Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 09-11 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Brooklyn Center September 11, 1978 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2 Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Approval of Minutes - August 28, 19 7 8 S. Open Forum 6. Release Performance Bonds: a . Northbrook Alliance Church 7. Reduce Performance Bonds: a. Schell Clinic c. Pilgrim Cleaners e. Gallery of Homes b. 7- Eleven Store d. Bermel Smaby f. Holiday Inn 8. Appointments: a. Community Education and Services Advisory Council. Appointment of a City Council member and a City Manager to represent the sever. municipalities - that make up District 281. The present Advisory Council recommends appointment of Verne Baker and John Fischbach, Robbinsdale, because of their interest in and experience on the Council. b. City representative for the Citizen's Participation Committee for Urban' County (Community Development Block Grants) . c. Additional Election Replacement judges. -A finalized list of election judges has been compiled. 9. Resolutions; a . Acknowledging Gift from Minnesota Concrete and Masonry Contractors Association and - the Home and Garden Club of Brooklyn Center. - Acknowledging gift of fountain and bench area. b. Approving - the Minnesota Department of Transportation Plans and Specifications for Construction of Bridges 'and Approaches on FI -94 at 53rd Avenue North and 57th Avenue forth. -The above project constitutes 'the first phase of freeway construction In - the City of Brooklyn Center. Bids are scheduled to be opened for - the above project on September 22, 1978, with construction - to start this fall. c. Establishing Street Grading, Base and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -38 and Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Improvement Project No 1978 -39 and Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications. - Provides for the authorization to begin preparation of plans and specifications for the upgrading of 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street to Penn Avenue North. The City of Minneapolis is in agreement with the upgrading and is proceeding towards - the ini'tia'tion of - the projects CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- September 11, 1978 by the Minneapolis City Council. It has been informally agreed with the Minneapolis City Engineer that the plans for this project should be prepared under - the supervision of - the Brooklyn Center City Engineer with - the cost of preparing plans to be divided between the two municipalities in proportion to - their estimated construction costs. An agreement has been prepared which provides for -this division of cost in the plan preparation. d. Authorizing - the Mayor and - the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement Between the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis Providing for the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for - the Reconstruction of 53rd Avenue North Between 4th Street North and Penn Avenue North. e Approving Plans and Specifications for 'Utility Contract No. 1978 -0 and Directing Advertisement for Bids. - Included in this contract are projects No. 1978 -4 and 5, which provide utilities - to - the Real Estate Ten office building on Brooklyn Boulevard at the north corporate limits of - the City and Projects No, 1978 -31, 32, and 35 which provide utility service for further development of The Ponds development along Unity Avenue between 69th and 73rd Avenues North f. Establishing Shingle Creek Relocation Project No.. 1978 -40 and Ordering the Preparation of Plans and Specifications. P P , - Provides for - the first phase of - the Central Park development. program g. Ordering Construction of Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40. h. Establishing Central Park Grading Project No. 1978 -41 and Ordering the Preparation of Plans and Specifications. - Provides for - the general grading of the Central Park area for which - the City is receiving a LAWCON grant for 75% of - the construction cost. i. Establishing Shingle Creek Trailways Project No. 1978 -42 and Ordering the Preparation of Plans and Specifications. - Comprehends 'the construction of - the pedestrian/bicycle trails along Shingle Creek from County Road 10 to County Road 130 for which the City has received a LAWCON grant for 900 of 'the construction cost., 10. -Public Hearing on Proposed 1979 City Budget (8:00 p.m.) -The public hearing will be introduced and then adjourned, to be reconvened at the Special Budget Meeting of September 13, 1978. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- September 11, 1978 11. Plannin g Commission Items (8-15 p.m.): a. Application No. 78015 submitted by Independence Ten for preliminary plat approval for the property at 7240 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its August 24, 1978 meeting. b. Application No. 78047 submitted by Josephine Bovy for a variance from Section 35 -400 to permit a house addition with an approximate 10 foot encroachment into the side yard at 5946 Colfax Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended denial at its August 24, 1978 meeting. c. Appli -cation No. 78051 submitted by Brookdale Car Wash for a special use permit, and site and building plan approval for a canopy addition - to -the Brookdale Car Wash at 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its August 24, 1978 meeting. d. Application No. 78056 submitted by B & G Realty, Inc. for a special use permit and site and building plan approval for a 100 unit motel to be located adjacent - to and westerly of - the recently approved Embers site on James Circle south of Freeway Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its August 24, , 1978 meeting. 12. Ordinances: a. Amending Chapter 35 Regarding Carports and Canopies - Ordinance is a first reading and is recommended for the purpose of defining carports and canopies. f b. Amending Chapter 8 of - the Health and Sanitation Ordinance. Several different wordings are presented for your consideration in changing Health and Sanitation Ordinance No. 8- 108.01. 13. Discussion Items: a. Inventory of Human Services (Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council) . b Invitation to Meet with John Boland. Invitation is extended - to local elected officials and administrative officers to meet with John Boland, Chairman of Metropolitan Council, to discuss issues relating to community and the Metropolitan Council at Maple Grove City Hall on September 28, 1978 at 7 :30 p.m. c. Detached Worker Program. Frankie Francel of - the Northwest YMCA will briefly present information on the Detached Worker Program and its operation in Brooklyn Center. • d. Community Development Block Grants. - Explanation of projects possible with Community Development Block Grants. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- September 11, 1978 e. Review of Special Assessments for Projects Which are 'to be Assessed - this Year. -The Special Assessment hearing has been scheduled for 8 :00 p.m., September 25, 1978. f. Contract Wording Finalization with Local 320 14. Licenses 15. Adjournment I I MINNESOTA CHARITIES REVIEW COUNCIL, INC. 944 Baker Bldg. 706 2nd xxx2" �S i AvenueMinneapolis, Minnesota 55402 SEPTEMBER 1978 MAJOR APPEALS THAT FAILED TO MEET VCRC STAID ?DARDS AS OF Listing below does not mean that these organizations served no useful purpose or deliberately misled the public regarding finances. In most cases it reflects a failure to provide full disclosure of income and expenditures. Some of the organ- izations have filed information with the state but either did not supply full de- tails or revealed supporting costs over 30% and program expenditures below 70 %. While Minnesota law exempts religious and educational organizations from report- ing it allows them to file voluntarily and we do not encourage support of any public appeal that refuses to go on record. AMERICAN BROTHERHOOD OF THE BLIND HARE KRISHNA AMERICAN KIDNEY FUND HELP HOSPITALIZED VETERANS AMERICAN MEDICAL CENTER, DENVER INT'L. CHURCH RELIEF FUND AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (A.I.U.S.A.) KOREAN RELIEF AMVETS, NAT'L. SERVICE FUND LEUKEMIA SOCIETY OF AMERICA ANIMAL PROTECTION INST. LITTLE SIOUX INDIANS BOYS' ATHLETIC LEAGUE MISSIONHURST CANCER CARE, INC. FAT'L. CANCER CYTOLOGY CENTER CEDAR HOME FOR CHILDREN NAT'L. FDN. FOR CANCER RESEARCH CHILDREN'S RELIEF FUND NAT'L. LEUKEMIA ASSOC. CHRISTIAN APPALACHIAN PROJECT NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COLUMiBAN FATHERS OMAHA ROME FOR BOYS COMMUNITY CHURCHES OF AMER. & FUNDS PALLOTTINE r.IISSIONS CONGRESS FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (CORE) PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA COSTEAU SOCIETY, JACQUES RALPH NADER /PUBLIC CITIZEN CITY OF HOPE RED CLOUD INDIAN SCHOOL DAKOTA INDIAN FOUNDATION REHAB. CENTER & WORKSHOP, PA DAVID LIVINGSTONE MISSIONARY FDN. ST. JOSEPH'S INDIAN SCHOOL DISABLED AMER. VETS, CINCINNATI ST. JUDE'S CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HO DISABLED AMER. VETS, THRIFT STORE ST. LABRE INDIAN SCHOOL EPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF AMERICA SALESIAN? MISSIONS EWING E. MAYS MISSION SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER FATHER FLANAGANT'S BOYS' TOWN SOUTHWEST INDIAN FOUNDATION GIRLS' VACATION FUND U14IFICATION CHURCH GUIDING EYES FOR THE BLIND WORLD CHANGERS WORLD MERCY FUND (TOM ROONEY) MINNESOTA CHARITIES REVIEW COUNCIL, INC. 944 Baker Bld 706 2nd Ave. So. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 SEPTEMBER, 1978 MAJOR APPEALS THAT MEET MCRC STANDARDS AS OF Organizations on this.list have registered with the state of "Minnesota under the charities law and their financial reports indicate that supporting costs were reasonable and expenditures for program were close to 70% or over. It does not include organizations that bring few inquiries or appeals limited to local commun- ities such as: SCOUTS, CAMPFIRE GIRLS, HEARING SOCIETIES and the many UNITED WAYS, UNITED FUNDS and COMMUNITY CHESTS across the state. AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, M1N MARCH OF DIMES (NAT'L. FDN.) AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOC., AIN MENTAL HEALTH ASSOC. OF MIN AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION MINNESOTA EPILEPSY LEAGUE AMER. PRINTING HOUSE FOR THE BLIND MN ASSOC. FOR CKILDRFN WITH AMERICAN RED CROSS LEARNING DISABILITIES ARTHRITIS FOUNDATION, DIN MN. ASSOC. FOR RETARDED CITIZENS BAR NONE RANCH MN SOCIETY FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN` CANCER SOCIETY, AMERICAN w ADULTS (?!iSCCA) C A R E MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY, RAN CHILDREN'S ASTHMA RESEARCH INST. MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOC., MN CHILDREN'S HEALTH CENTER NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY NATIONAL ATAXIA FOUNDATION CHRISTMAS SEALS (LUNG ASSOC.) 3jj22MqM'g;1 1 CHRISTIAN CHILDREN'S FUND * NATIONAL FDN. /ARARCH OF DIMES PEARL S. BUCK FOUNDATION COURAGE CENTER (CAMP COURAGE) PLANNED PARENTHOOD COMPASSION, INC. RECORDINGS FOR THE BLIND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OF MN RED CROSS, AMERICAN CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION, HN SALVATION ARMY FOSTER PARE14TS PLAN * SAVE THE CHILDREN FEDERATION HEART ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN SISTER KENNY INSTITUTE HELEN KELLER CRUSADE UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY, MN HOLY LAND CHRISTIAN MISSION UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND INT'L. FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE UNICEF OF MINNESOTA INT' L. RESCUE COMMITTEE UNITED STATES COn+[MITTEE FOR UNICEF JONATHAN HOME FOR BOYS U.S.O. (UNITED SERVICE ORGANIZATIC KIDNEY FDN. OF THE UPPER MIDWEST VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA LEUKEMIA RESEARCH FUND, U OF M WORLD VISION LITTLE BROTHERS OF THE POOR VARIETY CLUB HEART HOSPITAL LUNG ASSOCIATIONS Asterisked agencies are ones that ask donors to pledge monthly payments for support of orphans or destitute families. Persons seriously interested in such programs should write for detailed reports available from the NATIONAL INFORMATION BUREAU - 419 Park Ave. So., New York, NY 10016, or the COUNCIL OF BETTER BUSINESS BUREAUS - 1150 17th St. N.W., Washington, DC 20036. If you are interested in an organization not listed, give us its name and complete address and we will try to give you a report. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 28, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scotto Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn, and Administrative Assistants Mary Harty and Brad Hoffman, INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Bailey, OPEN FORUM There was no one scheduled to appear on the Open Forum, Mayor Nyquist inquired if anyone in the audience wished to be recognized for the Open Forum; there being none, the Open Forum was closed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MINUTES OF THE REVENUE SHARING PROPOSED USE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING) The City Manager explained the minutes of the Revenue Sharing Proposed Use Administrative Hearing were presented to the Council for their approval. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to acknowledge receipt of the minutes of the August 14, 1978 R, ^venue Sharing Proposed Use Administrative Hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against:. none. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (CITY COUNCIL) AUGUST 14, 1978 Motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of August 14,-1978 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. FI NAL PLAT APPROVALS The City Manager recommended. final plat approval for Irving Estates Subdivision submitted by David Brandvold o The approval is for property lying north of 69th Avenue North and westerly of Irving Avenue North. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on May 22, 1978 under Application No. 78025. In presenting the documents for the final plat approval, the Director of Public Works explained Hennepin 8 -14 -78 -1- County was using a new format to present the information. Transparencies are now being used by Hennepin County and the actual documents are being microfilmed. There was a motion by Councilmember' Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the final plat for Irving Estates Subdivision submitted by David Brandvold for property lying north of 69th Avenue North and westerly of Irving Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager recommended the approval of the final plat for the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park registered land survey for property lying at the southeast quadrant of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on May 8, 1978 under Application No. 78021. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the -final plat for the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park- registered land survey for property lying at the southeast quadrant of the Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, AUTHORIZE SUBDIVISION BOND REDUCTION The City Manager recommended the financial performance guarantee for Linder's Ist Addition be reduced from $8,100 to $7,250 on the basis that corresponding obligations, have been satisfied. The financial performance guarantee had previously been reduced from $9,800 to $8,100 on April 24, 1978. In response to questions from the Council, the Director of Public Works responded the financial performance guarantee was for site improvements on eleven.lots in the Linder`s Addition at a cost of $850 per lot. Presently the work has been - completed on four lots and therefore, the reduction in the amount so listed is recommended. Motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve subdivision bond reduction for Linder's - lst Addition from $8,100 to $7,250. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF RE The City Manager introduced a resolution providing for a public hearing on proposed assessments for September 25, 1978. This is recommended for the purpose of establishing a public hearing on proposed special assessments for September 25, 1978. The Director of Public Works indicated a data sheet would be provided to Council members before the public hearing. He further explained two additional projects on Lyndale may be added to the list if those projects are finalized before the September 25 date, RESOLUTION NO. 78 -182 ` Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: + RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1978 8 -14 -78 -2- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded,-by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the . following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a resolution 'placing on file and opening proposed assessments for public inspection. This is recommended for the purpose of officially opening the proposed special assessments for public inspection. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -183 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PLACING ON FILE AND OPENING PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager recommended the resolution accepting a quotation for Curb and .Gutter Contract 1978 -No The contract provides for Halvorson Construction - Company to do the curb and gutter work on James Circle on a quotation basis. The Director P W m r of Public Works explained this project would co l ete the construction p p ) p `on James Avenue. The City Manager explained that these resolutions accepting' quotations for contract work seem technical but if bonding is necessary 'in the future, very detailed documentation is needed for the bonding and this type of technical resolution provides that documentation. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -184 - Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION FOR CURB AND GUTTER (CONTRACT 1978 -N) The motion for the adoption'of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka', and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none_, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, The City Manager introduced seven resolutions accepting work for improvement projects for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and /or water main. The work on these projects has been satisfactorily completed by Walhunt Construction Company. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -185 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED BY CITY) 8 -14 -78 -3- 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 o 78 -186 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 r 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 -187 Member Bill Fignar 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 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 -188 . - 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. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -189 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CONTRACTED _ • BY CITY) 8 -14 -78 -4- 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 t 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 -190 M Tony Kuefler 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 -191 Member Bill, Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 1978 -D (CO 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. The City Manager recommends a resolution supporting the City of Richfield in a lawsuit contesting the compulsory binding arbitration provisions of the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act. The City Manager explained the City of Richfield feels the arbitration panel award issu d for 1976 Labor Contract with Local #1215, International Association of Firefighters, is a capricious an -d arbitrary award. Additionally,_ the League of Minnesota Cities is supporting the City of Richfield in this lawsuit because the Board of Directors of the: League of Minnesota Cities believes there is a possibility with this case to -test the scope of the arbitrator's award even if the arbitration itself is not declared unconstitutional. The City Manager further explained the lawsuit is contesting the constitutionality of the arbitration provision of the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act for essential employees which includes both fire and police employees In response to questions from the Council, the City Manager explained the resolution supporting the City of Richfield includes two parts, first, a resolution expressing support for the City of Richfield in the lawsuit and second, a contribution of $100 to the League of Minnesota Cities to help defray the cost of the Supreme Court appeal. The City Manager indicated the $100 could either 8 -14 -78 -5- be drawn from the Council's Professional Services budget. ' RESOLUTION NO. 78 -192 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following_ resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CITY OF RICHFIELD LAWSUIT CONTESTING PELRA COMPULSORY BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist; Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, The City Manager introduced a resolution amending the • 1978 budget to include additional ceramic tiling of the pool at the Brooklyn Center Community Center, In conjunction with the bid on the tiling of the swimming pool, the City also requested a price for any additional work which might be requested in the future. The contractor quoted a price of $3.30 per square foot for additional work. It is recommended the City proceed with the additional tiling projects because the areas in question are very difficult to maintain on a daily basis and annual renovations consume considerable time and money. The tiling would alleviate this problem, The City Manager further noted if the work was not done until 1979, there would be an approximate 20% increase in the cost to accomplish the'work at that time. In response to questions from Council members, the Director of Finance responded there was approximately $800,000 to $900,000 in committed dollars in Federal Revenue Sharing funds (unallocated) and there was ,approximately $300,000 to $400,000 in received dollars in Federal Revenue Sharing funds (unallocated). The City Manager explained he wished to include in the resolution work on the stairways of the Community Center at a cost of $1,950, for a total cost for the ceramic tiling of the Community Center areas of $13,286. RESOLUTION NO, 78 -193 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1978 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR ADDITIONAL TILING IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a resolution authorizing the issuance of temporary improvement notes. He explained there is a need for interim financing prior to the selling of bonds to finance certain improvement project costs which are to be assessed against benefited properties. The temporary improvement notes would 8 -14 -78 -6- be in the amount of $80,000° RESOLUTION NO. 78 -194 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT NOTES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member 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 presented the Council with a list of election judge replacements for the primary election on September 12, 1978. Motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the election judge replacements as submitted by the City Manager. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager explained the proposed Housing Commission Seminar Budget for the Housing Awareness Seminar to be held on Septemberl6, 1978. He indicated • he did not anticipate the need to underwrite the cost of this seminar as it was anticipated the registration fees would cover the cost of the seminar. The maximum dollar amount needed was $177.50 but again, it is anticipated, this amount would be covered by registration fees Councilmember Fignar as Council liaison to the Housing Commission invited and encouraged City Council members to attend the Housing Awareness Seminar. He explained the Commission had worked closely with Phil Cohen to put together the seminar. Councilmember Scott also encouraged the Planning Commissioners to attend the Housing Awareness Seminar. Cour.c:ilmember Scott noted there was information on the Housing Awareness Seminar included in the Metro Council Newsletter. Registration for the seminar is $3.50 for advanced registration and $5,00 for registration at the door. Motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the Housing Commission Seminar Budget for the Housing Awareness Seminar to be held September 16, 1978. Voting in favor:. Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager explained a discussion of Community Development Block Grants was for the purpose of consideration of participation in Urban County through a joint cooperative agreement with Hennepin County. The joint cooperative agree- ment would allow Hennepin County to include Brooklyn Center as part of their application statistics in applying for the Urban County status. Approval of the 8 -14 -78 -7- joint cooperative agreement does not commit Brooklyn Center irrevocably to the program. There would still be the opportunity to withdraw from the program at a future date. The City Manager indicated it was his recommendation the approach to Community Development Block Grants be handled conservatively so as not to establish an umbilical cord relationship with the Federal government. In response to questions from Council members, the City Manager explained some federal programs provide federal dollars for the initiation of certain programs which later have to be assumed by the local government. This is not necessarily the case with Community Development Block Grants if approached cautiously. The City Manager further indicated the City staff was thoroughly researching our participation in Community Development Block Grants and the ramifications 'of that participation, The City Manager does not propose hiring additional staff to handle Community Development Block Grant Programs. The City staff is looking at Community Development Block Grants as a way to carry out programs which would bcr_, ;fit the Community without unduly burdening the City. Finally, the City Manager explained the Council would have the opportunity to provide additional input at the time program adoption was to be considered Mayor Nyquist expressed concern over the use of federal money. Mayor Nyquist further suggested that the City Attorney review the joint cooperative agreement with Hennepin County_ before the City of Brooklyn Center entered into that agreement. • Responding to Council members questions, the City Manager clarified the Urban County status available to Hennepin. County. Hennepin County fits the require - ments of an Urban County whereas, Ramsey County does not fit the requirements of an Urban County. Ramsey County, therefore, must apply for Community Development Block Grants as a small City which makes it very difficult to acquire the funds. As an applicant under Urban County, Hennepin County is virtually assured of receiving Community Development Block Grant Funds. Councilmember Fignar questioned the 5% administrative costs in the first year as explained in the contract and the 2% increase in administrative cost each year thereafter to a maximum of 10 %. The City Manager replied there are communities which feel this charge by Hennepin County for administrative costs is high. Councilmember Kuefler indicated the Urban County approach to applying for Community Development Block Grants was a common approach being used across the country as indicated in the National League of Cities Conference. The City Manager further indicated the administrative costs as listed in the Joint cooperative agreement were the "going rate The City Manager replied to questions from Council members by explaining Community Development Block Grant monies have been used in the past to provide housing rehabilitation loans and grants for low and moderate income groups, to acquire park lands, to eliminate barriers to handicapped individuals, to provide replacement trees on public lands to establish code enforcement programs, to start water and sewer projects, and to create rent subsidy programs. 8 -14 -78 -8- He explained the range of activities allowed under the Community Development Block Grant Program is generally quite broad but the emphasis of the programs have changed since the inception of Community Development Block Grants. For example, a stated objective as of 1977 for Community Development Block Grants was the alleviation of physical and economic distress through the stimulation of private investment and community revitalization in the areas where there is a stagnating or declining tax base. The City Manager indicated the Community Development Block Grant Program is narrower in scope than the Revenue Sharing Program but that it was necessary to meet certain requirements before the funds could be received. The City Manager explained the final application for Community Development Block Grants was due before November of 1978 and it was anticipated the City would not receive money from this program until approximately August of 1979 There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to participate in Urban. County through a joint cooperative agreement with Hennepin County after the City Attorney has reviewed the joint cooperative agreement, Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The City Council recessed-at 7 :55 p.m. and reconvened at 8 :10.p.mo PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager explained Mr. Dietrich, representative of Meadow Corporation, - �had requested an early hearing of the Planning Commission Applications concerning Meadow Corporation because Mr. Dietrich had to attend other meetings that evening. The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application Nos. 78048, 78049, and 78050, submitted by the Meadow Corporation and recommended for approval at the Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 1978. ` The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the above listed Planning Com- mission Applications submitted by Meadow Corporation could be dealt with concurrently. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained Application No. 78048 submitted by Meadow Corporation was for a special use, site and building plan approval for the 4th development Phase of the Ponds located at approximately 71 st and Unity Avenue North. The development comprehends 66 cond6minium single family attached dwelling units. Application No. 78049 comprehends a preliminary plat approval for the Ponds Plat 3 consisting of outlot C and I of the Ponds Addition located at approximately 71st and Unity Avenue North. Application No. 78050 comprehends preliminary plat approval for the Ponds Plat 4 consisting of outlot D of the Ponds Addition located at approximately 71st and Unity Avenue North. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly explained each _application and directed Councilmembers to the minutes of the Planning. Commission meeting of August 10, 1978. He explained public hearings had been held at that Planning Commission meeting. 8-1 -9- Concerning Application No. 78049, it was explained a sidewalk would give access to the people living there to the Zanewood Grade School. The Director of Public Works explained Mr. Harold Swenson, from the School District, had asked this accommodation be made and Meadow Corporation agreed. It was suggested by Councilmember Scott it would be helpful if Brooklyn Park would provide a walkway to connect with the Brooklyn Center walkway. The Director of Public Works indicated the suggestion could be discussed with Brooklyn Parka Councilmember Kuefler inquired whether or not it was the City's responsi- bility to plow that sidewalk. The Director of Public Works indicated it was not the City's responsibility because it was the Homeowner's Association property, although an easement does exist , for that property. In final comments, the Director of Planning and Inspection explained one of the reasons for phasing within the Ponds Development was it was the intent of the developer to finish one phase before going on to the next. The phasing concept seems to be working well as all of the units in Phase I have been sold except for the models and the majority of the Phase II units have been sold. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained there was a provision for 'fencing the development as the phases were completed. Thus far, the applicant has installed fencing on Phase I and will be installing fencing in Phase II in the fall. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 78048. There was no one to speak on the application. Mr. Dietrich commented briefly on the application. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78048 submitted by Meadow Corporation subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2 Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject'to 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. Development of this portion of the planned residential development shall also be subject to applicable conditions of the original develop - ment approval by the City Council on October 18, 1976 under Appli- cation No. 76041, including the provision for screen fencing along the R -1 (single family) zoning district boundary, 8 -14 -78 -10- 5. Viable turf, such as sod or seed shall be provided for all open space areas in accordance with approval by the City. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 78049 Mr. Dietrich commented briefly on the application. There was no one else to speak on the application. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Application No. 78049. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: 'none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78049 submitted by Meadow Corporation subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review" and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances 3. A sidewalk easement as approved by the City shall be provided. 4. Modifications of the cul -de -sac westerly of Unity Avenue as approved by the City Engineer shall be submitted prior to City Council review. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 78050. . The applicant commented briefly on the application. There was no one else to speak .on the application. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public hearing on Application No. 78050. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve .Planning Commission Application No. 78050 submitted by Meadow Corporation subject to the following conditions: 1 . The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Director of Planning and Inspection introduced Application No. 78055 also submitted by Meadow Corporation which comprehends a preliminary plat approval for the Ponds Plat 7 located in the vicinity of 73rd and Unity Avenue North. The 8 -14 -78 -11- Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its August 24 1978 meeting, it was further explained the area comprehends 112 rental units. The developer indicated there may be* a desire in the future to sell the units individually. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated there was discussion at the Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 1978 as to the need for Homeowner's Association document that would meet with the City Attorney's approval if and when any unit was sold individually. It was the intent of the Planning Commission that a Homeowner's Association would be required before any units would be put up for sale. This item was taken care of as one of the conditions of approval for the application. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing on Appli- cation No. 78055. In a response to a question from Councilmember Kuefler concerning water in the area, Mr. Dietrich responded it was a fact some people in the area had water problems but these problems were not caused by the Ponds Development. It.is felt that the Ponds Development has probably improved the problem rather than increasing the problem. There were no other people present to speak on the application. There was a motion by Council- member Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Application No. 78055, Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council- members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78055 submitted by Meadow Corporation with the following conditions: 1. Final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. An appropriate easement shall be provided adjacent to Shingle Creek for purposes of environmental protection and public recreational access such as trailways and bikeways as determined by the City Engineer. 4. Final plat is subject to the development of a Homeowners Association document approved by the City Attorney, or insurance, satisfactory to the City Attorney, that a Homeowner's Association document will be put into effect when, and if, the development changes from a rental to a condominium ownership development. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 77064 submitted by Gene Hamilton comprehending an appeal from an administrative ruling regarding the structural addition at 6230 Lee Avenue North. Application No. 77064 was considered by the.City Council at its July 24, 1978 meeting and it was decided to defer action on the application for 30 days until more information could be 8 -14 -78 -12- gathered and studied by the Council. The City Manager explained in clarification of the issue that the Building Official had ruled a carport structure at 6230 Lee Avenue North to bean accessory structure and, therefore, the structure must meet setback requirements. The City Manager indicated the staff was prepared to answer questions the Council might have on the application. In response to questions from Council members, the Director of Planning and Inspection explained the present ordinance does not clearly define carport, canopy, or awning, but, Mr. Hamilton's structure by use, is considered an accessory structure. Mr. Hamilton explained his interpretation of the ordinance which he felt made his structure a canopy and, therefore, not subject to setback requirements. As a point of clarification, the City Attorney explained there are many terms in City Ordinances which are not defined. He further noted it is typical for City administrators, City Councils, and Planning Commissions to define terms within the City Ordinances by their function or size. This practice is legally defensible. The question at issue in this case is whether or not this particular use should be allowed to encroach on the setback. Councilmember Kuefler stated it was his belief the structure was a carport as determined by its use, as opposed to a canopy. Councilmember Kuefler indicated he concurred with the Planning Commission recommendations Mayor Nyquist stated he did not find the structure at 6230 Lee Avenue North aesthetically objectionable but he was concerned with potentially objectionable similar structures in other areas if Mr. Hamilton's structure was allowed to stand. Mayor Nyquist was concerned about the precedent which would be set. Councilmember Lhotka indicated he also was concerned with the consequences , of easing the setback requirements. He found the appearance of Mr. Hamilton's structure acceptable but was fearful of what might happen if the setback require - ments were eased. He concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendations. Councilmember Fignar explained the design and structure of Mr. Hamilton's accessory structure does not deter from the aesthetics of the neighborhood possibly because of the setting of the site, nevertheless, he was concerned similar structures might not be as acceptable on other sites. He further elaborated that people had chosen to come to the suburbs for aesthetic reasons, for more light, air, safety, and less noise, and setback requirements helped keep these amenities available. Councilmember Fignar agreed with the Planning Commissioner's recommendation. Councilmember Scott concurred with other Council members and with the Planning Commissioner's recommendations. She indicated the Council would be hardpressed to turn down future applications, regardless of whether or not they were objectionable. She further indicated the City of Brooklyn Center `s setback requirements were similar to other suburban communities. Tangentially, Councilmember Scott explained she did not feel this application met the standards for a variance because there was not 8 -14 -78 -13- a question of a particular hardship to the owner nor was the .parcel. of land oil the situation unique. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kue fler to deny Planning Commission Application No. 77064 submitted by Gene Hamilton comprehending an appeal from an administrative ruling regarding the structural addition. at 6230 Lee Avenue North and to uphold the Building Official's ruling that a carport accessory structure erected within the front yard setback cannot be permitted because the structure by its use is defined as a carport. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hamilton questioned whether or not his next option was to apply for a variance. Mayor Nyquist suggested Mr. Hamilton should check with the Planning and. Inspection staff. The City Manager introduced Appl�C. Cation No. 78052 submitted by Delbert Holmin which comprehends a varia =nce from Section 35 -400 to permit construc- tion of a single family home at 6315 Brooklyn Boulevard that encroaches on the 50 foot setback requirement along major thoroughfares. The Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 78052 at its August 10, 1978 meeting because it was their feeling the standards for a variance were not met. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the setbacks on major thoroughfares are not established for the sole reason of facilitating street widening but the 50 foot setback on major thoroughfares as opposed to a 35 foot setback on other streets was' established because of the volume of traffic on major thoroughfares and because a 50 foot setback provides for a possible turn around area which eases access to major thoroughfares. The Director of Planning and Inspection further explained there was a perpetual covenant on the properties in that area which recognize the properties as residential properties. For this reason, before commercial development could occur, there would have to be public hearings. Councilmember Scott stated the issue at question was whether or not the 50 foot setback was reasonable and sensible. It was her feeling the need for safety, uniformity, light, air, and open space could best be met by the 50 foot setback. Furthermore, she indicated the lot was so close to the 63rd street intersection that backing out on Brooklyn Boulevard would be difficult. She indicated she felt the 50 foot setback was reasonable and also very necessary. She explained the 50 foot setback requirement did not create a hardship for the applicant as defined in the standards for a variance but that the 50 foot setback presented a mere inconvenience to the applicant. She further indicated the design of the house and the placement on the lot could be changed to meet the standards of the 50 foot setback. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained he and the Building Official had proposed the same house design with a different placement on the lot ,which would meet the 50 fobt setback requirements but the applicant . felt this was not 8 -14 -78 -14- an acceptable arrangement to him. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated the lot was not deficient in gross square footage and the design as proposed by the City staff would meet all setback requirements. The Mayor opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 78052 0 The Mayor recognized Mr. Delbert Holmin. Mr. Holmin presented a copy of the perpetual covenant covering the property in question. The covenant required lots within the covenant to be used for residential purposes only and that all building types would be detached single family dwellings, Mr. Holmin explained he had attempted several years ago to get a release from the covenant but he was not successful at that time. Mr. Holmin also presented to the Council some photos of the area in question. Mr. Holmin explained the designs suggested by the City staff were not acceptable to him because it would comprehend only a very small back yard. Mr. Holmin .explained he needed more than 29 square feet for his back yard. He also explained he had driven along Brooklyn Boulevard looking for homes which had a 50 foot setback and could only find one. As a point of clarification, the Director of Planning and Inspection explained other homes on Brooklyn Boulevard built at different times fell under different ordinance requirements for setback. Councilmember Fignar inquired as to what precedent would be set if the Council allowed Mr. Holmin to construct his home on Brooklyn -Boulevard with less than a .50 foot setback. The Director of Planning and Inspection replied there would b8 a precedent set and furthermore, it would affect not only Brooklyn Boulevard but all other major thoroughfares within the City of Brooklyn Center. The City Attorney explained there were many situations where zoning ordinances changed and, therefore, different rules apply to different buildings. He indicated this was not unusual but was very typical. Furthermore, it is legally defensible to uphold new ordinances for buildings constructucted after passage of the ordinance. In response to concerns raised by Mr. Holmin that other vacant lots in the area might be commercially developed, the Director of Planning and Inspection explained the types of rezoning contemplated in the area by the Comprehensive'Plan include service /office uses and multi- residential, not C -2 uses. Finally, Mr. Holmin explainer) he had first begun the application process in February and each month the cost of building his home was rising approximately $500. , He expressed dismay at the length of time it was taking to reach a decision on the application, In response to this concern, the Director of Planning and Inspection briefly outlined for the Council the history of the application and its processing. He briefly explained the City staff's suggestions to Mr. Holmin and their correspondence with him. T There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Application No. 78052. Voting in favor: Mayor`Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka -, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 5_ 8 -14 -78 -I Councilmember Kuefler asked whether the. 50 foot setback applied to all types of buildings on major thoroughfares. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the 50 foot setback applies to all uses on major thoroughfares. He pointed out that certain uses are allowed to have parking within the 50 foot setback area. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to deny Application No. 78052 submitted by Mr. Delbert Holmin because the application does not meet the standards for a variance and furthermore, approving the application would set an irrevocable precedent on all other major thoroughfares* within the City of Brooklyn Center concerning 50 foot setbacks. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and .Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka was excused at 9:26 p.m. The City Manager introduced Application No. 78054 submitted by Lund Martin Company which comprehends site and building plan approval for the construction of a free standing lithium storage building at Medtronics, Inc,, 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the appli- cation at its August 10, 1978 meeting. Councilmember Lhotka returned to the table at 9:30 p.m. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained lithium was used by Medtronics in making pacemakers and that lithium reacts violently when exposed to water and, therefore, must be stored in a temperature and humidity controlled environ- ment.- He explained the building proposed would- be located approximately 40 feet from the existing building and would, be constructed with 12 inch concrete block. He stated no fire sprinklers would be provided in the building but another fire detection system would be supplied. He stated the Fire Chief had reviewed the plans and had suggested heat and smoke detectors connected to a centrally monitored alarm system should be installed. The applicant concurred with these suggestions Mr. Pete Wilkin from Medtronics and a representative from Lund Martin were present and they briefly commented on the application. They concurred it was necessary to handle lithium in a heat and humidity controlled environment-. They indicated it was safe as long as it was left in sealed containers and only opened in a dry room where there was no more than 0% to 5% humidity. In response to questions from Council members concerning the amount of lithium currently stored, Mr. Wilkin explained Medtronics receives the lithium in a 55 gallon barrel in which one gallon cans are securely nestled. Medtronics currently has approximately 4 barrels and this number might be expanded to 6 barrels an any one time. Mr. Wilkin further explained the type of reaction which would occur if lithium came in contact with water. Councilmember Lhotka 'n n h Ci t inquired whether rt was �.n the best interests of e . ty to limit the amount of lithium stored at the Medtronics location The City Manager suggested it might be more advantageous to stipulate that lithium be 8 -14 -78 -16- stroed only in the dry room as a condition of approval of the application rather than limiting the amount stored. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 78054 submitted by Lund Martin Company subject to the following conditions: . 1 a The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Any grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The proposed building will be equipped with a lithium type fire extinguisher inside the door of each section of the proposed storage building. 4. Heat and smoke detectors will be provided in each section of the building and will be connected to an approved fire monitoring system. 5. Any rooftop mechanical equipment exceeding the height of the proposed parapet shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The exterior of the storage building shall be compatible with the exterior of the existing building. 7. All lithium used by Medtronics will be stored in the new building with the exception of what is needed in production. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded I)y Councilmember Kuefler to approve the following list of licenses: GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE Tarco of Minnesota - MCS 10041 Polk St. N.E. (third truck) ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Lenny DeMann 11740 Jefferson St. N.E. (Iten Chevrolet) 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Lawrence Brown 8901 West River Rd. Brookdale Shopping Ctr. pp g 8 -14 -7$ -17- MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Petroleum Maint. Co. 1420 Old Hwy 8 RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Charles & Linda Sabatke 6306 Brooklyn Dr. Jerry Harrington & Eugene Berg 1200 - 67th Ave. No. Renewal: Robert Miggins, William Koski and James Just 6451 Brooklyn Blvd. Transfer: Gary M. Olson 3715 - 69th Ave. No. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, The Mayor noted he had received an invitation from the City of Brooklyn Park to the City of .Brooklyn Center to participate in a softball game for the benefit of LEAP. The date is tentatively set as September 10 with a location yet to be decided. The Council accepted the invitation. ADJ OURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to adjourn the Council Meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council- members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Clerk Mayor P 8 -14 -78 -18- MEMORANDUM T0: Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Laurie Thompson, Planning Aide SUBJECT: Performance Agreements Recommended for Release or Reduction DATE: September 6, 1978 Site inspections have been made and on the basis of completed improvements, release or reduction of the Performance Agreements for the following projects is recommended: 1. Northbrook Alliance Church, 6240 Aldrich Avenue North (Planning Commission Application No., 72067) Release $1,000.00 bond submitted by Northbrook Alliance Church. 2. Schell Clinic, 412 66th Avenue North (Planning Commission Application No. 77008) Reduce $7,500.00 cash escrow submitted by Dr. Robert Schell to $1,000.00. 3. 7- Eleven Store, 413 66th Avenue North (Planning Commission Application No. 73028) Reduce $10,000.00 bond submitted by Harstad Todd Construction to $5,000.00. 4. Pilgrim Cleaners, 6850 Brooklyn Boulevard (Planning Commission Application No. 78010) Reduce $6,000.00 cash escrow submitted by Johnny's, Inc. to $1,000.00. 5. Bermel - Smaby Office Building, 6500 Brooklyn Boulevard (Planning Commission Application No. 71031) Reduce $7,500.00 bond submitted by Bermel-Smaby Realty, Inc. . to $2,000.00 6. Gallery of Homes, 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard (Planning Commission Application No. 78006) Reduce $6,000.00 cash escrow submitted by Berwin & Kruger, Inc. to $1,000.00. 7. Holiday Inn, 1501 Freeway Boulevard (Planning Commission Application No. 77065) Reduce $40,000.00 cash escrow submitted by John D. Sheehan, )r. to $5,000.00. Director of Panning and Inspection 40uCATIOn, o tM o® M MEMORANDUM 2 I TO: City Managers Mayors FROM: Dr. Carroll Vomhof, Director Community Education and Services :DATE: August 29, 1978 As you know, the appointment of a city council member and a city manager to represent the seven municipalities that make up the District 281 to the Community Education and Services Advisory - Council is for a one year term. Last year you selected Verne Baker, council member from Robbins- dale and John Fischbach, city manager from Robbinsdale, as your representatives. These were excellent choices. The Advisory Council strongly recommends that you renominate Verne and John for the 1978 -79 school year because of their interest, expertise and having continuity on the council. We want to have the council approved by the District 281 board of +education on Monday, September 25. If we do not have the names of representatives by Friday, Septmber 22,,we will assume ,you want Verne and John to Continue representing you. If you have any questions, please call, 533 -2781, x218. cc: Dr. E. Gary Joselyn Dr. Leroy E. Hood CV :bjr .CQ MUNITY EDUCATION AND SERVICES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281 ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS 3915 ADAIR AVENUE NORTH -CRYSTAL. MINNESOTA 55422 PHONE 612 -533. 2781 • �n C-�(it1G1C� � � n DATE: August 31,_ 1978 To: Cooperating Communities /Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program i-leNN @PIN FROM: Hennepin County CCXJNTY SUBJECT; - Urban Hennepin n Count Planning n Area Citizen P Y 9 Advisory Committees Pursuant to previous discussion tlrban Hennepin County cooperating communi ties are requested to begin the process of selecting representatives to their Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committees ( PACAC). These Committees, as well as the overall Citizen Participation Plan, are structured to address citizen participation requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended in 1977. The responsibilities.of the PACAC's will include review and comment on the one and three year- hdusing assistance plans and community development programs proposed by the communities within their respective planning areas The Citizen Participation Plan is undergoing final review by the Urban County and be transmitted to you soon for review and comment. Due to the Year V Application Development Schedule,.however, it is necessary to begin - the Committee selection process now. All communities must submit Committee recommendations t o the County by Friday, October 13,1978 or risk for eating representation Each community is asked to select one individual who is not an or elected official as their representative to the PACAC. These names will.be recommended to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for official appointment to the Committees. A sample resolution for submitting names of individuals for Board appointment is attached. Communities are reminded of the regulatory obligation to strive for repre- sentation on each Committee of low and moderate income persons, members of minority,groups, the elderly and the handicapped. Insufficient representa- tion of any of these groups may necessitate additional appointments by the Committee. The committee may also augment its membership by recommendation to the County Board for other pertinent reasons but not in such number as to create a PACAC of more than 15 members. Listed below are the five planning areas and the communities contained therein. Also listed are the Urban County staff persons assigned to each area.. You are encouraged to address any questions regarding this process to.the staff person assigned to your community. Area 1 r Jim Ford (348- 7473) Brooklyn Center Crystal Golden Valley New Hope Rabbinsdale St. Anthony Election Judges Primary Election September 12, 1978 Precinct 1 Head Judge (R) Marian Smith 5431 Oliver Avenue North 560 -8063 (R) Donna Bennett 2106 54th Avenue North 560 -8927 (R) Mildred Egnell 5400 Oliver Avenue North 560 -9252 ( D ) Lucille Kircher 5550 James Avenue North 560 -9425 (D) Ardyce Matson 5525 Morgan Avenue North 561 -5892 Precinct 2 Head Judge (D) Dorothy Boman 6419 Dupont Avenue North 561 -4965 (R) Ethel Irving 6020 Emerson Avenue North 561 -6479 (R) Adeline Lonn 6342 Fremont Avenue North 561 -3877 (D) Eileen Smith 6330 Fremont Avenue North 561 -4077 :(R) Nancy Tanji 6330 Girard Avenue North 561-2732 Precinct 3 Head Judge (R) Evonne Chatelle 7006 Newton Avenue North 561 -2586 (D) Esther Durland 6851 W. River Road 561 -2487 (R) Sharon Finucane 7013 Morgan Avenue North 561 -1692 (D) Jean Schiebel 2120 70th Avenue North 561 -6208 (D) Nancy Chambers 6917 Dallas Road 566 -6236 Precinct 4 - Head Judge (D) Alice Madir 7024 Quail Avenue North 561 -8263 (R) Marilyn Heinke 4101 Woodbine Lane 561 -4195 (D) Phyllis Petroski 4507 71st Avenue North 561 -2895 {D) Joan Hagemann 7119 Halifax Avenue North 560 -6533 (R) Johanna Heer 4200 Woodbine Lane 561 -6244 Precinct 5 Head Judge (D) Geraldine Dorphy 4306 W nchester Lane 533 -9017 (D) Alice VanMeerten 4519 Vii 3z1chester Lane 537 -8151 (R) Gladys Leerhoff 4301 66th Avenue North 537 -4791 (R) Dorothy Rogers 5207 65th Avenue North 533 -5879 (D) Jean Lindstrom 4300 65th Avenue North 533 -9696 Precinct 6 Head Judge (R) Barbara Jensen 6539 Drew Avenue North 561 -3071 (D) Virginia Fourre 6543 Beard Avenue North 561 -3116 (D) Lois Moeller 2818 O'Henry Road 561 -3839 (R) Joan Reavely 3018 Mumford Road 561 -6570 (R) Judith Dax 2814 Northway Drive 560 -0865 Page 2 Election Judges Precinct 7 Head Judge (D) Mona Hintzman 4018 58th Avenue North 533 -9792 (R) Mary Gosz 5330 Boulder Lane 533 -8248 (D) Carol Benkofske 4019 Janet Lane 533 -4513 (D) Edna 011anketo 5807 June Avenue North 533 -9954 (R) Dawn Kiefer 6218 Kyle Avenue North _ 537-6515 Precinct $ Head Judge (D) Ethel Pettman 4919 Beard Avenue North 535 -4306 (R) Kathy Theisen 5701 June Avenue North 537 -2267 (R) Dorothy Olson 3906 Burquest Lane 537 -6845 (D) Mary Berg 5236 Greatview Avenue 537 -2104 (R) Enid Torell 3400 50th Avenue North 535 -4807 Election Judge Replacements Precinct 1 replacement (D) Ardyce Matson 5525 Morgan Avenue North 561 -5892 for (D) Edith Boldischar 5624 N. Lilac Drive 560 -0474 Precinct 2 replacement (R) Nancy Tanji 6330 Girard Avenue North 561- 2732 for (D) Mary Ellen Karlsgodt 6001 Fremont Avenue North 561 -3378 Precinct 3 replacement (D) Nancy Chambers 6917 Dallas Road 566 -6236 for (D) Mary Kampa 7226 Dallas Road 560 =3514 Precinct 4 replacement (D) Joan Hagemann 7119 Halifax Avenue North 560 -6533 , for (R) Pat Bednarczyk 3624 Violet Avenue North 561 -6495 replacement (R) Johanna Heer 4200 Woodbine Lane 561- 6244 for (R) Mary Pascoe 7060 Perry Avenue North 561 -8867 NOTE: Alice Madir will now be Head Judge for Precinct 4. Precinct 6 replacement (R) Judith Dax 2814 Northway Drive 560 -0865 for (R) Josephine Swart 6007 Xerxes Avenue North 566 -1004 Precinct 7 replacement (R) Dawn Kiefer 6218 Kyle Avenue North 537 -6515 for (R) Bonnie Oliver 6000 Halifax Place 537 -9125 Precinct 8 replacement (R) Enid Torell 340050th Avenue North 535 -4807 for (D) Lorraine Wyman 3501 Admiral Lane 537- 1365 Page 3 Election Judges The following will count the paper ballots and assist with voting at the Maranatha Nursing Home: Florence Johnson 5 731 Fremont Avenue North 561-3828 Jean Tubman 6425 Girard Avenue North 561 -5422 Barbara Sexton 3824 5 8th Avenue North 537-2118 i i r - i Member introduced - the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE MINNESOTA CONCRETE AND MASONRY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION AND THE HOME AND GARDEN CLUB OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, - the Minnesota Concrete and Masonry Contractors Association and - the Home and Garden Club of Brooklyn Center have presented the City with a decorative water fountain and bench area;. and WHEREAS, 'the City Council is appreciative of - the gift and commends the Minnesota Concrete and Masonry Contractors Association and - the Home and Garden Club of Brooklyn Center; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center - to acknowledge the gift with gratitude. 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 THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES AND APPROACHES ON T.H. 94 AT 53RD AVENUE NORTH AND 57TH AVENUE NORTH. WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota has caused to be prepared: plans, special provisions, and specifications for the improvement of.Trunk Highway No. 392, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 94, within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, at 53rd Avenue North and.57th Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, said plans are on file in the office of the Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota; being marked, labeled, and identified as: S.P. 2781 -227 -228 (94 =392); and WHEREAS, said special provisions are on file in the office of .the Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota; being marked, labeled, and identified as S.P. 2781 - 227 -228 (94 -392); and which together with the "Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway Construction," dated 1978, will govern, and which are on file in the office of the Commissioner of Transportation, i constitute the specifications for said improvement of Trunk Highway No. 392, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 94; and WHEREAS, copies of said plans and special provisions as so marked, labeled and identified are also on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the term, "said plans and special provisions," as hereinafter used in the body of this Resolution will be deemed and intended-to mean, refer to, and incorporate the plans and special provisions in the foregoing recitals particularly identified and described; and WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation desires in the interest -of public safety that any and all parking of vehicles, if such parking is permitted within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center., on said Trunk Highway No. 392, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 94, will be parallel with the curb adjacent to the highway and will be at least 20 feet from any crosswalk; and WHEREAS, any grading or filling required by this project is deemed to be consistent with the requirements of the Interim Development Regulations administered by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Resolution No. NOW, THEN BE IT RESOLVED that said plans and special provisions • for the improvement of Trunk Highway No. 392, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 94, within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, be- and hereby are approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby agree to require the parking of all vehicles, if such parking .is permitted within the corporate limits of said City, on said Trunk Highway No. 392, renumbered Trunk Highway No. 94, will be parallel with the curb adjacent to the highway, and at least 20 feet from any cross - walks on all public streets intersecting said trunk highway. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the elevations and grades as shown in said plans and special provisions are hereby approved and consent is hereby given to any and all changes in grade occasioned by the construction of Trunk Highway No. 392,' renumbered Trunk Highway No. 94, in accordance with said plans and special provisions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a grading permit is hereby approved by the City, 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 followin g resolution Y and moved its adoptions RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -38 AND CURB & GUTTER & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -39, AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to initiate Street Grading, Base& Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -38 and Curb & Gutter & Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1978 -39; - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for said improvement projects, described as follows: 1978 -38 - Street Grading, Base & Surfacing (M.S.A.P. 109- 113 -01 -) North 1/2 of 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street North to Penn Avenue North. 1978 -39 - Curb & Gutter & Sidewalk (M.S.A.P. 109- 113 -01) North side of 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street North to Penn' Avenue North. Date Mayor _ r 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 PERTAINING TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS REGARDING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 53RD AVENUE NORTH FROM 4TH STREET NORTH TO PENN AVENUE NORTH. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1) That the City of Brooklyn Center enter into an agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the following purposes, towit: The City of Brooklyn Center agrees to provide certain preliminary engineering services for the reconstruction of 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street North to Penn Avenue North, and the City of Minneapolis agrees to pay the.City of Brooklyn Center for its proportionate share of the said engineering services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement, and 2) That the Mayor and City Manager be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. Date Mayor ATTEST Clerk The motion for 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 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NO. 1978 -4 AND 1978 -31; SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -5; STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NO. 1978 -32 AND 1978 -35, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS. (UTILITY CONTRACT 1978 -0) BE IT RESOLVED -by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The plans and specifications for the following improvements prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the Clerk. Water Main Improvement Projects No. 1978 -4 and 1978 -31 Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -5 Storm Sewer Improvement Projects No. 1978 -32 and 1978 -35 2. The Clerk shall advertise for -.bids for such improvements by publication at least once in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin,.the -date of first publication not less than ten (10) days prior to the date for receipt of bids. Said notice shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed and accompanied by a cash deposit, bid bond, cashier's check or certified check payable to the City Clerk in the amount of not less than five per cent (5/) of the bids. 3. Bid date is set for Wednesday, October 11, 1978, at 11 :00 o'clock A.M., central daylight time. 4. The City Manager and City Engineer shall be authorized to opOn and tabulate the bids. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution /; and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SHINGLE CREEK RELOCATION PROJECT NO. 1978 -40, CENTRAL PARK GRADING PROJECT NO. 1978 -41, AND SHINGLE CREEK TRAILWAYS PROJECT NO. 1978 -42, AND i ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to _initiate Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40, Central Park Grading Project No. 1978 -41, and Shingle Creek Trailways Project No. 1978 -42; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and - specifications for said Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40, Central Park Grading Project No. 1978 -41, and Shingle Creek Trailways Project No. 1978 -42 described a r desc ib s follows- Project No. Description 1978 -40 Relocation of Shingle Creek (County Ditch No. 13) through Central Park in accordance with the Central Park master plan. 1978 -41 Grading and site development work in Central Park. 1978 -42 Construction of pedestrian/bicycle trails along Shingle Creek from County Road No. 10 to County Road No. 130.. i Date * Mayor ATTEST- j 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. 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF_SHINGLE CREEK RELOCATION PROJECT NO. 1978 -40 AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that it is necessary and for the best interests of the City that the 'following improvement shall be constructed: Project No. 1978 -40 r Relocation of Shingle Creek (County Ditch No. 13) through Central Park in accordance with the Central Park master plan. The estimated cost is $70,000.00. 2. The plans and specifications for said Project No. 1978 -40 prepared by the City Engineer, are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Treasurer be directed to encumber the.amount of $ 70,000.00 for construction of said project from the Capital Projects Fund. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: .whereupon said resolution -was declared duly passed and adopted. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 'AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION AUGUST 24, 1978 CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Gilbent.Engdahl at 8:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, Hawes and Theis Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn, Administrative Assistant Mary Harty and Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (PLANNING COMMISSION) 8- 10 -78. Motion by Commissioner Malecki and seconded by Commissioner Hawes.to approve the minutes of the August 10, 1978 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor. Chairman Engdahl., Commissioners Malecki and Hawes. Voting against: ainst: none. The motion passed. Commissioners Jacobson a d his abstained as t were no p n Theis they a tat that meeting. APPLICATION NO. 78015 (Independence Ten) Following the C airman s exp anation, the first item of consideration was Application No. 78015 submitted by Indpendence Ten. The Secretary explained that this appli- cation was for preliminary plat approval and is the result of a condition of approval for Application No. 77026 which rezoned from R1 to "C1 a triangular piece of property located northerly to d nothel ofSi y Shingle Creek and-easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard.. .. COMMISSIONER BOOK ARRIVES Commissioner Book arrived at 8:12 p.m. ,. .. . The Secretary next reviewed a transparency and that the northerly boundary of the property is the municipal city limits between the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park while the southeasterly property line was originally established according to the center line of Shingle Creek before the Creek was..real- i- gned.... He pointed out that this meandering boundary line is also the northwest- boundary line of the Wingard Addition which consists of several lots, and one of the purposes of the replatting is to clarify the boundary situation since the present Creek is to the northwest of that line. The Secretary reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this application on April 6, 1978 and had tabled the matter to allow the staff to meet with affected property owners to resolve this boundary problem. He added that the Commission, on April 27, 1978, again reviewed the preliminary plat and the City Engineer reported on .the 1 e resu is of the meeting held with the affected ro ert owners. He explained p P Y p that three of the four property owners in the Wingard addition, affected by the realignment of the Creek, were interested in participating in the replatting of this area, the fourth property owner is satisfied with the survey he already has. He stated that the_ affected property owners have agreed to share the extra costs of the replatting, and the Commission had tabled this application to.allow the applicant time to prepare the preliminary plat. 8 -24 -78 -1- . The Secretary also stated that one consideration raised during the review of tnis preliminary plat was the.need to establish an appropriate easement along Shingle Creek for future uses such as a trailway or bikeway which could be incorporated into future plans for the Shingle Creek trailway system. The City Engineer ex- plained the changes in the old property lines comprehended by this preliminary. plat and how the meandering of Shingle Creek also affected these properties. He stated that since the Creek has been realigned, the new platting would create a definite north property line for those homes in the Wingard Addition which would be affected. He explained that the new property lines would -be coincidental with • the Creek easement line. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application with the City Engineer re- sponding to various questions by members of the Commission. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO.. 78015 (Independence Ten) ' Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes and.seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 78015 submitted by Independence Ten subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances: .3.. An appropriate easement shall be provided adjacent to Shingle Creek for purposes of environmental protection and public recreational access (such as trailways and bikeways) as determined by the City Engineer. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, Hawes, Theis and Book. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78047 (Josephine Bovy) The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 78047 submitted by Josephine Bovy. The Secretary explained that the applicant was seeking a variance from the side yard setback requirement contained in Section 35 -400 to build an approximate 10' by 16' enclosed entryway at 5946 Colfax Avenue North. He stated that the addition would encroach approximately.10 ft. -into the 25 ft. side corner setback required for co -rner lots. He reviewed a transparency showing the location and configuration of the property in question and stated that the applicant -has . submitted a letter explaining her request and outlining her justification for the variance. He explained that the applicant notes that a patio door in the side yard of her split entry home has, in essence, become the main entrance to that home. 8 -24 -7$ -2- 4 He further stated that she points out that weather conditions often make this entryway hazardous, and she contends that a hardship would exist if she was not permitted to construct the enclosed entryway. He pointed out that the applicant also contends that the construction of an enclosed entryway would make this entrance safe for access to the home during all kinds of weather; provide a barrier against the elements that would make the home more energy efficient; and afford privacy during the evening hours of darkness from those passing by on the street. The Secretary reported that this item was tabled by the Commission on August 10, 1978, and the staff was directed to further research the matter of 1976 zoning ordinance amendment to Section 35 -400 (2) that allows "a single family dwelling and permitted accessory structures to be constructed to within 15 ft. of the side corner lot line on a residential corner lot which was of legal record on December 19, 1957 and which does not meet the requirements of.this ordinance as to width." He explained that the staff was also requested to determine the number of sub- standard corner lots created after December 19, 1957. He reported that the research undertaken indicates there are approximately 47 substandard corner lots of record created after this 1957 date, including the applicant's property. He . further reported that the research indicates that the December 19, 1957 date used in the current ordinance language had to do with subdivision requirements estab- lishing 90 ft. wide corner lots as the standard. He added that the side corner yard minimum setback requirement was also changed from 15 ft. to 25 ft. around that same time. He stated that the rationale for the 1976 amendment was that the ordinance was working a hardship on properties of record prior to 1958 that could have been built upon using the old side corner setback ,requirement of 15 ft. He further stated that it also seems clear that this amendment was not intended to address all substandard corner lots, but only those that were created under the old ordinance standards. The Secretary further stated that if the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of this variance, they would, for all practical purposes, be saying that they would be prepared to recommend a possible 46 more corner lot variances in the future. The Secretary reviewed the standards for granting a variance contained in Section 35 -240 of the City Ordinances and stated that followi.ng_the. staff research, it is still felt, as was noted at the August 10, 1978 meeting, that the applicant does not meet these standards for a variance. He' pointed out that the applicant does not seem to meet the qualifications for a ;hardship as opposed to a mere inconvenience, nor are the conditions of the variance necessarily unique to this parcel. The Secretary next reviewed some options available to the applicant, other than her proposal for an enclosed entryway in the side yard. He pointed out that a sidewalk could be constructed to lead from the driveway area to the front entrance of the home to discourage use of this side entry particularly during adverse weather conditions. He added that it was also his understanding that there is a door leading from the lower level of the home to the inside of the garage, and that it might be possible to design this area to provide a safer access to the home. He added it might also be possible for the applicant to erect a canopy over the open stairway to provide some protection from the elements. The Secretary also reported that the Commission had requested draft ordinance language that might address the applicant's problem. He stated that a draft ordinance eliminating the December 19, 1957 date contained in*Section 35 -400 (2) of the present ordinance has been developed and is presented to the Commission for its review. He stated that this ordinance language would allow all corner lots that are substandard, with respect to width, to be within 15 ft. of the side corner property line. He added that this language should be thoroughly reviewed by the Commission and pointed out that the adoption of this language is not necessarily recommended.. 8 -24 -78 -3- He further stated that the question relating to this ordinance language really is whether or not the 25 ft. side corner setback for corner properties is desirable because the effect of the amendment would be to revert to the old 15 ft. standard for the most part. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the variance request and the ordinance language. In response.to an inquiry by Chairman Engdahl, the Secretary stated that there are several substandard corner lots of record prior to the 1957 date that have been built upon using the 25 ft. side corner setback. He added that this seems to indicate that even prior to the establishment of the 25 ft. standard, there had been some encouragement to build farther back than the 15 ft. standard. Chairman Engdahl inquired further if any building permits have recently been issued for substandard corner lots using the old 15 ft. setback standards. The Secretary responded that a building permit was recently issued for the construction of a garage set back 15 ft. from the side corner property line, but the property was of record prior to the December, 1957 date. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, who stated .the need for the variance in order to construct an enclosed entryway which would provide a safe entrance to her home in all kinds of weather, that it would make the home more energy efficient, and would also provide more privacy. Further discussion ensued relative to the application with Commissioner Book in- quiring regarding the 1976 ordinance amendments that affected setbacks. The Secretary responded that in late 1975 three applications for variances were sub - mitted regarding side corner yard setbacks on substandard corner lots, setbacks on substandard interior lots, and rear yard setbacks. He explained that the re- sults of these variance requests led to an extensive ordinance review of setback requirements for the City. He explained that in 1976, following this research, ordinance amendments were adopted by the City including the one in question which allows structures to be built using the 15 ft. side corner setback provided the lots were substandard with respect to width and were also lots of record prior to December 19, 1957. He stated that ,present staff research into this matter in- dicates it was the City Council's intention at that time to draw the line -so to -speak on side corner setbacks using this 1957 date because those lots of record could have been built upon using the old ordinance standard. He pointed out that it also may have been the Council's intention to limit the effect of this ordinance to properties of record prior to December 19, 1957 that had already been built upon using the old 15 ft._ordinance standard. He pointed out that the present ordinance language does not, make this distinction. The Secretary stated that setback regulations have been established to, among other things, keep dwellings.farther back from dust, noise and fumes of the street; to add to the attractiveness and comfort of a residential district; to provide for aesthetics, uniformity, open space for light, air, view and safety; reduce fire hazards; provide space for off- street parking and provide visibility, especially in the area of street corners. He added that the question before the Planning Commission with respect to amending the current ordinance to allow all substandard corner lots to utilize the 15 ft. setback requirement is whether or not the current 25 ft. side corner setback is reasonable or desirable. He pointed. out that the effect of the amendment would be to revert to the old 15 ft. 'sta-ndard for the most part. 8 -24 -78 -4- IL . RECOMMEND DENIAL OF APPLICATIO NO. 78047_ (Josephine Bovy) Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 78047 submitted by Josephine Bovy noting that the lot was created after December 19, 1957, that the current 25 ft. side corner yard setbacks should be maintained and that the appli- cation does not meet the standards for variances contained in the City Ordinances particularly with respect to uniqueness and hardship. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Malecki, Jacobson, Hawes, Theis and Book. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE REGARDING CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACKS The Secretary inquired as to how the Commission wished to proceed with respect to the draft ordinance language that had been presented to the Commission regarding side corner yard setbacks. -Commissioner Engdahl commented that he did not feel - the Commission should recommend changing the ordinance standards particularly in light of his feeling that the current 25 ft. setback is reasonable and should be maintained. He added that he felt the Council should be aware that the Planning Commission had considered the possibility of an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Theis stated that he too felt the present ordinance standards should remain, and that he was not in favor of recommending the ordinance language. Following further discussion it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not recommend an ordinance amendment relating to corner side yard setbacks APPLICATION NO. 78051 ( Brookdale Car Wash) The next item of consideration was Application No.. 78051 submitted by Mr. Stephen Graham for the Brookdale Car Wash. The Secretary stated that the'applicant' proposes to add two canopy additions along the west side of the existing Brookdale Car Wash located at 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the purpose of the canopies is ". to provide screening from the sun and the elements for special wax jobs performed by the applicant. He noted that each canopy would be attached to the existing building and cover approximately 38 ft.Dahere it is attached to the building and extend approximately 14 ft. outward and be tapered down to, approximately 13 ft. at the outermost edge. He added that the height of the canopy would be 8 ft. at the outermost edge and 11 ft. where it attaches. to the building. Hd explained that the canopy will have a canvas cover and be supported by structural grade aluminum columns. He reviewed a transparency showing the location of the property. The Secretary stated that gasoline service stations and auto washes are special uses in the C2 District, and, therefore, a special use permit is also being re- quested in conjunction with this addition. He reviewed a copy of the standards for special use permits contained in Section 35 -220 of the City Ordinances, and added that it is felt the applicant meets these standards. The Secretary also pointed out that the applicant has undertaken many site improvements with respect to landscaping and plantings without any urging on the part of the-City. He further stated that it is felt that these improvements have substantially enhanced the area. The Commission next reviewed plans for the canopy additions, and a brief discussion ensued relative to the application. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing with respect to the special use permit. No one spoke relating to the application. It was also • noted that the applicant was not present. 8 -24 -78 -5- CLOSE PUB LIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki. seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Jacobson, the Secretary stated that the canopies would not be located in normal driving lanes, and that he envisions no problems with, cars backing into the poles supporting the canopy. In response to a further inquiry, the Building Official stated that the canopy would be a permanent type structure and would not be rolled up daily. He pointed out that, if the appli- cant proposes to remove the canopy during a particular time during the year, the canvas would be removed and the poles would be taken down. The Secretary showed the Commission sample materials to be used in constructing the canopies that had been submitted by-the applicant. Commissioner Hawes questioned whether or not it would be appropriate to place a restriction on this application that would prohibit the canopy from becoming dilapidated. He pointed out that he feels the present owner of the building would be quite concerned about the appear - ance, but that future tenants may not be as concerned, and the canopy might well become an eyesore. The Secretary responded that this application is a special use permit and that special use permits are not transferable, and therefore, if owner- ship does chapge hands, a new special use permit would be required. Chairman Engdahl inquired if the applicant would be allowed to have signery on the canopies. The Building Official responded by stating that such signery would be prohibited. - R ECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78051 (Brookdale Car Wash) Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Hawes to recommend approval of Application No. 78051 submitted by Brookdale Car Wash 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 special use permit is subject to all applicable codes ordinances and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. Voting in favor: Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, Hawes, Theis and Book. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78055-(Meadow Corporation) The next item of consideration was App ication No. 78055 submitted by Meadow Corporation. The Secretary stated that the applicant sought preliminary plat approval for the area in "The Ponds" Residential Development -that represents the.third development phase. to explained that on June 5, 1978 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 78029 consisting'of site and building - plans for this area. One of the conditions of that approval was that the sites of the proposed development are subject to replatting prior to occupancy of any. of the units therein. He reviewed a transparency showing the location of the property in question and stated that this development involves roughly what is known as phase 7 and 8 on the master plan and consists of 112 rental units. He pointed out that the applicant is proposing replatting of the area so that it • would be possible to sell these units individually at some point in time with these units later being incorporated into "The Ponds" Homeowners Association. 8 -24 -78 -6- The City Engineer noted that there was a slight change on the preliminary plat regarding the alignment of Unity Avenue to provide more of a right angle where it intersects with 73rd Avenue North. He explained.that this matter will require easements and agreements with abutting property owners and the City of Brooklyn .Park. He pointed out that there have been meetings, and that this matter will be worked-out. The City Engineer also pointed out that it is intended that after the buildings are built, the final lines will be determined, and then the final plat would be approved. brief discussion ensued relative to the discussion of Outlots considered pre - viously by the Commission, and the possibility of including as a of that definition, roadway areas. It was agreed that the matter should be looked into later in the meeting when the Commission reviews various ordinance language re- garding Outlots. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing. No one spoke relating to the application. He next recognized Duane Dietrich, representing the applicant, who stated that the preliminary plat before'the Commission is simply an extension of the previously approved site and building plans. He noted that this platting would allow this development area to be sold' as individual units somewhere down the road. He clarified a point made earlier in the meeting by the Secretary and stated that if the units are sold, it might be possible that they would become part of the "The Ponds" Homeowners Association or that a separate Homeowners Association could be established. The City Engineer pointed out that a Homeowners Agreement is not needed at this time, but added he felt it would be important that there be a that a Home- owners Association, which would be approved by the City Attorney, be part of the approval of this application. Mr. Dietrich responded that he did not see the ..� need to establish a Homeowners Association at this time when it is not the intent to sell the units individually. He stated that he did not object to the idea of providing the necessary Homeowner Association documents at the time of sale that met with the City's approval, The City Engineer commented that he felt it was a matter or working out an agreement and possible wording so that a Homeowners Association Agrement would be approved by the City at the time these units might be sold. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes and seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application with the City Engineer re- sponding to an inquiry by Commissioner Hawes by explaining the nature of a water and drainage problem in the area of 70th and Quail Avenues North. He noted that this matter had been discussed by the City Council recently and that it is felt the water problem is not associated with "The Ponds" Development. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78055 (Meadow Corporation) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Hawes to recommend approval of Application No. 78055 submitted by Meadow Corporation subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat is subject to review and approval by the'City Engineer. i 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 8 -24 -78 -7- 3. An appropriate easement shall be provided adjacent to Shingle Creek for purposes of environmental protection and public recreational access such as trailways and bikeways as determined by the City Engineer. 4. Final plat is subject to the development of a Homeowners Association document approved by the City Attorney, or assurance, satisfactory to the City Attorney, that a Homeowners Association document will be put into effect when, and if, the development changes from a rental to a condominium ownership development. - Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, Hawes and Theis. Voting against: none. Not Voting: Commissioner Book. The motion passed. RECESS: The Brooklyn Center Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 p.m. and resumed at 10:02 p.m. APPLICATION N0. 78056 (B & G Realty, Inc.) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78056 submitted by B & G Realty, Inc. The Secretary stated that the applicant is seeking special use permit and site and building plan approval 5 r an approximate 100 unit Budgetel Motel located on James Circle, south of Freeway Boulevard, adjacent to and westerly of the re- cently approved Embers Restaurant site. He stated,-that the special use permit is required for a C2 use in the I -1 District and as provided by Section 35 -330 (3) (f). He reviewed a transparency showing the location of the property in question, and stated that the applicant has indicated that either expansion of the proposed motel on the northerly portion of the site or a freestanding restaurant located in the southeastern portion of the site are being contemplated for future develop - ment. He noted that the applicant has requested deferral of certain site improve- ments for the area contemplated as a potential restaurant site. He stated this it is recommended a rolled bituminous curbing, rather than concrete B612 -curb and gutter, be permitted in that area proposed for the restaurant site. He stated that the Commission may well wish require a specific time period for this deferral. r The Secretary next reviewed the site and building plans with members of the Plan ping Commission and indicated the site plan shows 'a total of 118 parking spaces including 4 handicapped.spaces. He stated that the ordinance formula requires. parking spaces at the rate of one space per unit and one space for each employee on any one shift. He added that the applicant has indicated that the maximum number of employees at anyone time to be 12 and, therefore, 112 parking spaces, would be required. The Secretary also reported that the plans indicate a live -in or housekeeping unit apparently for an on -site caretaker or resident manager. He stated that this aspect'`has been reviewed with the applicant by the staff, and it has been indicated that residential living areas are not permitted in the I -1 or C2 zoning districts. The Secretary further reported that the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission not consider the live -in residential space as part of its site and building plan review for the project. He added that the matter does not seem to affect the applicant's plans to construct the motel, but they would like future consideration of the possibility of having such a live -in space in the motel'. He pointed out that the applicant has been informed that it would be encumbent on him to show that such live -in spaces can be compatible in this zoning district. He further stated that it has been suggested by the City Attorney that the Planning Commission and the City Council might well want to review this matter in more deta o within the upcoming months with the possibility of an ordinance amendment to permit such live -in spaces in hotels or motels if they feel it is warranted. 8 -24 -78 -8- The Commission next reviewed the site and building plans and the City Engineer commented on the grading, utility and berming plans as well as a detail of light fixtures proposed for the outside area. He stated that it has been suggested to the applicant that approximately three trees, 22 inches in diameter, be planted in the area that is proposed for deferral. He pointed out that it is felt that these trees could be moved at a future date if there was indeed development of a restaurant on this site at some time in the future. He added that in the mean time these trees would be given the opportunity to grow and would be desirable land scaping for that area. He noted that it is also recommended that a berm be pro- vided at the south end of the property in the area where certain landscaping treatments are recommended for deferral. He also pointed out that the applicant has proposed that a stone material be used instead of a wood mulch in various areas on the plan. He explained that the staff has recommended a wood mulch be used because of problems that have been experienced on other sites where stone rather than mulch has been used. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to access to the site from the proposed Shingle Creek Parkway Interchange with the Secretary and the City. Engineer re- sponding to various questions relating to traffic flows. Chairman Engdahl com- mented relative to deferring of consideration for the live -in residential area and inquired if the Holiday Inn when it had made application for site and building p q y p plan approval, had requested such a live -in accommodation. The Secretary responded that it was his understanding that in the preliminary review of the Holiday Inn site and building plans, there had been discussion about the possibility of a live -in resident manager. He stated that it is further his understanding that the matter was dropped and not pursued during the site and building plan review. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing relating to the special use permit. No one spoke relating to the application. P p P 9 pp CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion. Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimiously. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Joseph Spang, representing the applicant, and a lengthy discussion ensued relative tq the application. Mr. Spang stated that it is their intention at some point in the future either to expand the motel or to develop a freestanding restaurant on the site. He pointed out that in all likeli -- hood, there would not be both proposals. He further stated that they are request - ing a deferral period of approximately three years for the various landscape improvements discussed earlier by the Secretary. He noted that Budgetel presently has an agreement with Embers Restaurant that they will not build a restaurant on their site for at least three years. Chairman Engdahl inquired as to the applicant's feeling regarding'a wood mulch treatment around the buildings and various plantings areas rather than the stone indicated on the plan. Mr. Spang responded that it has been their experience that there has been little or no - problem with the stone, and that they wish to retain it. He added that he is aware of the City Engineer's concern that stones might be used to damage windows, but that they have not experienced this problem with any of their other motel operations. In response to further inquiries, Mr. Spang explained that the exterior of the building would be a stucco -type finish with a batten board overlay and that the mansard treatment would be uniformly • applied on all four sides of the building. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the applicant provide three 22 inch trees in the deferred area; provide a berm in the area recommended for deferral as approved by the City Engineer; and that the stone treatment around the building and in other areas be retained. 8 -24 -78 -9- Further discussion ensued relative to the landscape plan and the utilities plan with the City Engineer responding that the utilities for this site will be adequate. A discussion ensued relative to the location of a trash enclosure with Mr. Spang stating that they would recommend that it be in the northwest area of the site and that the exterior would be of the same material as that.proposed on the motel building. Chairman Engdahl suggested that the applicant might want to provide a roof over the trash enclosure especially in light of the fact that Shingle Creek Parkway will be above the site. The City Engineer stated that he felt the amount of trees located in that portion of the site would also provide some screening in addition to the enclosure. Commissioner Book inquired if the parcel to be built on has been subdivided by a plat. The City Engineer responded that presently it is all one parcel which in- cludes the bowling alley site as well as the Embers site. He explained that the final plat will be before the City Council at its next Council meeting. Commis sioner Book also inquired as to how the deferred area in the southeast portion of- the site would be treated. The City Engineer responded that the area would be left in its natural state unless it was disturbed because of the possibility of future expansion into this area. He pointed out that if the area was disturbed, it would require rejuvenation. Commissioner Book commented that he felt the Commission was looking at an incomplete set of plans and was uneasy about the proposal. R ECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78056 (B & G Realty, Inc.) Following futher discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes and seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 78056 submitted by BA G Realty, Inc. 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. Site grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by.the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of site improvements. 4. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 5. The Permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes, regulations, and violations thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 6. The property shall be subdivided by -plat or registered lam survey prior to the issuance of permits. 7. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 8. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 9. Smoke detectors shall be installed in all sleeping units as per Minnesota Building Code requirements. 8 -24 -78 -10- 10. An underground irrigation system shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer. 11. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 12. Concrete curb and gutter around the area proposed for a future restaurant site shall be deferred for a.three year period and a rolled bituminous curb shall be provided during that time. 13. The area proposed for a future restaurant site shall be main tained with a viable turf; other landscape treatments in this area are deferred for a three year period. 14. Plan approval does.not include approval for an on -site live -in unit as indicated on the plans; this `matter will be the subject of further review and discussion. 15. Three 22 inch trees and a berm in the area deferred for improve- ments shall be provided as approved by the City Engineer. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, Hawes and Theis. Voting against: Commissioner Book who stated he felt the plans were incomplete. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. _780 (R L. Johnson) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, that of a status report on Application No. 78032 submitted by R. L. Johnson. He explained that the -City Council, at its August 14, 1978 meeting, voted unanimously to deny R. L. Johnson's request to rezone from R -3 to C2 the property located northerly of Shingle Creek and westerly of Brooklyn Boulevard, based on the Planning Commission's recommend- ation . He explained that the City Council had also referred the application back to the Planning Commission with direction to study the feasibility of amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow split zoning on the property (Cl in the southerly portion and C2 in the northerly portion). He added that the Council also directed that the following items be considered by the Planning Commission in its review: 1. The adjacent land in Brooklyn Park which is .zoned for a higher density commercial use; 2. The soil conditions of the land which might make building ° difficult; 3. The fact that this Cl /C2 zoning might provide a buffer area between the already existing R3 development (Creek Villa) and the commercial development in Brooklyn Park; 4. The fact that the R3 zoning for that land may not be desirable because of the commercial development in Brooklyn Park and; 5. The Commission should also consider the possibility of rezoning the landlocked acreage west of Mr. Johnson's property and northerly of Shingle Creek to C1. 8 -24 -78 -17- The Secretary discussed the feasibility of amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow for C2 development along Brooklyn Boulevard. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses Brooklyn Boulevard and acknowledges Service /Office uses and Multipe Family Residental uses as desirable along this thoroughfare. He recommended that the Commission be very careful in making any possible recommendations for changing the Comprehensive Plan at this time. He added that to recommend a split zoning that included C2 zoning, in his opinion, would be contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. He'pointed out that a Cl zoning or an R5 zoning would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, but that a C2 zoning would raise certain contradictions. He also pointed out that the City Attorney, at the August 14,1978 City .Council meeting, had expressed his concern that C2 zoning on this parcel, whether or not the Comprehensive Plan was amended, could have a potential effect for possible other C2 rezonings all along Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Book commented that he did not feel the issue at hand was a matter of future zoning, but a matter of what the current zoning is. He stated that he did not feel R3 zoning for .this property was the best zoning. Commissioner Hawes commented that he would like to see some R3 zoning retained in the southerly portion of this property, and a C1 zoning in the remainder. Chairman Engdahl commented that he did not know how any C2 zoning could be justified on this parcel. Chairman Engdahl then recognized Mr. R. L. Johnson who submitted a proposed replat ti'ng for the property to accommodate,a split C1 /C2 zoning, with the property closest to Shingle Creek being zoned Cl and the property abutting the municipal border with Brooklyn Park being zoned C2. Mr. Johnson stated Lnat he felt the zoning cf - the property in Brooklyn Park immediately to the north of property the key to the.issue. He explained that a Cl zoning for that portion of the property closest to Shingle Creek would create an adequate buffer for the R3 property south of'Shingle Creek, and that C2 zoning on the northerly portion of the property would be compatible with the existing uses in Brooklyn Park. The Secretary commented that development proposals in conjunction with rezoning requests can be extremely valuable, but he pointed out that any rezoning of the property to C2 would allow the development of any of the C2 permitted and special uses contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary further stated that there are a number of other uses along Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Park, such as the Century Court Apartments, that are not zoned comparable to Brooklyn Center's C2 zoning. Commissioner Book commented that he would not object to any C2 development contained in the City Zoning_Ordinance for this property if the split Cl/C2 zoning were to occur. The City Engineer stated that the primary function of Brooklyn Boulevard is that of an arterial highway to move heavy volumes of traffic. He acknowledged that there were a number of C2 uses along Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Park, but pointed out that any C2 zoning of this property might well have an effect all along Brooklyn Boulevard resulting in other requests for C2 rezonings in the area. He pointed out that this would create a conflict with the primary function of Brooklyn Boulevard, that being an arterial or traffic mover roadway. 8 -24 -78 -12- • Chairman Engdahl next recognized Mr. Louis Terzich who noted that the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, of which he is a member, had spoke in favor of Mr. Johnson's proposal for a split Cl /C2 zoning of the property,.. He urged the Planning Commission to.look favorably on such a rezoning. In response to an inquiry by Chairman Engdahl, Mr. Terzich stated that he did have an interest in the transaction for a possible restaurant on a portion of the site, but had not participated in the voting on the matter when the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group had considered it. Chairman Engdahl then recognized Council member Celia Scott, who commented on the City Council's action and direction given to the Planning Commission. She pointed out that the Council was not telling the Planning Commission to act favorably on a split zoning, but only look further into the matter. She explained that the Council had denied a C2 rezoning for the entire portion of the property, but Mr. Johnson had indicated that he only desired C2 zoning for the northerly portion of the property. She indicated that the Council requested the Commission to look at - the various points to see if there was merit in a split zoning which would encompass some C2 zoning for the parcel. Chairman Engdahl expressed the opinion that to allow for the split zoning, the Commission would have to also recommend an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to acknowledge C2 zoning along Brooklyn Boulevard. The City Engineer commented on traffic generation associated with various zonings. He pointed out that one of the problems with a C2 zoning on Brooklyn Boulevard is the amount of traffic generated which would conflict with the intended use of Brooklyn Boulevard as an arterial highway to move heavy volumes of traffic. He- stated that in terms of traffic volume, R3 zoning would account for approximately 56 trips per acre per day,. while Cl zoning would account for approximately 250 trips per acre per day, and that C2 would account -for approximately 500 trips per acre per day.. He stated that in terms of trips per acre, C2 zoning would generate twice as many trips as Cl and almost 10.times as many as R3. He pointed out that this situation would be magnified as more property along Brooklyn Boulevard were 9 p p Y g Y rezoned for C2 uses. He added that such rezonings would be a major departure from the City's Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that he did not feel it would be appropriate at this time to go ahead with such a rezoning particularly in light of the fact that the City is now involved in-an updating of the Comprehensive Plan as mandated by State law. He further stated that the City, has retained a Consultant to advise in this Comprehensive Planning process, and that a rezoning would involve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at the proper time. He added that perhaps advice from the Consultant rega ring this matter should be sought. Chairman Engdahl and Commissioner Jacobson agreed that advice from the Consultant at this time regarding Brooklyn Boulevard would be worthwhile, and recommended that such advice be sought. Commissioner Theis commented regarding the split zoning proposal and stated that it seems Shingle Creek already provides a natural barrier for this property. Re- garding a buffer, he stated that he felt it would bean- injustice to leave this property zoned R3 and have it abut a C2 type use in Brooklyn Park. He added that he did not feel R3 zoning for this property was the best. The Secretary clarified that it has been indicated to the Commission that there well may be merit in rezoning this property to something other than R3. He pointed • out that a Cl rezoning similar to that which happened on the property directly across Brooklyn Boulevard from the property.in question might well have some merit, as would possibly rezoning this property to R5. He pointed out that both of these types of rezoning would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 8 -24 -78 -13- A CTIO N D IRECTING FURTHER RESEARCH Following further discussion there was a motion by Chairman Engdahl seconded by T Commissioner Malecki to table further action to the request for split zoning of this property and to direct the staff to contact the City's Comprehensive Plan Consultant for further input regarding the desirability of such a rezoning for a possible report at the September study meeting. The motion passed unanimously. DRAFT ORDINANCE REGARDING OUTLOTS A brief discussion ensued relative to a draft ordinance defining Outlots. The City Engineer referred to the Commission's discussion regarding the possibility of.including roadway areas in this definition, as was discussed earlier during the Commission's consideration of Application No. 78055 submitted by Meadow Corporation. He recommended deferring further consideration of the draft ordinance to give the City Attorney the opportunity to review it. ACTION DEFERRING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT ORDINANCE REGARDING OUTLOTS Motion by Chairman Engdah sewn ed by Commissioner Theis to defer further consider- ation of a draft ordinance regarding Outlots until a later Commission meeting to give the staff the opportunity to further review it. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :58 p.m. Chairman' 8 -24 -78 -14- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO CANOPIES AND CARPORTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35- 310 -(1) (b) (3) and Section 35 -311 (1) (h) (3) are hereby amended - to read as follows:. (3) One accessory building or carpor (either detached or attached Ito 'the dwelling building) where - the dwelling building ground coverage area does not exceed 880 square feet; in the event - the ground coverage area of - the dwelling building exceeds 880 square feet, two accessory buildings or carports (either detached or attached to the dwelling building) will be permitted provided that no one I .accessory building or carpor shall exceed 75% of the ground coverage area of - the dwelling building or 1000 square feet, which - ever is lesser; and provided - that - the ' area of both accessory buildings or carports (either detached or attached - to the dwelling building) shall not exceed 100% of the ground coverage area of - the - dwelling building, or 1100 square feet, whichever is lesser. Section 2. Section 35 -900 of the City rdinances is here amended in- Y Y part, by - the addition of - the following; Canopy - an accessory roof -like structure, either attached to or detached from a permitted building, open on all sides, other than where attached; which is located over and designed - to provide , temporary cover for entrances, exits, walkways, and approved off- . - street vehicle service areas (such as gasoline stations, drive -in establishments, and loading berths) . I Carport - an accessory roof -like structure, either attached to or detached from a permitted building, enclosed on not more than - two sides, which is designed to provide cover for approved off - street vehicle parking or vehicle storage space. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. - I ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of 1978. v Mayor ATTEST Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter.) C i • J_ September 7, 1978 Mr. Gene E. Hamilton 6230 Lee Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Re: Notice to Remove Carport at 6230 Lee Avenue Dear Mr. Hamilton: This letter is the result of the Brooklyn Center City Council's action of August 28, 1978 to deny your appeal of an administrative ruling and to up- hold the Building Official's ruling that a carport erected.- your property is an accessory structure that cannot encroach on the established setback standards. The matter of securing a building permit for this already e- rected structure was held in abeyance pending resolution of the appeal. This letter is to serve as official written notice that the carport structure must be completely dismantled and removed, so that there is no encroachment into the established front yard setback of 35 feet from your property line. The structure must be removed within 30 days of . receipt of this written notice. Gerald Splinter, City Manager, has requested me to respond to your August 29, 1978 letter regarding what route of appeal you have to retain the structure. There is no Special Use Permit provision in the City Zoning Ordinance which would provide for a carport structure to encroach on a setback requirement. A variance action would have to be requested. I agree, somewhat, with your assessment that a' variance from the setback stan- dards would, in all likelihood, not be granted. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council records indicate that some members of both bodies do not feel the "standards for variances" would be met. I have enclosed a copy of these standards for your review. It is on these standards that the City Council would make a final decision regarding the granting of a variance. The Planning Commission would also review these standards and make a recommendation to the City Council. Regarding other alternatives for retaining the carport, the Planning Commission had reviewed a possible ordinance amendment which would have addressed your situation as well as language would clarify the terms "carport" and "canopy The Commission on two occasions reviewed this language and has twice recommended that the language addressing your problem not be adopted. The City Council on September 11, 1978, will consider, for a first reading, an ordinance amendment regarding clarifying the terms "carport" and "canopy ". Mr. Gene Hamilton Page 2 September 7, 1 Also in your letter to Mr. Splinter, you refer to a question from Mayor Nyquist to Richard- Schieffer, City Attorney, and asked for clarification. I have dis- cussed this with the City Attorney and he has conveyed to me that he would be happy to discuss this matter with you. He can be reached at 5 61- 3200. If you have any questions or comments regarding these matters, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW /kk5 Enclosure cc. Gerald Splinter, City Manager Richard Sch i effer, C.i ty Attorney File Application No. 77054 4 PROPOSED ORDINANCE LANGUAGE Health and Sanitation 8- 108.01 ORDINANCE AS IT IS PRESENTLY WRITTEN 8- 108.01 Sources of Food - General All food in all food establishments shall be clean, wholesome, free from spoilage, adulteration, and misbranding, and shall be prepared, processed, handled, packaged, 'transported, and stored so p as to be protected from contamination and spoilage and shall be safe for human consumption. No home- prepared foods shall be kept or used in any food establish - ment, except , that home - prepared foods other than readily- perishable foods may be kept or used in schools and Houses of Worship. All food received or used in all food establishments shall be from sources approved by the Health Authority. AMENDED ORDINANCE USING PRESENT DEFINITION OF "SOCIAL OR SERVICE AGENCY" 8- 108.01 Sources of Food General. All food in all food establishments shall be clean, wholesome, free from spoilage, adulteration, and misbranding, and shall be prepared, processed, handled, packaged, - transported, and stored so as to be protected from contamination and spoilage and shall be safe for human consumption No home prepared foods shall be kept or used in any food establishment, -except 'that home prepared other than readily perishable foods may be kept or used in schools and houses of worship and by social or service agencies. All food received or used in all food establishments shall be from sources approved by the Health Authority. 8- 100.26 Social or Service Agency shall mean any organization not organized for profit, and no part of the net earnings of which inures - to the benefit of any_ private shareholder or individual. AMENDED ORDINANCE USING AMENDED DEFINITION OF "SOCIAL OR SERVICE AGENCY 8- 108.01 - Sources of Food- General All food in all food establishments shall be clean, wholesome, free from spoilage, adulteration, and misbranding and shall be prepared, processed, handled, packaged, transported, and stored so as - to be pro- tected from contamination and spoilage and shall be safe for human consumption. r No home prepared food shall be kept or used in any food establishment, except that home prepared foods other than readily perishable foods may be kept or used in schools anel in Houses of Worship, and by Social or Service Agencies at Itinerant Food Establishments. No Social or Service Agency shall be granted more than j Itinerant Food Establishment licenses per calendar year. All food received or used in all food establishments shall be from sources approved by the Health Authority. 8- 100.26 Social or Service Agency shall mean a Minnesota nonprofit corporation substantially devoted to public service or public charity, established and regularly operating within 'the City for a period of more 'than one year, - the bulk of - those members and shareholders reside within -the City M & C No -. 78 -28 " 'September 8, 1978 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Subject: Health and Sanitation Ordinance 8- 108.01 To - the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Jn - the Council meeting of July 24, 1978 a representative of the Mrs. Jaycees requested an ordinance change of Health and Sanitation Ordinance 8- 108.01 to allow - the Mrs. Jaycees organization to prepare nonperishable food in unlicensed kitchens, in this case - their homes. At - the August 14, 1978 meeting staff was directed by - the Council to draw up draft ordinance language - to allow "social and service" organizations - to prepare nonperishable_ food in unlicensed kitchens. As -the- attached memo indicates, 'the category of "social and service agencies" is very broad. An attempt to satisfy 'the request of one agency, the Mrs. Jaycees, virtually opens - the door -to a large arena of organizations. The Council should consider whether or not - they wish to allow unrestricted prepara- tion of nonperishable foods in - the very broad category "social and service" organizations Other draft ordinance language has been prepared and is attached .for your review, which would limit the preparation of nonperishable food in un- licensed kitchens by means other - than inclusion of "social and service" organiza- tions. I °t appears the door can't be opened slightly allowing only - the Mrs • Jaycees to prepare food in unlicensed kitchens. It appears 'the door will have - to be opened,, all the way or not at all. A Res e fu submitted, Gera4y ' Splinter City Manager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 4 • MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Mary Harty, Administrative Assistant DATE: September 6, 1978 SUBJECT Health and Sanitation Ordinance 8- 108.01 List of Social and /or Service Agencies Below are listed the social and service agencies located in Brooklyn Center. Additionally, on the attached sheets are listed the Human Service Agencies serving Northwest Hennepin County, some of which are actually located in Brooklyn Center and others which serve Brooklyn Center. z American Assn, of University Women Jaycees Aquatic Club North Hennepin Artist Association Babe Ruth League North Suburban Toastmistress Club Brooklyn Center Band Parents Without Partners • Chamber of Commerce Quilters Club Welcome Wagon Senior Citizens (Leisure Time) Women's Club S.P.E.B.S.Q.S.A., Inc. Camp Fire Girls Stamp Club Chess Club Square Dance Club Children's Chorus Toast Masters Contract Bridge Twin Lake Alano Duplicate Bridge Club Boy Scouts of America 4 -H Club Feingold Association Garden Club Mrs. Jaycees Girl Scouts Senate Dist. 45 Independent Republicans Harmonettes Brooklyn Center Republican Party Historical Society American Assoc. of Retired Persons Hockey Association Roving Robins Camp Club Judo Club Widowed 'Club LaLeche League Youth Football League of Women Voters Rotary Club Little League - National Tennis Club Little League - American CEAP Lions Club PROGRAM hemical Dependency Awareness Program Childbirth Education Association Classes Colonial Group Home Community Career Center; Robbinsdale Community Education- Anoka- Hennepin Dist. #11 Community Education- Brooklyn Center Dist. #286 Community Education (North Hennepin Community.College) Community Education- Robbinsdale Dist. #281 Community Education-Osseo-Dist. #279 Community Emergency Assistance Program, Inc. Emotions Anonymous Dinner -at -your -Door ' Division of Vocational Rehabilitation -NW Suburban Officc Family Education Center Foster Grandparent Program Golden Valley Health Center •• Adolescent Therapy Program- Inpatient Chemical Dependency Unit Program- Inpatient Chemical Dependency Unit - Outpatient Crisis Family Studies Outpatient Program Valley Youth Center Young Adult Program Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association .'•4p elping Industry Resolve Employment Disabilities ennepin -Anoka Congregate Dining Project Hennepin Area Youth Diversion Program -North Suburban Off. Hennepin County Court Services Adult and Juvenile Probation County Home School j Juvenile Detention Center Hennepin County Division of Mental Health /Mental Retardat and Chemical Dependency Hennepin County Alcohol & Drug Access, Intervention and Development Alcohol Receiving Center Circle F Hennepin County Chemical Dependency Aftercare Hennepin County CD Out- patient Programs f Hennepin County Mental Health Crisis Intervention Ce- Hennepin County Mental Health Day Treatment Hennepin County Mental Health Residential Services: Adult Psychiatric In- patient Hennepin County Mental Health Scheduled Intervention Child, Family, Adult- Medical Issuance Hennepin County Methadone Program Pioneer Extended Program Pioneer Primary CD Treatment Project Intercept -35- Taken from Inventory of Human Services as prepared by- the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council.' PROGRAM F y ' His Place Group Home Home Away Shelter • Homeward Bound, Inc. The House Indian Education, Dist. #281 Intergroup Association of Minneapolis`.& Suburban Area, Inc. (AA, Alono.n, Alateen, Alatot) t Joint Independent School Dist. #287 Juvenile Specialist, Crystal The Lord's Barn Lutheran Social Service - Counseling Mended Hearts Mercy Medical Center Cardiac Rehabilitation Chemical Dependency. In- patient - Chemical Dependency Out - patient (Aftercare). Detoxification Diabetes Education Family Edification Home Delivered Meals to Seniors Home Management of Arthritis Mental Health Unit Nutritional Counseling 1 Patient Education Physical Therapy Minneapolis Clinic of Psychiatry and Neurology MN Dept. Economic Security (State Employment Service), ; Crystal Branch -North Memorial Medical Center Cancer Patient Education Course Cardiac Intervention Rehabilitation Program Crisis Intervention Diabetic Education Emergency Chaplaincy Corps Home Care Personal Growth Groups Psychology Service Rape Counseling Share Cancer Oncolog Gro up are &Care: Out-patient g I� h Y Telefriend North Suburban Child Care Committee North Suburban Emergency Assistance Response g Y North Suburban Youth Health Clinic "The Annex" Northwest Family YMCA Detached Worker Program Northwest Hennepin Branch, Minneapolis Area Red Cross Public Assistance Programs Adult Services Aid to Families with Dependent Children Community Services Family Services Food Stamps General Assistance General Assistance Medical Care Medical Assistance (Medicaid) • - Taken from Inventory of Human Services as pre ared by tha NnrrhWQ. f* X7o.,., _4_ u.,.,,-- PROGRAM Minnesota Supplemental Aid Work and Training • St. Joseph's Social Action Center Senior Companion Special Education - Brooklyn Center School Dist. #286 Special Education- Robbinsdale School Dist. #281 Special School Dist. #279 Suburban Community Services Suburban Public Health Nursing Service Twin Cities Natural Family Planning Center, Inc. Vocational Education, Robbinsdale Dist. #281 We Care - Fellowship for Renewed Living Welcome Community Home West Hennepin.Community Mental Health Center, Inca Work Activity Center (Opportunity Workshop) YWCA of Minneapolis Area .1. - • -37- Taken from Inventory of ,Human Services as prepared by the Northwest Hennepin Human MEMO TO: MARY HARTY, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND TOM HEENAN, PUBLIC HEALTH SANITARIAN FROM: R.J. SCHIEFFER, CITY ATTORNEY RE FOOD ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The Ordinance amendments liberalizing the sale of non - perishable foods are as follows: 8- 108.01 Sources of Food- General All food in all food establish - ments shall be clean, wholesome, free from spoilage, adulteration, and misbranding, and shall be prepared, processed, handled, pack- aged, transported, and stored so as to be protected from contamin- ation and spoilage and shall be safe for human consumption. No home prepared food shall be kept or used in any food establishment, except that home prepared foods other than readily perishable foods may be kept or used in schools, and in Houses of Worship, and by Social or Service Agencies at Itinerant Food Establishments No Social or Service Agency shall be granted more than I tinerant Food Establishment licenses per calendar year All food received or used in all food estab- lishments shall be from sources approved by the Health Authority. 8- 100.26 Social or Service AgencX shall mean a Minnesota non - p rofit corporation substantially devoted to public--,service or public charity, established and regularly operating within the City for a period of more than one year, the bulk of whose mem- b ers and shareholders reside within the City. R.J.S. DATED: September 8, 1978 tjh i ITINERANT FOOD E STABLIS1i�-'IENT POLICIES AOD PROCEDURES BROOKLYN CENTER HEALTH; DEPARTMENT 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLY14 CENTER, ??INNESOTA 55430 I DEFINITIO -N A temporary or itinerant food or beverage stand is one not identified with a permanent or fixed location, but is or may be of a mobile type or of such construction that it can be disassembled and transported from place to place. Such stands operate seasonally at circuses, fairs, picnics, athletic events and other public gatherings for periods of not more than 10 days at the same location. The following requirements pertain to the operation of itinerant food establishments in the City. All requirements must be met before ap- proval for a license can be granted and the stand is opened. II LICENSING 1. A separate license shall be obtained for each stand, enclosure, vehicle, room or structure to be used in the operation of the event.. No blanket license may be obtained. 2. All applicants must fill out an information sheet completely for each stand, vehicle, room or enclosure to be used. 3. All licansc applications shall be Properly approved as required by City Code prior to the date of the event. III EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIOiJ 1. The only foods which may be handled, stored, or served are those food products which come from an approved source and are specifi- cally approved by the health Department. Under no circumstances may home prepared foods be used or sold. 2. The use'uf readily perishable food products is limited to hot dogs, prepackaged cartons of milk, and similar products unless such -2- products are a prepackaged item from an approved source and delivered to and stored under mechanical refrigeration, or if the products are prepared in a commercial kitchen and approved commercial food equipment is used on location for serving and storage. 3. Covered display cases and enclosures shall be provided for the protection of food and utensils against dust, dirt, insects, and other contamination. The caramelizing of apples, the making of candy floss, the cutting of ice cream, the preparation of flavored ice, and the dispensing of similar foods or confections shall be prepared in areas shielded on the front, two sides, and top by glass shields or other impervious protective material. The front means the customer or service side 4. Grills and stoves used for frying shall be protected by glass shields or other impervious materials on three sides. S. All self- service foods, condiments and utensils must be individ- ually packaged or dispensed by food service staff, (catsup, mustard, coffee whitener, sugar, spoons, knives, forks, stirring sticks, etc.) 6. All stands must have an approved floor finish. Floorless stands cannot be placed on earthen soil. Asphalt, concrete, canvass are permitted. 7. All lighting in all stands over food products or equipment and utensils shall be of the enclosed type or be explosion proof. Heat lamps for hot foods shall be explosion proof. ° 8. Packages of food, once opened, must be stored in seamless, non - toxic, and tightly covered containers and stored off the floor or ground. -3- 9. All readily perishable foods must be stored below 40 °F, or above 150 °F. at all times. A readily perishable food is any food con- sisting in whole or'in part of milk, milk products, eggs, meat, fish, poultry, or any other food capable of supporting the growth, of food poisoning or food infecting organisms. 10. All utensils and equipment shall be thoroughly cleaned and kept' clean at all times. All customer service materials shall be single service. Multi -use eating utensils are'not permitted. 11. Food contact surfaces of utensils and equipment shall be given bactericidal treatment before opening and -shall be stored in such a manner as to be protected from contamination. 12. No food products may be stored on the ground. 13. Adequate fly and other insect protection and /or screening must be provided for all stands and food products. 14. The use of tobacco (smoking or chewing) is prohibited while on duty for work in the stand. 15. All food service personnel must wear effective hair restraints, (hats, hair nets, head bands). 16. Hand washing facilities must be provided, (clean basins, soap.. water, single service towels). The use of common linen towels is not permitted. 17. Adequate water supply and sewage disposal system must be provided. No disposal of sewage to the surface ground or pits is permitted. 18. Dry ice must be used for the refrigeration of readily perishable foods in those situations where mechanical refrigeration is not provided. 19. All ice must be wrapped or bagged, and from an approved source. -4-- 20. All areas of the food stand must be clean and kept clean at all times. No food stand or food operation ma begin before final inspection by the Health Department is conducted and their approval given. It is your responsibility to contact the Health Department for a final inspection. If you have any questions concerning these requirements or any other questions pertaining to your operation, please feel free to call us at 537- 8421, asking for the Health Department, Metropolitan Council 0 11 �o 300 Metro Square Building 0 0 Seventh Street and Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 M• Telephone (612) 291 -6453 rw� Office of the Chairman WIN CVT f _ August 30, 1978 Gerald Splinter, Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter; For each of the past five years, I've met informally with local elected officials and key administrative officers of communities .throughout the Twin Cities Area to discuss matters of mutual concern. I would like to continue that tradition this fall. Toward that end, you are cordially invited to a meeting at the Maple Grove City Hall, 9401 Fernbrook Lane,'Maple Grove, on Thursday, September 28, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. In past years these meetings have provided a good opportunity for me to with you issues relating to your community and the Metropolitan Council. I feel these meetings have played an important role in keeping lines of communication open between local governments and the Metropolitan Council. Representatives of several communities in the Maple Grove area are being invited to the meeting. Mayor Richard Reimer has generously agreed to serve as our host. I hope that you will be able to attend. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to talk with you.and other local government officials in the Maple Grove area. Si ce, ely, J n Boland C airman JB /kg REVIEW OF SPECIAL' ASSESSMENTS September 25, 1978 Hearing Assessment Unit Hearing No..of Project_ Improvement Location Method Assessment Estimate Years Remarks 1. 1977 -14 Street Surfacing 52nd Ave. No. from Drew Ave, to the east approx. 135 feet. Unit $ 981.61 $1,150.00 7 2. 1977 -15 water Main Unity Ave. from 460' north of Footage & $13.42/ft, c/1 69th Ave. n'ly approx. Area $4.14/100 Sq. Ft + c/s Same 20 1977 -16 Sanitary Sewer Unity Ave. from 420' north of $184.14 to Based on equal= c/1 69th Ave, to 73rd Ave. Unit 793.54 /Unit $366.55 20 ization method. 1977 -17 Street Surfacing Unity Ave, from 443' north of Only storm sewer (Storm sewer c/1 69th n'ly approx. 460 Acre $702.597 $972.51 20 portion to be assess portion) ed. Street covered by developer bond. 3. 1977 -2i, Sanitary Sewer Lakeside from c/l of Twin Design change Lake Ave. easterly approx. minimized restor- 170 feet. Unit $3,106.79 $5,950.00 20 ation. 4. 1978 -17 Water Main Irving from approx. 165' south 2 units prey. of 70th to 69th Ave. proposed $1,418.00 /unit deferred assessed Irving Lane from approx. 723' $14 47 /ft. this project @ 380. east of Logan to Irving; and Unit & $380.00 + c/s Same 20 + c/s services on the N side of 69th Footage from Irving w'ly approx. 245 1978 -18 Sanitary Lateral Irving '.ane from an existing $763.90 Lateral 4 units previously manhole 718' E of Logan e'ly $463.39 Service deferred @ $404.10 118 Irving Lane from Irving $369.96,Ll,Bl assessed this prof. w'ly approx. 175' & service to Unit $1,433 /unit 20 along with service L 1, B 1, Irving Estates, costs. N. (N Assessment Unit Hearing No. of Pro]ect Improvement Location Method Assessment Estimate Years Remarks 1978 -19 Storm Sewer Irving from 70th to Irving Lane Unit $ 730.12 $1,000.00 20 5. 1978 -25 Sanitary Sewer Proposed James Circle from Freeway Blvd. s'ly approx. $1,137.348/Ac. 545 Area + c/s $1,222.00 15 ' 1978 -26 Storm Sewer S. Side of Freeway Blvd. from proposed, James Circle e'ly approx. 200' to an existing inlet on Freeway Blvd. Area $ 578.123/Ac. $ 639.00 15 6. San..Sewer Hookups The Ponds Sq. Ft. $ 0.558/100 sq. ft. 3 (Total $9,263.88) 7242 Knox Ave..No. $552.24 (Same rate as when project installed) 20 yrs 7. Water Hookups 1601 67th Ave. No. $5,297.11 15 $14.47/ft & $4.46/ 100 sq. ft. 7000 Brooklyn Blvd. $ 280.00 15 3400 48th Ave. No. $ 570.26 15 6637 Humboldt $1,422.18 20 4210 -14 Lakeside $1,085.43 20 3918 57th Ave. No. $ 490.00 20 7242 Knox Ave. No. $ 490.00 20 t J. • MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DA • I TE. September 8, 1.978 SUBJECT: Community Development Projects Over the past year, we have been contemplating the use of community development monies and their application in Brooklyn Center. As previously noted, it has been an integral part of the federal government's philosophy that community development monies be used to primarily benefit low and moderate income people. As a further amplification of that philosophy, HUD emphasizes that the development and maintenance of neighborhoods through capital improvement types of projects is the primary intent of the block grant program. The extent to which Brooklyn Center.can identify needs and establish goals to meet those needs compatible with federal philosophy will be the primary determinate of the projects in the City's community development program. • With due consideration for the regulations of the program, Brooklyn Center would be able to successfully establish a variety of projects suitable to the needs of both Brooklyn Center and the federal government. Housing Because housing is the focal point of any neighborhood, HUD places an em pha'sis upon maintaining and 'improving the housing stock within a community, , especially that of low and moderate income individuals. That emphasis is attested to by the submission requirement of a three (3) year Housing Assist- ance Plan (HAP). As a required part of a community development program, the HAP provides a strategy to improve housing conditions and to meet the housing assistance needs identified in our community. As part of the development of the HAP, Brooklyn Center would establish goals which HUD would expect Brooklyn Center to achieve during its participation in the community develop- ment program. There are a variety of eligible activities the City could consider, tailoring them to reflect our needs. Eligible housing activities include, but are not limited to: rehabilitation of public residential structures including permanent housing units, both single family and multiple family, for rental or sale and residential facilities including group homes, halfway houses and emergency shelters. Brooklyn Center can also consider rehabilitation of private proper- ties. Such assistance may consist of the acquisition for the purposes of Mr. Splinter -2- September 8, 1978 rehabilitation. Block grant funds may be used to assist private entities in- . cluding those programs for profit for the purpose of rehabilitating properties for use or resale in the provision of housing which, upon completion of rehabilitation, at the minimum will meet the Section 8 Existing House Quality Standards. This includes permanent housing units, both single family and multiple family, for rental or sale and residential facilities including group homes, halfway houses and emergency shelters. Rehabilitation financing programs are also eligible. Block grant funds may be used to finance the rehabilitation of permanently owned residential, nonresidential and mixed use properties. Block grant funds ma.y be used directly to finance rehabilitation, including settlement costs, through the direct use of block grant funds and the provision of assistance, such as grants, loans, loan guarantees, and interest supplements. Block grant funds may also be used to provide materials, ' including tools for the use of rehabilitation properties either by the property owner or tenant. Brooklyn Center will most probably want to establish a housing rehabilitation grant /loan program based upon income. Using the income requirement approach allows the City to work with a rehab program on a City -wide basis as opposed to working in select neighborhoods. Currently, Brooklyn Center participates in the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Grant Program. Each year requests for MHFA grants has exceeded the monies available Under the particular —program, there is a $5, 000 maximum annual household income eligibility re- • quirement for the grant. Also under the MHFA grant program the maximum grant available is $7,000. With a community development rehabilitation grant / loan program the City would have a greater degree of latitude in administration of that particular program. It would be contemplated that the City would want to piggyback the MHFA grant program by using MHFA monies for individuals with household incomes under $5,000 and, to meet the needs of those with a greater household income, up to $15,520 per year, community development funds would be used. It should also be noted that the maximum grant /loan available would be the option of the City. Also, using community develop- .ment monies the City could underwrite loans through banks thus lowering the interest rates as well as controlling the repayment periods. Housing activities do not have to be limited solely to a grant /loan rehab project approach. The City might consider the acquisition of existing struc- ture s to meet the needs of some other project designed to benefit low and moderate income people. The City might acquire land to write -down the cost of the land for the use and development of subsidized housing or the City might consider paying the preconstruction costs of housing to encourage low and moderate income persons throughout the City. Because of HUD's emphasis on the housing aspect of the community development program, it would be my recommendation that a significant portion of the community development program be orientated towards the housing problems of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Splinter -3- September 8, 1978 Physical Barrier Projects Any project benefiting handicapped persons, especially the removal of physical • barriers, is deemed to meet the criteria for low and moderate income individuals. The removal of physical barriers with community development monies can be directed to both public. and private facilities. In the past, Brooklyn Center has taken measures to eliminate physical barriers to the handicapped in the community. However, our present park system inhibits such individuals from taking advantage of the recreation opportunities, both active and passive, - available in the parks. Community development monies could be used to pave the parking lots and walkways to accomodate wheelchairs and to provide accessible drinking fountains and other facilities through the park system. Private residential structures can be made barrier free for handicapped individuals through the grant /loan program. Similarily, grants and loans to remove physical barriers could be used in commercial and industrial structures. It would be anticipated that a grant /loan program of this nature would be similar to that of the housing rehabilitation program. Again, projects are not limited to grants and loans, perse, but it could include such projects as cutting away curbs and street corners throughout the community. Park Development Projects "i It is my understanding of the current regulations, that Brooklyn Center would be able to use community development monies to develop the following parks: Bellvue, Lions, Happy Hollow, Twin Lake Beach, Lakeside Park, Northport Park, Kylawn, East Palmer, Firehouse, Evergreen, Riverdale and Central Park. Central Park is eligible primarily because of its proximity to Shingle Creek Towers and the relative concentration of Section 8 Rental Assistant Recipients in the Central Park area. The other parks are eligible primarily because they are located within census tracts that have a majority of the City's low and moderate income families. It is my feeling that parks are essential to the development and maintenance of a viable neighborhood. Community development monies could be used as the City's match in some of the LAWCON grants that have been written and others that we would anticipate writing in the future. To develop a well- balanced community development program, a significant emphasis should also be placed r upon the park development aspect. Administration The City will want to defray its costs associated with the planning, implementation and administration of the community development program. Administrative costs from other participating communities have been averaging approximately 6% to 7% of the grant amount. I would anticipate that we would have a similar exper- ience. J � Mr. Splinter -4- September 8, 1978 Conclusions The project areas addressed in this memo are broad in nature and would obviously require more specific refinement prior to an application submission. However, they do reflect areas which the City could develop community development programs and use such monies to meet some of the City's needs that are also compatible with federal philosophy. It is not an all inclusive listing, other projects that would be eligible include cost associated with the Mandatory Land Planning Act. I would also note, that public service orientated projects would not be eligible in Brooklyn Center under current regulations. k MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT. f � BETWEEN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL NO. 320 ARTICLE I PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is entered into as of January 1, 1978 between the City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter called the EMPLOYER and the MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL NO. 320, hereinafter called the UNION. It is the intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT to: 1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT'S interpretation and /or application; and 1.2 Place in written form the parties' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment for the duration of this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE II RECOGNITION 2.1 The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the exclusive representative, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 179.71, Subdivision 3 for all police personnel in the following job classifications: Police Officer 2.2 In the event the EMPLOYER and the UNION are unable to agree as to the inclusion or exclusion of a new or modified job.class, the issue shall be.submitted to the Bureau of Mediation Services for determination. ARTICLE III DEFINITIONS 3.1 UNION: The Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320. 3.2 UNION MEMBER: A member of the Minnesota.Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No.. 3.3 EMPLOYEE: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit. 3.4 DEPARTMENT: The City of Brooklyn Center Police Department. 3.S EMPLOYER: The City of Brooklyn Center. 3.6 CHIEF: The Chief of the Brooklyn Center Police Department. 3.7 UNION OFFICER: Officer elected or appointed by the Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local 320. 3.8 INVESTIGATOR /DETECTIVE: An employee specifically assigned or classified by the EMPLOYER to the job classification and /or job position of INVESTIGATOR /DETECTIVE. 3.9 OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER in excess of the employee's scheduled shift. 3.10 SCHEDULED SHIFT: A consecutive work period including rest . breaks and a lunch break. 3.11 REST BREAKS Pero _ � d Burin the SCHEDULED SHIFT during Period-during ring which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.12 LUNCH BREAK: A period during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.13 STRIKE: Concerted action in failing to report for duty, the willful absence from one's position, the stoppage of work, slow -down, or abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment for the purposes of inducing, influencing or coercing a change in the conditions or compensation or the rights, privileges or obligations of employment. ARTICLE IV EMPLOYER SECURITY The UNION agrees that during the life of this AGREEMENT that the UNION will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow -down or other interruption of or interference with the normal functions of the EMPLOYER. ARTICLE V EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all manpower, facilities, and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set,and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct, and determine the number of personnel to establish work schedules, and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this AGREEMENT. 5.2 'Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify, establish, or eliminate. ARTICLE VI UNION SECURITY 6.1 The EMPLOYER shall deduct the wages of employees who authorize such a deduction in writing an amount necessary to cover monthly UNION dues. Such monies shall be remitted as directed by the UNION. -2- 6.2 The UNION may designate employees from the bargaining unit to act as a steward and an alternate and shall inform the EMPLOYER in writing of such choice and changes in the position of steward and /or alternate. 6.3 The EMPLOYER shall make space available on the employee bulletin board for posting' UNION notice(s) and announcement(s). 6.4 The UNION agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued againstthe EMPLOYER as a result of any action taken or not taken by the EMPLOYER under the provisions of this'Article. ARTICLE VII EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 7.1 DEFINITION OF A GRIEVANCE A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. 7.2. UNION REPRESENTATIVES The EMPLOYER will recognize REPRESENTATIVES designated by the UNION as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities established by this Article. The UNION shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the-names of such UNION REPRESENTATIVES and of their successors when so designated as provided by - 6.Z - of this AGREEMENT. 7.3 PROCESSING OF "A GRIEVANCE It is recognized and accepted by the UNION and the EMPLOYER that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the EMPLOYEES and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such EMPLOYEE duties and responsibili- ties. The aggrieved EMPLOYEE and a UNION REPRESENTATIVE shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss in pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal working hours provided that the EMPLOYEE and the UNION REPRESENTATIVE have notified and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the EMPLOYER. 7.4 PROCE Grievances, as defined by Section 7.1, shall be resolved in conformance with the following procedure: Step 1 . An EMPLOYEE claiming a violation concerning the i - nterpretation or application of this AGREEMENT shall, within twenty -one (21) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the EMPLOYEE'S supervisor as designated by the EMPLOYER. The EMPLOYER - designated rep - resentative will discuss and give an answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall. _3- i be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, -the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of • the AGREEMENT allegedly violated, the remedy requested, and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the EMPLOYER- designated representative's final answer in Step _1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 2 . If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented By the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER- designated Step 2 representative. The EMPLOYER - designated representative shall give the UNIOM the EMPLOYER'S Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar-days s followin the EMPLOYER-designated ( ) Y g g representative's final Step 2 answer. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. �SSt��epp _3. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented By UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER- designated Step 3_ representative. The EMPLOYER- designated representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER'S answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3 may be to Step 4 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER- designated repre- sentative's final answer to Step 3., Any grievance not appealed • in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 4. A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed by t5 ep 4 by the UNION shall be submitted to subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971. The selection of an-arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the "Rules Governing the Arbitration of Gri_ev antes" as established by the Public Employment Relations Board. 7.5 ARBITRATOR'S AUTHORITY • A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the EMPLOYER and the UNION, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any other issue not so submitted. B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions' contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws, rules, or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an • extension. The decision shall be binding on both the EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the facts of the grievance presented. -4- C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by.the EMPLOYER and • the UNION provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings the cost shall be shared equally. 7.6 WAIVER - tea grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered "waived." If a grievance is not appealed specified ealed to the next step within the s ecifi d time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the EMPLOYER'S.last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, the UNION may elect to treat the rievance as denied g at that step and immediately .appeal the grievance to the next step The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual written agreement of the EMPLOYER and the UNION in each step. 7.7 CHOICE OF REMEDY , as a result of the written EMPLOYER response in Step 3 ., the grievance remains unresolved, and if the grievance involves the suspension, demotion, or discharge of an employee who has completed the required probationary period, the grievance _. may be appealed either to Step 4 of Article VII or a procedure such as: Civil Service, Veteran's Preference, or Fair Employment. If appealed to any procedure other than Step 4 of Article VII the,grievance is not subject to the arbitration procedure as provided in Step 4 of Article VII. The aggrieved employee shall indicate in writing which procedure is to be utilized- -Step _4 of Article VII or another appeal procedure- -and shall sign a statement to the effect that the choice of any other hearing precludes the aggrieved employee from making a subsequent_ appeal through Step 4 or Article VII. ARTICLE VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the City of Brooklyn Center. I y y e n the event an pro- Y P vision of the AGREEMENT shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree no appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provisions shall be voided. All other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall con - tinue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be re- negotiated at the written request of either party. ARTICLE IX SENIORITY 9.1 Seniority shall be determined by the employee's 1'ength of • continuous employment with the Police Department and posted in an appropriate location. Seniority rosters may be maintained by the Chief on the basis of time in grade and time within specific classifications. 9.2 During the probationary period a newly hired or rehired employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. During the probationary period a promoted or reassigned employee may be replaced in his previous positon at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. 9.3 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis of seniority. Employees shall be 'recalled from layoff on the basis of seniority. An employee on layoff shall have an opportunity to return to work within two years of the time of his layoff before any new employee is hired. 9.4 Senior employees will be given preference with regard to transfer, job classification assignments and promotions when the job- relevant qualifications of employees are equal. 9.5 Senior qualified employees shall be given shift assignment preference after eighteen (18) months of continuous full - time employment. 9.6. One continuous vacation period shall be selected on the basis of seniority until May 15 of each calendar year. ARTICLE X DISCIPLINE 10.1 The EMPLOYER will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one or more of the following forms a) oral reprimand; b), written reprimand c), suspension; d) demotion; or e) discharge. 10.2 Suspension, demotions and discharges will be in written form. 10.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of discharge which are to become part of an employee's personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the employee. Employees and the UNION will receive a copy of such reprimands and /or notices. 10.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times under the direct supervision of the EMPLOYER. 10.5 Discharges will be preceded by a five (5) day suspension with- out pay. 10.6 Employees will not be questioned concerning an investigation of disciplinary action unless the employee has been given an opportunity to have a UNION representative present at such questioning. 10.7 Grievances relating to this ARTICLE shall be initiated by the UNION in Step 3 of the grievance procedure under ARTICLE VII. -6- ARTICLE XI CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION Employees shall have the rights granted to all citizens by the United States and Minnesota State Constitutions. ARTICLE XII WORK SCHEDULES 12.1 The normal work year is two thousand and eighty hours (2,080) to be accounted for by each employee through: a) hours worked on assigned'shifts b) holidays; c) assigned training; dy authorized leave time. 12.2 Holidays and authorized leave time is to be calculated on the basis of the actual length of time of the assigned shifts 12.3 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee of a minimum or maximum number of hours the EMPLOYER may assign employees. ARTICLE XIII OVERTIME 13.1 Employees will be compensated at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate for hours worked in excess of the employee's regularly scheduled shift Changes of-shifts do not qualify an employee for overtime under this Article. 13.2 Ove -rtime will be distributed as equally as practicable. 13.3 Overtime refused by employees willfor record purposes under Article 13.2 be considered as unpaid overtime worked. 13.4 For - the purpose of computing overtime compensation overtime hours worked shall not be pyramided, compounded or paid twice for the same hours worked. 13.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest fifteen (15) minutes. 13.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call backs if requested by the EMPLOYER unless unusual circumstances prevent the employee from so working. ARTICLE XIV COURT TIME An employee who is required to appear in Court during his scheduled off -duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours' pay at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the employee's base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for Court appearance does not qualify the employee for the two (2) hour minimum. • -7- ARTICLE XV CALL BACK TIME An employee who is called to duty during his scheduled off -duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours' pay at one and one- half (1 -1/2) times the employee's base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for duty does not qualify the employee for the two (21 hour minimum. ARTICLE XVI WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to assume the full responsibilities and authority of a higher job classification shall receive the salary schedule of the higher classification for the duration of the assign- ment. ARTICLE XVII INSURANCE The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of seventy -five dollars ($75.00) per month per employee toward health, life and long- term disability insurance. ARTICLE XVIII STANDBY PAY Employees required by the EMPLOYER to standby shall be paid, for such standby time at the rate of one hours' pay for each hour on standby. ARTICLE XIX UNIFORMS • The EMPLOYER shall provide required uniform and equipment items. ARTICLE XX INJURY ON DUTY Employees injured during the performance of their duties for the EMPLOYER and thereby rendered unable to work for the EMPLOYER will be paid the difference between the employee's regular pay and Worker's Compensation insurance payments for a period not to exceed ninety (90) working days per injury, not charged to the employee's vacation, sick leave or other accumt,Iated paid benefits, after a five (5) working day initial waiting period per injury. The five (5) working day waiting period shall be charged to the employee's sick leave account less Worker's Compensation insurance payments. ARTICLE XXI LONGEVITY AND EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE Effective July 1, 1978 the following terms and conditions are effective: 21.1 After four (4) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid three percent (30) of the employee's base rate or supplementary pay based on educational credits as outlined in 21.6 of this ARTICLE. -8- 21.2 After eight (8) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid supplementary pay of five percent • (50) of the employee's base rate or supplementary pay based on educational credits'as outlined in 21.6 of this ARTICLE. 21.3 After'twelve (12) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid supplementary pay of seven percent (7p) of the employee's base rate or supplementary pay based on educational credits as outlined in 21.6 of this ARTICLE. 21.4 After sixteen (16) years of continuous employment each employee shall choose to be paid supplementary pay of nine percent (90) of the employee's base rate of supplementary pay based on educational credits as outlined in 21.6 of this ARTICLE. 21.5 Employees may choose supplementary pay either for length of service or for educational credits no more often than once every twelve (12) months. 21.6 Supplementary pay based on educational credits will be paid to employees after twelve (12) months of continuous employment at the rate of: Education Credits Stated in Percentage Pay Terms of College Quarter Credits Increment 45 - 89 30 90 - 134 5% 135 .179 7 180 or more 9% Not all courses are to be eligible for credit. Courses receiving qualifying credits must be job related. (Thus, a 4 year degree is not automatically 180 credits_ - or a 2 year certificate is not automatically 90 credits.),_ Job- . related courses plus those formally required to enter such courses shall be counted. If Principles of Psychology (8 credits) is required before taking Psychology of Police Work (3 credits) completion of these courses would yield a total of 11 qualifying credits. C.E.U.'s (Continuing Education Units). in job - related seminars, short courses institutes, etc, shall also be counted. The EMPLOYER shall determine which courses are job related. Disputes are grievable based on the criteria outlined in the award of Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services Case No. 78 -PN- 370 -A. ARTICLE XXII WAIVER 22.1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, are hereby superceded. -9- 22.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this AGREEMENT. The EMPLOYER and the UNION each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this AGREEMENT, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or con- templation-of either or both of the parties at the time this contract was negotiated or executed. f .. -10- ARTICLE XXIII DURATION i This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of January 1, 1978, except as herein noted, and shall remain in.full force and effect until the thirty -f ir.st day ` of December, 1978. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on this day of . 1978. FOR M M.A. ry . /n FOR (NAME OF, EMPLOYER) _ FOR I.B.T. , LOCAL NO. 320 . -I1- APPENDIX A 1. Wage Rates Patrol Officer Grade Hourly Rate Starting P/A $6.883 After 6 months P/B 7.187 After 12 months P/C 7.513 After 18 months P/D 7.817 After 24 months P/E 8.143 After 30 months P/F 8.447 After 36 months P/G 8.770 2. Temporary Assignment Employees temporarily assigned by the Employer to the duties of Investigator at�r A ssi nee will receive Q.490 g $ g per P hour in addition to their regular hourly rate. APPENDIX B This supplementary agreement is entered into between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320 for the period beginning January 1, 1978 and ending December.31, 1978. " Nothing in this supplementary agreement may be in conflict with any provisions of the Master Agreement between M.A.M.A., the City of Brooklyn Center and I.B.T. Local No. 320. In the event of conflicts the Master Agreement will prevail. _ ARTICLE B -I VACATIONS 1. Permanent full -time employees shall earn vacation leave with pay as per the following schedule: 0 thru 5 years of service - 10 working days per year (5/6 day per month) 6 thru 10 years of service- 15 working days per year (1 -1/4 days per month) one (1) additional day per year of service to a maximum of twenty (20) working days after fifteen (15)years of service. 2. Employees using earned vacation leave or sick leave shall be considered working for the purpose of accumulating additional vacation leave. 3. Vacation may be used as earned, except that the EMPLOYER shall approve the time at which the vacation leave may be taken. No employee shall be allowed to use vacation leave during his initial six (6) months of service. Employees shall not be permitted to waive vacation leave and receive double pay.. 4. Employees with less than five (5) years of service may accrue a maximum of fifteen (15) working days of vacation leave. Employees with more than five (5) but less than fifteen (15) consecutive years of service (uninterrupted except for layoff not exceeding -two (2) years duration in any single layoff period) may accrue a maximum of twenty (20) working days of vacation leave. Employees with fifteen (15) consecutive years or more of service (uninter- rupted except for layoff not exceeding two (2) years duration in any single layoff period) may accrue a- maximum. of twenty -five (25) working days of vacation leave. 5. Employees leaving the service of the EMPLOYER in good standing, after having given the EMPLOYER proper notice of termination of employment, shall be compensated for vacation leave accrued and unused. ARTICLE B II SICK LEAVE I. Sick leave with pay shall be granted to probationary and permanent employees at the rate of one (1) working day for each calendar month of full-time service or major fraction thereof, except that -B 1- sick leave granted probationary employees shall not be available for use during the first six (6) months of service. 2. Sick leave may be used only for absence from duty because of personal illness, legal quarantine, or because of serious illness in- the immediate family. Immediate family shall mean brother, sister, parents -in -law, spouse, children, parents of the employee. Sick leave may be used for the purpose of attending the funeral of the immediate family members plus brothers -in -law, sisters - in -law, grandparents, grandparents -in -law, and grandchildren of the employees. 3_. Suck leave shall accrue at the rate of one (1) day per month until one hundred twenty (120) days have been accumulated and at the rate of one -half (1/2) day per month after one hundred twenty (120) days have been accumulated. Employees using earned vacation or sick leave shall be considered to be working for the purpose of accumulating additional sick leave. Workers Compen- sation benefits shall be credited against the compensation due employee's utilizing sick leave. 4. In order to be eligible for sick leave with pay an employee must: a) notify the EMPLOYER prior to the time set for the beginning of their normal scheduled shift; b) keep the EMPLOYER informed of their condition if the absence is of more than three (3) days duration; c) submit medical certificates for absences exceeding three (3) days; if required by the EMPLOYER. 5. Employees abusing sick leave shall be subject to disciplinary action. ARTICLE B III SEVERANCE 1. An employee shall give the EMPLOYER two (2) weeks notice in .writing before terminating his employment. 2. Severance pay in the amount of one - fourth (1/4) the accumulated sick leave employees have to their credit at the time of resignation or retirement, times their respective regular pay rate, shall be paid to employees who have been employed for at least five (5) consecutive years. If dischargedJor just cause, severance pay shall not be allowed. ARTICLE B IV HOLIDAY LEAVE I. Holiday leave shall be granted for the following holidays: New Year's Day Columbus Day Presidents Day Veterans Day Good Friday Afternoon Thanksgiving Day Memorial Day Christmas Day Independence Day and one and one -half (1z) Labor Day floating holidays. -B 2- 2. Employees shall receive compensatory time off for each of the earned and accrued holidays. Such time off shall be taken as soon as practicable before or after the 'holiday for which it is accrued and as approved by the EMPLOYER. 3. An employee who works the day shift on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day or New Years Day or the'mid -shift or night shift on Christmas Eve or New Eve shall receive time and one -half (12) his regular pay rate for all hours worked in addition to straight compensatory time off for the holiday. 4. Except as provided in B -IV Paragraph 3above, overtime pay shall not be authorized for employees for hours worked on holidays when such work is part of the planned schedule. 'ARTICLE B V LEAVES OF ABSENCE 1. In cases of demonstrated need and where sick leave has not been abused, the EMPLOYER shall grant to employees a leave of absence without pay for extended personal illness after the accumulative sick leave has expired. Such leaves of absence shall not exceed ninety (90) calendar days. Upon granting such unpaid leave of absence the EMPLOYER will not permanently fill the employee's position and. the employee's benefits and rights shall be retained. 2. An employee called to serve on a jury shall be reimbursed the difference between the amount paid for such service (exclusive of travel and expense pay) and his compensation for regularly scheduled working hours lost because of jury service. 3. Employees ordered by proper authority to National Guard or Reserve Military Service not exceeding fifteen (1S) working days in any calendar year shall be entitled to leave of absence without loss of status. Such employees shall receive compensation from the EMPLOYER equal to the difference between his regular pay rate and his lesser military pay. 4. Employees called and ordered by,nroper authority to active military _service in time of war or other properly declared emergency shall be entitled to leave of absence without pay during such service. Upon completion of such service, employees shall be entitled to the same or similar employment of like seniority, status and pay as if such leave had n.o.t been taken,- subject to the specific provisions of Chapter 192 of V,e Minnesota Statutes. ARTICLE B VI AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION The EMPLOYER shall implement the terms of this AGREEMENT in the form of a resolution. If the implementation of the terms of this AGREEMENT require the adoption of a law, ordinance or charter amen.d.- ment, the EMPLOYER shall make every reasonable effort to propose and secure the enactment of such law, ordinance resolution or charter amendment. -B 3- ARTICLE B.VII FALSE ARREST INSURANCE The EMPLOYER will provide each employee and pay 100% of the premiums due thereon, with false arrest insurance: -B 4- IN WITNESS THERETO, th.e parties have caused this Agreement to be executed this day of 1978. FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL #320 -B S_ f DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320 CONTRACT FOR 1978 AND BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE 1977 CONTRACT ARTICLE III DEFINITIONS Most definitions although having different numbers are worded identically with the following exceptions: Master Contract No. 3.8 lists INVESTIGATOR /DETECTIVE where Brooklyn Center Contract No, 3.9 uses job classifications INVESTIGATOR /ASSIGNEE JUVENILE OFFICER /ASSIGNEE. Master Contract No. 3.11 relates to REST BREAKS without designating a time amount. Brooklyn Center Contract No. 3.12 establishes 2 rest breaks at 15 minutes each. Master Contract No. 3.12 relates to LUNCH BREAKS without designating a time amount. Brooklyn Center Contract No. 3.13 establishes one 30 minute lunch break. The following definitions were listed in Brooklyn Center Contract while not being mentioned in the Master Contract: 3.15 Compensatory Time 3.16 Regular Pay Rate 3.17 Seniority 3.18 Schedule Duty Change • ARTICLE IV EMPLOYER SECURITY Same wording in both contracts. ARTICLE V EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 5.1 The.wording "to establish work scheduleg'appears in the Master Contract and is not listed in Brooklyn Center's. Contract. ARTICLE VI UNION SECURITY Same wording in both contracts. ARTICLE VII EMPLOYEE RIGHTS '< 'Step One of Brooklyn Center Contract. requiring grievance in written format has been deleted. Step Two of the Master Contract requires grievances submitted in written format and also requires the employee to state the remedy requested. The changes now allow Step One grievances to be in oral form but requires written format at Step Two and the listing of the desired remedy. • Deleted from the Brooklyn Center Contract "if their arbitrator so selected is unacceptable to both, the EMPLOYER and the UNION the parties may select a mutually acceptable arbitrator." ARTICLE VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE Same wording in both. Contracts. ARTICLE IX SENIORITY Deleted from the Brooklyn-Center Contract "there shall be an dnitial probationary period for new employees for twelve (12) months ". Also deleted the words "may be suspended" as they relate to an Employer's authority with newly hired or rehired employees during the probationary - period. The Master Contract determines seniority by the employee's Length of continuous employment with the Police Department. This is a change from the Brooklyn Center Contract which listed seniority as being employee's continuous employment with the bargaining unit. In 9.4 the folkowing was deleted, "the Employer shall recognize seniority as the primary factor when authorizing vacation leave, holiday leave, and compensatory time leave In Brooklyn Center Contract the entire 9.7 paragraph was deleted as was 9.8. ARTICLE X DISCIPLINE • • The, wording is. the same in both Contracts with the exception of "written reprimands exceeding five (5) years from occurrence shall be purged from personnel files ", from Brooklyn Centers Contract. In the Brooklyn Center Contract, the UNION is required to initiate Step Two in all oral or written reprimands, has been deleted. The Master Contract requires the UNION to initiate Step Three. Steps One and Two may be initiated by the officer himself. ARTICLE XI CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION Same wording in both Contracts. ARTICLE XII WORK SCHEDULE Same wording in both Contracts. r. ARTICLE XIII OVERTIME Same wording in both Contracts. ARTICLE XIV COURT TIME Same wording in both Contracts. ARTICLE XV CALL BACK TIME Deleted from the Brooklyn Center Contract was a provision that required time and one -half pay for officers called back with less than 24 hours notice. The Master Contract simply states officers be'paid a minimum of two hours pay at one and one -half times when he is called to duty during his scheduled off -duty time, ARTICLE XVI WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION Same wording in both Contracts. ARTICLE XVII INSURANCE The Employer contribution raised to $75.00 per month. ARTICLE XVIII STANDBY PAY _ Brooklyn Center Contract requires one hours pay for each hour standby for standby other than court appearances. The Master Contract requires one hours pay for each hour standby including court standby. ARTICLE XIX UNIFORMS Under the Master Contract the Employer shall provide required uniforms and equipment items. ARTICLE XX - INJURED ON DUTY Increases maximum to ninety (90) working days per injury compared to sixty (60) working days in the Brooklyn Center Contract. ARTICLE XXI LONGEVITY AND EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE Entire new schedule under Master Contract. ARTICLE XXII WAIVER Same wording in both Contracts. Y , r r 1 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on September 11, 1978 BOWLING ALLEY LICENSE JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 J ames Circle � � ✓l City Clerk c.Ut FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Cirlce E Orange Julius of Brookdale 1396 Brookdale Center Sanitarian GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE _Hollies Rubbish Service 2109 Lowry Ave. No. 7- /2�I --/ Sanitarian NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Kirby Jensen 6901 Logan Ave. No. Brookdale Ford rd 2500 County Rd. 10 Sears 1297 Brookdale Center Sanitarian!!t 6 � 7 i 2 '' ` S, VV NOTICE OF ANNUAL BUDGET HEARINq, N - City of Brooklyn Cen ter Watesj Notice is hereby issued - that a public hearing on th' ity Budget w 11 be held at 8:00 p. m., , September'l 1 1-9118"VIIA VCi 63p1 h,ingle,, ' Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. The pubu 7h ' Aring will be adjourn - time t aft adoption ed and reconvened from o line ur o proposed budget, not later tha'. October T xl �45 Allen S Lindman City : Clerk a f Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Pa�094t,"Augpst,24, '19 iPed in the Brooklyn Center Post August' ''1178) J 3i, 1.4 4 . 1 3 1 gii,