevard prior to certifying the occupancy of the remodeled lower level of the dental clinic. 12 -7 -78 , # �gv November 30, 1978 Mr. Ronald Warren Director of Planning and Inspection City Hall Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Re: Brookpark Dental Center #7809 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Mr. Warren We would appreciate the opportunity to appear before the planning commission on December 7, 1978. We will answer any questions that • the planning commission members may have about the remodeling. The doctors have determined that to provide a more complete dental care package, they should have a dental laboratory in the building. There is also a need to expand the administrative and office areas because of the increased demand of paperwork. The basement of the existing building has about 2,000 sq. ft. of undeveloped area which would be ideal for the expansion needs of the dental center. If you have any questions about the plans, please give me a call Sincerely, Keith Sjoquist KS:ts cc: Dr. Swenson Z E N K A N O S J O 0 U I S T A R C H I T E C T S 333 -2235 1645 HENNEPIN AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55403 224 -1358 1500 PIONEER BUILOING SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA 55101 %. Sta nd ards for Specia u R c rm - lt s A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use viill- promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be de�rirnental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals,: or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, in the immediate vicinity for - the purposes already permitted, nor substantially - diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede-the normal and -. -. orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate r.;easures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion ., in the public streets,._ _. (e) Tie 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 may. 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 requirements 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 resu }emitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing n ewl y discovered evidence o f change of condition upon which he relie^ to gait, the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time, 5.. Revocation and 'Extension of S pecial Use Permits _ When a special. use-permit has. been issued pursuant to the - provisions of thin ordinance, such permit shall e..vire without further action by the Planning • Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or . Successor co;nmenc: s wort" upon the subject property within one y oar o the date the - special u permit i's. grartccl, or unless bel "ore the expiration of the one , criod the capplican s h a l l p - , r � n .t. � p a pplicant s gal. �. : ..I for 3n .h�en_,ron ther�.of by filling out � _ g a nd submittin to the Sc�cretaty of the Planning Commission a ` Use Permit" application requestirg suc'Ir extension and paying an additional foe of MEN WA ones m i lli Ao P'sanning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78058 Applicant: Brooklyn Properties (Dean Nyquist, Medard Kaisershot, -dames Speckman and L. David Henningson) Location: 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning The applicant is requesting rezoning, from Rl (Single Family Residential) to Cl (Service /Office), of an approximate 1 acre site at. 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. This site is commonly referred to as the slaughterhouse property and is bounded on the { east by the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road; on the north by two single family residential properties (5643 Brooklyn Boulevard and 5642 Northport Drive); on the west by Northport Drive; and on the south -by Cl properties including the two sites being temporarily occupied by CEAP_(5607 and 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard) and the Library property at 5601 Brooklyn Boulevard. The west end of the subject site (approximately 28 ft. by 165 ft.) is part of the Library Terrace Addition con- taining the Library, but is zoned Rl. The applicant proposes to combine this with the slaughterhouse property for the development of a law office. He has submitted a conceptual - drawing for a three story, 14,850 sq. ft. office building indicating their proposed plans, should a rezoning be accomplished. This parcel was considered for rezoning to Cl in 1976 under Application No. 76053 (City Council minutes attached) when the library site was ; rezoned. There was much discussion at that time as to whether or not the slaughterhouse property should be included in the rezoning. The record indicates the Council's feeling at that time that the slaughterhouse property should remain R1, but that they would con -' sides a rezoning of the property at a future date if a specific proposal was put forth. Record also indicates that the City Council felt the Planning Commission should study this- area along Brooklyn Boulevard between 53rd Avenue North and County Road 10, particularly vacant properties, for rezoning during the Compre- hensive Planning review process. This application was introduced and a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 5, 1978 The matter was tabled by the Commission that evening and referred 'to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Neighborhood Group met on November 8, 1978 and a copy of the minutes from that meeting is attached. The Group recommended rezoning from R1 to Cl, all existing property, starting with and including the Northport Medical Center, 5415 Brooklyn Boulevard, north to and including the old slaughterhouse property, 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. A'copy of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines conta -fined in Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances is attached for review. Careful consideration of these criteria is encouraged. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Commission look at the specific proposal contemplated_ by this application. It is not recommended that the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group's recommendation be accepted in its entirety-,'but rather the re zoning of the property from the Northport Clinic northerly be considered in light, f of the Comprehensive Plan review. There may well be merit in rezoning this property, but it would be more appropriate to consider this with the Comprehensive Plana 12 -7 -78 'Application No. 78058 Page 2 There maybe merit in rezoning' the subject property particularly in light of the present Comprehensive Plan's acknowledgement of Service /Office and Multiple Family Residential rezonings on Brooklyn Boulevard. Also, the City Council when rezoning the Library property, indicated they would consider rezoning the slaughterhouse property if a specific proposal was put forth. The proposal does meet some of the Rezoning Guidelines which can.be looked at collectively or individually after measuring the proposal first against the policy that the zoning be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not - constitute "spot zoning" defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not re- late to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. With respect to the Rezoning Guidelines, this proposal seems, to some extent, to be consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classificiations. The Library property to the south is zoned Cl, and to some degree, it is felt that ' Service /Office uses are compatible with Single Family uses with proper buffering, etc. Also, the permitted uses in the Cl Zoning District could be contemplated for this property and there has been a zoning classification change in the area (the Library property) since the subject property was zoned. It is felt the property can bear the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning :districts. The Commission should look closer at the Policy and Review Guidelines before making its final- recommendation to the City Council. - i i j 12 -7 -78 Planning Coimission Information Sheet Application No. 78058 Applicant: Brooklyn Properties (Dean Nyquist, Medard Kaisershot, James Speckman and L. David Henningson) Location: 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning The applicant is requesting rezoning, from Rl (Single family Residential) to Cl (Service /Office), of an approximate 1 acre site at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. This site is commonly referred to as the slaughterhouse property and is bounded on the east by the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road; on the north by two single family residential properties (5643 ; on Brooklyn Boulevard and 5642 Northport Drive Y P ) the west by Northport Drive; and on the south by Cl properties including the two sites being temporarily occupied by CEAP (5607 and 5625.Brooklyn Boulevard) and the Library property at 5601 Brooklyn Boulevard. The west end of the subject site (approximately 28' by 165) is p art of the Library Terrace Addition contain ing the Library, but is zoned R1. The applicant proposes to combine this with the slaughterhouse property for the development of a law office. The applicant has submitted a.conceptual drawing for a three - story, 14,850 sq. ft. .office building - indicating -their proposed plans should a rezoning be accomplished. This parcel was considered for rezoning to Cl in 1976 under Application No. 76053 (City Council minutes attached) when the Library site was rezoned. There was much discussion at that time as to whether or not the slaughterhouse property should be included in the.rezoning. The record indicates the Council's feeling at that time, that the slaughterhouse property should remain Rl, but that they would consider a e rezoning f the property at a future date if a specific proposal is 9 p p Y p P p put forth. The record also indicates that the City Council felt the Planning Commission should study this area along Brooklyn Boulevard between 53rd Avenue • North and County Road 10, particularly vacant properties, for rezoning during the Comprehensive Planning review process. Attached is a copy of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines con- tained in Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances. A review of the Comprehensive Phan relating to this area is important for determining the merits of this re- zoning request. The plan, when referring to land uses along Brooklyn Boulevard, acknowledges permitting a limited amount of Service /Office establishments at appropriate 1 a " oc i _..tons. it goes on to state as a goal to preserve existing single family housing along Brooklyn Boulevard, at least for the near future, where it is an integral part of a single family residential neighborhood, and not segmented therefrom by other land uses, and especially where a frontage road exists or.where one can be installed." With respect to plan recommendations regarding the Southwest Neighborhood, it states "maintain that part of the Southwest Neighborhood lying north of 53rd Avenue in permanent single family residential use. The recent construction of a frontage road along Brooklyn Boulevard will permit the existing adjacent homes to continue as an integral part of the neighborhood. Commercial development should definitely be prohibited along the east edge of the neighborhood." There is a basic conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and this particular request and the rezoning, if desirable, should be accompanied by an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. It should also be pointed out again that there has been direction given to study this area for possible rezoning in conjunction with the present Comprehensive Planning process, and that this item has been referred to the City's Planning Consultant for input. They have indicated that their study of Brooklyn Boulevard and various recommendations will be completed by February of 1979. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 10 -5 -78 ,Application No. 78058 Page 2 y Recommendation It is established Commission olic p y to refer all rezoning and Comprehensive Plan review matters to the appropriate Neighborhood Group which is, in this instance, the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. The Commission should discuss the merits of the proposal and the various planning concerns and then table the matter for further review and input by the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. 10 -5 -7$ MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPItJ AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 5, 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. ROLL CALL Chairman- Engdahl, Commissioners Theis, Pierce and Hawes. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. APPLICATION NO. 78058 (Brooklyn Properties) Following the Chairman's explanation the first item of consideration was Application No. 78058 submitted by Brooklyn Properties. The Secretary stated the applicant requested rezoning from Rl (Single Family Residential) to Cl (Service /Office) of the property located at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and explained that the application included rezoning the "slaughterhouse property" and a strip of land approximately 2$ ft. by 165 ft. located adjacent to and west of the slaughterhouse property, which is contained in the Library Terrace Addition, and is part of the library site. The Secretary explained that the property was bounded on the east by the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road, on the north by two single family residential properties, and on the south by Cl properties, including the two sites being temporarily occupied by CEAP (5607 and 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard). The Secretary also stated that the applicant proposed to combine the 28 ft. by 165 ft.. strip with the slaughterhouse property and develop the property with a law office should a rezoning be granted. He stated the applicant had submitted a conceptual drawing . for a three -- story, 14,850 sq. ft. office building. The Secretary explained that the subject property had been considered for rezoning to C1 under Application No. 76053 when the library site was rezoned. He stated there had been discussion at that time as to whether or not the slaughterhouse property should be included in the rezoning. He stated the record indicates the Council's feeling at that time, which was that the slaughterhouse property should remain R1, but that a rezoning of the property could be considered at a future date if a specific proposal was put forth. He continued that the records also indicate that the City Council felt the Planning Commission should study the area along Brooklyn Boulevard between 53rd Avenue North and County Road 10, particularly any vacant property, for possible rezoning during the Comprehensive Planning review process. The Secretary emphasized that a review of the Comprehensive Plan relating to this area was important for determining the merits of the rezoning request. He stated that in reference to land uses along Brooklyn Boulevard, the plan acknowledges permitting a limited amount of Service /Office establishments at appropriate locations. The Plan also states as a goal "to preserve existing single family' housing along Brooklyn Boulevard, at least for the near future, where it is an integral part of a single family residential neighborhood, and not segmented therefrom other land uses, and especially where a frontage road exists or where one can be installed." With respect to the Southwest Neighborhood, the Plan recommends "maintain that part of the Southwest Neighborhood lying north of 53rd Avenue North in permanent single family residential use. 10 -5 -78 -1- The recent construction of a frontage road along Brooklyn Boulevard will permit the existing adjacent homes to continue as an integral part of the neighborhood. Commercial development should definitely be prohibited along the east edge of the . nei ghorhood." The Secretary pointed out that there was a basic conflict between the Compre- hensive Plan and the rezoning request. He explained that if the rezoning was found to be desirable, it should be accompanied by an amendment to the Compre- hensive Plan. He also pointed out that direction had been given to study this. area for possible rezoning in conjunction with the Comprehensive Planning process, and that the item had been referred to the City's Planning Consultant. He stated that the Consultant had indicated that the study of Brooklyn Boulevard and various recommendations would be completed by February, 1979. He stated the Commission should consider whether the area was a desirable single family area. A- discussion ensued relative to the County- owned property. The Secretary explained that the two parcels containing single family houses which were being utilized by _ CEAP had been rezoned with the library site in order to provide parking to support a service /office use on the library site at such time that the building be con- verted to private use. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl, the Secretary stated that the two houses, as well as the library, were currently owned by Hennepin County. r The Commission reviewed the preliminary conceptual drawings of the site. Chairman Engdahl noted that it appeared that the property could be divided into four single family residential lots under the current zoning. The.Secretary explained that in order to prevent commercial traffic from driving through the residential area north of'the site, it was proposed to end Northport Drive in a cul - -de -sac at the property. In response to questions from Commissioner Hawes and Theis, the Secretary stated that it was his understanding that the library site and the two parcels to the north were to be included in the land transaction between Brooklyn Center Industrial Park and `Hennepin County. Commissioner Pierce inquired whether the parking in- dicated on the conceptual plan was adequate. The Secretary responded that the plans were conceptual only, and that they had not been reviewed with respect to parking. He explained that the parking required would be a function of the size of the building. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing was scheduled and recognized Mr. Jim Speckman who represented the applicant, and presented a conceptual rendering of the site and the building. He stated it was the applicant's intention to provide adequate 1- andscaping on the site and to retain existing plantings and the natural area - as much as possible. He stated it was the applicant's feeling that the office use would be a good buffer between the single family residential 1 , to the north and the office use to the south. He stated the maximum hours would be from apprximately 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and that there would be no evening traffic. He speculated that the future use of the library could be a service use which would be more intense than the use the applicant proposed. He stated the applicant had met with the neighbors to discuss the proposal and would be prepared to meet with the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Dennis Ewer, 5637 Northport Drive. Mr. Ewer sta�ed that he represented the views of two other neighbors who were unable to be prese t at the meeting. He stated that while he and his neighbors would prefer to rett the single family nature of the area, they anticipated that the property might gd to a more intense use. He stated that he and his neighbors had met with the applicant over the summer and that, provided the cul -de -sac were installed at Northport Drive, they would not be opposed to this use of the property. He con -, tinued that Northport Drive is currently being used as a "drag strip ", and that installation of the cul -de -sac would protect the single family residential area from park traffic as well as from the commercial traffic. 10 -5 -78 -2- Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. George Olson, 5459 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Olson explained that commercial uses had been proposed for this area in the past. He stated-that the traffic in the neighborhood was a problem, and that he did not regard a two story office building as a good buffer. He stated he was opposed to rezoning just the slaughterhouse property, and that if part of the strip between .53rd Avenue and County Road 10 were determined to be good for commercial uses, the entire strip should be zoned commercially. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mrs. Ziske, 5455 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mrs. -Ziske stated she lived at the corner of 55th and Brooklyn Boulevard. She stated that there was a serious traffic problem at the intersection and that she did not feel the area was a desirable residential area. She recommended that the entire area between 53rd Avenue and County Road 10 be reviewed for rezoning to a Cl commercial use. She stated she was opposed to "spot commercial zoning. She also pointed out that the houses along Brooklyn Boulevard had been built prior to the Brookdale Shopping Center and the upgrading of Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Modeen, 5545 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Modeen stated he also represented his mother, who lived at 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Modeen stated he was against spot zoning of the property, particularly because of the traffic which would be generated by the use the applicant proposed. He stated the entire area should be rezoned or the current zoning should be retained. Chairman Engdahl recognized a. part owner of 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard who 'stated he had no objections to the rezoning application. Chairman Engdahl again recognized Mr. Speckman. Mr. Speckman stated that through his experience on the Planning Commission of another community, he had observed that an office use such as the one proposed did not generate a great deal of traffic. He stated that in addition to the staff automobiles, he would anticipate only approximately 8 to 12 cars per day. Chairman Engdahl again recognized Dennis Ewer, who stated he felt a Taw office would generate more traffic than 12 cars per day. Mr. Speckman responded that the business did not rely upon clients coming into the building, but that much of the business was conducted over the telephone and in court. Commissioner Hawes inquired whether the law firm would occupy the entire building. Mr. Speckman responded that it was the applicant's.goal to establish the building as a law center in approximately five years. He explained that in the meantime part of the building would be rented to compatible tenants, such as an insurance company. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING It was noted that no one else spoke relating to the application. Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Engdahl explained to the audience and the applicant that it was the policy of the Planning Commission to table all rezoning requests and refer them to the appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. He stated that the applicant and any interested neighbors were welcome to attend the South- west Neighborhood Group meeting. 10 -5 -78 -3- A discussion ensued. The Secretary commented the Commission should take the dis- cussion of the neighboring property owners into account when reviewing the Compre- hensive Plan recommendations for the area. He stated the Comprehensive Plan speaks to maintaining the area as a viable residential area; but that the discussion with the neighbors indicated that people do not feel the area is a viable single family residential area. He stated that from the discussion it also seemed im portant that a cul -de -sac installed on Northport Drive in order to break up the flow of traffic from Brooklyn Boulevard towards the residential area. He continued that the issue was not an easy one. He explained that the Commission_ would con- tinue to look for input from those who would be most affected by the rezoning, including the residents of the area. Commissioner Pierce commented that it was the Commission's responsibility to determine highest and best land uses for the area. He stated he thought that because of the proximity of the regional shopping center that this particular area was pressured for commercial rezoning. He stated he preferred to look at the area as a whole rather than at individual properties on piecemeal basis. The City Engineer responded to the concerns raised regarding traffic generation. He stated that it was necessary to look at the types of traffic generation that would be allowed by the zoning of the property, not just the specific proposal, - f because it was possible that the use would change over the years. Commissioner, P Pierce pointed out that an example of a use changing would be the Library use. The Secretary emphasized that all uses which are permitted in the Cl zone must be considered for this property under the rezoning proposal. Commissioner Theis inquired as to how many trips per day would be.generated by an office use. The City Engineer responded that based upon a studylcompleted by BRW, Inc. three years ago regarding the Industrial Park office us' :es, fourteen trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of building was generated, which would mean approximately 4 2.10 trips -per day for the size building indicated by the applicant. Commissioner Theis asked the City Engineer to compare the office ',trip generation - with a single family trip generation if the property were divided into four single family lots. The City Engineer responded that a single family property generated approximately 12 trips per day, which would mean 48 total trips per day as compared to 200 trips per day for the office use. TABLE APPLICATION NO. 78058 (Brooklyn Properties) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissionerltheis seconded by Commissioner Pierce to table Application No. 78058 submitted by Brooklyn Properties and to refer it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group forlreview and comment. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78060 (Brookdale Ford) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78060 submitted by Brookdale Ford. The Secretary stated the applicant sought site and building plan approval for various building additions to the property located at 2500 County Road 10. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and stated that the applicant proposed an approximate 25 ft. by 47 ft. office addition, a 42 ft;. by 175 ft. addition to the service garage on the north side of the existing building, and a 35 ft..by 72 ft. addition to the freestanding body shop located on the east edge of the site. He explained that the Commission has reviewed a re�ised master plan and landscape plan for Brookdale Ford on July 13, 1978. He stated that at that time the applicant had indicated they would seek approval at a later date for the various additions to their site. He stated the plans were being incorporated with the revised master plan and seemed to be in order. He reviewed the recom mended conditions of approval 10 -5 -78 -4- i I 0 L4--1 c I I NORT11,"AY DR. ------- CIA 4 , v r 1 - k 1 ki �'ZJE T y I /* 0 14T y , 01 C 2 Aflewc-11-riolq N 0 R T il-4 0 IR T p 4RK ,,Ct400L - V A 1, 0 LLLL!d , I r t MI14UTES OF THE PROCFFDI !`1GS OF THE SOUTHWEST ADVISORY 1 1EETI.a`7 OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNE -t'Iii COUNTY, MINN. Qa L-e: November B, 1978 Purpose: Discuss Rezoning Request /Application - 97SO5II Petitioner: Dean Nyqu Property: 5637 Brooklyn Blvd, rezone from R1 to C1 Con cens Oni n on_ ILi ti n a: Rezone from R1 to C1 all existing property, starting with and including the Northport Medical `Center, 5415 Brooklyn Blvd. up to and inciudinq the old slaughter house property, 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. Meetin 11i mute Call to Ord er: �1i l l i am Ha %qcs, member of the Brooklyn Center planning commission and beau t?1: the Southarest Advisory. Group called the e-eti , c1 t� order_ at 7:35'.1. He requested that one of the Southwest inemoers head the m^eti ng,, and selected John Ki ghtl i nger, 5127 France N. John also took notes for the minutes. ife� f i rtq Prh,oce edi nos : T hy: meeti rIg cons i sted of the following 1. Reading of the rezoning request 2. brief discussion by the Advisory Group members of the opi n i ors and thoughts they had received from tr,eir neighbcrhood. - 3. Presentation by Jaii1 s Speckm n for the law i rm propos i nag .:�i;e bu 4.. Questions and discussion. .5. Meeting proposal, Motion l. Rozoni no f.c nest Mr. Hawos read the rezoning application 778056 2. Adviso g rq g. mem, e °s discussion Traffic concerns, alternate office space, build :1 Northport School cr Hennepin County Library possible use. other space available. L . 3. Pres of propo b uilding At James Speckman of the law firm seeking the rezoning gave a brief rev e- of the boiling and the land site proposals. He used several drati:Angs and ans c L!C- stions from the meeting. riembers. Page 2/ Rezoning Request/ Southwest Advisory Group Meeting Noveriber 8, 1978 4. quest an d Discussion For the following residents, name, address and question or coa,m4.:nts were recorded. - Berg, 5700 North Planning Coy ai ss i on should disallow the request. Mr. Berg believes the advance of the buildings in a long- tim4_established residential area is an encroachment. He feels someone shcold draw - ate line now, and hault any further development of this type. Willia 5736 Ju ne N Q. Why here? A. Convenience, accessab lity. Q. Is there any othe- vacant property available for rent nearby? A. No. Q. Can they uYe Northport School A. At this point. Dist. 281 Goes not plan to close Northport. Q. Additional tr<, f f i c A. Study shoiis 200 trips per day. 1 Olson, 5459 B; , 00kl , n Bl vd. Trtzff'ic is the main rarobl:m. We should be concerned with the additional traffic coming in off of 56th. Ave. N. Moden, 5545 Brooklyn Blv Concerned about traffic returning North out of the building. The building of a cul -de- sac w discussed for No►Ithport Drive at the parking lot by the playground. Residents south of the avenue were afraid it would cause more traffic. Carls 59 Ewing i J. Q. What was the result of a traffic study involving Brooklyn Blvd. a feet years ago? A. Brooklyn Blvd is a major emphasis of the overall comprehensive plan, Berg, 5700 Northport Q.. Asked about the investment purposes of the law firm. A. There is a signed purchase order pending rezoning. Haves Plannin Commi ssion M Read the types of buildings that could be built on Cl zoned property. E wer, 5637 Northport Felt the professional building is the lesser of other evils. Asked for information on the swap arrangement which was brought about by the new Hennepin County regional library nrnnnsa fnr Shi nnl P rrnni Pao n.mv Page 3/ Rezoning Request /Southwest Advisory Group fleeting November 8, 1978 4. Questions and Di (continued) Ber 5700 Nort hport Made a motion to' recommend to disallow the rezoning request. The motion did not receive a second. Olson, 545 * Brooklyn Blvd. tc�e a motion to rcz:c;ne from the Northport f iedi cal Offices up to Bass Lake Road as all C--1, but withdrew the motion. A 'rot ed Pot1 on Olson, 5459 Brooklyn Blvd. Reworded his notion to read: "Rezone from RI to CZ all existing property, starting with and including the Northport Ilcdicz,l Centers, 5415 Brooklyn Blind. up to and including -h` old slaughter house property, 5637 Brooklyn Blvd." The motion was secoIded by Anderson, 5549 Brooklyn Blvd. The motioli carried: 10 for, 1 opposed, 6 riot voting. Minutes submitted by: List of res atten att ached . t t - - -- ........ ....� _ ... ..�l7/ 24 ��/z -y�• L%' ".��19� "��fi���� " ✓�` "!a"'�„�_. ..f.. Ufa �`j �,� ".- G- •. _ � -�_ v - �� _122 3 s_ -3 Va A _ jJf}� j / "� / �� (f� /j1 // ♦�- gv �( / ✓ / / / / �J � � y��j ( //�)� � �/ � ,._. ��P�l /`.rV4 �"_`F I•' 1 j V..��?�. -� l�liG�� � � •'+ � /l W'�•'"_ „ _ °�_ d'��. �' ^4- ��(� _ �_�� � /��. ) l _ -.a w— •r wr •- •� _.._- t. —... ._ «.. ` v... .l• ..... .ti... • ... _. .. .r. «• . ♦• .... ..•. l.'`I. ..n. .ein �• v..•.. ..a.:. l.�w .... .. .. .. .. • _.. Section 35 -208. REZONII,'G EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of - the comprehensive planning and land use classif ications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes 'to thin Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resoiu No. 77 -167, - the City Council has establishea a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Poli It is the policy of the City that a) zoning clas sifications must be consistent with - the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning defined as a z6ning .decision Which discrir-inates in fatror of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Corrprehe�isive Plan or to accepted planning principles. _ 3. Procedure. Each rezoning proposal will. be considered on i ts merits, measured against 'the above policy and against these guidelines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. !guidelines. - (a) Is there a clear and public need, or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with . ° surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses-in - the proposed zoning dis'tri be contemplated for development of - the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes - in the area since 'the subject - property was zoned? (e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is - there a inroad public purpose evident? (f) Will 'the subject property bear fully 'the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts ? • (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or loca tion? ..' . - (h) Will the rezoning result'in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) - the lack of developable land in - the proposed zoning district; or 3) 'the best interests _ of - the community? ' i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond - the interests of-an The City�ltlanager introduced the next item of business, Planning Commission that of Planning Commission. Application No. 76053 Application No. 76053 --� submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center.` He stated that (City of Brooklyn the application pertains to th rezoning of the existing Center) library site and other adjacent property. He explained that Hennepin County had originally planned to construct a Regional Library and Servico C onter facility at the existing librar, site but, at the u ;sing of the City, the County Board had decided to sv :itch the location of the facility to a 10 acre site near Central Park in the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park which has expansion capabilities. • He further explained that a condition of the bid for the purchase of the Industrial Park site % as that the seller, B.C.I. P., Inc., would acquire the present library site and the adjacent County -owned land. The Director of Planning and I: procce?ed with a i 1-71ev of Planning Commission A plicaeion No. 76053 and the Planning Commission action at its October 14, 1976 and November 4 1976 meetings. He stated that the application comprehends rezoning, from R -1 to C -1, all or part of the property at 5601 -5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that the Planning Commission had initially reviewed and tabled the application on October 14 and referred the matter to the Southwest lNeighborhood Adviso Group for further review and comment, and had specifically requested the consideration of two possible approaches: 1 Rezoning of the library site and additional land needed for parking space only, as initially submitted; 2. Rezoning of all of the property owned by the County and possibly additional property south of 57 tl. Avenue North, He stated that the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group had met on November 2, 1976 and had recommended that the County- opi=ned land south of the south property line at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard (extended', to Northport Drive) be rezoned from R -1 to C -1 , and that the large parcel currently addressed as 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard not be rezoned. He further stated that the Planning Commission, - on November 4, 1976, had recommended approval of the application consistent with the recommendation of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed various slides and a transparency showing the location 4 and configuration of the subject library site and adjacent County -owned property. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the slides and transparency, the specific location of various parcels involved in tl:c rezoning application and the amount of land rccluired for parking purposes based on the potential use of the library building as ,a me dical or dental clinic, 11 -22 -76 -4- ' ` Public Hearing Mayor Cohen olr-ned the met ,ting to notified prop<•rty • ovrncrs and r'0ted that, the rec;idcnts of 5637 and 5643 Northport Dive were in attendance, The Mayor then recognized Mr. Harold I'eue,helm represc.rnti,ut•B<,C.I.P., Inc. Mr. Feucrhelm stated that it war? 13.C,I,P,'� hope that if all of the pre ocrt7 .,3s under their control that it v ✓ould be zonec'. t` arnc. He further stated tint thuv had assuined that tL^ litrary site and the adjacent pro V:•ould all he rezoned to C -1 . 110 explained that B.C.I.P.'s bid on the property eras on the basis that the property %vas commercial, riot resiclen- tial, and that this proposed do•:•.•n zoning, fc` a ; c,rtion of the property would be son.cv.hat of a financial loss Councilman Jensen inquired of Mr. Feue:lin -I n as to E. C.I.P.'s plan: fc .._ it e .. >. r.r.,_. C IIe respor.:et.:ihat it is difficult to ect ...._:IC at `` i. o time what would be proposed for the poperty, but that B.C.I,P, would want to maximize its imestmcnt. In response to an inquiry by Councilman. Figr.ar the f Director of Planning and Inspection read from tho ordinance the permitted uses in the C -1 district and added that no special uses are permitted. Mayor Cohen next recognized Mr. Evier, 5637 Northport Drive, who stated that all of his neighbors teat he has conversed with are against rezoning all of the ' property I to commercial. He further stated that he favors the recommendation to rezone only the property south of the • slaughterhouse (currently addressed as 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard), which contains the present library site and r - enough land for parking requirements anal that none of the neighborhood property owners have obiec*ed to this proposal. He explained that by keeping the slaught r- � t house property resident: al there would be an adequate buffer between the commercial -and neighboring residential i Property. Mayor Cohen asked if B.C.I,P.'s position regarding C -1 zoning for all of the property had been put forth at ihE Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Peuerlielm .responded that he thouc;ht it had. The Mayor then inquired if there were furthor comments from persons in attendance; there being none, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Cohen commented that lie agrees with- the recom- mendation to rezone only the property south of 563.7 Brooklyn Boulevard, Ile stated that he was of t c opinion, that if it is decided to modify this recommendation; it should be sent back to the Planning Commission and the Neighborhood Advisory Group for further review and public hcaringLprior to Council deliberation. • E ® Councilman Jenscn.concurred with the Mayor's statement and added that he understands the economic reason!, for t B,C.I.P.'s desire to have all of the property zoned C -L, 1` but that at this time there are no concrete proposals for s the propc,rty other than i.he library site itself. Iio stated' that the property not recommended for C -1 zoning is viable K -1 property and s }could remain as such tntlo , s and until a bona fide proposal for C -1 use is submitted. a Uouncilr»an 11(inar dis<sgrccd with Cuunciinuan Jon ^.-can and stated ?pis opinion that the pio perty, other thr-in ihtxt portion which �n✓oull face thr- par,:, Jr, not viable R -1 property. A brief di. >cusrir,n CPSUed rt�l,Itive to the residential viability of the sliiurihtc :rhouse property. I' Councilman Britts stated that iic does not object to the i` Planning Commission rec fo( reaoni Zg and that he appreciates the differing points of view expressed' by B.C.I.P. and the neigh g property osbo :ir: ner,� C regarding t , the zoning for the siaughte-rhouse property. Councilman Kuefler commented that he too understands. r the differing concerns but does not favor aiterir g the recomrnen, iation at this time. Councilman Fignar expressed the opinion that all of the County- o� -,ned propert=✓ aroL nd the library s si:ot< re7 ld be 0 ; ot �? ` C -1 . e then COir alt , ry as t (7i th l lac'' of attOndLince Of neighboring p Cpertj� OT.IIie(3 at this evening's Council meeting and stated that concerned persons should make more of an effort to address the City Council on matters such as this, rather than just assuming that the City Council will automatically accept a recommendation Put before it by an Advisory Commission. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Action Approving Jensen to approve Planning Commission Application No. Planning Commission 76053 initiated by the City, consistent with the recom- Application No. 76053 mendation of the Southwest %Neighborhood Ad Grcup (City of Brooklyn and the Planning Commission that the County -owned Center) • property south of the south line of parcel No. 3675, also known as 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard, extended to • Northport Drive, be rezoned from R -1 to C -1 Following the motion and second thereof further discussion ensued with Councilman Britts inquiring if the portion of the County -owned property north of the south line of parcel No. 3675 could again be reviewed for rezoning Purposes at a later time. �i The City Manager. responded that rezoning could again be considered, perhaps when a concrete proposal is developed for the slaughterhouse property, Councilman Britts inquired if such a rezoning for a relatively small parcel of land would constitute "spot zoning". The City INlanager responded that such an action would not necessarily constitute "spot zoning" if a record exists that would indicate that the City Council will consider rezoning of the property if and when a specific proposal for a C -1 use is submitted. Following further discussion a vote on the motion for approval of Planning Commission Application No. 76053 was taken. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefier and Jensen. Voting against: Councilman Fignar. The motion passed. Mayor Cohen commented on vacant properties located on • the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 53rd Avenue North and County Road 10. Ho statr�ri the opinion that the Planning Commission should review this area for consideration of a possible recommonclation to rezone the entire area. The City 'Manager pointr:d out that the Statr. 11- 22--76 mandated local comprehensive planning process is expec tc,cl icy bein sc?ri.t: tina�r in 1 977 , and sugge: tc cl that dw ing that proco ss it � -, ould bo appropriate to stu the land use configuration. Fallowing further ci c N �`s ussion it was the consensus of the Council that there could be further review of the slaughterhouse property for possible rezoning if a .� sp( ro o -ii is nut fo rth. VIM '_ „i, .:: ,• .. .•.,....:. w,r..,- ...w.sr- w,.�.. ,. ..F..vd'w w r.,:,.s ..ww... °..tC. '� " a 1 . a • { i - Planning Commission Information Sheet 4 Application No. 78061 Applicant: Robert Fors /Andrew Gunn Development Company Location: 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use, Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is seeking special use permit, site and building plan approval for a 6,000 sq. ft. building proposed for use as a day care facility /Montessori School on the R5 property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard. The applicant feels that this proposed building could', at a future date, be converted to a Service /Office type use if the day care facility.did not prove successful A special use permit is required with the application because a Cl use is being contemplated in an R5 Zoning District. Also, a determination would have to be made, that this proposed day care use represents a proposal similar in nature to other Cl uses and that it is compatible with the following four criteria for determining the compatib- ility of a C1 use in the R5 Zoning District: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as those uses permitted in the R5 District, generally; 2. Complimentary to existing adjacent land uses as well as those uses permitted in the R5 District, generally; 3. Of comparable intensity.to permitted R5 District land uses with respect to activity levels; 4. Planned and designed to assure the generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact on those facilities, the immediate neighborhood or the community. The Commission must also take into consideration the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in Section 35 -220 (2) which is attached with the agenda materials. This application was considered and a public hearing was held by the Planning Commis- sion on October 5, 1978. At that time, the Commission indicated their feelings that the proposed day care use represents a proposal that is similar in nature and com- patible to other Cl uses. The item was tabled to allow the applicant to prepare complete plans and to meet with the neighborhood regarding neighborhood concerns. We expect to receive completed plans with various revisions prior to Thursday's meeting. We have suggested the inclusion of a traffic bump in the driveway to slow traffic down particularly because of the proposed use. Also, it is recommended` that a chain be installed across the curb cut proposed for 65th Avenue North as an attempt to discourage cut- through traffic which was a concern raised during the public hearing. It is not felt that the proposed use of the property would have an adverse impact on available public facilities nor would it be any more of an adverse effect on the immediate neighborhood or community than would the development of the parcel under its present R5 zoning. The public hearing was held on October 5, 1978. Informational notices have been sent regarding this meeting. Approval of this application should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 12z7-78 `Application No. 78061 Page 2 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements 4. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be connected to an approved central monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and /or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. All landscaped areas shall be equipped with an underground_ irrigation system as approved by the City Engineer, 7. Plan approval comprehends using existing trees and plantings to provide the ordinance required screening between this property and the R1 property to the north of the site in lieu of a four foot high opaque fence or wall. 'I 8. The property is subject to replatting prior to the issuance of the building permits. • 9. The special use permit is issued to the applicant and is nontransferable. 10. The proposed day care use must be appropriately licensed by the State of Minnesota and a current copy of any required licenses shall be kept on file with the City. 12 -7 -78 E t Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78061 Applicant: Robert Fors /Andrew Gunn Development Company Location: 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use, Site and Building Plan Approval i The applicant is seeking special use permit, site and building plan approval for a 6,000 sq. ft. building proposed for use as a day care facility /Montessori School on the R5 property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard. The applicant feels that this proposed building could, at a future date, be converted to a service /office type use if the day care €acility did not prove successful. A special use permit is _ required with this application because a Cl use is being contemplated in a R5 Zoning District. Also, a determination would have to be made, first of all, that this proposed day care use represents a proposal that is similar in nature to other Cl uses and secondly, is compatible with the following four criteria used for determining the compatibility of a Cl use in the R5 Zoning District: 1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as those uses permitted in the R5 District, generally; 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as those uses permitted in the R5 District generally; 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted R5 District land uses with respect to activity levels; 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will f be within the capacity of available public facilities and 3 will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. The Commission must also take into consideration the standards fora special use permit contained in Section 35 -220 ,(2) which is attached with the agenda materials. t The applicant has submitted a site plan, and a Proof of Parking which indicates 30 parking spaces could be provided should the building be converted to a service/ office use. He is requesting deferring some of this parking because there would not be a great need associated with the day care facility. This proposed day care use must be licensed by the State Department of Public Welfare. We have requested, as required by the Ordinance, additional plans such as drainage and grading plans as well as floor plans and elevations which have not, as yet, been received. We have also indicated to the applicant that replatting of the property would also be required. This application raises a number of planning concerns, in addition to the afore - mentioned matters, that should be addressed. The Comprehensive Plan, when address- ing recommendations for the West Central Neighborhood, refers to areas that are vacant,, or subject to future change to a higher land use as being established as planned development districts, to be developed or redeveloped as a package de- velopment as opposed to individual lots, and only if appropriate uses are proposed. 10 -5 -7$ , Application No. 78061 Page 2 This parcel is the only R5 parcel north of 65th Avenue and west of Brooklyn Boulevard which has access onto two streets (65th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard). This parcel could conceivably be "a key to some type of package develop- ment to the north. Also in question is whether or not, the development would have an adverse effect on the parcel immediately to the south which also contains a single family dwelling of the approximate same age The applicant has supplied us with a copy of a restrictive covenant that effects many of the properties in this general vicinity, (but not the property in question). It points out that a package development is, in all likelihood, impractical because the covenant restricts uses to single family residential uses unless approval is given by neighboring property owners to permit commercial development. These matters raise - a number of concerns that tie into the Comprehensive Planning process that is already under way. The Planning Consultant has been informed about this proposal and the various issues raised and intends to address this matter in their review of Brooklyn Boulevard. Recommendation In light of these concerns, I would suggest the Commission discuss these matters and provide direction with regard to determining that the proposed use is, or is not, similar to other Cl uses, and whether it would be compatible in this R5 Zoning District. Also, notices regarding the special use permit have been sent to neighboring property owners and their comments should also be solicited. I would, in light of the lack of adequate plans, and because of the planning con- siderations raised, recommend tabling this matter for further in depth review. 10 -5 -78 . RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78060 (Brookdaie Ford) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded • by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 78060 subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The buildings are to be equipped with automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 3. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 4. The property shall be r_eplatted_in accordance with Section 35 -540 of the City Ordinances. 5. The conceputal 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 "pier" effect shown on the plans shall be uniformly 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. The motion passed unanimously. A PPLICATION NO. 78061 (Robert Fars /Andrew Gunn Development Company) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78061 submitted by Robert Fors/Andrew Gunn Development Company. The Secretary stated the applicant sought a special use permit and site and building plan approval for a day care facility/ Montessori School on the R5 (Multiple Family Residential) property located at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and stated the applicant pro- posed to build a 6,000 sq. ft. building on the subject property, for use as a day care facility. He continued that the applicant felt that the proposed building could, at a future date, be converted to a service /office type use if the day care facility did not prove successful: He stated that the special use permit was required with the application because a Cl (Service /Office) was being contemplated in the R5 (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. He stated it would also be necessary to make a determination that the proposed day care use is similar in nature to other permitted Cl uses, and that it is compatible with the four critieria used for determining the compatibility of a C1 use in the R5 Zoning District. He reviewed the compatibility criteria. The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a site plan, and a Proof of Parking Plan which indicated 30 parking spaces could be provided should the building be converted to an office use. He stated the applicant sought deferral of some of this parking because there would not be a great parking need associated with the day care facility. 10 -5 -78 -6- .He added that the proposed day care use must be licensed by the State Department of Public Welfare. The Secretary stated that additional plans such as grading and • drainage plans, as well as floor plans and elevations had not yet been received. He added that the applicant was aware that replatting of the property would be required. The Secretary explained that the application raised a number of planning concerns which should be addressed. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that areas which are vacant or subject to future change to a higher land use in the West Central Neighborhood be established as planned development districts, to be developed or redeveloped as a package development as opposed to lot by lot develop- ment, and only if appropriate uses are proposed. The Secretary also explained that the parcel is the only R5 zoned parcel north of 65th Avenue on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard which has access onto two streets (65th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard). He explained that the parcel could conceivably be a key to some type of package development to the north, and added that there was also a question whether the development would have an adverse effect on the possibility of developing the parcel immediately to the south which also contains a single family dwelling of the approximate -same age as the dwell - ing on the subject property. The Secretary pointed out that many of the properties contained in the Northgate Addition were subject to a restrictive covenant. He stated that while the property in question was not a part of the Northgate Addition and was not subject to the' covenant, many of the properties in the immediate vicinity were. He stated the applicant had supplied a copy of the restrictive covenant and an attorney's o 's likelihood, in all 11 a a development i_ , opinion which points out that a package deve , P P P 9 P impractical because the covenant restricts uses to singl -e _family residential uses unless approval is given by neighboring property owners for commercial development. The Secretary commented that the proposal raised a number of concerns that -tied into the Comprehensive Planning process already under way. He stated the Planning Consultant had been informed about the proposal and the various issues raised, and intends to address the matter in the review of Brooklyn Boulevard. He suggested that the Commission discuss the application and provide direction with regard to determining whether the proposed use is, or is not, similar to other Cl uses, and whether it would be compatible in this R5 Zoning District. A discussion ensued relative to the application. Commissioner Hawes inquired whether there was any access to the large R5 parcel south of the Freeway from Indiana Avenue North. The Secretary responded that it appeared access would be available to that parcel from Indiana, but that it was an undesirable access since it would funnel traffic through the single family residential area. The City Engineer discussed the road configuration in the area. In a brief discussion regarding the restrictive covenant on the neighboring property, the Secretary pointed out the properties which were subject to the covenant, and noted that the property under consideration and the property im- mediately to the south were not effected. He also noted that it was important to recognize that it was possible to lift covenants. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Robert Fors, who represented the applicant. Mr. Fors provided the Commission with copies of the covenant and of the attorney's opinion. He discussed the proposal and stated a single story brick .building was proposed to be located in the front part of the property. He stated there were approximately 250 trees on the lot which would screen the activity from the properties to the rear. He stated a fenced play area was proposed in the front of the building along Brooklyn Boulevard. 10 -5 -78 -7- The Commission reviewed the site plan. The Secretary stated that many access ,alternatives had been discussed for the property, but that it was thought that the access from 65th Avenue North was the best alternative. He also stated that the applicant did not propose any screening in addition to the trees located on the property. Commission Theis inquired as to the type of tree. Mr. Fors responded that the majority of the trees on the lot were Norway Pines. The Secretary commented that the ordinance provides for screening as approved by the City Council, and that fencing was not specifically required. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl, Mr. Fors stated that the children would be strictly supervised at all times, and that they would not be praying outside of the fenced area in the front yard. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman P Engdahl announced that a public hearin g was scheduled and recognized 9 Mr.'Friedl, 4012 - 65th Avenue North, who stated his concern was with the con- figuration of the property. He showed the Commission a photocopy of the County Section Map which showed both his property and the applicant's property. He stated he proposed a property exchange which would "square off both his lot and the applicant's property. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether he had discussed the proposal with the applicant. He responded that he had and that the applicant was agreeable. The Secretary stated that replatting of the property would be required as a condition of approval and that the lot line alteration could be taken care of at that time. The Commission briefly discussed the replat and the City Engineer stated that it would appear that the proposed modifications would be acceptable. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Richard Sturgis, 4013 - 65th Avenue North. Mr. Sturgis stated he was opposed to the application because of the traffic generatio He stated that the traffic on 65th Avenue was very heavy and that .even though a 15 mile per hour.limit was posted on the S curve where 65th Avenue comes out to Brooklyn Boulevard, it was not observed. He stated that he thought that access onto the curve was undesirable and dangerous. He pointed out that traffic from_ an apartment complex and a dentist's office already had access onto 65th Avenue. He stated his opinion that nothing could destroy, a neighborhood more quickly than, traffic problems and reckless driving. He continued that the corner of his - property was deteriorated because of the traffic, and that several neighbors had experienced property damage.. He suggested that stop signs be installed at 65th Avenue which would have the effect of sending traffic to 63rd Avenue. He stated he felt a traffic light at the intersection would be undesirable, and that it would cause an even greater increase in traffic. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Bill Williams, 4018 - 65th Avenue North. Mr. I Williams stated that while he had no objection to the school use, he did not like, the idea of its converting to an office use at a later date. He also _stated that, he was not in favor of deferring the required parking because he felt that during special activities on the school property, it would be inevitable that there would be parking on the single family properties. He stated that he too felt that access onto 65th Avenue was dangerous because of the curve, and that he was not in favor of a traffic light at the intersection. i Chairman Engdahl stated that if the parking would prove to be inadequate as installed, the applicant would be required to install the remainder of the re- quired parking. 10 -5 -7$ -8- I - vhairman Engdahl recognized Mrs. Schwartz, 4006 65th Avenue North. Mrs. Schwartz ` stated she agreed with the comments of the other neighbors regarding traffic and the dangerous onto 65th Avenue. She asked how many children would attend the school. Mr. Fors responded that the number of children would be determined by the State, and that he thought it would approximately 40 to 60 children. Mrs. Schwartz commented that that would mean there could be 40 to 60 cars per day dropping children off in the morning and picking children up at night: Mr. Williams inquired as to the hours of the school. Mr. Fors responded that the children would start arriving at 6:30 a.m. and that all the children would be picked up by 6:00 p.m. He added that there would be no traffic in the evenings or on weekends. Mr. Sturgis pointed out that this would mean that all.the traffic coming to and from the school would be during the peak traffic hours. Chairman Engdahl inquired as to how many trips per day would be generated by a multiple family use. The City Engineer responded it appeared that a 14 unit apartment could be built on the site, and that at 6 to 6 trips per day per unit, that would mean approximately 120 trips per day for the site. Chairman Engdahl pointed out that the school use had a less intense traffic generation than an apartment use. Mr. Fors suggested that perhaps some type of barrier such as a chain could be installed across the driveway in order to prevent drive- through traffic when the school was not in use. Commissioner Theis inquired as to whether the owner of the property to the south had been contacted. Mr.-Fors responded that that owner had been contacted and was not favorable to selling the property at this time. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce - regarding the building size, Mr.- Fors - stated that the 6,000 sq. ft. size was designed to meet the needs of the school and was not specifically designed for the site. - CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING It was noted that no one else spoke relating to the application. Motion by Com- missioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Hawes stated his concern was that the parcel could be a key to a package development for the entire area. He stated that development of _this parcel independently of the other R5 zoned properties would cause a need for additional curb cuts onto Brooklyn Boulevard at a`later date. He stated he felt that perhaps it would be desirable to require an RS type development for the area. Commissioner Theis stated that he felt the R5 property to the north of the subject parcel could be developed in the future independently of the subject parcel. He stated his concern was with the parcel to the south of the subject property, which could possibly be cut off from future development. He stated he would like to see the parcel to the south developed with the applicant's property. Commissioner Pierce stated he had no objection to the school use in the C1 zone` and felt it was a compatible use. He added that he was concerned with the traffic generation of the proposed use and with the possible hazard of cars backing out onto Brooklyn Boulevard from the property. He also stated he was concerned with the development of the parcel to the south. He felt it would perhaps be optimal to combine the two parcels in order to allow for more flexible traffic flow. 1:0 -5 -7$ -9- t Chairman Engdahl stated that traffic and safety considerations were his major concerns, both for Brooklyn Boulevard and 65th Avenue. { The Secretary commented that the Commission should determine whether or not the • use is similar in nature to the permitted C1 uses so that the applicant could be directed to prepare complete plans. - He reviewed some of the Commission's concerns, including the possibility of requiring the inclusion of the property to the south in the proposal and the possibility of "holding out" for a common development of the areas as recommended by the Comprehensive Plana Chairman Engdahl stated he felt the use was compatible with the permitted Cl uses and with the uses permitted in the R5 zone. He polled the Commissioners. Commissioner Theis stated he felt the proposal,was compatible with the zone and the area, but that he preferred to see a package development with the parcel to the south. Commissioner Hawes agreed that the use was compatible, but that he was concerned with the necessity for additional curb cuts onto Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Pierce stated he felt the proposed use was compatible with permitted C1 uses, but that he was concerned with the conversion of the school use - to a Service /Office use. Chairman Engdahl explained to the applicant and to the audience that it was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed school use was compatible in nature to the permitted Cl uses, and that traffic consideration was a major concern. He continued that tabling of the application would be recommended in order to allow the applicant time to prepare complete plans and to meet with the neighborhood. TABLE APPLICATION NO. 78061_ (Robert Fors /Andrew Gunn Development Company) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to table Application No. 78061 submitted by Robert Fors /Andrew Gunn Development Company in order to allow the applicant time to prepare complete plans and to meet with the neighbor- hood regarding neighborhood concerns. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Pierce suggested that the Commission review the restrictive covenants with the affected property owners to determine whether or not those owners feel the property should retain their R1 nature. The Secretary pointed out that if it was the Commission's decision to act against the Comprehensive Plan recommend- ations for the area, the Comprehensive Plan should be revised. He stated this should be done within the framework of the current Comprehensive Planning process. The City Engineer stated that, in response to comments from the neighbors regarding 65th Avenue, it should be pointed out that 65th Avenue is designated as a collector street, and functions to collect traffic to Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that it was intended for heavier traffic than a normal single family residential street. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 10:20 and resumed at 10:50 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 78062 (Oasis Development Corporation) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78062 submitted by Oasis De- velopment Corporation. The Secretary explained that the applicant sought a special use permit and site and building plan approval to remodel and operate the existing Dayton Service Station located at 2605 County Road 10. 10 -5 -78 -10- t Y DOST 'FFICE I - r x TL MOUND Y r V. "ATFR� t_.._ I CEMETERY _ TOWER - - a - ��^ 86TH -. y -. i E - FREEWAY' -� PARK r , ti _ APPL 7-1 - -__ -- A/0. TF061 a T� T AV W X - -.... g X + , LAN - / W 'T X /�� - -- 0 -4-- W �, N p E Z 651H AVE , E 1 BROOKLANE PARK GARDEN CITY _ - SCHOOL � 64TH YA l.. - PARK \ ow 63RD AVE N. - Z FIRE ' ! i STA. c� W J s z a t N D 41, Q _ - — - N f; j �f � > WANGSTAa C f - ME _�1_ PARK Cl C2 Is m u / 1 \ i Member introduced the following resolution and moved i adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 27,500 GVW CAB & CHASSIS (FOR DUMP TRUCK) WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is authorized to participate in - the Hennepin County Purchasing Agreement; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, November 21,1978 at 2:00 p.m. bids were received for - the furnishing and delivery of light and heavy duty , trucks: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that - the bid of International Harvester Company, 3000 Broadway N. E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413, in - the amount of $13,5 in accordance witli - the specifications is deemed - to be - the best bid submitted by responsible bidders and said bid is hereby accepted. 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 BID TABULATION i 27,500 GVW Cab & Chassis Bid Date: November 21, 1978 Superior Ford $14,390.00 Bill Boyer Truck 14,124.00 Towns Edge Ford 15 Freeway Ford 14,456.00 International Harvester 13,512.34 • r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1 9 8 7 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS; Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide 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, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does also provide for the increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts exceed the estimates; and WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does' also provide for the transfer of unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund; and_ WHEREAS, Section 7.11 of the City Charter does also grant full authority to make permanent transfers between all funds which may be created, provided that such transfers are not inconsistent with the provisions of relevant covenants, the provisions of the Charter, or State Statute: g NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City -_ of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1978 General Fund Budget as follows: 1. Transfer $66,100 from the Contingency Appropriation (Account #01 -4995- 000 -82) to the following depart- mental appropriation in the amounts shown: City Manager's Office (City Insurance) (Dept. #13) $60,000 Elections & Voters' Registration - (Dept. " #14) 1,000 Legal Counsel (Dept. #18) "4,000 Animal Control (Dept. #35) 1,100 2. Increase the appropriations for the following depart- ments in the amount listed for the reason that the actual receipts from the activity exceeded the budget revenue estimate by at least the amount of the appro priation increase: Parks & Recreation (Adult Programs, Dept. #62) $20,000 RESOLUTION NO. 3. Transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from - one department to another as follows: Amount From To $436 Government Bldgs. (Dept. #19) Emergency Prep.. (Dept. #34) 4. Increase the General Fund Police Department Budget appropriation by $15,000 for Police PERA. This increased appropriation shall be funded by a transfer from the Employees Retirement Fund, Date May or 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 REDUCING ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL (LEVIES 7192 AND 7193) WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has caused the removal of diseased shade trees from certain properties under Section 19- 1504 of the City Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the property owners of these certain parcels of land have chosen to have the removal cost of said trees plus administrative fee and interest certified to Hennepin County for payment with their real estates taxes; and WHEREAS. said costs- -were certified to Hennepin County for collection on September 25, 1978; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has reimbursed the City of Brooklyn Center 37% of the removal costs for trees removed in 1977 and 28/ of the removal costs for trees removed in 1978 and the City in turn agrees to reiiiburse the property owners 37/ of the said property owner's share of said 1977 removal costs and 28/ of the said property owner's share of said 1978 removal costs, excluding administrative fee and interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to reduce the assessments for the following parcels: LEVY #7192 Original Amount of Corrected Pla P arcel PIN No. Assessment Credit Assessment 89036 0650 36- 119 -21 41 0006 17.64 2.10 15.54 89036 4014 36- 119 -21 34 0003 185.86 49.00 136.86 89102 3116 03- 118 -21 13 0006 225.58 59.08 166.50 89104 5423 25- 119 -21 33 0001 37.37 7.56 29.81 "89200 6400 03- 118 -21 43 0063 53.34 12.04 41.30 89225 2220 01- 118 -21 43 0059 46.15 9.94 36.21 89225 3150 01- 118 - 34 0003 298.92 80.50 218.42 89225 3255 01- 118 -21 34 0005 161.70 42.00 119.70 89225 6900 01- 118 -21 34 0096 254.66 85.99 168.67 Resolution No. Original Amount of Corrected Plat Parcel PIN No. Assessment Credit Assessment 89245 1050 33- 119 -21 41 0007 50.27 13.88 36.39 89260 2700 25- 119 -21 44 0007. 58.38 13.44 44.94 89350 6400 01- 118 -21 33 0032 89.96 27.75 62.21 89560 4210 01- 118 -21 13 0037 225.67 59.64 166.03 89580 2400 02- 118 -21 41 0069 116.42 37.00 79.42 89580 3000 02- 118 -21 41 0075 162.05 42.00 120.05 89590 2400 02- 118 -21 44 0095 118.72 30.10 88.62 89600 5100 34- 119 -21 32 0108 35034 7.00 28.34 89615 5700 36 119 21 34 0063 24.70 4.06 20.64 89637 4100 27- 119 -21 32 0104 20.48 3.70 16.78 89950 8800 01- 118 -21 32 0116 96.68 27.07 72.60 90001. 2600 02-- 118 -21 42 0074 113.1.9 36.08 77.11 90040 6000 27- 119 -21 33 0038 187.39 49.00 138.39 90105 4500 10- 118 -21 14 0076 130.96 33.60 97.36 LEV #7193 Original Amount of Corrected Plat Parcel PIN No. Assessment Credit Assessment 89105 0215 36- 119 -21 12 0010 2,431.89 851.00 1,580.89 89240 6600 34- 119 -21 33 0022 812.05 221.55 590.50 89282 4000 03- 118 -21 22 0011 341.01 116.85 224.16 89350 3200 01 -118- 21.33 0016 338.08 115.81 222.27 89385 2750 01- 118 -21 42 0022 320.40 85.75 234.65 89439 4500 02- 118 -21 41 0028 364.78 98.00 266.78 Resolution No. Original Amount of Corrected Plat Parcel PIN No. Asse ssment Credit Assessment �. 89555 .6300 36- 119 -21 33 0038 340..70 91.35 249.35 89555 7000 36- 119 -21 33 0039. 499.14 135.10 364.04 89950 3030 01- 118 -21 32 0099 571.31 155.05 416.26 90033 2600 25- 119 -21 41 0045 388.36 132.28 256.08 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 REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR LOT 6, BLOCK 1, THE PONDS AND LOT 6, BLOCK 2, THE PONDS WHEREAS, on October. 27, 1978, the City of Brooklyn Center received a check in the amount of $1,155.37 from Title Services, Inc., in payment of the special assessments for Lot 6, Block 1, The Ponds; and WHEREAS, the payment of $1,155.37 was erroneously credited to Lot 6, Block 2, The Ponds; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 1978, the City of Brooklyn Center received a check from North Star Abstract in the amount of $1,155.37 in payment of special assessments for said Lot 6, Block 2, The Ponds; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center returned said check to North Star Abstract stating that assessments for said Lot 6, Block 2, The Ponds, had been previously paid in full; and I WHEREAS, on November 15, 1978, Hennepin County applied one years principal totalling $71.26 and interest totalling approximately $92.58 for a total of $163.84 to the tax rolls due in 1979 for said Lot 6, Block 1, The Ponds; and WHEREAS, the Meadow Corporation has submitted a check in the amount of $1,155.37 in payment of the special assessments for Lot 6, Block 1, The Ponds; and WHEREAS, the said interest amount of approximately $92.58 constitutes the interest for the year 1979; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City _Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows' l) To accept the check in the amount of $1,155.37 from the Meadow Corporation for special assessments for Lot 6, Block 1, The Ponds; and 2) To direct the Finance Director of Hennepin County to waive the interest for the year 1979 and cancel all assessments for said Lot 6, Block 1, The Ponds. Date Mayor Resolution No. ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in _favor thereof : - and the following Voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. f i i i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT,WITH THE CITY OF CRYSTAL RELATIVE TO PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICE TO CRYSTAL PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 10 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has indicated that the City of Crystal property owners on the north side of County Road No. 10 abutting the corporate limits would be allowed to connect to Brooklyn Center's utility system through the privately owned utility lines in the Twin Lake North apartment complex. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute an agreement with the City of Crystal relative to providing utility service to Crystal property owners on the north side of County Road No. 10 lying northerly of the easterly extension of 59th Avenue North and easterly of the northerly extension of Orchard Ave. No., consisting of approximately 4.42 acres. 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 yc� and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVTT.G PrELIMINAR.Y PI -ANS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND ROADWAY REVISIONS AT THE INTERSECTION OF T.H. 100 AND FRANCE AVENUE NORTH I BROOKLYN CENTER. WHEREAS the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has prepared preliminary plans for the improvement of a part of Trunk Highway Number 212 renumbered as Trunk Highway No. =100 within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, from Twin Lake to - France Avenue in Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS said preliminary plans are on file in the Office of the Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, Minnesota, being marked, i labeled, and identified as Layout No. lA S.P 2755 - 32 (100 =212) from Twin Lake to France Avenue in Brooklyn Center and WI-3EREAS copies of said preliminary plans as so marked, labeled, and identified are also on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS the term "said preliminary plans" as hereinafter used in the body of this resolution shall be deemed and intended to mean, i refer to,. and to incorporate the preliminary plans as in the foregoing recitals particularily identified and desr,6i�bed; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that said preliminary plans for the improvement of Trunk Highway Number 212 renumbered Trunk Highway Number 100 within the limits of the City of Brooklyn Center be and hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The intersection of France Avenue North with North Lilac Drive be amended to provide for France Avenue North to intersect with 48th Avenue North rather than North Lilac Drive in a design as approved by the City Engineer. 2. The plans be amended to provide for sidewalk and pedestrian crossing indicators on the traffic signals as approved by the City Engineer. 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 APPROVING FIVE YEAR MUNICIPAL STATE AID CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has the following current and projected Municipal State Aid funds available for a -five year Capital Improvements Program: Accumulated Funds Year _ Available 1978 Unexpended Bond Amount $752,448.59 Balance Available 579, 614.29 1,332, 062.88 1979 Est. Allotment Available for Const. 283,000.00 1,615,062.88 1980 Est. Allotment Available for Const 283,000.00 1,898,062.88_ 1981 Est. Allotment Available for Const. 250,000.00 2,148,062.88 1982 Est. Allotment Available for Const. 240,000 ® 00 2,388,062.88 1983 Est. Allotment Available for Const. 226,000.00 2,614,062.83' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the following conceptual Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvements Program is hereby approved: Estimated Year Location Cost 1979 Shingle Creek Parkway from 3900 North of County Road 10 to County Road 130 $1,100,000 -53rd Avenue - 4th Street to Penn Avenue 300,000 Traffic Signals at Humboldt Avenue & Freeway Boulevard 90,000 $1,490,000 1980 Xerxes Avenue from T.H. 100 to County Road 10 $ 100,000 Traffic Signals at following locations: Shingle Creek Parkway & Freeway Blvd., 90,000 RESOLUTION NO. Estimated Year Cost 1980 (cont'd) Shingle Creek Parkway & Summit Drive $ 90,000 Shingle Creek Parkway & County Road 130 90,000 $ _ 370, 000 1981 63rd Avenue from Bear -] Avenue to Xerxes Avenue $ 125,000 1982 Humboldt Avenue from 69th Avenue to 73rd Avenue $ 350,000 1983 - France Avenue from south corporate limits to 50th Avenue $ 250,000 -50th Avenue from France t& T.Hm 100 50,000 $ 300,000 Total Cost $2,635,000 Date Mayor ATTEST Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i c: , fXSr6+ai.:.Ly'i'✓'. a r- ,l' __, _'�: I %'rte -'s'.X° r f c �.- .F V rat a[ - i +� p... ` '. r A-. .. Y 4 / }'; i r wY-} 'lr • 1_ 1 �7 3 1 6M R� 'i -X .9 � ���c .� � ..itt�i PAL �E /, / lG� vARK // ., f �. �y} i� r � � .(�, cz f } r s � � / � +7 ,...' ti ' ? �rz, � � rob � t i � � �� lf�� � � �� ii Yy sf�� � � t ! - -� � - irt..�_ I �+x�{tl r _� �! c c��. � r .[ - �� 1- . �1 .. - ka ' `;I L��'i a `\ � r Ml..,�4�. _ • t 1 [- .. t �te^'v',.....� - sn { '2 j�i~ - �'_'l��kfh�.. �.i•� ^h�.,� � .... .....- � 4`a o^ `• # +arltuAr�.� —� ei4� ....... .. '} d M...}. r MNnfd 41M �0.T+va .:.,. J�L X 1 t J IL �� ; Y� /•'1 04tl0 1 - - � t , b� 7 �' �� %/ / �T � -fi I G d _ i q ....- rT i { �l �L_ � -- � �- t l t'_ tl C l 1 ... i �a' k4 i� �- __--•^ J r r 'fit `''- . - -... .,_ "'� may �Y`.7 •. r[ , /�tsl e. � _ I VV WIN d �1 _ 9 aii 11 di III :..�. .. , Y e I A _ q - JL- I 1 ,. a e LAKE ryry RYAN LAKE ` aao f J Illy 1' 1 lJ 1\ 0.J Q ® 1 1 `.� i J i` _ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -L (CONTRACTED BY CITY) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract No. 1978 -L signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, United Asphalt Co. Inc., has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Street Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -27 (Bituminous paving portion) James Circle from Freeway Boulevard to`570`feet + south of Freeway Boulevard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The work completed for said project under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract amount by $770.64 because of a general overestimation of the plan quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said project, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement project under said contract shall be $9,213.36. 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. J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SEVEN (7) PRESSURE DEMAND SELF CONTAINED AIR BREATHING APPARATUS WHEREAS, Chapter 471.345 of - the Minnesota Statutes provides for - the.: purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of construction work by informal quotations when - the amount of such contract is less 'than Len - thousand dollars ($10,000); and WHEREAS, 'the City Manager has obtained quotations on 'the purchase of seven pressure demand self contained air breathing units and has determined that ,the quotation of Elvin Safety Supply in - the amount of $573 each totaling $4,011 is - the best quo•ta,tion submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of - the City of Brooklyn Center that - the City Manager be authorized - to contract for the purchase of seven pressure demand self contained air breathing units in - the amount of $4,011 from Elvin Safety Supply. 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. QUOTATIONS FOR SEVEN PRESSURE DEMAND SELF CONTAINED AIR BREATHING APPARATUS WITH CASES 12/15/78 Unit S upplier Cost Total Elvin Safety Supply $573.00 $4,011.00 Coyer & Associa 615.00 4,305.00 Mid Central Fire Safety 595.00 4,165.00 6 of - these units are for - the Fire Department 'through Emergency Preparedness Budget. 1 unit is - to be used for Government Buildings in event of a chlorine leak. Member introduced the following resolution and fj moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OR MECHANICAL INVERT SPRAYING EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, Chapter 471.345 of the Minnesota Statutes provides for the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of construction work by informal quotations when the amount of such contract is less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000); and WHEREAS, the City Manager has obtained quotations on the purchase of weed spraying equipment and has determined that the quotation of Van -Waters & Rogers in the amount of $4,298.00 for mechanical invert spraying equipment is the best quotation submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager be authorized to contract for the purchase of mechanical invert spraying equipment in the amount of $4,298.00 from Van Waters & Rogers. 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. M CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NC7.�._.� AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE IMPERSONATION OF POLICE OFFICERS OR PUBLIC OFFICIALS THE CITE' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOV�S: Section 1 Chapter 19 of - the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn. Center is hereby amended by - the addition of - the following: Section. 19x=1900. Impersonation of a Police Officer_ or Public Offi It is unlaw fo arx person - to falsely impersonate or, in any manner, fals repre- sent h as a law enforcement officer, police officer, sheriff d at , s'ta•te ha.ghw apt rol officer or FBI agent or falsely impersonate or in any manner fals_e represe himself as a public official or public employee of the United S Governme State of Minnesota or any poli subdivision - thereof. , S ection 19-1901. Unlawful Possess or Use of Pol Uni�:orins Badg �_ _ _ or-E uipment. it is unlawful for any perso unless expressly authorize •to do so, 'to wear, use, employ, keep or possess, in any manner wha e a9 of , the follow 1. 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. A ny badge, emblem, shield i nsignia or de sign - �zsing the word or words " jpolice'" , "sheriff" # "depu "" , "-- , La'te patrol", "FBI", or ` °la e nforcement " or any badge, emblem, shield, insignia or design w hich imitates or c losely resembles those badges, emblem and - the like actually used by law enforcement agencies. S. 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 ex r essly permitted - to possess or use red lights by - the Commissioner of Public Safety pursuant - 'to Minnesota Statutes Section 169.64, Section -19 -1902. Separability Every section, provision or part of -this ordinan is declared separable from every other section, pro or part •to the extent th at if any section, provision or part of the ordinance shall be held invalid, such holdinx shall not invalid any other section, provision or part thereof o ORDINANCE NO. Section 19 -1903. Penalties . Whoever does any actsforbidden 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 wh commits or attempts to commit, conspires - to commit or aids and abets in the v 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, fra forcibly or willfully induces, causes, coerces, requires, perm or directs another - to vi olate any .of 'the provision of this chapter is likewise guilt of such offense. y 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 appoin•tment be revoked with or without cause and without notice by the Village Council at any time.] Sectio 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 -703. 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. rSection 23 -704. AUTHORITY RESTRICTION. It 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.] CSection 23 -706. REQUIREMENTS OF IDENTIFICATION. All applicants for appointment as special police officers shall submit to all reasonable regulations and requirements of - the Tillage of Brooklyn Center Police Department as - the same shall relate to identification, photographing and fingerprinting.] [ficti 23- 7 ,07. 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.] (sec 2 3 -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 appointment 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.] [ .tion -702 . 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.) 96 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: Section 23 -1800. Statemen of Policy. The City Council of the Ci•�y of - Brooklyn Center deems it necessary - to provide for - the special and express regula- tion of businesses or commercial ente which operate as. rap parlors, con- versation parlors, adult sensitivity groups, adult encounter oups, escor services, model services, dancing services or };ostess services in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and - to guard against - the inception and trans - mission of disease. The City Coun further finds that commercial enterprises as the •type describ above are susceptible of operation in a manner contravening subverting or endan gering -the morals of - the community thus requiring close inspection, licensing and regul The City Council also finds - that control and regulation of commercial establishments of these types, in view of the abuses often perpitrated, requires inten sive_ 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 com munity -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 a co of public services in one area to work to t he 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 p 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 "Conversa Parlor" or "Adult Encounter 2rou��'� 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, teache or 'therapis'ts who may talk 'to, listen 'to, discuss or have conversation_ with patrons or who deal in any way wi -th na•tron`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 "Es cort Service" or "Model Service" or "Dancing yagIMices" or "a o—s- Ss service" means any person, estahli.shmen't 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 o f 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, a dult sensitivity group or model escort, dancing or hostess service either • exclusively or in connection w 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 i a rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult sensit or adult encounter croup wi'thou't bei 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 com l e'te copies of 'the application must be submitted , to 'the City Manager's o ffice containing 'the add 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 applican-es, manager's, or opera•tor`.s character; whether -the applicant- manager. or operator has ever been convicted of a crime or offense o ther - than a - traffic, offense and, if so, complete and accurate in.forma'tion 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 o r furnishing or a cquir in g 'the premises, personal effects', e or anything incident - to the establishment, maintenance and operation of a rap parlor, conversa- tion 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 corporation, loin - bu siness denture, par�tn ershiu or anylegally constituted -; business association, it shall submit, along with mot: application, accurate and complete business records showing - the names and addresses of all individuals having an in terest in the busin includinq creditors furnishing credit for the establishment, a c_guis tion, maintenance and furnishing of said business and, in - the case of a co .4ation, the names and addresses of all officers, genera m an tiger members of the Board of Directors as well as any creditors who have extended credit for -th acquisition, maintenance, operation, or furnishinq of the establishment including the purchase or acc 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 d ocumentation establishing 'the interest of 'the applicant and any other person. having an interest in the premises upon which 'the buil proposed - to be located or in - the furnishin_ thereof e rsonal property - thereof, or the - operation or maintenance - t hereof. Documentati shall be in - the form o a lease, deed contract- for deed, mortgage deed, more credit arrangement, Ian agreements, securitv aw eements and any other documents establishi g 'the rot st of - Che applicant or env cyther person in - the operation acquisition or maintenance of . the enterprise o services as a rap parlor, . con versation arlor, adult encounter gr adult sensi�tivi*t rou escort p p. Y � p. service _model service dancinq service or hos - tess service. The application shall also contain blue prints, diagrams plans, layouts, and the like showing 'the construction, revision, remodeling, alteration or additions of or to the premises and specifically showing the. layout,- _design and arrangement of -the bathinct a nd res facilities and - the size a nd tvpe of ecfuipment and facilit to be used. Section 23 -1804. License Fee, License Investigation and License Year. T he annual license fee is $ 500 and - the annual fee for the inves for - the purposes of issuing a`license is $1,500. The license fee and fee for , the inves igaa- tio of the license shall be paid when the application is filed. In - the event that th 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 _ tion for - the issuance of a license shal b e returned - to - the applicant unless by .e- empress ac•tion of -the City Council. A separate license shall be obtained eac year for each place of business . The l icensee 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 li wherein additional or different parties other than the original licensee and parties are p roposing 'to be licensed All licenses granted herein are nontransferable. ORDINANCE NCB, 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 se 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, permitting and allowing the conduct of such business for the succeeding year. Licenses for the establishment or conduct of a rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter g adult sensitivity grou escort service, model service, dancing service or hostess service are nontrans- ferable. Section 23- 180 -6. Conditions Governing Issuance I . No license 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 o 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 activity. 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 not been similarly denied, revoked or suspended. 4. Licenses shall be issued only - to applicants who have answered fully and truthfully all of the information requested in the application, who have paid - the full license fee and fee for investigation and have coo erated 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. Livenses ma granted on in c conformity with 'th zoning ordinances of 'rhe 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. $. A license shall not be granted if granting the license (a) would be inconsistent with - the comprehensive development plans of 'the City, -- -- 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 i employ, agency or persons with ; an interest in such business shall comply with all applicable ordinances, regula and laws of 'the City o Brooklyn Cente and - the State of Minnesota, and United States GoiTernment. 2. if - the licensee is a partnership or a corporation, - the applicant shall 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 i writing by - the lice nsee. The l icensee 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 su cceeding day. S. 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. N o person under 18 years of acre shall be employed in an establish - ment re uiring a license under ehe provisions of this ordinance. 8. All equipment or persona]. property used in or for a rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity group, escort service, model service, dancing service or hos 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 sensi tivity group, escort service, model service, dancing service or host 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 microorganism 9. The licensee and all persons in i-ts employ or connected t herewith shall m aintain an o ccupancy or guest regi�sar by which each patron of the rap parlor, conversation parlor, adult encounter group, adult sensitivity croup, escort service, 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 - truthfully furnish his name, address and - telephone number to said guest register before 'the administration of anservices. 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 a ny 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 ears. 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 emplovees and attendants 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 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 funqus and must be kept in a sanitary condition which is defined as free from the vegetative ceps of pathogeni microorganisms. The floor -to- wall and wall joints shall be constructed to provide a sanitary cove with a minimum radius o one inc 3. All restrooms shall be provided with mechanical ventilation with - - 2 cfm per square foot of floor urea, 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 limite tq lap rooms_, conversation rooms, modeling rooms, dancin rooms, restrooins , bathrooms, janitor's closet, hallways, and reception area shall be illuminated with not less "than 30 foot c of illuminatio 5. Each establishment shall have a janitor's closet which shall provide for - the storage of cleaning supplies. Such closet shall have mechanical ventilation with 2 cfm per square foot of floor area. Such closet shall include a mop sink. 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. 1lealth a nd Disea 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, adul e ncounter 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 o suspected of being afflicted w ith any such disease or condition shall be employed or permitted in such an area or capacity. Section 23 =1811 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 of the following conduct: 1. Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing, of the license.. 2. Habitual drunkenness or intemperance in' 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, wel of morals Engaging in any conduct involving moral turpitude or,permit•ting 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 Brookes 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. Engaging in any conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal to issue a licen 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 regularlX 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 marri counseling services by a person, persons or businesses appropriately licensed by the State o Minnesota by local units of government or any other appropriate licensing authority. nor does this ordinance apply 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 applyto bona fide churches synagogues or institutions or organized religions or to seminars panel discussions or grour) classes sponsored by bona fide religious institutions or educational insti tutions S ection 23 -1813 Separability. Every section provision or part of this o rdinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part to - the extent that if any section_, provision or a par of - the o rdinance shall be held invalid, such holdings shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part thereof. Section 23 -1814. Penalties. Whoever does any act forbidden by this ordinance or omits or fails to do any act required by - this ordinance shall be quilts 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 ex ists constitutes a separate and distinct offense. Section 23 -1815. Liability for the Crimes of Another. i 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 connection with one or more persons or as principal, agent or accessory, shall be guilty 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 I, ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter.) MEMORANDUM TO- Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager F- ROM: Mary Harty, Administrative Assistant DATE; December 14, 1978 SUBJECT: Gambling and Bingo Licenses I. Co st s - The costs involved in administering the licensing of Bingo and Gambling can be broken down in to .four (4) parts: - Clerical, Inves4igative, Inspec- tion, Miscellaneous. A briof- summation and cost estimate of each area is listed. 1. Clerical Approximately 75% of one administrative clerk's position is devoted to licensing within the City. The clerk's duties include providing information to licensees on the phone and in person, corresponlir,g with licensees, maintaining license files, typing licenses, typing License informa tion for Council and staff a s well a s other related licensing tasks. Annual salary for the Clerk III position is $8,196 to $9,276. At this point it is difficult to estimate what portion of the 75% would be devoted to gambling and.bingo licensing. Trivesticfation The average number of hours needed to investigate a license applicant, manager is five hours. Background investigations would not vary sig- ficantly whether the operation was running one day or 350 days nor would the investigation be significantly different whether the operation was gambling or bingo. There would be a difference in cost only in terms of review and enforcement for an organization operating bingo or gambling fir longer periods of time. Review of the organizations records, as mandated by statute, would be more time consuming if the organizations operated for longer periods of time. Additionally, there may be greater enforcement needs created by longer running operations. With License renewals, background investigations would be less only if the same gambling or bingo manager was appointed year after year. Cost of investigation (personnel cost) is approximately $10 /hour or $50. Mr. Splinter -2- December 14, 1976 3. Inspection • Review of the license application includes an inspection of the premises covered by the application to determine whether the premises conform to all applicable code requirements. Inspections would be made by both the Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal. If the premises being in- spected meets code requirements the inspection and report would take approximately one hour (one hour for both the Building Inspector and Fire Marshal) . If the premises being inspected does not meet code require- ments an initial inspection, a compliance order, a follow -up inspection and report would be necessitated. In the case of noncompliance, approx- imately three hours would be required of both the Building Inspector and Fire Marshal. Cost of inspection (personnel cost) is approximately $10 /hour per inspector (for both Building Inspector and Fire Marshal) Minimum cost would be $20 and maximum cost would be $60. 4. Miscellaneous Miscellaneous costs would include the printing costs of the licenses and application forms, postage and paper costs. These costs are neg- ligible, amounting to approximately one dollar per application. Other one time miscellaneous costs include the cost of the time devoted by the City Attorney and other City staff in preparing the ordinance, the application forms and other pertinent information. II. Considerations: In making a decision on the license fee and investigation fee for gambling and bingo the following issues should be considered: 1. The State .mandates that a City must license gambling and bingo before it can be permitted within that City. If a City does not recover the cost for administering the licensing of gambling and .bingo is the City promoting gambling and bingo, not just permitting it. 2. Is it feasible to establish criteria for waiving the fee for certainorganiza® tions without being discriminatory. Why should the Boy Scouts have to pay if a church does not have to pay or vice versa. The worthiness of a majority of organizations in question can be argued on its own merits by the proponents of each organization in question. Is it in fact discrim- inatory to charge an organization a fee or waive the fee for another organization based on the anticipated receipts of their gambling or bingo endeavor. 3. Assuming the fact that the license and investigation fee were set to cover the actual cost of administering the gambling and bingo licensing, are there organizations which could not pay this amount? Would a total cost of $75 (for instance) be prohibitive? Could the organization run 2 raffles or 2 bingo events etc. rather than one, in_order "to increase Mr. Splinter -3- December 14, 1078 revenue? If an organization in fact can not afford the $ 75 should the City subsidize that organization by charging them less. 4. If a scale of fees was established it would probably be established based on the number of days the organization ran the bingo or gambling For example, one fee might be charged for an organization who operated over 10 days in one year. The problem with this is in defining what "in operation" means. For example, is a raffle only when the drawing takes place or is it also when the raffle tickets are sold? Additionally, by setting a scale of fees based on dumber of days, does the City en-- courage an organization to hold more bingo and gambling Finally, an organization would apply fora license once a year and if found acceptable, would be issued an annual license. If the cost of the license was based on the number of days of operation, an organiza- tion would have to know 'how many times it would operate bingo or gambling during the year, Unless there were blatant violations of the number of days, it is unlikely the City would know of the violations. III. Recommendations: 1. Set the gambling license fee and the gambling investigation fee at an amount necessary to cover the City's cost of administering the gambling licensing. This puts the City in the position of permitting gambling within the City according to statute, without promoting it or spending public money on it. Suggested Amounts: investigation fee - $50 license fee - $25 2. Set the bingo license fee at an amount necessary to cover the City's cost of administering the bingo licensing Set the investigation fee for the bingo license at an amount necessary to cover the potential cost of in- vestigation. Because of the nature of bingo as compared to gambling, allow the Police Chief to recommend deferring the investigation fee until after the investigation has been completed and totally suspending license fee if the investigation is minimal. license fee - $25 investigation fee - $50 qualified with the statement that due to the fact that the Legislature has been much less restrictive designating organizations which are allowed to . operate bingo as compared to those organizations allowed to operate gambling, allow the Police Chief to recommend deferring the investigation fee until after the investigation has been completed and totally suspending the license fee if the investigation is minimal. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION OF CERTAIN GAMBLING DEVICES BY LICENSED ORGANIZATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDAINS 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; Section 23 -1900. Adoption by Reference. The regulatory provisions of Minneso'Ed Statutes Section .5. through a including Minnesota Statutes Section 325.62, Minnesota Statutes Section 340.14. Minnesota Statutes Section 349.26, Minnesota Statutes Section 6 09.75 , and Minnesota Statutes Section 609.761, all of which as amended by Laws 1978, Chapter_ are hereby a dopted by reference as a Gambling Ordinanc r egulating and licensing the operaat - ion of certain devices by licensed organizat and are hereby in- corporated in and made a part of 'this ordinance as 'though full set forth. Section 23-1901. I icense Reauired . No person exc a fraternal , Le ligious, v ar other nan�arafit r�raanization rc�yPred by ��;nn_a�r Section 2911 05, Subd. 1, Clause �� or (K) , whir araani�ar_h�n existen for at lea - three zTears and as a' lead0 iares� r' �memhPrs a of whose membershi p dues are fully aaid and who have bees mPmbPrS for a 11 least six mo s hall ossess devi ge - s or hav any n'tere s t in t he onera't? on c?, P i ?- er n trot of gambl devices nor conduct or operate a raffle or have any ]ntpre i_n 't Oper ation or conduct of a raffle including possession o apparafi �s n al of tickers. No fraternal, reli gious ve. ns or o' ran, nn araaniza';an_ descrikied herein, shall posse MLor operate ,a.ny aamblin - devi nor have and interest in the operation possesswa., use • r�•rio�a� condt�c.• caf.� nor conduct or operate a raffl or have any intesihI� r ncludinc�passession of raffle apparatus or s o_ f :�' - i'rt firs . ar duly and lawfully licensed as set oth_here Section 23 1902 Cont of an Apz�lication for d T inP Appl ;Ga't;o f a license shall be made on the farms provided ° ° he llca�t3a e- us s s f COmp1C'tC C�piC � p = gon'tain ng the address and legal description of 't h�?LQ n� to b Pnse name aamhtina rr,an nP address and telephone number of the owner lessP • if -kh -r w ho n ame sh all be set forth in the application and 'the riarii address and s�?P' r�,.n number of at least 'two persons of good moral char who b_e.n� s e` Hennepin County, who may be called character The application must a so s �3�plant a lld g�mh?inz manager has ever been convicted of a crime � o�fe��r� r af�sas? and z if so, state complete and accurate information as 't•o_ h ti.me._Xla a n "re of such crime or off fense inc ludlna th ciiGposl jo Thy apr�licar�on f urthnr . must list the names and addresses of all credo rrs7 s of 'thP apnt owner as_sh gambling manager insofar as and reams ina r -has b�Sn�tr�ndPd fnr khP Qurposes of constructina eauitaping maintaining c bra' ina or furn��hing camht9na devic s o ' their a °rauQn' ORDINANCE NO. joint business venture, partnership or anleg ate constituted business associa- - tion, it shall submit along with its application accurate and complete business records showing the names and addresses of all individuals having an interest in the business, including creditors furnishing credit for the establishment, acquisition, maintenance or furnishing of any gambling devices, gamblin paraphernalia or their accouterments and, in the case of a corporation, the names and addresses of all officers, general managers, members of the Board of Directors as well as any creditors who have extended credit for the acquisition, maintenance or furnishing of gambling devices. All applicants shall furnish to the City, along with their application, complet and accurate documentation establishing the interest of the applicant and any othe person having an interest in - the operation, keeping, possession, use or control of gambling devices, raffle apparatus or raffle - tickets . Section 23 -1903. License Fee, License Inves'tiga`tion and License Year. The annual license fee is and the fee for'the investigation for the purposes of issuing a license is The license fee and fee for - the investigation of issuance of a 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, na part of the annual license fee or fee for the investigation of - the issuance of a license shall be returned , to the applicant unless by express action of the City Council. Only one license shall be granted - to each organization for each year. The licensee shall display the license in a prominent place on -the licensed_ premises a-t all times Gambling devices, raffles and all apparatus related to .ei'ther shall be kept, maintained, operated or conducted by licensed organizations only upon the premises which it owns or leases except that tickets for raffles may be sold off the premises. A license, unless revoked, suspended or canceled is for the calendar year or a part thereof for which it has been issued. The fee for the investiga- tion for issuance of a license must be tendered with each new application for a license and muat also be paid at any when there is a proposed change of ownership, change of gambling manager or reapplication for a license wherein additional or different parties other than.the original licensee, parties and gambling manager are proposing to be licensed. All licenses granted herein are nontransferable. The City Council shall act upon a license application within 180 days from the date of application, but shall not issue a license until at least 30 days after the date of application Section 23 -1904. Granting or Denial of Licenses. License applications shall be reviewed by the Police Department, Planning and Inspection Departmen 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 determin whether the - premises conform - 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 ordinance. Any apleal shall be before the City Council Licenses permitting the operation, use, keeping or possession of gambling devices or operation or conduct of raffles or the possession or keeping of gambling device paraphernalia or raffle apparatus are nonrenewable and application ORDINANCE NO. mu st be made each vear for a license, permi and allowing the operation, keei_. use or possession ofa;rbling devices or raffles or raffle apparatus o a ny interest therein for the succeeding year Licenses granted herein are n on trans ferable . Section 23 -1905. Conditions Governinq Issuance. 1. No license shall be issued if - the applicant or any of its owners, managers, employees, accents or other interested parties are persons of bad repute . 2. Licenses shall be issued only if the and all of its owners, managers, employees, agents or interested parties are free of con victions 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 licensed activity. _ 5. Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have not, within one year, prior to the day of application_, been denied licensure , ha had a license revoked, canceled or suspended in or by any commun o political subdivision or the State of Minnesota or whose owners, managers or interested parties have not been similarly denied, revoked or suspended. 4. Licenses shall be issued only to applicants who have fully and trutY� - fully answ all of 'the information r °quested in the application, wh have Maid the license fee fully and 'the fee for investigation and have cooperated fully and - truthfully with the City in 'the review of the application. 5. Licenses may granted only in complete conformity with all of the- ordinanms of - the City of Brooklyn Center. 6�. Licenses shall be issued only -to a fraternal, religious veterans or other nonprofit organization covered by Minnesota Statutes Section 290.05, Subd 1 (I) or (K) which organization has been in existence for at least - three years and has at least 30 present, active members whose membership dues are fully pa and who have been members for at least six months. 7. Licenses shall be granted only where - the licensed premises meet the safety, sanitary and building code requirements of - the City 8. A license shall not be granted where 'the granting of a license would be T inconsistent with - the comprehensive development Plans of the City, or would otherwise have a detrimental effect upon other property or properties in -the vicinity. ORDINANCE NO. Section 23 -1906. Restrictions and Regulations . 1. The licensee, - the gambling manager and other 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, 'the State of : Minnesota and -the United States Government. 2 The applicant shall designate a person - to be gambling manager who. shall be responsible for - the conduct of - the business. Such person shall remain responsible for - the conduct of the gambling devices, raffles, and - their operation until any other suitable person has been designated in writing as - the gambling manager, an investigation fee and application for a change of manager has been filed and the proposed successor to the gambling manager shall have been approved. The licensee shall promptly notify the police department in writing of any such change indicating the- address and name of - the new g_amblinq manager and the effective date of such change. 3. The operation or conduct of gambling_ devices, raffles or - the sale of raffle 'tickets is not permitted between midnight and 8 :00 a.m. of the succeeding day. 4 The licensee, gambling manager or - their agents, shall permit and allow inspection of - the premises and the operation of the gambling devices and raffles by any and all appropriate city officials. 5. Violation of - the - terms and provisions of - this ordinance may be cause for the revocation, suspension or cancellation of other licenses issued by ' the city to the licensee. 6. Upon demand by any police officer, any person employed in or by any licensed premises shall identify himself by giving his true legal name, correct address and furnishing suitable identification therefor. 7. No natural person under 18 years of age shall be employed in the operation of gambling devices or raffles except that persons under 18 years of age may sell raffle tickets or chances. Section 23 -1907. Revocation, Cancellation or Suspension of License. The license may be revoked, suspended, canceled or not granted by the City Council upon recommendation of the City Manager by showing that the licensee, its owners, g ambling manager, emlo gees, agents or any of its interested parties have engaged in any of the following conduct ORDINANCE NO 1_. Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with -the securing of a license. 2. Habitual drunkenness or intemperance in - the use of drugs including but not limited to the use of prohibited substances defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 152 or Brooklyn Center Ordinances 19 -1120. 3. Conduct inimical - to - the interest of - the public health, safety, welfare or morals. 4 En aging in any conduct or being convicted of any crime involving moral 'turpitude or permitting or _allowing others to so engage in -said conduct or failing 'to prevent such conduct. 5. Failure - to fully comply with any of the requirements of this ordinance or the failure to comply with any requirements of 'the laws or ordinances of - the City of Brookl Center, State of Minnesota or the United States Government. 6. Engaging in any conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal - to issue a license under Section 23 -1905. The licensee may appeal such suspension, revocation, cancellation or failure - to license to the City Council. The Council shall consider the appeal at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on or after 10 days from the service of - the notice of appeal to the City Manager. At the conclusion of -the hearing, - the Council may order: 1. A revocations suspension or cancellation of the license or that the license not be granted. 2. That the revocation, suspension or cancellation be lifted and that - the certificate be returned - to the licensee. 3. T he City Council may base - the revocation, suspension, cancellation or other action with regard - to the license upon any additional 'terms, conditions and stipulations which they may, in their sole discretion, impose. Section 23 -1908. 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 holdings shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part -thereof ORDINANCE NO. Section 23 -1909. Penalties. Whoever does any act forbidden by - this ordinance or omits or fails - to do anv act required by "*his ordinance shall be quilts 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 consitutes a separate and distinct violation. Section 23 -1910. Liability for - the Crimes of Another. Every person who commits, or a•ttem2ts 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 constit'utes an omission and, - therefore, a violation of - this ordinance, whether individually or in _connection with one or more persons or as a principal, agent or accessory, shall be uia of such offense and every person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly or will - fully induces, causes, coerces, requires, permits or directs another to violate any of the provisions of this Chapter is likewise quilty of such offense. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1978. Mayor i ATTEST; Clerk Date of Publication Effective date (Brackets indicate material to be deleted, underline indicates new matter) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION OF BINGO BY LICENSED ORGAN 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 repeal of the following: [Section 23 =601. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT. The playing of - the game of Bingo as authorized by Minnesota Statutes Sections 614.053 -4 is hereby prohibited unless the following rules are complied with: -- (a) Any association authorized by said law -to conduct , the game of Bingo shall apply to the City Clerk for a permit -to play said game and shall fill out an application in duplicate in such form as required, by said clerk. If during - the period for which -the permit is used - there is a change in the officers of the association, a new application containing such change must be made_ and filed with - the City Council. . (b) The applicant shall set forth - the hours and days - that - the game will be played and shall pay a fee to - the City at the time of applying for a permit computed as follows; For each day •that - the game will be played, a fee of $1.00. If authority is granted to play more than 4 hours on any day, - the fee shall be $2. It is unlawful to play at any other - times than those enumerated in the application. If - the permit is denied or revoked at any - time, 'that amount of - the fee representing the unplayed games shall be returned to - the applicant. - (c) Unless special authority is given by the City Council for particular occa- sions, no game of Bingo shall be played more than four hours on any day nor more than twice a week at the same premises (d) No permit shall be issued - to any organization or association provided for in Minnesota Statutes Sections 614.053 -4 unless such organization or association shall have been in existence in the City of Brooklyn Center for at least two years prior to the date of making application for such permit; provided, however, 'that this limitation shall not apply to a sub- sidiary of any religious, charitable fraternal or veterans organizations of national or state -wide jurisdiction - that shall have been in existence more than two years. ORDINANCE NO. [Section 23 -602. PERMIT. The application for a permit shall be referred - to the City Council for its approval or disapproval. It shall be unlawful to conduct the game of Bingo unless the City Council approves such application. The permit shall expire one year from the date of Council approval, and permits may be revoked at any time by the City Council.] [Section 23 -603 MINIMUM AGE. No person shall permit said game of Bingo to be operated 'by any minor under - the age of 18 years except when such minor is accompanied by his or her parents or guardian.] [ Section 23 -604 RESTRICTIONS. The game of Bingo can be conducted only' by - the members of the association. No member shall receive any compensation whatso- ever for his.services in conducting, assisting in conducting, or operating said game, and no person shall so assist in operating - the same unless he shall have beer., and shall - then be, a member, or - the spouse of a member, in good standing of said organi- zation for at least one year. The game may be played only in the association's hall where it has its regular meetings. No such association shall rent, lease or occupy, directly or indirectly, any other property for the purpose of conducting such games other than at the regular meeting places except by special authority of -the City Council. No person receiving any compensation from - the association shall partici- pate in any way in the conduct, management or operation 'thereof.] [Section 23 -605 ADVERTISING RESTRICTED It shall be unlawful to advertise in any manner - the playing of Bingo, except that not more than two signs, each not to exceed - the dimensions of - two by four feet, may be displayed on 'the building where the game of Bingo is being played, containing only the words, "Bingo Played Here ", 'together with - the name of - the licensee and - the day and hour of such playing except by special authority by the City Council, but such organization shall not be prohibited from circularizing information - to its own membership about such Bingo games.] [Section 23 -606. RECORD REQUIRED. Each organization having received a permit for playing the game of Bingo shall keep a permanent record containing ,the names and addresses of all winners of prizes of $100 or more which shall be kept on file and open for inspection at anytime by - the City Council or its authorized employees.] [Section 23 -607. PENALTY. Any person, firm, corporation, organization or association violating any of -the provisions of this ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of not more 'than five hundred dollars ($500) and by imprisonment not - to exceed ninety (90) days. In addition to such penalty, any Bingo permit issued - to such party shall be revoked.] Section 2. Chapter 23 of - the City Ordinances is hereby amended by -the addition of - the following: ORDINANCE NO. • Section 23 -600. Adoption by Reference. The regulatory provisions of Minnesota Statute Section 349.11 `to and including Section 349. are hereby adopted by reference as a Bingo Ordinance, regulating and strictly licensing the aeration of bingo games by certain licensed organizations and are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Ordinance as though fully set fort herein. Section 23 -601 Licensed Required No person, except a fraternal, religious, veterans or nonprofit organization governed by Minnesota Statute Section 290.05 which organization has been in existence for at least three years, has at least 30 present, active members, who have been members for at least six months and whose conditions of membership are duly fulfilled, shall operate, conduct or participate in bingo or bingo occasions nor have any interest in the operation, conduct or participa tion in bingo or bingo occasions nor possess bingo cards, bingo numbers, bingo accouterments or bingo paraphernalia. No fraternal, religious, veterans or other nonprofit organization as described herein, shall operate, conduct or p articipate in bingo or bingo occasions or have any interest in - the operation, conduct o r particip of or in bingo or bingo occasions or possess bingo cards, bingo numbers, bingo accouterments or bingo paraphernalia without first being duly and lawfully licensed as set forth herein. Section 23 -602. Contents of an Application for a 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 licensed, -the name, address and telephone number of - the owner, lessee, if any, and the bingo manager whose name shall be set forth in - the application and - the name, address and telephone number of at least - two persons of good moral character who shall be residents of Hennepin County, who may be called upon'to attest - to the applicant's and manager's character. The application must also state whether 'the applicant and bingo manager have ever been convicted of a crime or offense other than traffic offense and, if so, state complete and accurate information as - to the - time, place and nature of such crime or offense including the disposition thereof . ` The application further must list - the names and addresses of.all creditors. of - the applicant, owner, lessee, and bingo manager insofar as and regarding credit which has been extended for the purposes of constructing, equipping, maintaining, operating or furnishing bingo, bingo accouterments, bingo paraphernalia or bingo occasions. If the applica- tion is made on behalf of a corporation, joint business venture, partnership or any legally constituted business association, it shall submit along with its app lication, accurate and complete business records showing the name and address of all individuals having an interest in the business, including creditors furnishing credit for the establishment, acquisition, maintenance or furnishing of any bingo games, bingo occasions, bingo paraphernalia or their accouterments and, in the case of a corporation, the names and addresses -of all officers, general managers, members of 'the Board of Directors as well as any creditors who have extended credit for the acquisition, maintenance or furnishing of bingo games, bingo occasions or bingo paraphernalia ORDINANCE NO. Section 23 -603. License Fee, License Investigation and License Year. The annual license fee is and the fee for investigation for the purposes of issuing a license is The license fee and fee for - the investigation of issuance of a license shall be paid when the application is filed.- In 'the event tha - t 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 investigation for the issuance of a license shall be returned to - the applicant unless by express action of •the City Council. Only one license shall be granted to each organization for each year. The licensee shall display the license in a prominent_ gla on the licensed premises at all times. Bingo games, bingo occasions, bingo numbers, cards, accouterments and paraphernalia shall be kept, maintained, operated or conducted by licensed organizations only upon - the premises which it owns or leases. A__license, unless revoked, suspended or canceled, is for the calendar year or 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 proposed change of ownership, change of bingo manager or reapplication for a license where an additional or different party other than the original licensee, parties and bingo manager are proposing to be licensed All licenses granted herein are nontransferable. The City Council shall act upon a license application within 180 days from the date of application, but shall not issue a license until a least 30 days after - the date of application. Section 23 -604. Granting or Denial of Licenses. License applications shall be reviewed by the Police Department, Planning and Inspection 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 conform 'to all applicable code reguirements. Thereafter, licenses shall be recommended for approval or denial by - the City Manager 'to the City Council subject - to the provisions of this Ordinance. Any appeal shall be before -the City Council. Licenses permitting the operation, conduct or use of bingo games or bingo occasions or - the keeping or possession of bingo numbers, cards, devices, accouter- ments or paraphernalia are nonrenewable and application must be made each year for a license permitting and allowing -the conduct or operation of bingo games and bingo occasions and , the possession or use - of bingo accouterments, paraphernalia, numbers and - the like for - the succeeding_ year. Licenses granted herein are nontransferable. Section 23 -605. Conditions Governing Issuance., 1 No license shall be issued if - the applicant or any of i owners, managers, employees, agents, or other 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 persons' ability, capacity or fitness to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of - the licensed activity ORDINANCE NO. 3. Licenses_ shall be issued only - to applicants who have not, within • one year, prior to the date of application, been denied licensure, have had a license revoked, canceled` or suspended in or by any community or political subdivision or the State of Minnesota or x whose owners, managers or interested parties have not been similarly denied, revoked or suspended. 44. Licenses shall be issued only -to applicants who have fully and •tru•th fully answered all of 'the information requested in the application who have paid 'the license fee fully and the fee for investigation and Piave cooperated fully and truthfully with - the City in the review of - the application. 5. Licenses may be granted only in com2le•te conformilty with all of - the Ordinances of - the City of Brooklyn Center. 6. Licenses shall be issued only -to a fraternal, religious, veterans or othe nonprofit organization which organization has been in existence for at least three years and has at least 30 present, active members, whose membership dues are fully paid and who have been members for at least six months. 7. Licenses shall be granted only where - the licensed premises meet -the safety, sanitary and building code requirements of - the City. 8. A license shall not be granted where - the granting of a license would be inconsistent with 'the comprehensive development plans with - the - City or would otherwise have a detrimental effect upon other property or properties in 'the vicinity. Section 23 -606. Restrictions and Regulations. 1. The licensee, - the bingo manager and other 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, the State of Minnesota and - the United States Government. 2 The applicant shall designate a person - to be bingo manager who shall be responsible for - the conduct of - the business. Such person shall remain responsible for -the conduct of bingo games, bingo occasions, bingo cards, numbers, accouterments and paraphernalia and - their operation until another suitable person has been designated in writing as `the bingo manager an investigation fee and application for a change of manager has been filed and the proposed successor to the bingo manager shall • have been approved. In all cases, the licensee shall properly notify t he Police Department in writing of any such proposed change indicating the address and name of - the new bingo manager and the effective date of such proposed change. ORDINANCE NO. 3_. The operation or conduct of bingo games or bingo occasions is not per • mitted betweerf midnight and 8:00 a.m. of the succeeding day. 4. The licensee, bingo manager or their agents, shall permit and allow the inspection of the premises and the operation of the bingo games and bingo occasions by any and all approp city officials 5. Violation of the terms and provisions of this Ordinance may be cause for the revocation, suspension, cancellation or nonissuance of other licenses issued by the City to the licensee. 6. Upo demand by any police officer, any person employed in or by any licensed premises shall identify himself by giving his - true legal name, correct address and furnishing suitable identification therefor. 7. No natural person under 18 years of age shall be employed in - the operation of bingo games, or bingo occasions. Section 23 -607. Revocation, Cancellation or Suspension of License. The license may be revoked, suspended, canceled or nongranted by •the City Council upon recommendation of the City Manager by showing that the licensee, its owners, bingo manager, employees or agents or any of its interested parties have engaged in any of the following conduct; • 1. Fraud dece - tion or misrepresentation in connection with the securin of _ � p A g a license. 2. Habitual drunkenness or intemperance in - the use of drugs, including but not limited to use of prohibited substanc defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 152 or Brooklyn Center Ordinances Chapter 19 -1120. 3 Conduct inimical to , the interests of - the public health safety, welfare or morals. 4. Engaging in any conduct or being convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude or permitting or allowing others to so engage in said conduct or failing to prevent such conduct. S. Failure to fully comply with any of •the requirements of this Ordinance or - the failure to comply with any requirements of the laws or ordinances of 'the City of Brooklyn Center, State of Minnesota or United States Government. 6: Engaging in any conduct which would constitute grounds for refusal 'to issue a license under Section 23 -605. • ORDINANCE NO The licensee may appeal such suspension, revocation, cancellation or failure - to • l icense to the City Council. The City Council shall consider - the-appeal at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on or after 10 days from the service of the notice of appeal on the City Manager. At the conclusion of - the hearing, the Council may order: 1. A revocation, suspension or cancellation of or denial of the license. 2­ That - the revocation, suspension or cancellation of or failure - to grant the license be lifted and that - the certificate be returned to the licensee. 3. The City Council may base the revocation, - suspension, cancellation or other action with regard -to - the license upon any additional terms, conditions and stimulations which they may, in its sole discretion, impose. Section 23 -608. Separability. Every section, provision or part of - thi s 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 thereof Section 23 -609. Penalties. Whoever does any act forbidden by this ordinance or omits or fails to do any act required by this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdeme 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 violation. Section 23 -610. 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 connection with one or more persons or as a principal, agent or accessory, shall be guilty of such offense and every person who falsely, fraudilently, forcibly or willfully induces, causes, coerces, requires, permits or directs another to violate any other provisions of - this chapter is likewise guilty of such offense. 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 material - to be deleted.) 9c" CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO THE REZONING OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section l Section 35 -1170 is hereby amended in part to read as follows: [ That part of] Lot 1 , Block 1 , Library Terrace Addition and that part of Lot 29, Auditor's Subdivision No. 216 bounded on the west and the south by the centerline of Northport Drive; on the east by the centerline of State Highway No. 152; and on the north by [a line, extending east to west between the centerline of said State Highway` and of Northport Drive, said line being parallel to and 165 feet southerly of the south property lines of Lots 3 and 4, Block 7, Northport 1 st Addition.] the south property lines of Lots 3 and 4, Block 7, Northport 1st Addition, extending easterly to the centerline of said • State Highway and extending westerly to the centerline of Northport Drive. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) (Underline indicates new matter.) MEMORANDUM 10: Planning Commission Members FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning Commission Secretary DATE: December 7, 1978 SUBJECT: Restaurant Use in Cl Zone The City has received a recommendation from the Planning Consultant, BRW, regarding a matter that -had -been referred to'the Planning Commission from the City Council involving the possibility of permitting a restaurant use on the property located in the 7200 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard. The property is currently zoned R3 (Townhouse and Garden Apartments) and is bounded on the north by the Municipal Boundary; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by Shingle Creek -and Creek Villa Town- houses; and on the west by "The Ponds" planned residential development. Mr. R. L. Johnson had earlier this year submitted a rezoning request to zone the property C2 (Commerce) and had indicated a desire to develop an : office building on the south portion of the,property and a restaurant on the north portion. The rezoning re- quest, following public hearings by the Planning - Commission, review and comment from the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, and review by the City Council Commission was requested b the City was denied.. The Planning C m u q Y Y Council to review a proposed split zoning of the property (Cl to the south and C2 to the north) on the basis that a Cl use of the southerly portion would be compatible to existing ad- jacent zoning in Brooklyn Center while a C2 use on the northerly portion would be compatible to adjacent land uses in Brooklyn Park, and that the split zoning would provide a buffer between the R3 property in Brooklyn Center and the commercial properties in Brooklyn Park. It was also requested that the Commission look at the feasibility of rezoning to Cl, a potentially landlocked piece of property which is part of "The.Ponds" development, but lies east of Shingle Greek. BRW recommended, as a solution to this problem and as a means to permit the develop- ment of an office use and a restaurant use on the property, the rezoning of the parcel to Cl, which would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and an amend - -ment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit restaurants which seat a minimum of 130 persons ir. the Cl zone. The recommendation went on to note that restaurants along Brooklyn Boulevard would not appreciably interfere with the roadway's ability to handle traffic - demands. They felt that with one properly designed curb cut to service the two uses, the impact on the traffic flow of Brooklyn Boulevard would be no' greater than an office development. They also recommended that there be no additional C2 zoning on a parcel by parcel basis on Brooklyn Boulevard. They indicated that generally a 130 seat restaurant seems to be a worthwhile number to - distinguish between family restaurants and convenience food restaurants. At first glance this seemed like a feasible way to proceed to address the problem presented by the proposal. But, after much review involving the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Director of Public Works and myself regarding the-con- sequences of such an amendment, it is not felt that this type amendment would be in the best interests of the City. First of ail, there may well be a problem with using the number of seats as a qualifier for permitting a restaurant in a Cl zone. For instance, this might only-encourage rarger convenience food restaurants. Another major concern would be with respect to other Cl zoned property along Brooklyn Boulevard. There are a number of Cl locations on Brooklyn Boulevard where a restaurant would not be compatible with surrounding uses. An example would be the Library property, currently zoned Cl. Also, there are a number of other Cl zoned properties where it is felt that a restaurant would not be appro- priate. We feel that the City would be hardpressed to deny these restaurant uses if the Zoning Ordinance were amended in such a manner. It is felt that the original action to deny the C2 use of any portion of the property was the best overall decision-and it would be our recommendation that this decision stand. If, on the other hand, the Commission feels it is in the best interests of the City to have a restaurant or another C2 use on a portion of the property in question, then we would recommend that a split zoning occur, noting that this property is unique _because of the lecation of Shingle Creek and acknow- ledging a C2 zoning on the northerly portion of the property as being an extension: - :of and compatible with the commercial zoning to the north in Brooklyn Park. We would also recommend that the.Commission acknowledge that there is no rationale to rezone any other Brooklyn Boulevard property to C2; that this action is merely a minor extension of an already existing zoning in another community which will not cause a major traffic impact on Brooklyn Boulevard; and that the C2 use can be adequately buffered from the less dense uses to the south by a rezoning of the remainder of the property to Cl which is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan. If such a split zoning were undertaken, a determination would have to be made regarding the best location for drawing the zoning line and the applicant would be encouraged to contact "The Ponds" about the possibility of rezoning that land- locked property to C1 as well. M & C No. 78 -31 December 15, 1978 10b FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Subject: Cable Television joint Powers Agreement To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Earlier - this month I was invited - to attend a meeting of the Northwest Cable Communications Commission, which is a joint powers agreement among Neva Hope, Crystal, Robbinsdale, and Golden Valley combining - these communities into a cable -television'service ` area. This agreement has existed among these communities for a number of years but has been largely inactive due 'to the lack of interest on - the part of cable TV companies. Recently there has been a new interest expressed in a cable TV franchise in the metropolitan area, especially in - the suburban areas south and west of Minneapolis Invited to this meeting, in addition to the members of - the current joint powers agreement, were Plymouth, Medicine Lake, Osseo, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center. The joint powers group asked - that the communities review whether or not it would be in their best interest - to join - them in a larger cable - television service area and join their joint power group. The current joint powers agreement they have is currently under review or shortly will be by attorneys for 'the group and proposed modifications, if any, will be reviewed in light of any additional membership in - the joint powers group which may occur. It would be my recommendation the .Council join this group as much of - the base work,, as been done on agreements, franchises and for Brooklyn Center 'to "go it alone" would involve considerable amount of work which would be liken to "reinventing, -the wheel". By joining in a joint powers agreement for a larger area 'the opportunity for having ° more leverage with - the franchise company is greater because you control- a larger market area. From my point of view there seems to be few, if any, disadvantages to joining the joint powers arrangement with New Hope, Crystal, Robbinsdale and Golden Valley. I am prepared - to discuss in greater detail -the concerns you may have at the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Gerald Splinter City M ages CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER z r MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager PROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant n n il DATE: December 18, 197$ SUBJECT: CITIZENS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The second of two (2) public hearings was held Saturday, December 16, 1978 by the Brooklyn Center Community Development Citizens Participation Com- mittee to receive public comment and recommendations relative to the use of Community Development funds. The Committee considered both three (3) year goals and one (1) year goals for the Community Development Plan. They also received recommendations from the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission relative to the housing element of the Community Development Plan. The following projects were discussed and by consensus determined to be ineligible projects- for Community Development funding: ' 1) a 24 hour library; 2) day care center; 3) school aid; and 4) an emergency fuel fund, The Com- mittee also discussed a number of projects that they considered to be of merit and worthy of future consideration. Such projects included: 1) ramping of the City sidewalk system; 2) an inner city bus system; and 3) a sidewalk system to the K -Mart area from Shingle Creek Parkway, As three (3) year goals or projects, the Citizens Participation Committee is recommending that the City consider using Community Development funds for handicapped accessibility projects including installation of two (2) elevators within City Hall and the Civic Center complex and the elimination of physical barriers within the neighborhood parks system to include paving parking lots, providing walkway systems, modification of equipment to accommodate handicapped individuals, and the modification of existing buildings to accommodate wheelchairs. " They are also recommending that Community Development funds be used to provide the City's matching share for a LAWCON granting in Central Park, that Community Development funds be used to establish a housing rehabilitation grant program, that a housing contingency fund be used to develop other housing programs yet to be determined and a fund to provide for administrative costs associated with the program over the three years. Mr. Splinter Page 2 December 18, 1978 First year handicapped accessibility projects being recommended est d e: t he installation of two (2) elevators in the City Mali complex at an cost of $80,000. Also included are park modifications to include paving of parking lots, installation of walk systems, modifications of existing buildings and equipment and the installation of handicapped crossing signs at major intersections within Brooklyn Center at a cost of an estimated $70,000. Also being recommended is a housing rehabilitation contin grant program at $60,000 and the development o f ams usi I g is also gency` fund at $26,000 to fund yet to be determined p g recommended that any monies received in excess of the estimated $300,000 used for - planning purposes be directed to the housing contingency fund. The Committee also recommends that $24, 00.0 be set aside to cover City administration and planning costs associated with the program. BH.aw I I i M U N I C I P A L STATE A I'D STREET C0NSTRUCTI ON P0LI C _ CITY 0T BROOKL - YN C-E N T E R I -- Submitted by Donald G. Poss ` - Village Engineer April 27, 1965 Revised by James R. Merila Dir. of Public Works April 13, 1970 December 6, 1976 December 18, 1978 After reviewing State Aid practices and policies of comparable municipalities and considering peculiar aspects and previous practices of the City of Brooklyn Center, the following policy is established for municipal state aid street construction, - A . Residential The following policy applies for those properties that are not commercial or not industrial in project areas which are primarily residential in character: 1. Existing street surfaces on the designated state aid street system shall be classified as:- Permanent - -- 4" gravel base and 2" paver laid asphalt mat; Intermediate -- 1 1, to 3 gravel base and 1-1/2 to 2" asphalt mat; Temporary - -- No gravel base and 2 " oil stabilized surface 2. Benefitting properties abutting a`street with a permanent classification will be assessed for the residential,equivalent rate according to the permanent street surface equity schedule, while those abutting streets with an intermediate or temporary classification will be assessed the maximum rate of [4.8 x $7.60 per assessable foot. The initial costs are based on average current day costs. 3. Benefitting properties will be assessed the full cost`of curb and gutter up to 96.01 $8.00 per assessable foot, including engineering, legal and clerical.costs. 4. Benefitting properties not previously charged for storm sewer lateral will be assessed for proportionate costs of drainage. 5. All driveways of abutting properties which not hard surfaced shall be replaced with bituminous surfacing to the property line The cost of paving beyond 1.5 feet from the gutter line shall be individually computed and added to the street assessment for the specific property involved in accordance with Resolution No.` 69 -80, dated February 3, 1969. 6. Brooklyn Center State Aid funds will be liable for the balance of project costs. Revised 12 -18 - 78 (Note: Revisions are underlined Deletions are bracketed) The'.foregoing policy is based upon the conclusion that any and all property in the City will eventually be financially responsible for its proportionate share of a typical 30 foot wide street surface (currently 59.0 -. $14.25 per assessable foot), curb and gutter (currently [6.01 $8.00 per assessable foot), and storm sewer lateral. It is to be noted that the equity schedule concept embodies a maximum assessment rate of E4.82 $7.60 per assessable foot for street surfacing rather than the current rate of f59.0gj $14.25 per assessable foot; it is intended in this way to compensate fora 1. Initiation of the state aid project by the municipal government. 2. The possible disadvantages to property abutting the state aid street. 3.; The concentration of assessable improvement costs in a single project. It is recognized that it may be necessary, with the passage of time and the likely increase in construction costs, to periodically review and adjust the equity schedules to reflect relatively current and realistic circumstances. Assessable footage, as referred to in this policy statement, shall be computed according to the provisions for street upgrading as established in the Assessment Procedures Manual adopted February 10 P rY 1964. B. Commercial and Industrial Properties The following policy applies for commercial and industrial prop- erties in project areas which are primarily residential in character and for those projects in the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park. 1. The formula for computing the assessable footage will be the same as that used for residential properties as established in the Assessment Procedures Manual, except for projects within the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park. Because of unique aspects beneficial to both the City and* the property owners, the projects within the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park will be assessed on an area (acreage) basis in accordance with Resolution No. 70 -90, adopted July 13, 1970. 2.> All driveways of abutting properties which are not paved with concrete shall be replaced with concrete surfacing to the property line. The cost of installing concrete driveways shall be individually computed and added to the street assessment for the specific property involved. Revised 12 -18 -78 . 1 3. All properties within this category will be assessed-for 70/ of the total project cost. The Brooklyn Center State Aid Fund will be liable for the remaining 30/ of the project • costs. 4. If there is 'a combination of commercial, industrial and residential properties, the - commercial industrial rate will be determined by calculating an equivalent footage rate based on assessing 70/ of the total project cost, while the non- commercial industrial properties will be assessed in accordance to Part A . of these policies. C. Sidewalks State Aid routes are selected to provide a network of vehicular collector streets. These same routes, by their nature, have been designated as intrical parts of Brooklyn Center's walkway network Plan. Therefore, as part of the state aid street construction, side- walks will be installed in the boulevard areas. It is recognized that the boulevard grading for .sidewalks will likely result in necessary slope changes on yards and driveways within the abutting properties. To properly accomplish this sloping, it will be necessary that property owners execute temporary slope easements that will authorize a contractor to enter upon properties for the purposes of adjusting slopes and driveways, resodding the slopes and boulevards, and repaving driveways which were previously surfaced. Refusal to extend such slope easement approval will result in leaving vertical drop -offs at the property lines for future correction at the property owner's expense. Property owner claims of improper workmanship within the slope easements shall be documented in writing to the City Engineer; such claims shall be limited to a period which shall expire 10 calendar months after final acceptance of the project by the City Council. Sidewalks will be installed in accordance to the Brooklyn Center Walkway Network Plan, but will not be assessed to the abutting properties. The cost sidewalk installation will be paid for by. the Brooklyn Center State Aid Fund. Revised 12- 18 -78' PERMANENT STREET SURFACE EQUITY SCHEDULE PROPERTY OWNER EQUITY IN PROPERTY OWNER PARTICIPATION EXISTING STREET IN 'STATE AID SURFACING EQUITY PERIOD (PER ASSESSABLE FOOT) (PER ASSESSABLE FOOT) Initial Cost 99:.08 $14.25 $0.00 After lst Year r8 13,30 0400 " -2nd ., C7.80] 12.35 0.00 3rd [7:. 2�fl 11.40 0.00 " 4th " [6.60 10.45 0.00 " 5th - . O�d 9.50 0.00 L " 6th L.4 i 8.55 0.00 " 7th t4.8�j 7.60 0.00 " 8th L4. 2� 6.65 CO. Q] 0.95 [3.60 5.70.20] 1090 10th " E3. OE 4.75 El.8 2.85 " llth k= 43 3.80 [2:.4 3.80 " 12th [1:.8E 2.85 C.0�0 4.75 " 13th [.203 1.90 E3.6:0] 5.70 14th ,� f .601 0.95 E4.2: 6.65 " 15th L 00 0.00 14.80] 7.60 (Dollar values include engineering, legal and clerical costs). Revised 12- 18--78 Note: Deletions are bracketed Mer.uweV Th eodo re Willard - intro uce the following resolution-'1_­c 0 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 110. 69 -80 RESOLUTION AMEINDINC EYISTINO STP.EFT SURFACING POLICY TO INCLUD BITUl"I:OUS PAVII.G OF ALL D.°.I1.1E�1AYS WHEREAS, it has been the nractice on residential street surfac- ing projects to replace the disturbed portion of permanently surfaced driveways, and WHEREAS, the replacement surfacing consisted of hot nix asphalt paving, and WHEREAS, gravel driveways disturbed during construction were re- placed with gravel or crushe -d rock, and 'WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the Director of Public 's•orks in - a memo to the City Council dated January 6, 1969 than t2he follow;n- additions to the above rolic:es he effected -for all future construct 1} All gravel, crushed rock or other drivec;atrs that are not hard surfaced shall be replaced with bituminous surfacing to the property line. 2} The cost for the first 1.5 feet _from the gutter line shall be charged against the cost of the project and equally distributed. - 3 } The cost of the drivewav More than 1.5 feet from the gutter line shall be individually computed and added to the special . ::assessment for the specific property involved. 4) .' The resident shall have the prerogative of recommend in a drivewav width to suit his garage situation. Pdo boulevard parking areas will be permitted or paved. 5} If a grade change necessitates removing an existing perma- nent driveway surface beyond '1.5 feet from the gutter line, this cost shall be charged against the street proj and equally distributed. WHEREAS, these recormnendations have been considered and are felt to be in the best interests of the residents of the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklvn Center that the above described policv as it relates to t _ driveways on residential streets be carried ou on Future construction projects. s February 3, 1969 Date .favor ATTEST : - cr}; t � The motion for the adoption of the forecoing resolution was duly seconded ry Member John Leary , and upon vote heing taken thereon, the follow - 3.ng voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Howard Heck, Earl Rydberg, and Theodore Willard; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Vernon Ausen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; R£SOLUTIOII 110. 70 -90 RESOLUTION AI,EIIDITIG THE CITY STREET GRADIIIG BAST' £ SURFACII G A3'D CURB ` & GUTTER, AND HDE:•:ALY ASSESSI:LI.T POLICY III T11E INDUSTRIAL PART{ AREA, A1JD ES_7ArLISHING TI-10 ASSESSYEI T DISTRICTS FOP THOSE WHEREAS, it is the established policy of the City of Brooklyn Center to assess the cost of street grading, base and surfacing and curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements, herein-* after referred to as "street improvements", in nrorortion to the dimensions of the beneficed .property which abut the proposed improvements, and WHEREAS,.Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc., Brooklyn Centerr.Development Company General Monetary Corporation, any Deil 0. Gustafson, hereinafter called "the Developer', are the principal owners of the Industrial Park area by owning in excess of 75% of said Industrial Park, and WHEREAS, the Developer owns parcels both abutting and not abutting proposed street improvements, all of which will benefit from said improvements, and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that street improve- ment costs be levied uniformly on an area basis against abutting T and non- abutting property within two proposed assessment districts so that development costs may be more equally distributed among - the - parcels of the Industrial Park, and WHEREAS, the Industrial Park area north of F.A.I. 94 is intended to be primarily industrial in character, and WHEREAS, the area south of F.A.I. 94 is intended to be primarily commercial in character and is projected to develop sooner than the north area, and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it reasonable and in the best interests of the City and the Developer and subsequent property owners to assess street improvement costs uniformly on an area basis such that property in the Industrial Park area north of F.A.I. 94 shall share the cost of street improvements constructed north of F.A.I. 94 and property in the Industrial Park area south of F.A.I. 94 shall share the cost of street improvements constructed south of F.A.I. 94, and WHEREAS, the property in R.L.S. Ito. 1256 has been assessed for the cost of improving Hennepin County Road Ito. 10, and is primarily served by Hennepin County Road No. 10, and WHEREAS, Lots'l and 2 of Block 1, Twin Cities Interchange !' -Park, will be assessed a share of'the future upgrading of Humboldt Avenue North from 65th Avenue to 69th Avenue; r _ RESOLUTION 210. 70 -90 ° NO x1, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City-Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows; • 1. The Council acts' under the authority anted b y� y Chapter 429 of the 11innesota Statutes. 2. The Council establishes the following street improve- ment districts in the Industrial Park area: A. All property lying south of F.A.I. 94 bounded on the east by T.H. 100, on the south by R.L.S. 110. 1256 and T.H. 100, and on the west by a line located 100 feet east of and parallel with Shingle Creek. B. All property lying north of F.A.I. 94 bounded on the north by County Road No. 130, on the west by the west line of Section 35 T. 119, R. 21, and on the east by the following - described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of Outlot A Twin i Cities Interchange rch n e Pa r g k, thence southerly on the easterly line of said Outlot A to the southeast corner said Out A, thence southerly to the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Twin Cities Interchange Park, thence Co southerly on westerly line of said Lot -1 - to the northerly right -of -way line of 65th Avenue.North, thence.easterly.on the north right -of -way line of 65th Avenue North to Humboldt Avenue North, thence southerly along the westerly right- of- way:line;of Humboldt Avenue North to F.A.I. 94 and there terminating; and except "for Tracts B,-C, D of R.L.S. No. 1274 3. The Council hereby amends the established City street grading, base and' surfacing` -and curb and gutter and sidewalk assessment policy as it relates to the above described areas by providing-that the costs of such improvements constructed from time to time within a respective assessment district shall be uniformly levied on an area basis against properties within s ch assess- menu district. July 13, 1970 Date \ . 11ayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member john Leary, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary,' Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard and the following voted against the tame : none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CHIPPeWa PaRK TELEPHONE 698 -3814 AREA CODE 612 A New Adventure in Apartment Living 790 SO CLEVELAND AVENUE SUITE 224 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55116 December 13, 1978 City of Brooklyn Center Planning and Inspection Dept. 6301 'Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minn ATTN: Ronald Warren Director of 'Planning " and Inspection To Whom It May Concern: In regard to the Compliance - Orders dated November 13, 1978, and December 4, 1978 which are as follows: 1. Missing screens for Bldgs. 6315 and 6325 Camden Ave No, replaced by May 1, 1979. 2. Laundry room floor covering for Bldgs 6305, 63 6325, 6407 and 6417 Camden Ave. No. to be replaced by June 1, 1979. 3. Green area to be corrected by June 1, 1979. It is our intention as to the above matters that we will have replaced the missing screens not later than May 1, 1979. We will have repaired all of the laundry room floors mentioned not later than June 1, 1979, and we will have corrected the green area problem not dater than June 1, 1979. Respectfully, aro d iefs hul HL /j C HAS KA O �/ NOKOMIS HIAWATHA PONTIAC OSCEOLA MEMO TO: Linus Manderfeld, Fire Marshal FROM: Al Proctor, Fire Inspector DATE: December 18, 1978 SUBJECT: Fire Inspection of Chippewa Park Apartments On December 15, 1978 I conducted an inspection of the above apartment complex with Andy Alberti of the Building Inspection Department. We were accompanied by - the owner, Mr. Harold Liefschultz, and one of his maintenance personnel. An inspection was made of all six buildings and violations found on the previous two inspections, one as of this date corrected. It appears 'that Mr. Liefschultz and his staff have put forth .a great deal of effort to correct these violations and were most cooperative. I explained - to Mr. Liefschultz - that - the Fire Marshal's office would conduct another inspection of the complex in March of next year, and he informed me that he was requiring his staff to check all buildings in the complex weekly to prevent a similar situation from occurring. cc Building Inspection Fire Department BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE DEPARTMENT" 0884 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 561-5440 ADDRESS 5305, X315, 5325, 6407, 6417, 6427 Camden Ave. N T-EL. NAME OF BUSINESS Pa Ayrtml?P "tS TYPE OF OCCUPANCY rrntll units PERSON IN AUTHORITY TITLE • Fire Lanes Not Open ❑ Hydrants are Obstructed ❑ Aisles in Parking Lot Not Open and Passable • Exit Doors Locked or Obstructed ❑ Panic Hardware Not Operable ❑ Exit Door Closers Not Operable 4 • Exit Aisle Obstructed O Exits Not Properly Marked ❑ Flammable Liquids Improperly Stored • Aisles Not Open in Storage Areas ❑ Stock Not Piled 18" Below Sprinklers ❑ Stock Pile Not Below Bottom of Ceiling Joists • Storage Area Not Clean or Clear of ❑, Smoking in Store Restricted ❑ Fire Extinguishers Not Mounted or Serviced Rubbish Build -up ❑ Sprinkler Valves Not open or ❑ Standpipe & Hose Not Serviced -& Accessable ❑ No Clearance to Electrical Shut -off Panels Fire Department Connection Blocked ❑ Over Fusing of Circuits t ❑ Extension Cords over 6' ❑ Fire Doors to Heating Room Open ❑ Combustible Storage in Heating Room ❑ Disposal of Rubbish & Ashes Not in ❑ No Screen on Top of Incinerator ❑ Inadequate Clearance of Combustibles & Metal Container ❑; Kitchen Canopy & Filters Not Clean ❑ Heating Equipment! c ❑ Extinguisher System in Canopy, If Any, ❑ Fire Doors Not Closed- O Excessive Amount of Papers or Trash in the Area Not Serviced and Sealed ❑ Frayed Electrical Cords, Cords under Rugs, Etc. An inspection�of,the above mentioned facility revealed the following fire hazards. You are hereby requested to correct these conditions before Thank you for your cooperation. REMARKS All buildings Comply to' cede. lk A. .i: _e. s Al Proctor 12/18/78 Inspection Conducted By Date Shift Captain = White— Chief Pink —Bldg. Dept. Yellow— inspector Goldenrod —Job Site MEMO December 18, 1978` Ron Warren, Director of Planning & Inspections FROM: Andrew J. Alberti RE: Chippewa Park Apartments',. Camden Avenue Brooklyn- Center, Minnesota This memo is to advise you of the results of Friday's December 15th, 1978 inspection at the above address Al Proctor, Fire Department Inspector, Mr. Harold Liefschultz, myself, and the maintenance man checked each building that had housing and fire code violations and found all code violations corrected. Two housing code violations are still outstanding and are to be corrected by June 1, 1979. They are the general condition of the complex green area and repair to laundry room floors as noted on Compliance Order dated December 4, 1978, copy attached. The owner, Mr. Liefschultz, is to direct a letter to this department advising us of this time schedule.' *0u may want to consider 'licensing these apartments thru 9 p June 1, 1979, e and reinspect the green areas and laundry rooms at that time for compliance. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MN. 55430 Department of Planning and Inspection (612) 561 -5440 , HOUSING MAINTENANCE COMPLIANCE ORDER, DATE December 4,. 1978 COMPLIANCE DATE: De'eembev-4&1-39 -78 TO: Harold Li efschul tz 1746 Beechwood -St. Paul, MN 55116 LOCATION: 6305- 6315 -6325- 6407 -6414 Camden Avenoe North 'COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL: Andrew J. 'the following violations of the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy-Ordinance were cited during recent inspection of the above premises. You are informed-that these violations must be corrected on or before the COMPLIANCE'DATE_ indicated. The premises will be reinspected. Failure to correct or to make satisfactory arrangements to correct violations may result in suspension or revocation of a rental dwelling license, if applicable; and, in any case, may result in issuance of a citation which, upon conviction, is punishable by fine and /or imprisonment. Section 12 -1202 of - the ordinance provides for:.Right of Appeal,. it :is alleged that -a Compliance Order is based upon erroneous interpretation of this Ordinance The appeal must be s g ubmitted to the Inspection Department,, in writing, specifying the grounds for appeal, five (5) business days_ after service-of the order, and 'must be accompanied by a fill g fee of $15.00 in.cash or cashier's check. DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATIONS AND ORDINANCE SECTION 6305 Camden Ave. N. 1. Second and third story laundry room floor covering is missing and torn. 12 -704 4, 6315 Camden Ave. N 1. - Second and third story laundry room floor covering is missing and torn., 12 -.704 6407 Camden Ave. N. 1. Second story laundry room floor covering is missing and torn. 12 -704; 6414 Camden Ave. N. 1. Third story laundry room floor covering is missing and torn.` 12 -704 `6325 Camden Ave. N. . Lower level laundry room door has missing threshold. 12- 704 2. Second and third story laundry room floor covering is missing and torn. 12= 704 BROOKLYN CENTER Recommended Three (3) Year Community Development Plan YEAR I YEAR II YEAR III Handicapped Accessibility' $150,000 Handicapped Accessibility Handicapped Accessibility Park System a) Park System a) Park System b) City Hall Elevator b) City Hall Elevator Park Development 60,000 Matching Funds Housing Housing for LAWCON Project a) Rehab a) Rehab Central Park b) Contingency b) Contingency Housing 66,006 Administration 'Administration Rehab Program f Administration 24,000 TOTAL $ 300,000 ; MEMORANDUM • To: Jerry Splinter, City Manager_ From: James Lindsay, Chief of Police. Subj: Police Department Liquor License Report Date: December 1, 1978 The following is a report on establishments holding On Sale liquor licenses within the City of Brooklyn Center. The report covers the time period from January-1, 1978 to October 31, 1978., Also included immediately below is a chart listing the years monitored, number of establishments and number of incidents for five years, including this year. YEAR NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS NUMBE OF INCIDENTS 1974 9 236 1975 10 270 1976 11 212 1977 11 12 1978 12 117 The chart shows a significant drop in requests for service at the • liquor establishments while we had an increase of approximately 2,000 calls for service, approximately 15,000 to approximately 17,000 throughout the five (5) year period over the entire city. 1. BEACON BOWL - 6525 Lyndale Avenue North There were six (6) incidents reported at the Beacon Bowl during the period. None of the six (6) were liquor related and all stemmed from incidents in the lot. 1 theft 1 theft from auto 2 auto thefts 1 vandalism 1 transport (Met Fridley to transport party) The management has always been cooperative with the police department and I feel there won't be any change in the future, 2 CHUCK WAGON INN - 5720 Morgan Avenue North There were no incidents at the Chuck Wagon this year. The police de- partment just processed an application for new ownership, which pro - duced nothing to lead us to believe there will be any problems with the new owners /managers. 3. CICEROS - 5717 Xerxes Avenue North • There were five (5) incidents reported to the police department. None of the reported incidents related to their liquor license. 1 theft of mug 1 theft of bike from stock room 3 miscellaneous public The police department has had no problems with the management of this establishment and.feels there is no reason to believe this will change in the future. 4. GROUND ROUND - 2545 County Road 10 There were eleven (11) calls for service from the police department generated by this establishment this year. Four (4) of these calls were liquor related incidents, three (3) disorderly conduct, one (1) fight. One of the incidents resulted in the arrest of one male party for assault and disorderly conduct. These incidents occurred during the early portion of the.year and, since a changeover in managers occurred, there have been fewer and less severe problems connected with this establishment. It appears that there has been a concerted effort to eradicate any problem areas and I feel we can look for a much better management climate from this establishment. • 1 parking tag 1 property damage accident - 1 miscellaneous public 1 larceny from auto 1 found property 3 disorderly conduct (1 arrest) 1 fight outside 2 vandalism (one resulted in extensive inside building damage) 5. HAPPY DRAGON - 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard There were no incidents reported to the police department and we have no reason to believe that there will be any future problem with this management. 6. HOLIDAY INN - 1501 Freeway Boulevard There were fifty -two (52) calls for service from the police department during this year, which-is an increase of eight (8) over last year. Although all calls were up, the liquor related incidents are down from ten (10) last year to seven (7) this year; four (4) were drunks cause ing problems, one (1) domestic, two (2) noise disturbing calls. There were no arrests recorded at the Holiday Inn this year. -2- The management of the Holiday Inn has been, for the most part; co- • opera.tive and did change private security agencies, which has seemed to have helped diminish their liquor related incidents. There were , only three (3) juvenile related incidents this year, equal to last year. 1 smoke (ventilator motor burned up) 1 water flow alarm 11 thefts 1 auto theft 10 medicals 4 vandalism 2 parking tags 11 miscellaneous public 4 drunks - causing problems 3-kids disturbing 1 domestic 1 property damage accident - 2 disturbance calls 7. LEMON TREE - 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard - - There were eight (8) calls for service logged in the police department in this year's recording period. Four (4) of these were directly liquor related, with the last two (2) occurring on the same evening and involv- ing the same parties. Officers responded to the calls placed by the • hostess but, upon their _arrival, could get no information from the em- ployees in the bar area, other than the fact that the fight was over and the parties had left. Eventually the officers did speak to the manager, who was not on the premises during either altercation, and after explain- ing the problem, the officers were assured that the problem would be rectified. The victim in the assault did come in and file charges against his assailant and it was determined at that time he had never left the premises and was coming directly from the Lemon Tree at that time. In spite of the verbal assurances from the manager, the police admini stration is concerned about the non - cooperative attitude of the general employees and does see this as a potential problem.in the future. 1 theft from auto l miscellaneous public 2 disturbance calls 1 hit and run property damage accident 1 threatening phone call 2 fights in bar Myself and Captain Kline met with the owner of the Lemon Tree on 12-- 13 --78. He assured us that management has been ordered to cooperate fully with the Police department. He stated normally the Manager. would have been on the premise except that he had driven a sick` waitress home. The bartender involved has been fired.. It is my belief that management is sincere and cooperation will be there in the future. -3- 8. LYNBROOK BOWL - 6357 Dort' Lilac ;_Drive There were fort 4Q calls Y ( ) s f�sr service the Police Department • _ Y p ent generated from the Lynbrook. Bowl during this year's reporting period. (January l - October 31). This number is down from last year's total for a corresponding period, which was sixty -nine (69). That represents a forty -two per cent (420) reduction in calls Only seven (7) of the calls were directly related to their liquor license and, of these, none resulted in arrests There was only one (1) juvenile related trall to the establishment and this .resulted in the arrest of a juvenile for burglary. This call re- sulted from alertness on the part of the management, who called when the juvenile cashed in a large amount of old coins which, it was de- termined later, were taken from a house in a burglary. u glary._ The management has continued to be very cooperative and diligent in overseeing its business and I feel they do not constitute a problem for the police department. 1 lost person 8 miscellaneous public 3 stolen autos 2 drunks 6 theft from auto 1 theft 2 fights 4 vandalism 4 parking tags 3 disturbance calls 1 warrant arrest 2 hit and run property damage accidents 1 auto recovery 1 juvenile arrest 9. LEGION CLUB - 4307 -70th Avenue North r There was only one (1) incident requiring q g police service in this year's reporting period and this was not a liquor related incident. The police department has experienced no problems with this establish- ment in the past and the management has always been very cooperative. 1 theft from auto i 10. NINOS - 6040 Earle Brown Drive a There have been only three (3) requests for. service generated by this establishment an received by the police department. None of the re- quests cons titut d a liquor related problem. The management.of this establishment ha always remained cooperative and I have no reason to believe they wou d be anything less than cooperative in the future. 2 alarms 1 thef from auto -4- 11. PIZZA FACTORY - 6816 Humboldt Avenue -North ® The police department had only one (1) request service generated by this establishment in the reporting period, which was an admini strative request for a liquor license application background investi- gation the police department fortees no problem with this establish - ment as the new owner is the former manager of the business, who has- been cooperative in the past. 12. TACO TOWNE - 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard The police department received only one (1) non- liquor related incident involving this establishment and has received nothing to make us be- lieve we will. receive anything less than the good cooperation enjoyed in the past. 1 theft from auto 13. OFF SALE ESTABLISHMENTS The police department does not maintain a separate file for Off Sale establishments but, in checking general files, we have found no prob- lems associated with any of the Off Sale establishments in Brooklyn Center listed below. Brookdale Super Valu Brooklyn Center Country Boy Brooks Superette Country Club Market Red Owl Country Store Rog & Jim's 7 Eleven Super America Zayre's Shoppers City -5- ceiises to be approved by tha City Counc on Deceinber 18, 1978 - - - . NCH LICENSE ?.. S. Bench Corporation 3300 Snelling Avenue City Clerk x0WLING ALLEY LICENSE p Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No. G� _ �d ����� -tz'6U X -M Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St. ) , _Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle No. �d. City Clerk - CIGARETTE LICENSE A. & J., Inc. - 7548 Stillwater Way No. ) Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. No. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No. Ll. _ ,i)? Big --Bi Service Station 5710 Xerxes Ave. No. _ •, . , `` Brooklyn Center Mobil 6849 Brooklyn Blvd. .Brooklyn Center Shell 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Brother's Brookdale Restaurant Brookdale Shopping Ctr. - , Ij. Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. So. pp Gray Company 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy, McCulloch Industries, Inc. 1800 Freeway Blvd. M.Y.C. 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Cif Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. No. c`7? e a -Cola Bottling Co. 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Arctic Metal 6530 James Ave. No. 1`Y'��L�R� :oasumer Vending 2727 26th Ave. So. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd Schinder's Book Store - 5717 Xerxes Ave. No. 67 72 . CAuntry Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. No. Duc os Bros. American Legion 4307 70th Ave. No. JEM Bowl, Inc'. 104 E. 60th St, Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Marc's Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Blvd. Pyramid Petroleum Corporation 2605 County Rd. 10 Ralph's Super Service 6601 Lyndale Ave. No. �r f Red Owl Store 5425 Xerxes Ave. No. Wit, Southland Corporation 7841 62nd Ave. No. 7- Eleven 411 66th Ave. No. SuperAmerica Stations P. O. Box 248 SuperAmerica 6545 West River Rd. SuperAmerica 1901 57th Ave. No Vicker's Minnesota Oil Co. 7645 Lyndale Ave, So. Vicker's 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. �: ( Wits' Standard Service 6044 Brooklyn Blvd. C ity Clerk 10 1 ;OMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE Brookdale Pet Center 1269 Brookdale Ctr. Daisy Mae Dog Grooming 6830 Humboldt Ave. No. City Clerk "r� ASOI,INE SERVICE STATION LICENSE American Bakeries Co. 4215 69th Ave_ . No � !'c' �� —j ` --Bi rvic Station Se e S at on 57.10 Xerxes Ave. No, ookdale Car Wash 5500 Brooklyn Blvd. �.�'Yoklyn Center Mobil 6849 Brooklyn Blvd. ookiyn Center Shell 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Urooklyn Service Center 6901_ Brooklyn Blvd. Christy's Auto Service 5300 Dupont Ave. No. Federal Lumber 4810 No, Lilac Dr. Howe, Inc. 4 821 Xerxes Ave. No. �_'� � T �Ir Northwestern Bell Telephone 6540 Shingle Creek Pkwy. : rte''' !'✓ P'y Petroleum Corporation 2605 County Rd. 10 R�alph's Super Service 6601 Lyndale Ave. No. ` SuperAmerica Stations P. O. Box 248 SuperAmerica 6545 West River Rd. CcI.J SuperAmerica 1901 57th Ave. No. Vicker's Minnesota Oil Co. 7645 Lyndale Ave. So. Vicker's 6830 Brooklyn Blvd: Q�' .Wes' Standard Service 6044 Brooklyn Blvd, Bill West Service Center 2000 57th Ave. No, Zayre Shopper's City 3600 63rd Ave. No, City Clerk 7 , , ODGING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE No1iday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd, City Clerk N ONPERISHA BLE VENDING - MACHI LICENSE Consumer Vending Co. 2727 26th Ave. So. Schinder's Book Store 5717 Xerxes Ave. No, Sanitarian ` NURSING HOME LICENSE Maranatha Conservative Home 5401 69th Ave. No. City Clerk! OFF -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Big -Bi Service Station 5710 Xerxes Ave, No. r C=huck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave, No, c ferry's Brookdale Super Valu 5801 Xerxes Ave. No,- ? �� City Clerk QN -SALE CLUB LIQUOR LICENSE D.kioos Bros. American Legion 4307 70th Ave. No. d -, j A CZ �a2.r - City Clerk �N -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE _wero's 5717'Xerxes Ave. No, e tx- f:arle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Ground Round Restaurant 2545 County Rd. 10 - +�� Holiday Inn 1501 Free-way Blvd. J.W.A. Corporation 9448 Lyndale Ave. So. Lemon Tree 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. 1 Steak Round -Up 6040 Earle Brown Dr. City Clerk J ON -SALE INTOXICATING SUNDAY LIQ UOR _ "LICENSE Cicero's 5717 Xerxes Ave. No Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Ground Round Restaurant 2545 County Rd. 10 Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. J.W.A. Corporation 9448 Lyndale Ave. So. Lemon Tree .5540 Brooklyn Blvd. e Nana's Steak Round -Up 6040 Earls Brown. Dr. _h_• City Clerk ON -SA N LIQUOR LICENSE Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No. �, ✓/7�r't._, Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. No. - Donaldson's - 1200 Brookdale Ctr. -8r� Happy Dragon Restaurant - 5532 Brooklyn Blvd.,' ? �r Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 No. Lilac Dr. Pizza Factory 6816 Humboldt Ave No: " a Taco Towne 6219 Brooklyn Blvd. City Clerk_ 'O OL _ AND BILLIARD TAB LICENSE Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. City Clerk PU BLIC DANCE LICENSE JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle1?✓'?, Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.. z City C erk RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Harold & Howard Swanson 7240 West River Rd -. Renewal: Fred Johnson 5324 Bryant Ave. No. Robert A. Gold 7217 Camden Ave. No. Marvin C. Brieland 7229 Camden Ave. No . Gf�r. s alt?/ Robert & Ka ylene Rolf 5401 63rd Ave. No. 0 ZULU % r^ Gary Olson 3715 69th Ave. No ' . / Jerry Jacobson & Dennis Schuette- 4408 69th Ave. No. _C Gladys E. Perisian 3806 72nd Ave. No. a. y Director of Planning and Inspection SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Weight Loss Clinic 6040 Earle Brown Dr. Sanitarian -,